1
FORT PECK TRIBES – OLD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA)
Old Airport Development
Prepared for
Fort Peck Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Poplar, MT 59255
Prepared by
Fort Peck Tribes Tribal Departments
And
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rock Mountain Regional Office
2021 4th Avenue North
Billings, MT 59101
September 2013
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
2
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BIA
CATEX
CDC
CFR
EA
EDO
EIS
EO
FONSI
FPT
HUD
IAM
ISDA
NEPA
NOA
NPDES
NRHP
PCDD
PEA
RBOG
SWPPP
THPO
USC
USFWS
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Categorical exclusion
community development corporation
Code of Federal Regulations
environmental assessment
economic development office
environmental impact statement
Executive Order
Finding of No Significant Impact
Fort Peck Tribe
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Indian Affairs Manual
Indian Self Determination Act
National Environmental Policy Act
notice of availability
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Register of Historic Places
Planned Community Development District
programmatic environmental assessment
Rural Business Opportunity Grant
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United States Code
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
4
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................9
PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................9
PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................10
Fort Peck: The Fort Peck Strategic Land Use and Development Plan....................................................10
Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport Master Plan ..............................................................................................11
PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................11
OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .......................................................................12
REGULATORY CONTEXT ...........................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................17
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................17
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................17
PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..........................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................21
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................21
LAND RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................22
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................22
Topography ..............................................................................................................................................23
Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................24
WATER RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................24
Surface Water ..........................................................................................................................................24
Water Supply............................................................................................................................................24
Waste Water ............................................................................................................................................24
Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................24
LIVING RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................25
Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................................................................................................................26
Special Status Plant Species ....................................................................................................................26
Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................................................26
WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................27
COMMON MAMMALS .............................................................................................................................27
BIG GAME AND UPLAND GAME SPECIES ................................................................................................28
CULTURAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................37
Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................................................37
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
5
RELIGIOUS LAWS ......................................................................................................................................40
RESERVATION BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................40
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................41
SOCIOECONOMICS...................................................................................................................................43
Demographic Trends ....................................................................................................................................44
Housing.....................................................................................................................................................44
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS .................................................................................................................44
OTHER VALUES ......................................................................................................................................46
Public Health and Safety ..........................................................................................................................46
Noise and Light .........................................................................................................................................46
Visual ........................................................................................................................................................46
Climate Change.........................................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........................................................................49
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................49
LAND RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................49
No-Action Alternative ..............................................................................................................................49
Proposed Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................50
WATER RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................50
No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................................................................50
Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................50
LIVING RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................51
No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................................................................51
Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................51
CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................51
No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................................................................51
Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................51
SOCIOECONOMICS ................................................................................................................................52
No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................................................................52
Proposed Action Alternative .....................................................................................................................52
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS .................................................................................................................53
No-Action Alternative ...............................................................................................................................53
Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................53
OTHER VALUES ......................................................................................................................................53
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
6
Proposed Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................53
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................54
Water Resources ......................................................................................................................................54
Vegetation and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................54
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................54
Resource Use Patterns .............................................................................................................................55
IMPACT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................55
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................55
Projects Considered ..................................................................................................................................56
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .......................................................................57
CHAPTER 6. LIST OF PREPARERS .........................................................................................................59
CHAPTER 7. LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................................61
Appendices
Appendix A. USFWS Species List - Fort Peck Reservation
Appendix B. THPO Letter and Response
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
7
Figures
1.
2.
3.
General location of project area. ....................................................................................................... 10
Precipitation Master Plan for the Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport. ..................................................... 21
Existing Land Use............................................................................................................................. 22
Tables
1-1.
Internal Scoping Meetings ................................................................................................................ 16
3-1.
3.2
4-1.
Species of Concern Habitat Outside Survey Area ..................................................................... 30
Federally Listed & Candidate Species of FPIR & Roosevelt Co ..................…………….……….32
Impact Summary ............................................................................................................................... 54
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
8
This page intentionally blank
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
9
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The Fort Peck Tribes propose to develop 280 acres located within the city limits of Poplar, Montana for
business commercial, residential and associated infrastructure eg. access roads, water, power and sewer
lines. Fort Peck Tribes priority is economic self-determination and self -sufficiency providing for future
generations security and to develop a pride of community and culture. The Fort Peck Tribes strive to create
a sustainable, livable community for families and youths on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. This
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) objective is to analyze the potential environmental
impacts to natural and cultural resources potentially susceptible to cumulative impacts from construction,
operation, and maintenance of Proposed Action. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an
analysis of natural and cultural resources which may have the potential to be significantly impacted by the
implantation of a federal undertaking. In compliance with NEPA tiering from this PEA would occur as individual
environmental assessments (EA) are prepared for proposed economic development projects. Subsequent business
projects EAs can tier from this PEA which would provide guidance for future proposed site specific project
decision-making and causes no redundancy in analysis of environmental impacts to natural and cultural
resources for future EAs. This saves the business proponent time and resources.
This PEA describes the Proposed Action and No-Action alternatives, the affected environment,
environmental consequences, and mitigation measures. The resource areas analyzed in the PEA includes
land resources, water resources, air resources, biological resources (including special status species,
wildlife, and vegetation), cultural resources, socioeconomic and environmental justice conditions. An
added value is this PEA does provide for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with the multiple
business projects.
The Proposed Action requires Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approval of a long-term land development
potentially involving sub developments for commercial, institutional, and residential property, to allow
both Fort Peck Tribal (FPT) and non-tribal tenants to develop space in the new facilities. This federal
action requires the preparation of a PEA in accordance with NEPA, the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and
the BIA NEPA Guidebook (59 Indian Affairs Manual [IAM] 3-H; BIA 2012).
PROJECT LOCATION
The area of potential effect for the proposed economic development t is 280 acres owned by the Fort Peck
Tribes. The area of potential effect is the old airport area located in Poplar, Montana, legal description,
SESW, SWSE, SSESE, NWSE, SSENE, plus SSWNE and NESW South of Medicine Bear Road, Section
6, Township 27 North, Range 51 East. The Fort Peck Tribes own 280 acres adjacent to Highway 2.
Potential projects include commercial development, community housing, green space, and a business
district that would serve both the existing community and the businesses interrelated with the probable
development of mineral resources associated with Bakken oilfield.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
10
Figure 1. General location of project area
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Fort Peck: The Fort Peck Strategic Land Use and Development Plan
This PEA identifies and analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the Fort Peck Tribes economic development park. This economic development park would enable the city
government and tribal government to revitalize the city of Poplar and its immediate surrounding area.
Housing shortages for low-income families and a deteriorating downtown, as well as the knowledge that
Bakken oilfield related opportunities abound have provided the impetus for economic development action.
The original plan was created to allow development of potential parcels in accordance with the Fort Peck
Tribe, City of Poplar Master Plan for Development of the Former Poplar Airport Site. If there are any
questions regarding the document please see “Planned Community Developments and Development
Districts” and “Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport Master Plan” sections that follow for a full discussion of the
FPAP Plan.
In 2007, the Tribes established a new Economic Development Office (EDO). The new EDO undertook two
significant planning efforts: the development of a new 10 Year Plan and the Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategies (CEDS). The Tribes’ previous 10 year plan had expired in 2008 and a new one was
needed. The plan formed the foundation for the CEDS. The city of Poplar and the Fort Peck Tribes have
collaborated on projects, most notably the Poplar Airport housing addition and the water logs that allow the
Tribes to use the city water and sewer system for the “Airport Addition” housing units and the current tribal
headquarters.
In late 2009, the Fort Peck Tribes were awarded the Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) #31-0438002926323 from the United States Department of Agriculture. The purpose of this grant is to “promote
sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs through provision of
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
11
training and technical assistance for business development, entrepreneurs, and economic development
officials and to assist with economic development planning.” The original intent of the Fort Peck Tribes
and City of Poplar was to develop a Master Plan for the city of Poplar, utilizing tribal and city lands. The
desired goal was to create a working plan that would lead to increased collaboration and opportunity for
both Tribal and City governments and an increased quality of life for residents.
As originally developed the RBOG had eight proposed activities. These were the following:
1: Site Research including those properties lying within the Poplar City Limits and a 2 mile
circumference surrounding the City which addresses Tribal and private land ownerships and their
future development.
2: Client/Agency/City Council Meetings.
3: Concept Plan Alternatives Development to include Airport Re-Use, annexation and revenue
alternatives or revenue stream study affording the City of Poplar an adequate tax base for operation
and maintenance of infrastructure furnished to the Ft. Peck Tribes and local residents; Plan
development of an Affordable Housing Study that addresses the critical shortfall in the residential
units for both Tribal (outside the City Limits) and low income residents within the City of Poplar and
its environs.
4: Draft Concept of Tribal-City of Poplar Master Plan
5: Final Concept of Tribal-City Master Plan
6: Final Airport Plat Preparation
7: City of Poplar and Ft. Peck Tribes Adaptation and Registration of Final Airport Plan
8: Completion of a Master Plan and Zoning Regulation that addressing the land-use, housing, and
tax base-budget issues confronting Tribal and City governments at Poplar, Montana.
When the application was written for federal funding the economic landscape was very different. Though
rumors of oil activity in western North Dakota surfaced, the future scale and reality of today was not
imagined. The housing market had crashed and Poplar, long an economically depressed city, found itself
further mired in the economic challenges of the time.
It was determined that focusing solely on the “Old Airport” area of Poplar and creating housing, green
space, and a business district that would serve both the existing community and the incoming oil industry
would be the best way to accomplish the overall mission of revitalizing the community of Poplar and
bringing opportunity to residents of the Fort Peck Reservation. This Master Plan reflects this decision.
When responsibility for RBOG was transferred to the Economic Development Office, a review of the
proposed activities, combined with knowledge of the new opportunities presented by the Bakken oil
formation created a dilemma. In order to capitalize on these new opportunities, items 3, 6, and 8 would
need to be completed in a condensed timeline and were financially unfeasible given the current resources.
Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport Master Plan
The Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport Master Plan is the result of recent planning efforts, initiatives, and
Tribal Council resolutions. This strategic plan began the series of planning initiatives on the Reservation
that would address the broad needs, standards, and values of the Fort Peck Tribe.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the new Master Development and associated Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport Development
project is to provide adequate housing and associated commercial services and infrastructure on the Fort
Peck Reservation.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
12
This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) has been prepared to analyze the Economic Master
Plan proposed by the Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck
Tribes propose to development 280 acres located within the Poplar city limits for a business commercial,
residential and associated infrastructure. Most important is the desire to create a sustainable, livable
community for families and youths. Fort Peck Tribes priority is economic self-determination and self –
sufficiency providing for future generational security, and to develop a pride of community and culture.
This PEA serves as an umbrella NEPA document providing supporting documentation for environmental
assessment associated with future economic development projects. This PEA would enable the city
government and tribal government to revitalize the city of Poplar and its immediate surrounding area.
Housing shortages for low-income families and a deteriorating downtown, as well as the knowledge that
Bakken oilfield related opportunities abound have provided the impetus for action.
The Fort Peck Tribe has long-range goals of self-determination and self-sufficiency set forth in the Fort
Peck governance. Economic development is supported by the masters economic plan which states the economic
develop goals are implemented through investment in facilities that provide goods and services to meet
local and regional needs, and a growing national and international tourism market.
OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Environmental assessments (EAs) are prepared by federal agencies to aid in determining if a proposed
action has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. According to Section
1508.0(a) of the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines a PEA serves to:
1. briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS);
2. aid an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is not necessary; and
After considering this PEA, the BIA determines whether to issue a FONSI or to require an EIS. If a
FONSI is prepared, the BIA issues a public notice of availability (NOA) of the FONSI for at least 15
days prior to any decision on the Master Development.
Programmatic Environmental Assessment
The PEA is intended to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed economic development of 280
acres. This analysis of potential environmental affects provides an opportunity to collectively identify natural
and cultural resources in the project area in one contiguous area that may be affected by the proposed economic
development. Future projects are not “shovel ready” when the PEA is complete. Compliance with NEPA is
required for each proposed project. Tiering from this PEA provides for analysis of natural and cultural resource
which may be present within the area of potential effect for individual economic development projects.
Tiering
Subsequent Environmental Assessment s or categorical exclusions are required for future proposed projects.
The appropriate NEPA documents can tier from, or incorporate sections of, this PEA. Tiering from the
PEA allows any further NEPA documentation to narrow the range of alternatives and concentrate solely
on the issues not already addressed. Tiering is appropriate when the analysis for the Proposed Action is
site-specific or project-specific and is a refinement or an extension of the existing PEA. Tiering to the
PEA allows for the preparation of an EA or CATEX for the individual action as long as the remaining
effects of the individual action do not contribute to unidentified environmental effects. Tiering to this
PEA would allow the Fort Peck Tribes to develop an environmental assessment with project-specific
analyses concentrating on the issues specific to the proposed project (Therivel 2004).
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
13
REGULATORY CONTEXT
Indian Trust Assets
Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in assets held in trust by the United States for Native American
tribes or individual Native Americans. Assets are anything owned that have monetary value. The asset
need not be owned outright but could be some other type of property interest, such as a Development or
right of use. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights such as intellectual
property. The United States has an Indian Trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by
or granted to Native American tribes or individuals by treaties, statutes, and executive orders, which
rights are sometimes further interpreted though court decisions and regulations.
Accordingly, the BIA is mandated by federal law to manage Indian lands held in trust for the benefit of
the Indian owners. The BIA is committed to the policy of sustained-yield management and to providing
management plans based on guidelines set forth in 25 CFR 162 and CFR 166 the Indian Leases and
Permits Regulations and Indian Grazing Permits respectively. The BIA is also committed to a policy of
Indian self-determination as required under law, and has a duty to consult and coordinate land and
resource activities on tribal and allotted lands with the Tribes. The BIA is responsible for trust lands,
however the purpose of the Indian Self Determination Act (ISDA) is “to end Federal Government
domination of Indian programs and services whereby Indian tribes may assume control over federal
programs and services by contract.” Additionally, per the ISDA, “The essence of the self-determination
policy is that Indian actions and Indian decisions shall determine the Indian future.” Finally, “It is the
policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide for maximum delegation of authority to the service
delivery level while insuring full compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies to ensure
sound management control and business decisions” (BIA 2006:1).
Compliance with Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations, Policies, and
Community Ordinances
The following is a summary of selected statutes, regulations, and EOs applicable to this project.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code (USC) 4321–
4370(e), as amended. NEPA requires federal agencies to take into consideration the environmental
consequences of proposed actions as well as input from state and local governments, Indian tribes, the
public, and other federal agencies during their decision-making process. The Council on Environmental
Quality was established under NEPA to ensure that all environmental, economic, and technical
considerations are given appropriate consideration in this process. This PEA complies with NEPA
statutes and regulations and the BIA NEPA Guidebook (BIA 2012).
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Section 404 of this Act identifies conditions under which a
permit is required for construction projects that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the U.S. There are no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. Section 1424 of this Act regulates underground
injection into an aquifer, which is the sole or principal drinking water source for an area. The aquifer
beneath the project area is not a designated sole source aquifer; therefore, this Act does not apply.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977. EO 11988 requires avoiding or
minimizing harm associated with the occupancy or modification of a floodplain. The project area is not
located within any designated floodplain; therefore, no modification would take place.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
14
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977. EO 11990 requires federal agencies or federally
funded projects to restrict uses of federal lands for the protection of wetlands through avoidance or
minimization of adverse impacts. The order was issued to “avoid to the extent possible the long- and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct
or indirect support of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative.”
No wetlands are affected by this project.
EO 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999. Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other
pertinent statutes, to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to
minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.
Noxious Weed Act of 1974. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 established a federal program to
control the spread of noxious weeds. The United States Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to
declare plants "Noxious Weeds", and limit the interstate spread of such plants without a permit. The
Secretary has the authority to inspect, seize, and destroy products, and quarantine areas, if necessary to
contain, or limit the spread of such weeds.
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1994. This Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs
have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For the purpose
of the Act, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance.
Farmland does not have to be currently used for cropland to be subject to the Act’s requirements. It can be
forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land. There is no prime
farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide or local importance within the parcel proposed for
development.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the Act requires federal agencies to consult
with the USFWS to ensure that undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing an action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat, as defined under the Act, exists only after USFWS officially designates it.
Critical habitat are 1) areas within the geographic area, including features essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special management consideration or protection; and 2) those specific
areas outside the geographic area, occupied by a species at the time it is listed, essential to the
conservation of the species.
Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended. This Act requires any federal entity engaged in an activity that may
result in the discharge of air pollutants to comply with all applicable air pollution control laws and
regulations (federal, state, or local). This act directs the attainment and maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for six different criteria pollutants, including carbon dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead.
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, February 11, 1994. This order directs federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The project would
not introduce disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on the
surrounding population; there would be no adverse effect as defined by this EO.
EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 1996. EO 13007 requires that all Executive Branch agencies having
responsibility for the management of federal lands will, where practicable, permitted by law, and not
clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, provide access to and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and will avoid adversely affecting the integrity of such
sacred sites. The order also requires that federal agencies, when possible, maintain the confidentiality of
sacred sites.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
15
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Federal undertakings must comply with
Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act, which mandates that potential effects on historic
properties be considered prior to approval of such undertakings. Historic properties are defined as sites,
districts, buildings, structures, and objects listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). Consideration of these resources is to be made in consultation with the
State/Tribal Historic Preservation Office and other interested agencies and parties.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001-3013). This Act
requires protection and repatriation of Native American cultural items found on, or taken from, federal
or tribal lands, and requires repatriation of cultural items controlled by federal agencies or museums
receiving federal funds. Should previously unidentified cultural resources, especially human remains,
be encountered during construction, work will stop immediately at that location and the BIA’s Cultural
Resources staff will be notified to ensure proper treatment of these resources.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-341, 42 USC 1996 and 1996a). This
Act ensures the protection and preservation of traditional religions of Native Americans. It includes
access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and
traditional rites.
Fort Peck Tribal Council Resolutions, Ordinances and Plans: In addition, the Proposed Action would
comply with the following Fort Peck Tribal Council resolutions, ordinances, and other plans.
Poplar Airport Masterplan. This document provides information about the future development and
economic needs of the Fort Peck Tribe.
FPT- Wellness Center Business Plan 2012. This is the development plan for a potential building within
the project area. It spells out the Wellness Center layout and potential location for development within the
South West section of the development area.
Public Input, Agency Scoping, and Tribal Consultation
Public and agency input are an essential component of the NEPA process and were obtained for the
project through stakeholder outreach, scoping, and tribal consultation. The purpose of scoping was to
determine the issues related to the proposed development and to identify the significant issues to be
addressed in this PEA.
NEPA Scoping
For this PEA, a scoping notice was mailed to federal, state, local, and Tribal agencies on October 9, 2012.
The public scoping notice was also posted at the local U.S. post offices, Fort Peck Village Community
Service Centers, and the BIA Fort Peck Agency headquarters. In addition, the scoping notice was
published in the October 2, 2012 edition of the tribal newspaper, Fort Peck Journal. Mailing,
publication, and posting of the scoping notice initiated a 30-day public and agency scoping period, during
which the public had the opportunity to provide input on potential issues to be addressed in the PEA.
The BIA and Fort Peck Tribes hosted 3 internal scoping meetings (Table 1-1). These meetings served to
provide information on project planning activities to date and to give members of the public the
opportunity to ask questions or make comments. Discussions were held describing the diverse economic
opportunity existing for the Old Fort Peck Airport.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
16
Table 1-1.
Internal Scoping Meetings
Date
City, State
December 2012
Billings Montana
August 2013
Billings Montana
November 2013
Billings Montana
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED
In accordance with NEPA, based on internal scoping, public scoping, and consultation with local, state,
and federal agencies summarized above, Chapters 3 and of this PEA evaluates the environmental
consequences of the Proposed Action on the following resources:

Land Resources

Water Resources

Living Resources

Cultural Resources

Socioeconomic Conditions

Resource Use Patterns

Other Values
A more detailed list of resources and their subcategories is presented in Chapter 3. Several resources or
resources subcategories were eliminated from analysis due to negligible impact in and around the project
area (i.e., Wilderness Areas, Lumber, Hunting/Fishing, Recreation) or low probability of occurrence
Mineral extraction.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
17
CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
This federal action requires the preparation of a PEA in accordance with NEPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508) and the BIA NEPA
Guidebook 59 IAM 3-H (August 2012).
The following chapter describes the two alternatives evaluated in this document: the Proposed Action
Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. Included in the Proposed Action Alternative is a description of
the intended uses of the parcel following approval of the Development. Also included in this chapter is a
discussion of the alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration. Previous planning
efforts that led to the development of the Proposed Action are summarized in Chapter 1 (see Section 1.3,
Project Background).
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The Fort Peck Tribe could move forward with elements of the Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport project or
other tribal projects using tribal money as long as no other Development, right-of-way, or approval is
required that might trigger a federal action. Alternatively, existing land use at the site could continue and
the site could remain undeveloped.
PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the BIA would approve the Development of the Fort Peck Tribal Old Airport and all needed leases would be pursued for each of the development activities associated with
the property.
The Fort Peck Tribes propose to develop 280 acres located within the Poplar city limits for a
business commercial, residential and associated infrastructure. Most important is the desire to create
a sustainable, livable community for families and youths. Fort Peck Tribes priority is economic selfdetermination and self –sufficiency providing for future generational security, and to develop a
pride of community and culture.
Housing
A range of housing types would be developed, including single-family dwellings, medium-density
housing including apartments, and condominium-type units. The architecture would employ
traditional architectural and construction design, as well as village massing styles common to the
Fort Peck people.
The architecture and design of the community would be based on sustainable principles with a
focus on passive solar design, energy efficient design, and rainwater collection. Environmental
sustainability for the community would incorporate water catchment and a wastewater treatment
plant to treat effluent that could be used to irrigate non-edible crops, plants, and trees.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
18
Infrastructure
The Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport would utilize the existing water system as a potential domestic water
source. As tested for design of the Community, the well would have a discharge rate of 250–270 gallons
per minute (gpm) with improvements, with a 190,000-gallon first phase water storage tank and backup
generator for the pump. All needed permits would be acquired as each project defines the need.
The initial gravity-flow sewer system is planned as a facultative lagoon system that would make use of the
existing two lagoons (rehabilitated and upgraded as required), with lines sized for trunk lines that would
allow for future expansion to meet expected build-out levels of the community. Future improvements to the
sewer system may include development of additional lagoons to improve capacity and effluent treatment
for the creation of reclaimed water that can be utilized for culturally approved uses. The potential for future
batch reactor plant is also possible based on available land area. These potential improvements would occur
off site at the city of Poplar’s
Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co. (MDU), the regional utility provider in the area, supplies three-phase power
and natural gas services to the City of Poplar. An interview with Chad Heidt, an MDU Electrical Engineer,
confirms that the 10-acre project site is within the company’s service area. According to Mr. Heidt, MDU
has power and gas lines running along the north side of U.S. Highway 2. These lines are capable of
providing three-phase power and gas to the Poplar Wellness Center.
The Development is located in the community of Poplar on the Fort Peck Reservation in far northeastern
Montana. As mentioned previously, U.S. Highway 2 runs east to west along the southern border of the
Reservation. This highway is the main route for vehicles traveling on the Reservation and in the region.
U.S. Interstate 94 is approximately 115 miles south of Poplar and the closest major interstate. The nearest
commercial airport is located approximately 90 miles away in the small town of Williston, North Dakota.
However, the nearest commercial airport served by more than one national/international carrier is located in
Billings, Montana approximately 325 miles southwest of Poplar.
No new transportation patterns are suspected to arise from construction or ongoing operation of the Poplar
Old Airport Development Project. It is anticipated the existing transportation access would be utilized
almost exclusively by local community members who live or work in Poplar and the surrounding region.
The majority of these individuals already use U.S. Highway 2 on a daily basis. Therefore, the development
is not expected to create new transportation patterns that would affect hospitals, schools, or residential and
recreational land uses within the community or the region.
Best Management Practices
The following best management practices are included in the Proposed Action in an effort to minimize the
impacts of the Proposed Action to social and environmental resources. More specific mitigation would
need to be developed for project-specific analyses in the future:

Construction activities should be conducted in a manner that would minimize disturbance to
existing vegetation by limiting vegetation thinning and restricting construction activities to the
extent possible.

Drainage structures should be installed and maintained in roads to reduce concentration of water
runoff. Road drainages should direct flow into stable areas of vegetation and cover.

New culvert outfalls should be installed with either riprap or another form of energy dissipater,
if applicable.

Roads should be maintained in a manner that provides for water quality protection.

An on-site staging area for heavy equipment should be identified to protect existing vegetation
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
19
surrounding the project area from damage during construction.

Fort Peck Tribes should develop and implement a noxious weed management plan. The plan
should include elements such as plan implementation, enforcement, responsibility, monitoring,
treatment and inventory, as needed, etc.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
20
This page intentionally blank
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
21
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing environment that may potentially be affected by
implementation of either of the project alternatives. The resources that are analyzed in detail, based on
internal, agency, and public scoping as described in Chapter 1, include:




Land Resources
o
Topography
o
Soils
Water Resources
o
Surface Water
o
Groundwater
Living Resources
o
Vegetation
o
Wildlife
Cultural Resources
o


Cultural Setting
Socioeconomics
o
Lifestyle and Cultural Values
o
Housing
o
Environmental Justice
Resource Use Patterns
o Current Land Uses/Land Use
Plans

Other Values
o
Public Health and Safety
o
Visual
o
Noise and Light
o
Climate Change
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
22
Several resources or resources subcategories were eliminated from analysis due to negligible impact or
the resource is not found in and around the project area (Wilderness Areas, Lumber, Hunting/Fishing,
Recreation), or low probability of occurrence (Mineral Extraction).
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, examines environmental conditions and the description of the
alternatives (see Chapter 2). The types and magnitudes of impacts anticipated to occur from each
alternative were identified and quantified to the extent practicable, given the stage of the project.
LAND RESOURCES
Climate
The climate for the proposed location is classified as a semi-arid continental climate (BSk, semi-arid
grassland steppe) typical of the northern Great Plains region. The area climate is characterized by long
cold sub-arctic winters and warm summers with periods of extreme heat. Generally the climate is
deficient in precipitation most of the year.
Figure 2. Temperature vs Precipitation for Poplar MT
Average precipitation within the watershed is between 13 and 14 inches annually, 40 percent of which
falls during the months of June and July. Snowfall averages from moderate to heavy during winter
months with a total snowfall of approximately 28.3 inches annually, with an average depth of 1 inch.
Winter temperature ranges from 30 degrees below zero to 25 degrees above zero. The average
temperature during the summer months is between 70 and 80 degrees, the warmest temperatures typically
occurring during the month of July. Winds average 14 mph per day annually (Western Regional Climate
Center, 1893-1991).
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
23
Topography
The site is located near the City of Poplar, the central location for all the government headquarters
including the Tribes, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Indian Health Services. The city is located
approximately 27.12 miles from the eastern boundary and 54.59 miles from the western boundary along
US Highway 2. Nearly 95% of the on Reservation population lives within 5 miles north and south of
Highway 2. Approximately 28% of the population lives in or near Poplar with the balance split between
the communities of Wolf Point (22%), Fort Kipp (10%), Brockton (15%), Oswego (10%) and Frazer
(15%).
Land uses immediately adjacent to the sites are mostly residential and administrative in nature. The map
is included below.
Figure 3. Overview of existing land use
Access to critical services is available at this location, which includes emergency health services,
emergency fire services, and law enforcement (tribal and city). Traffic, trains, bridges or floods do not
block the access. Access to the site can come from the west on BIA route 150 and from the east on
County Road 1053.
The topography is generally flat and the land is currently farmed in small grains. The site is
approximately 605 feet from the nearest housing development, Airport Addition, in Poplar. The
underlying site soils are associated with Williams and Zahill loams which are both comprised of welldrained, loamy glacial till. The adjacent land use is small grain farming. The dominant vegetation in the
area consists of Western wheatgrass, bluegrass, and cheatgrass.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
24
This site has been identified by the Tribes’ Brownfields program as the site of an old landfill site used by
the City of Poplar and the Fort Peck Tribes. A Phase I assessment has been completed on this site and has
been selected for a Phase II assessment. The Phase II assessment is currently underway and will be
completed by the end of July 2014.
Soils
According to the NRCS field staff this area is not considered prime farmland. The underlying site soils
are associated with Williams and Zahill loams that are both comprised of well-drained, loamy glacial till.
The project area receives an average of 13-14 inches of precipitation per year.
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water
The Poplar River is located approximately 0.71 miles northeast of the area, at an elevation of
approximately 2005 feet above sea level; the Old Poplar Airport site is approximately 55 feet above the
active floodplain on an ancestral bench. The target area has adequate room for the construction with a
minimal impact to surface waters through the implementation of best management practices during any
construction phases. While the site is approximately a mile from the Poplar River, landscaping should
include a slightly elevated vegetative buffer strip to the west of the site to catch/redirect storm water
runoff to protect the western edge of the bench from erosion. For any construction over 1 acre, storm
water permits are required, and project specific conditions are applied to the permits.
Water Supply
Potable water for the surrounding area is provided by the City of Poplar. Currently, the City obtains its
water from the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System (ASRWSS) that delivers water from
the Missouri River treated at a plant located at the intersection of US Highway 2 and US Highway 13.
The water is delivered via pipeline. Project sponsors must apply to the City of Poplar for services. Plan
and specifications must be provided to the City prior to any construction and all facilities must comply
with the City’s ordinances, specifically Title VIII, Chapter 8-8 Section 11. Currently, there are no service
lines in the Master Plan area.
Waste Water
The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility includes a sanitary sewer collection system and a mechanical
plant consisting of an oxidation ditch, clarifier, aerated sludge digester, sludge drying beds and ultraviolet
lights for effluent disinfection. The City’s plant discharge is permitted by EPA under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. Project sponsors must apply to the City of Poplar for
services. Plan and specifications must be provided to the City prior to any construction and all facilities
must comply with the City’s ordinances, specifically Title VIII, Chapter 8-8 Section 11.
Currently, there are no waste water service lines in the Master Plan area.
Groundwater
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
25
Potable water for the surrounding area is provided by the City of Poplar. Currently, the City obtains its
water from the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System (ASRWSS) that delivers water from
the Missouri River treated at a plant located at the intersection of US Highway 2 and US Highway 13.
The water is delivered via pipeline. Project sponsors must apply to the City of Poplar for services. Plan
and specifications must be provided to the City prior to any construction and all facilities must comply
with the City’s ordinances, specifically Title VIII, Chapter 8-8 Section 11. Currently, there are no service
lines in the Master Plan area.
LIVING RESOURCES
VEGETATION, WETLANDS, SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS
The proposed project area is located south of the Poplar River in an area covered by mixed prairie
grasslands, cultivated land and intermittent streams. The Poplar River runs in a north to south direction
along the eastern portion of the project area, and a drainage runs in a northwesterly direction through the
project area and connects to the Poplar River.
Grasslands
The project area grasslands consist primarily of the “Western Great Plains Mixed-grass Prairie”
vegetation type. This ecosystem is prevalent within the eastern two thirds of Montana and occurs
continuously for hundreds of square miles from the Rocky Mountains to the North Dakota border.
Mixed-grass prairie associations grow in glaciated shallow loams. This vegetation type is prominent in
the mid-continental United States where summers are hot and winters are long and severe. Grasses are the
most pronounced canopy cover, consisting of short to mid-length grasses with western wheatgrass
(Pascopyrum smithii) being the most dominant grass species. Other grassland species present are blue
grama (Bouteloua gracilis), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus
lanceolatus), and needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata).
In north-central Montana, this vegetation system grades into rough fescue (Festuca campestris), Idaho
fescue (F. idahoensis) and shortbristle needle and thread (Hesperostipa curtiseta) grasslands. Forb
diversity is typically high and where mixed 21grass prairies border a sagebrush steppe, common plant
associations may include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea),
western sagewort (Artemisia campestris), boreal sagewort (Artemisia norvegica), silver lupine (Lupinus
albifrons), fuzzy tongue penstemon (Penstemon eriantherus), shining penstemon (Penstemon nitidus),
slender cinquefoil , prairie cinquefoilis (Paarguta) (Potentilla arguta), Missouri goldenrod (Solidago
missouriensis) and Dalea (Dalea species). Fire and grazing are primary components in the succession of
this system. Drought may impact the system by favoring the short grass component over taller grasses.
Intensive grazing has allowed cool season exotic species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and
smooth brome (Bromus inermis) to increase in density and reduce species diversity within the Mixedgrass prairie system. Shrub species that may be found in in western Great Plains Mixed grass prairies
include western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), shrubby
cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), silver sage (Saliva aregntea)
and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis) (Montana Field Guide, 2013).
A large proportion of grassland habitat within and surrounding the project area has been converted into
cultivated land. Important crops grown on these lands include cereals and feed grains, hay silage and
grasses. Non-irrigated farming, mostly with spring wheat, accounts for 75 percent of the Reservation’s
harvested lands (USDOT-FHWA, 2003). The lands west of the Poplar River that may be affected by the
proposed development have been converted for the cultivation of grains, as identified by the onsite visit.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
26
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
There are no identified wetlands or riparian area within the project area.
Special Status Plant Species
Based on the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) online “Tracker” database, there are no
documented occurrences of any State or Federally listed special status plant species within the Township
and Range that the project area resides in.
Noxious Weeds
Noxious and invasive weeds can outcompete and drown out native plant species following introduction
and establishment into their communities. Noxious weeds have been identified by the Montana
Department of Agriculture as Montana Listed Noxious Weeds and assigned to one of five priority ranks
(MDA, 2012). Priority 1A species are weeds that are not currently present in Montana, and require
eradication of detected populations. Priority 1B species are weeds that have limited presence in Montana,
and require eradication or containment of detected populations. Priority 2A species are those that are
common in isolated areas of Montana, and require eradication or containment of populations where they
are considered less abundant. Priority 2B species are weeds that are abundant in Montana and widespread
in many counties. Management criteria of Priority 2B species require eradication or containment of
populations where they are considered less abundant. Priority 3 species are regulated plants not listed as
Montana Listed Noxious Weeds, but have the potential to have significant negative impacts. Priority 3
species may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural products.
Research, education, and prevention are recommended to minimize the spread of Priority 3 species. A
complete list of noxious weeds known to occur within Roosevelt County and their state management
status follows.
Noxious Weed Species Known to Occur in Roosevelt County
Common Name
Scientific Name
Baby’s breath
Blueweed
Canada Thistle
Cheat Grass
Common Tansy
Curlyleaf Pondweed
Dalmation Toadflax
Diffuse Knapweed
Dyers Woad
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Field Bindweed
Flowering Rush
Hoary Alyssum
Houndstongue
Hydrilla
Japanese Knotweed Complex
Leafy Spurge
Meadow Hawkweed Complex
Orange Hawkweed
Oxeye Daisy
Perennial Pepperweed
Purple Loosestrife
Rush Skeletonweed
State Status
Gypsophila paniculata
Echium vulgare
Cirsium arvense
Bromus tectorum
Tanacetum vulgare
Potamogeton crispus
Linaria genistifolia
Centaurea diffusa
Isatis tinctoria
Myriophyllum spicatum
Convolvulus arvensis
Butomus umbellatus
Berteroa incana
Cynoglossum officinale
Hydrilla verticillata
Polygonum cuspidatum
Euphorbia esula
Hieracium pratense etc.
Hieracium aurantiacum L.
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Lepidium latifolium
Lythrum salicaria
Chondrilla juncea
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
Priority 2B
Priority 2A
Priority 2B
Regulated Weed
Priority 2B
Priority 1B
Priority 2B
Priority 2B
Priority 1B
Priority 1B
Priority 2B
Priority 1B
Priority 2A
Priority 2B
Regulated Weed
Priority 1B
Priority 2B
Priority 2A
Priority 2A
Priority 2B
Priority 2A
Priority 1B
Priority 1B
September 2013
27
Russian Knapweed
Russian Olive
Saltcedar (Tamarix)
Scotch Brome
Spotted Knapweed
St. John’s Wort
Sulfur Cinquefoil
Tall Buttercup
Tansy Ragwort
Whitetop
Yellow Starthistle
Yellow Toadflax
Yellowflag Iris
Acroptilon repens
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Tamarix ramosissima
Cytisus scoparius
Centaurea maculosa
Hypericum perforatum
Potentilla recta
Ranunculus acris L.
Senecio jacobaea L.
Cardaria draba
Centaurea solstitialis
Linaria vulgaris
Iris pseudacorus
Priority 2B
Regulated Weed
Priority 2B
Priority 1B
Priority 2B
Priority 2B
Priority 2B
Priority 2A
Priority 2A
Priority 2B
Priority 1A
Priority 2B
Priority 2A
Roosevelt County Weed District, 2012
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), and saltcedar (tamarix spp.) are
primary species of concern and targeted weeds within Roosevelt County.
Current weed management actions include chemical treatment, mechanical removal and bio-control. Biocontrol methods utilize various flea beetle species (Aphthona spp.) to regulate and minimize the spread of
leafy spurge (MDA, 2012). These methods have proven successful, but not immediate, as bio-control is a
long-term management technique (BIA, 2011). Noxious weed species are likely to occur in disturbed sites
such as overgrazed, ROWs, and cultivated land. The Montana Weed Plan identifies the Reservation as
being composed of 913,000 acres of land of which 3,280 acres (0.4 percent) are infected with noxious
weeds (Montana Noxious Weed Summit Advisory Council, 2008).
WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES
The discussions in this section regarding common wildlife and fisheries resources that may occur
in the vicinity of Survey area are drawn largely from the Final Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (FPEA) for the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water Supply System (BIA 2002) and
the Baseline Nongame Wildlife Surveys on The FPIR (Hendricks et al. 2013). Additionally,
recent occurrence information from species of concern, federally listed threatened and
endangered species, and candidate species was obtained by means of a data request to the
MTNHP and the MTNMP database.
COMMON MAMMALS
Large carnivores and omnivores known to occur frequently in the native grasslands, riparian
forest, and wetlands of the Fort Peck Reservation include coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), American badger (Taxidea taxus), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and weasels (Mustela spp.). Medium-size omnivores and herbivores
that occur in the region include mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nutalli), white-tailed jackrabbit
(Lepus townsedii), and northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) (MTNHP 2013c).
In a recent field study on the FPIR (Hendricks et al. 2013), the most abundant and widespread
small mammal observed was the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Other species included
Hayden’s shrew (Sorex haydeni), pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), Western Harvest Mouse
(Reithrodontomys megalotis), and Western Jumping Mouse (Zapus princeps). Other native
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
28
species known or likely to occur within FPIR include the following: Arctic Shrew (Sorex
arcticus), Masked Shrew (S. cinereus), Merriam’s Shrew (S. merriami), Montane Shrew (S.
monticolus), Preble’s Shrew (S. preblei), Northern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys talpoides), Olivebacked Pocket Mouse (Perognathus fasciatus), Ord’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ordii),
Sagebrush Vole (Lemmiscus curtatus), Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster), Bushy-tailed
Woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), and Northern Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys leucogaster)
(Hendricks et al. 2013).
From the same field study on FPIR, the most common bat species observed include Silver-haired
Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and the Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Other bat species
identified include the following: Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Big
Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Eastern Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis), Western Small-footed
Myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), and the Western Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) (Hendricks et
al. 2013).
BIG GAME AND UPLAND GAME SPECIES
The primary big game species on the FPIR include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra
americana), and mountain lion (Puma concolor) (MTNHP 2013b).
American bison (Bison bison) are also hunted, but from a re-introduced/managed herd
established in 1999 that is present only on the Turtle Mound Buffalo Ranch. The Turtle Mound
Buffalo Ranch is located twenty five miles northeast of Poplar, Montana. Currently, there are
200 head in the buffalo herd (Fort Peck Tribes 2013).
Upland game species present and hunted on the FPIR include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus
colchicus), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), and sharp-tailed grouse (Tympannuchus phasianellus);
sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophesionos) season is currently closed due to very low population
numbers. Season dates and bag limits for waterfowl and upland game species are set and
enforced by the Fort Peck Tribes’ Fish and Game Department but generally follow those posted
each year by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) (Fort Peck Tribes 2013).
BIRDS
The combination of grasslands, shrublands, and badlands, together with the ponds and riparian
wetlands prevalent throughout the region, results in a relatively high diversity of bird species in
the vicinity of Survey area. During various site surveys in 2012, 110 bird species were detected
within the FPIR (Hendricks et al. 2013). The following species were detected with the highest
frequency of occurrence at 249 count point sites during the FPIR surveys: Horned Lark (79
percent); Western Meadowlark (57 percent); Brown-headed Cowbird (51 percent); Chestnutcollared Longspur (48 percent); and the Grasshopper and Vesper Sparrows (33 percent)
(Hendricks et al. 2013).
Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds are drawn to this eastern Montana region,
particularly during the breeding season, given the proximity of the Missouri and Poplar River
and its associated emergent marsh and riparian wetland habitats near or within the Survey area.
Opportunistic counts for waterbirds and wetland associated bird species were conducted at 15
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
29
wetland sites on FPIR during late May (Hendricks et al, 2013). Fifty-two species were detected
at wetland sites, most, but not all, being wetland-associated species. For example, some common
waterfowl and shorebirds that were identified include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos), Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), American wigeon (A. americana),
blue-winged teal (A. discors), green-winged teal (A. crecca), gadwall (A. strepera), California
gull (Larus californicus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), Northern Pintail semi-palmated
sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), redhead (Aythya americana), willet (Tringa semipalmata), and
Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) (Hendricks et al. 2013).
Birds of prey are also common in the survey area, given the diversity of cover types and the
abundance of small mammal prey. Twelve individuals of Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) and
a common raptor in the survey area, was detected during the count point surveys (four percent).
Three Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) individuals were detected on the FPIR count point
surveys (one percent). Red-tailed hawks (B. jamaicensis), and great horned owls (Bubo
virginianus) are also frequent breeding raptors in the Survey area, preferring to nest in wooded
draws containing tall cottonwoods along creeks, and then foraging in the open prairie.
Ferruginous hawks (B. regalis) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) are commonly seen in
open grasslands and prairie habitats on the FPIR (Hendricks et al. 2013). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) may also occur in the Survey area (Alsop 2001).
The MLWC has been designated as an important bird area by Montana Audubon and the Tribes
are managing 4,000 acres as a Tribal Wildlife Refuge with plans to include additional acres in
the future (Spaur n.d.).
Migratory birds are also present on the FPIR and are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918 (MBTA) (USFWS 2013g). The MBTA was developed in the early 20th century in
response to the precipitous decline in populations of many bird species from over harvest for
commercial operations. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is
unlawful. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that is it unlawful to pursue,
hunt, take, capture, or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter,
purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any
migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not.
Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) the
taking, killing, possession or commerce of bald and golden eagles (including their eggs, nests, or
parts) is prohibited unless allowed by permit.
Many of the bird species that occur in the Survey area are neotropical Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
migrants that spend the summer nesting season in Montana. Most migratory birds nest in
Montana between April 15 and July 15 (BLM 2012a and BLM 2012b); however, some
migratory species do not leave to travel to their wintering grounds until the fall (MTNHP 2013c).
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Reptile and amphibian species could occur in the wetland habitats within the Survey area.
Amphibian and two reptile species were detected at wetland sites during a standardized survey
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
30
within the FPIR. The most common species included the Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris
maculata), Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens), and the Woodhouse’s Toad (Anaxyrus
woodhousii) at 51, 23, and 10 percent of sites, respectively. Other species detected included the
Barred Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma mavortium), Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons),
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta), and the Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix). Incidental
observations of amphibians and reptiles during the course of other surveys also resulted in
observations of amphibian and reptile species, including the Smooth Green Snake (Opheodrys
vernalis), and Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) (Hendricks et al. 2013).
The presence of aquatic larval stages, hence, breeding, was documented at sites where Barred
Tiger Salamander, Woodhouse’s Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, and
Spadefoot were found. The nearby Manning Lake (directly east of the Survey area) is about 3
feet deep and is known to support frogs, salamanders, minnows, and invertebrates (Spaur n.d.).
FISHERIES
There is no ponded or running water within the project area. The discussion of fish species in the
region and does not specifically impact the project area.
Surface water features within and adjacent to the Survey area that may support a fishery include
freshwater ponds and lakes and perennial streams (USFWS 2012). Natural lakes within the
Survey area do not support fisheries; however several man-made stock ponds within the Survey
area are managed fisheries for private and sport fishing (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks [MTFWP] 2013). Portions of the southern boundary of the Survey area Survey area
border the Missouri River, which is managed as a wild fishery. Refer to Sections 3.5.6 and 3.5.7
for a discussion of species of concern and threatened and endangered species that may be found
in water bodies in and near the Survey area.
WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN
Figure 3-2 provides locations of habitat for species of concern and Table 3-1 lists the species of
concern found within the region. The area surveyed for this assessment did not include any of the
species but for the purpose of the analysis the list is included because these species occur within
the area. The development of this property does not affect their habitat in any significant way.
A total of 43 species of concern are identified for Roosevelt County (MTNHP 2013c). In
addition, Hendricks et al. (2013) documented seven additional species of concern during field
surveys on the FPIR. Of the 50 total species of concern, ten fish and three aquatic invertebrate
species are documented as occurring in riverine habitats. Because streams, riparian areas, prairie
potholes, wetlands, and springs would have a setback of 150 feet and the Missouri River would
have a setback of 300 feet during Survey activities, aquatic species of concern are not further
addressed in this EA. The following table lists the habitats and potential for occurrence of
species of concern within the Survey area.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
31
Table 3.1 SPECIES OF CONCERN HABITAT OUTSIDE SURVEY AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat
Likely to Occur
Spea bombifrons
Wetlands floodplain
pools
Y
Botaurus lentiginosus
Pelecanus
erythrorhynchos
Ammodramus bairdii
Chlidonias niger
Coccyzus
erythropthalmus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Wetlands
Lakes, ponds,
reservoirs
Grasslands
Wetlands
Riparian forest
Y
Y
Wetlands
Y
Dolichonyx
oryzivorus
Spizella breweri
Athene cunicularia
Calcarius ornatus
Moist grasslands
Y
Sagebrush
Grasslands
Grasslands
Y
N
Y
Sterna hiruade
Buteo regalis
Sterna forsteri
Leucophaeus pipixcan
Aquilachrysaetos
Ardea Herodias
Centrocercus
urophasianus
Podiceps auritus
Ammodramus
leconteii
Sternula antillarum
Large rivers lakes
Sagebrush grassland
Wetlands
Wetlands
Grasslands
Riparian forest
Sagebrush
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Wetlands
Prairie wetland
Y
N
Large prairie rivers
Y
AMPHIBIANS
Plains spadefoot
BIRDS
American Bittern
American White
Pelican
Baird's Sparrow
Black Tern
Black-billed Cuckoo
Black-crowned NightHeron
Bobolink
Brewer’s sparrow
Burrowing Owl
Chestnut- collared
Longspur
Common Tern
Ferruginous Hawk
Forster's Tern
Franklin's Gull
Golden Eagle
Great Blue Heron
Greater Sage-Grouseb
Horned grebeb
Le Conte's Sparrow
Least Tern
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
Y
Y
N
September 2013
32
Table 3.1 continue SPECIES OF CONCERN HABITAT IN SURVEY AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat
Likely to Occur
Loggerhead Shrike
Long-billed Curlew
McCown’s longspur
Nelson's Sparrow
Piping Plover
Red-headed
Woodpecker
Sedge Wren
Sprague's Pipit
Veery
White-faced Ibis
Whooping Crane
Yellow Rail
Lanius ludovicianus
Numenius americanus
Rhynchophanes
mccownii
Ammodramus nelson
Charadrius melodus
Melanerpes
erythrocephalus
Cistothorus platensis
Anthus spragueii
Catharus fuscescens
Plegadis chihi
Grus Americana
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
Shrubland
Grasslands
Grasslands
Y
Y
Y
Prairie wetland
Prairie lakes and river
shorelines
Riparian forest
Y
Y
Prairie wetland
Grasslands
Riparian forest
Wetlands
Wetlands
Wetlands
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
MAMMALS
Hoary bat
Townsend's Big-eared
Bat
REPTILES
Lasiurus cinereus
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Riparian and forest
Caves in forested
habitats
Y
Y
Smooth Green snake
Western Hog-nosed
Snake
Opheodrys vernalis
Heterodon nasicus
Wetlands
Friable soils
Y
N
Montana and BLM Species of Concern in Roosevelt County
Source: MTNHP 2013a, Hendricks et al. 2013.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) establishes measures for the protection of federally listed
threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) is responsible for enforcing the ESA. Endangered species are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened species are likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future. While candidate species receive no protection under
the ESA, it is within the spirit of the ESA to consider these species as having significant value
and worth protecting, as they may become listed in the future. Table 3.2 provides the candidate
and federally listed species that may be present on the FPIR (USFWS 2013i). Critical habitat for
the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is located within the channel of the Missouri River
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
33
approximately a one mile south of the project area.
Table 3.2 Federally Listed and Candidate Species on FPIR and Roosevelt County
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
STATUS
HABITAT
RANGE IN
MONTANA
Black-footed
ferret
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
Large prairie
Least tern
Sternula
antillarum
Endangered
Sandbars and beaches
along large rivers and
lakes
Eastern
Montana dog
complex in
grassland
prairies
Yellowstone,
Missouri River
sandbars,
beaches;
Eastern
Montana
Piping plover
Charadrius
melodus
Threatened
Critical Habitat
Riverine and
reservoir shorelines
with sandy beaches or
sandbars.
Whooping crane
Grus americana
Endangered
Freshwater marshes,
Incidental
wet prairies and fields occurrences
during
migration
Greater sagegrouse
Centrocercus
urophasianus
Candidate
Mosaic of sagebrushsteppe, open
grassland patches,
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
Missouri River
sandbars, alkali
beaches;
Northeastern
Montana. Alkali
lakes in
Sheridan
County;
Riverine and
reservoir
shoreline in
Garfield,
McCone,
Phillips,
Richland,
Roosevelt and
Valley counties
Eastern, central,
and
southwestern
September 2013
34
Sprague’s pipit
Anthus
spragueii
Pallid sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus Endangered
Candidate
and agricultural lands
Montana in
sagebrush,
sagebrushgrasslands, and
associated
agricultural
lands
Large tracts of
unbroken prairie
grassland with little to
no shrub cover.
Grassland
habitats with
little or no shrub
cover of the
Continental
Divide
Missouri and
Yellowstone
Rivers;bottom
dwelling
Bottom-dweller in
large rivers
Source: USFWS 2013i and USFWS 2013d.
Black-footed Ferret
The black-footed ferret is federally listed as endangered under the ESA. The black-footed ferret
is a slender, medium-sized member of the weasel family with black feet, a black-tipped tail and a
distinctive black face mask. Historically, the range of this species extended throughout western
North America’s prairie grasslands and coincided with the range of the black-tailed prairie dog
(C. ludovicianus), Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. gunnisoni), and the white-tailed prairie dog (C.
leucurus) (USFWS 2010a). The current range of the black-footed ferret is limited to populations
at 16 reintroduction sites, and does not include Roosevelt County (USFWS 2010a; USFWS
2013b; USFWS 2013a). The nearest reintroduction site to the Survey area is at UL Bend
National Wildlife Refuge, more than 100 miles southwest of the Survey area (USFWS 2013b).
No occurrences of the black-footed ferret are documented within the Survey area (MTNHP
2013b). The primary prey of the black-footed ferret is prairie dogs; additionally, prairie dogs
provide habitat for this species. Habitat is limited to grasslands containing large prairie dog
complexes, and the black-footed ferret uses prairie dog burrows as shelter and dens. The
reproductive season occurs in the spring and summer; black-footed ferrets mate in March and
April, and kits are born in May and June. Within 90 days of birth, kits are able to hunt (USFWS
2010a).Threats to the black-footed ferret include habitat loss and loss of its primary prey due to
prairie dog eradication programs, disease, and conversion of native grasslands to agricultural
lands (USFWS 2010a).
Interior Least Tern
The interior population of the least tern is listed as endangered under the ESA. The least tern is
the smallest species of North American tern (20 to 23 centimeters [cm] long); this species is
distinguished by a black cap and nape, white forehead, orange-yellow bill and deeply forked tail
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
35
(Alsop 2001). The interior least tern feeds in shallow waters on fish and aquatic invertebrates,
which they capture by diving into the water (USFWS 1990).
Interior least terns are migratory, and their wintering habitat likely occurs in Central and South
America (USFWS 1994). The breeding range of this species includes isolated areas along the
Rio Grande, Red, Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri River systems (USFWS 1990, USFWS 1994).
In Montana, the interior least tern is known to nest along the shorelines of Fort Peck Reservoir,
along the Yellowstone River, and along the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam (MTNHP
2013c). No occurrences of the interior least tern are documented within the Survey area
(MTNHP 2013b). However, this species is believed to nest within the channel of the Missouri
River bordering the Survey area (Figure 3.2). Riverine nesting habitat includes sparsely
vegetated, dry, exposed sand bars, beaches and gravel beds along rivers and lakes (USFWS
1990). This species nests in small colonies, and is present in Montana from May through midAugust; observations of this species occur in June and July (MTNHP 2013c).
Threats to the interior least tern include nest disturbance on rivers and sand bars, as well as
habitat loss and degradation (USFWS 1994).
Piping Plover
The piping plover is listed as threatened in Montana. This small (18 cm long) shorebird has pale
plumage which matches the beaches it inhabits; during the breeding season, prominent markings
include a narrow black breast band, a black band across the forehead, and an orange bill with a
black tip (Alsop 2001). This species feeds on invertebrates and is assumed to locate prey by sight
(Atkinson and Dood 2006).
This migratory species winters along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from North
Carolina to Mexico and spends the breeding season in the northern US and southern Canada
(Alsop 2001). The piping plover breeds on sandy shorelines of reservoirs, along rivers and on
alkalai flats in the prairies of the Northern Great Plains (Atkinson and Dood 2006). Critical
habitat is designated for the piping plover in its breeding range in Montana; the nearest critical
habitat to the Survey area is located along the southern border of the Survey area along the
channel of the Missouri River (USFWS 2013c, Figure 3-3). Migrating piping plover arrive on
breeding grounds in Montana beginning in late April, and leave by late August (Atkinson and
Dood 2006). The occurrence of breeding piping plover has been documented within the channel
of the Missouri River (Figure 3-3) (MTNHP 2013b).
Threats to the piping plover in the Northern Great Plains breeding range include habitat loss and
degradation, predation, and disturbance (USFWS 2009).
Whooping Crane
The whooping crane is federally listed as endangered. The whooping crane is the tallest bird
found in North America, with males nearly five feet in height (Campbell 2003). The species is
distinguished by a long neck, long black legs, white plumage and red markings above the bill
(Alsop 2001).
Three populations of whooping cranes exist: an introduced non-migratory population of
whooping cranes in central Florida, an introduced eastern migratory population that migrates
between Wisconsin and Florida, and the self-sustaining Aransas Wood Buffalo population that
winters in Texas and may transit the Survey area during migration (USFWS 2007). The Aransas
Wood Buffalo Population winters on the Texas coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge near
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
36
Rockport, where the area is covered with swales and ponds. They summer and nest in poorly
drained wetlands of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Canada (Alsop 2001). The known
whooping crane migration corridor is approximately 200 miles wide, and the Survey area is on
the western edge of this range (USFWS 2007, MTNHP 2013b). The primary stopover on the
migration route is located in Saskatchewan (USFWS 2013j). The whooping crane may transit the
Survey area during migration, though it is not listed on the FPIR list for threatened and
endangered species. Threats to the whooping crane include habitat loss, severe weather and loss
of genetic diversity (USFWS 2013j).
Greater Sage-Grouse
The greater sage-grouse is a candidate for federal listing under the ESA. The greater sage-grouse
is the largest North American grouse and is distinguished by its long, pointed tail feathers and
mottled buff, black and gray-brown plumage. Males have a black throat patch and yellow eye
comb (Alsop 2001). The greater sage-grouse uses different food sources during different life
stages; chicks primarily consume insects while juveniles and adults primarily eat (MTNHP
2013c).
The current range of this species is limited to semiarid sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and shrubgrassland habitats extending from southern Canada to Utah (MTNHP 2013c). This species
requires large areas of contiguous sagebrush for feeding, mating displays and nesting. Males
gather on leks, relatively bare areas near areas of dense sagebrush cover, to perform courtship
displays prior to nesting (USFWS 2013f). Lekking and breeding occur in the spring from March
to May; greater sage-grouse nest in sagebrush habitat in May (MTNHP 2013b). Leks have been
identified on the western portion of the Reservation, but no occurrences of the greater sagegrouse are documented within the Survey area (MTNHP 2013b, Hendricks et al. 2013).
A recent report (USFWS 2013f) delineates reasonable objectives for the conservation and
survival of greater sage-grouse. It identifies several populations and risk assessments for the
population. The Survey area is in the Great Plains Management Zone and in the Northern
Montana Population. The Northern Montana Population is predominantly in northeast Montana
but extends north into southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, making up these provinces’ entire
sage-grouse populations. There are several designated Priority Areas of Conservation (PAC) in
this population, though they are not included in the Survey area. The primary threat to the greater
sage-grouse is habitat loss and fragmentation; other threats include disease, predation and
drought (USFWS 2013f).
Sprague’s Pipit
Sprague’s pipit is a candidate for federal listing under the ESA. The Sprague’s pipit is a small
(16.5 cm in length) songbird with a buff colored face, distinctive thin eye ring, and thin pale bill
(Alsop 2011). The range of this migratory, ground nesting species extends from breeding
grounds in the northern shortgrass prairies of southern Canada and the northern US to wintering
grounds in the southern US and northern Mexico.
During breeding season, migration, and on wintering grounds, the diet of the Sprague’s pipit
consists primarily of arthropods. During late winter, seeds are incorporated into their diet (Jones
2010). This species rarely occurs in cultivated lands and is uncommon on non-native planted
pasturelands (USFWS 2013h). This species occurs on large tracts of unbroken prairie grassland
with little to no shrub cover. Sprague’s pipit is known to occur on the FPIR during the nesting
season and was last observed in the vicinity of the Survey area in 2012 (Hendricks et al. 2013).
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
37
Results of point counts indicate the bird is not abundant but is widely distributed on FPIR
(Hendricks et al. 2013). Breeding begins as early as late April and continues until mid to late
August. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are primary threats to this species.
Encroachment of woody vegetation resulting from fire suppression is also a threat to habitat on
both breeding and wintering grounds (Jones 2010).
Pallid Sturgeon
The pallid sturgeon is federally listed as endangered under the ESA. The pallid sturgeon is a
large (up to 180 cm long) fish with a distinctive flattened snout and is covered with bony plates
(scutes) rather than scales (USFWS 2013e). This species feeds on aquatic insects and fish
(MTNHP 2013c). The current range of pallid sturgeon includes the Missouri, Yellowstone,
Mississippi and Atchafalya Rivers (USFWS 2013e). Pallid sturgeon occurs in large, turbid rivers
where they remain close to the bottom (MTNHP 2013d). This species is believed to occur within
the channel of the Missouri River above Ft. Peck Reservoir. The primary threat to the pallid
sturgeon is habitat loss due to the impoundment, channelization, and other modifications to
natural rivers (USFWS 2013e).
TRIBAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
Tribal species of concern are consistent with those addressed in the FPEA for the Fort Peck
Reservation Rural Water Supply System (BIA 2002). Tribal species of concern include greater
sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and swift fox (Vulpes velo).
Greater Sage-Grouse
The greater sage-grouse is a candidate for federal listing under the ESA and is described in the
preceding section.
Swift Fox
The swift fox is a small canine with a coat that is reddish in the summer and dark grey and tawny
in the winter (MTNHP 2013c). This species primarily feeds on mammals and small insects.
The range of this species extends from southern Canada to the Texas panhandle. The swift fox is
not migratory and is present in Montana year-round (MTNHP 2013c). Preferred habitat for the
swift fox is large areas of mostly undisturbed open prairie grasslands. This species either creates
or uses existing burrows as dens (MTNHP 2013c). Swift foxes breed in late winter, and pups
first emerge from the den by June (MTNHP 2013c).No occurrences of the swift fox are
documented within the Survey area in the MTNHP database (MTNHP 2013b). However, a
reintroduction program for the swift fox on the FPIR was approved in 2005 and individuals were
introduced in 2006 and 2009 on the western portion of the FPIR (American Prairie Reserve
2013). The FPIR is currently monitoring the success of the reintroduction program, is monitoring
13 swift foxes, and has found 8 potential dens (American Prairie Reserve 2013).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural Setting
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
38
The name of the Assiniboine among themselves is Na-co-tah, same as the Sioux, which means "our
people". By the Sioux they are called Ho' hai or Fish eaters," perhaps from the fact that they lived
principally on fish while on the British grounds, as most of those Indians do. By the Cree and Chippewa
they are called As-see-nee-poi-tuc or Stone Indians; hence the English name of Assiniboine arises. As
has been stated, at the earliest date known they roved about the head of St. Peters, Des Moines, Lac du
Diable, and Lac qui Parle; and they were then joined with the Sioux Indians, who inhabited and claimed
all the lands between the Mississippi and the Missouri as low down as Big Sioux River and as high up as
the head of River 'a Jacques, thence northward toward Lac du Diable, other bands of Sioux (Teton)
residing west of the Missouri. The number of Assiniboine when they separated must have been at least
1500 lodges, averaging six souls to a lodge [or about 9,000 persons].
Their migration has been referred to and the extent of land they occupied in the British territory on the
Saskatchewan, etc., was very large, but at present their habitat is entirely different, and it may be as well
to state it here. The northern Assiniboine, 250 or 300 lodges, rove the country from the west banks of the
Saskatchewan, Assiniboine, and Red Rivers in a westward direction to the Woody Mountains north and
west among small spurs of the Rocky Mountains east of the Missouri, and among chains of small lakes
through this immense region. Occasionally making peace with some of the northern bands of Blackfeet
enables them to come a little farther west and deal with those Indians, but, these "peaces" being of short
duration, they are for the most part limited to the prairies east and north of the Blackfeet range.
The rest of the Assiniboine, say 500 to 520 lodges [who may be called the Southern Assiniboine],occupy
the following district, commencing at the mouth of the White Earth River on the east, extending up that
river to its head, thence northwest along the Couteau de Prairie, or Divide, as far as the Cyprus Mountains
on the North Fork of the Milk River, thence down Milk River to its junction with the Missouri River,
thence down the Missouri River to the mouth of the White Earth River, or the starting point. Formerly
they inhabited a portion of country on the south side of the Missouri River along the Yellowstone River,
but of late years, having met with great losses by Blackfeet, Sioux, and Crow war parties, they have been
obliged to abandon this region and now they never go there. As before remarked, the Assiniboine still
numbered 1,000 to 1,200 lodges, trading on the Missouri until the year 1838, when the small-pox reduced
their numbers to less than 400 lodges. Also, being surrounded by large and hostile tribes, war has had its
share in their destruction, though now they are increasing slowly.
Traditionally the Dakota or Sioux are divided into seven bands or "council fires". These are
1)Bdewakanton; (2) Wahpekute; (3) Sisseton; (4) Wahpeton; (5) Yankton; (6) Yanktonai; and (7) Teton.
The first four of these are known as the Eastern or Santee bands, and they speak what is known as the "D"
dialect of the Dakota language. The fifth and sixth bands, the Yankton and Yanktonai are known as the
Middle or Wici'yena bands, speaking the "N" dialect. The seventh band, the Teton, is also known as the
Western Dakota and speaks Lako'ta, the "L" dialect of the language.
When first met by Europeans, all seven bands of the Dakota were living in what is now the southern twothirds of the state of Minnesota, with adjacent slivers of Wisconsin, Iowa, and eastern North and South
Dakota. Thus, on the Hennepin map of 1683 the Minnesota River is represented and, at its source, are the
"Tinthonhaon" (Teton), further identified as "gens des Prairies". The "Nadouessous" (Dakota, band not
specified) are located west of Lake Buade (Mille Lacs) about the sources of the Mississippi, and the
"Issati" (probably the Bdewakanton and Wahpekute bands) are further south and east but on the western
bank of the Mississippi. The "Oua de Battons ou gens de Riviere" (Wahpeton) are near Mille Lacs but
northeast of that lake, while "Les Hanctons" (Yankton and perhaps Yanktonai) are due north of the
Wahpeton, northeast of Mille Lacs. Still further north are the "Chongaskabe ou Nation des Forts" a group
usually identified as the Sisseton band, while due west from this group is the "lac des Assenipoils" (lake
of the Assiniboine) (Winchell 1911: 26, 28).
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
39
Shortly after the period of first European contact, or in other words the late 17th and early 18th centuries,
the Teton, Yankton, and Yanktonai bands began a westward movement. The Teton band, already known
to the French as the "gens des Prairies" or Prairie people, apparently led the way. In the process of
migration west, or shortly prior thereto, the "Yankton" group divided into two parts, the Yankton proper
or Iha'-kto-wa', and the "Little Yankton" or Yanktonai, Iha'-kto-wa'-na . the first means "End village
dwellers", the second "Little end village dwellers", both deriving from the Dakkota iha'-ke "end", and towa'- "to dwell at a place", plus, in the case of the Yanktonai, the diminutive suffix na. Though it might
appear that the Yanktonai were the subordinate group, by virtue of their designation as "Little Yankton",
this was actually not the case. S.H. Long obtained a tradition to the effect that the Yanktonai were
regarded as the "elder" band (Thomas 1959b: 990). Population figures for the two bands given by
Thomas (1959a: 989; 1959b: 990-991) also indicate that throughout their recorded history the Yanktonai
have usually outnumbered the Yankton, often by a factor of two or three to one.
Traveling west, the Yankton moved into what is now southeastern South Dakota and nearby parts of Iowa
and Minnesota. The Yanktonai moved further north, to the headwaters of the Big Sioux, James, and Red
rivers. Lewis and Clark, who call the Yanktonai the "Yankton of the north" note that this group of the
Dakota live on Hds. [headwaters] of R.[River] Jacques [James], on E. side (from the heads of the river St.
Peters [Minnesota] and red river to the Missouri, about the great bend) (Thwaites ed. 1959 VI: 95) S.H.
Long speaks of the Yanktonai as one of the most important of the Dakota bands, and notes that their
hunting grounds extended from the Red River to the Missouri, extending as far north as Devil's Lake
(Thomas 1959b: 990). Yanktonai wintering sites mentioned in the John K. Bear winter count indicate a
much wider range, extending as far south as present Pipestone, Minnesota, and Huron, Mitchell, Platte,
and Pickstown, South Dakota, though it is apparent that they shared much of this east-central South
Dakota territory with their kinsmen the Yankton.
Upper Yanktonai informants have told me that their people hunted and wintered on both sides of the
Missouri as far north as Painted Woods, near present Washburn, North Dakota, which they considered the
border of their domain in this area, and on the Red River of the North as far as the mouth of the Goose
River, near present Caledonia, North Dakota. In the late 18th century they were strong enough to attack
and almost exterminate a strongly stockade Mandan village near present Bismarck, North Dakota (Curtis
1908: 121). This locale, known as Taspa'- oju or "Apple orchard", near the mouth of present Apple
Creek, is first mentioned in the John K. Bear winter count in 1773. It remained a favorite base of
operations for the Yanktonai until the beginning of the reservation period (Curtis 1908: 121). To the
west, the count mention the Heart River and the Killdeer Mountains in western North Dakota as wintering
sites, and to the east the mouths of the Redwood River (near present Redwood Falls, Minnesota) and
Yellow Medicine River (near present Granite Falls, Minnesota). Tribes with which the Yanktonai have
engaged in armed conflict at one time or another are the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Plains-Cree, PlainsOjibwa, and Assiniboin, all to the north of the Yanktonai; to the west and northwest the Blackfoot,
Atsina, Crow, Cheyenne, Nez Perce and Teton Dakota; to the South the Omaha and Pawnee. The John K.
Bear winter count also mentions battles with the Winnebago, far to the east in Wisconsin.
The heart of the 18th and 19th century Yanktonai domain, that part of northeastern South Dakota and
southeastern North Dakota east of the Missouri, is a part of the tall grass region or true prairie, as
distinguished from the "short grass" or High Plains country west of the river. Today it is used chiefly for
cultivation, while the more arid trans-Missouri region to the west is used for the grazing of cattle. The
subsistence pattern of the Yanktonai was virtually identical with that of their Yankton kinsmen to the
south, which I gave, described in detail elsewhere (Howard 1972b: 290-292). Like the Yankton, the
Yanktonai depended largely on the bison for meat and skins, with large, policed, "tribal" hunts twice a
year, in midsummer and late fall. Individuals and small groups hunted bison, elk, deer, pronghorn
antelope, and small game throughout the year. One Yanktonai specialty apparently not known to other
Dakota groups was the use of rabbit sticks, similar to those of the Hopi and other Southwestern tribes
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
40
(Hurt 1950: 1-2).
RELIGIOUS LAWS
The traditional tribal cultural members of this Reservation believe that certain areas of the land are holy.
These lands may be sacred, for example, because of religious events which occurred there, because they
contain specific natural products, because they are the dwelling place or embodiment of spiritual beings,
because they surround or contain burial grounds or because they are sites conducive to communicating
with spiritual beings. There are specific religious beliefs regarding each sacred site which form the basis
for religious laws governing the site. These laws may prescribe, for example, when and for what purpose
the site may or must be visited, what ceremonies or rituals may or must take place at the site, what
manner of conduct must or must not be observed at the site, who may or may not go to the site and the
consequences to the individual, group, band or tribe if the laws are not observed. The ceremonies may
also require preparatory rituals, purification rites or stages of preparation. Both active participants and
observers may need to be readied. Natural substances may need to be gathered. Those who are unprepared
or whose behavior or condition may alter the ceremony are often not permitted to attend. The proper
spiritual atmosphere must be observed. Structures may need to be built for the ceremony or its
preparation. The ceremony itself may be brief or it may last for days. The number of participants may
range from one individual to a large group.
RESERVATION BACKGROUND
The Bureau of Indian Affairs authorized the establishment of the new Fort Peck Agency in December.
Simmons was directed to remove the Milk river Agency as soon as possible, consolidating it with Fort
Peck. He reported that before he left Fort Peck for Helena in order to make arrangements for removal of
the old agency, 844 lodges of Tetons and Yanktonais had established their winter quarters around the new
agency site,. Chiefs who had not previously made peace-Iron Star, Long Dog, Black Moon, Red Shield,
Bearded Chin, Crow, Little Knife, and others- had come in, accepted terms, and joined the camp at Fort
Peck. These were all drawing rations, and everything was quiet. By mid-January, Sitting Bull himself,
with twenty to thirty lodges, was reported to be camped on Dry Creek, only about 40 miles from Fort
Peck. The rest of his followers had joined the camp at the agency. The Lower Assiniboines, with the
Santees and Yanktons, remained at Milk River Agency for the winter.
New buildings to house Fort Peck Agency were constructed in 1873. Recognizing the impracticality of
combining the two agencies, Simmons recommended that Milk River be continued; in July the creation of
Milk River as a separate agency for the Upper Assiniboines and Gros Ventres was accomplished by
executive order. The Lower Assiniboines, Santees, and Yanktons were officially transferred to Fort Peck.
By June 15, 1873, Simmons could report that 1,260 lodges were already present at Fort Peck,
representing all the Sioux bands as well as the Lower Assiniboines. He informed the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs that in July the entire encampment would move up the Milk River to Beaver Creek, where
they would have their summer buffalo hunt and cut new lodge poles in the Little Rocky Mountains. He
expected them to return to the agency about the middle of September to form an encampment for the
winter.
During the summer of 1873 the Northern Pacific Railroad surveys continued. General Stanley headed an
expedition of nearly two thousand men, including a corps of scientists, and spent three months marching
westward from Fort Rice to the Yellowstone valley, down the Musselshell, and back way of Glendive
Creek. They were to survey the route for the railroad, collect scientific data, and intimidate the Indians.
The flamboyant Lieutenant Colonel Custer, whose destruction of Black Kettle's village of Cheyenne's on
the Washita in 1868 had won him a reputation as an Indian fighter, was assigned to the Stanley
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
41
expedition. On August 4, riding far ahead of the main column with two troops of the Seventh Calvary,
Custer was attacked by the Sioux near the mouth of the Tongue River. Fighting them off, Custer charged
the Indians, who scattered before his troops. On august 11, the Seventh Calvary again skirmished with
the Sioux on the north bank of the Yellowstone, below the mouth of the Big Horn, and pursued them 10
miles.
It was not until January of 1874 that legal measures were taken to clarify the status of lands occupied by
Indians in eastern Montana Territory. A congressional bill set aside the area from the boundary of Dakota
Territory west to the Rocky Mountains and north of the Missouri River to the British line for the "use and
occupation of the Gros Ventres, Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot, river Crow, and such other Indians as the
President may, from time to time, see fit to locate thereon." Although both Fort Peck and Fort Belknap
fell within the boundaries of this reservation, neither was explicitly mentioned in the legislation. In
September, Agent Simmons was replaced by William Alderson. The agency Indians learned a lesson in
government bureaucracy; thereafter, frequent changes of agency personnel would be commonplace,
always destroying continuity and setting back progress.
In his first annual report, Alderson estimated as "the lowest and most reliable list" the following Indians
who were receiving supplies at Fort Peck Agency:
[Lower]Assiniboine
1998
Santee and Sisseton Sioux
1065
[Upper] Yanctonai
2260
Uncpapa [Hu'kpap'a] Sioux
1420
Uncpatina [Hu'kpat'ina (Lower Yanktonai)]
460
Mixed-bloods
98
______
Total
7307
Alderson classified the Indians under his charges into three categories. First, the Assiniboines and Santee
Sioux (including the Sissetons); "They appear to comprehend their situation and inevitable destiny to a
much greater degree than any other uncivilized Indians on or near the upper Missouri." The agent
suggested that, were it not for the availability of game, they would be ready at once to adopt civilization.
Second, the Upper and Lower Yanktonais: Alderson noted a marked change in their attitude during the
preceding ten months; at first disdainful of the power and authority of the government, they were coming
to acknowledge their dependence on it: "Many express a desire to engage in agriculture, prominent
among them those chiefs who visited Washington in September 1872." Third, the Hunkpapas: "Wild and
ungrateful," they refused to stay on the reservation and still claimed interest in the lands through which
the Northern Pacific Railroad would pass. Alderson believed that many of the Hunkpapas from his
agency went to the Yellowstone country only to hunt, "but once there, they are restrained and overawed
by Sitting Bull, his associate chiefs, and his formidable soldier lodge, so that they cannot return to the
agency when they wish." Some 250 lodges of Hunkpapas had received annuities at Fort Peck during the
autumn of 1873, and were fed there until January of 1874, when they set out on their winter hunt. Half of
them had not returned as of September, although the agent anticipated that most of them would return
before the end of the month.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The physical environment is one of many factors that influenced the cultural development of an area. An
awareness of the natural setting and available resources of an area allows informed interpretations of
cultural issues such as settlement patterns and sedentism as well as resource utilization and exploitation.
The environmental context provides data on regional ecological patterns such as floral distributions and
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
42
communities, regional geomorphology, soils, and hydrology. This process is identifying those aspects of
the natural environment that may have influenced the cultural development of the past land use of the
property.
There are many floral, faunal, and mineral resources on the Fort Peck Reservation that constitute
traditional cultural properties. On lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these
resources are already guaranteed a high measure of protection. The concerns that tribes have expressed
include the protection of these resources from the potentially destructive forces of development, such as
new pipelines and roads, or the casual, and often illegal, takings of cultural artifacts by visitors and local
residents. Tribes also have a legitimate, traditional cultural interest in gaining limited access to some of
these resources for use in healing and the conduct of any of a variety of religious observances. In
discussing the types of traditional cultural properties, it must be emphasized that the information
presented here represents only a portion of the knowledge that the Assiniboine and Sioux retain on
animals, plants, minerals, and soils.
Much of this knowledge remains unrecorded and unpublished and is transmitted orally in traditional
contexts. Some of it particularly that which pertains to healing and ceremonial use, is privileged
information, held by traditional religious practitioners and not widely known.
Fauna: Fort Peck's cultural identity and spiritual significance in the eyes of Assiniboine and Sioux people
is closely tied to its animals, especially the bison. Historically, the tribes had a twofold relationship to the
area; first, it was a highly regarded hunting ground, and second, it was a spiritual place, a location spirits
frequented and one where important transformative processes took place that gave animals and humans
the breath of life. Since hunting can no longer bring subsistence provisions, this activity is no longer
shared as a family pursuit or interest. Bison and other game animals that inhabit Reservation properties
are seen as particularly significant because they live in proximity to their spiritual feedlots and because
they roam on the grounds where the Great Migrations took place, where the Tribes first experienced the
earth's smorgasbord, or where Iktomi traveled in his various quests to trick the people. Most
traditionalists believe that the meat of bison has greater health-giving properties. Besides meat, there are
many other animal parts, including hides, bones, skulls, shells, cartilage, bones, blood, and organs that
have traditional cultural values and purposes. Tribal Elders might legitimately request any of these animal
parts when young hunters bring home their reward. The following list summarizes the animals whose
body parts have been customarily used as food, in craft tools, in healing and in various religious
observances: Antelope, Ants, Badger, Bear, Beaver, Bighorn, Bison, Blue Jays, Bobcats, Butterflies,
Coyote, Crane, Crow, Curlew, Dragonflies, Ducks, Eagles, Elk, Falcons, Ferret, Flicker, Fox, Geese,
Gopher, Grasshoppers, Grouse, Hawks, Kingfisher, Lion, Magpie, Meadowlark, Mink, Moths, Mouse,
Mountain Mule Deer, Nighthawk, Otter, Owls, Pelican, Porcupine, Prairie Chicken, Prairie Dog, Rabbit,
Skunk, Squirrels, Sparrow, Spiders, Swallow, Turkey, Vultures, Warbler, Weasel, Whitetail Deer,
Woodchucks, Woodpeckers, Wolf.
Folia: The Fort Peck Reservation has long been associated with traditional plant collecting. Undeniably,
the plants that grow in this area are believed to have more potency because of their association with
strong and wet winters that govern the hardiness, growth and types of pollinators. The Fort Peck
Reservation contains a host of plants important as food and medicine, in veterinary practice and in
manufacturing, and with spiritual and symbolic significance:
American Licorice, Beardtongue, Blazingstar, Blue Vervain, Breadroot Scurfpea, Cattail, Cleavers,
Common Yarrow, Cowparsnip, Curlycup Gumweed, Evening Primrose, False Boneset, False Gromwell,
Ground Cedar, Fetid Marigold, Field mint, Fleabane, Goldenrod, Goosefoot, Gromwell, Groundcherry,
Hairy golden aster, Horseweed, Lanceleaf, bluebells, Locoweed, Mariposa Lily, Milkvetch, Milkweeds,
lily, Wild Potatoes, American Elm, Ash, Bearberry, Box Elder, Buckthorn, Bur Oak, Buffaloberry,
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
43
Chokecherry, Cottonwood, Currant, Dogwood, Elderberry, False Indigo, Hackberry, Hawthorn, Hazelnut,
Juniper, Leadplant, Nannyberry, Poison Ivy, Ponderosa, Raspberry, Sagewort, Sandcherry, Serviceberry,
Skunkbush. Snakeweed, Snowberry, Sumac, Virgin's Bower, Wild Plum, Willow, Woodbine, Grasses,
Rushes, Bulrush, Big bluestem, Grama, Junegrass, Little bluestem, Porcupine grass, Prairie cordgrass,
Prairie sandreed, Wild rye, Lichens, Fungi, Puffballs.
Dogwood and sage are important traditional cultural properties, and they occupy a central place in the
healing and ceremonial traditions of the Assiniboine and Sioux. Properties from both plants can be taken
without destroying the resource. Tribal healers are reluctant to talk about and identify the sources of their
medicine. This is considered privileged information, which is not even shared with fellow tribal members.
People are hesitant to talk about the locations where they gather plants for fear that divulging such
information leads to restrictions on future access, especially in areas close to home.
SOCIOECONOMICS
The severe and unrelenting poverty on the Fort Peck Reservation permeates every aspect of reservation
life and impact’s business, the law enforcement system, schools, the health care system and the
environment. It is often compared to the Great Depression suffered in the United States during the 1930’s
and rivals economic and social conditions in third world countries. U.S. Census data and Montana
Department of Labor and Industry statistics verify the extreme poverty rates, unemployment rates,
housing shortages and other socioeconomic factors that have become daily living conditions on the Fort
Peck Reservation.
Of the approximately 13,046 residents of the Fort Peck Reservation, over one-third lives below the
poverty level. Forty percent are children under the age of 18. The unemployment rate exceeds 63 percent,
compared to the national average of 4 percent. Of the 13,046 residents, 6,678 are without employment.
Roosevelt county, which is home to 60 percent of the acreage and 88 percent the Native American
population in the four counties that the Fort Peck Reservation overlaps ranks second, out of 56 counties,
for the highest percent of children between the ages 5-17 living in poverty according to the State of
Montana Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Because of American Indian low-income levels, 52 percent of American Indians living on the Fort Peck
Reservation are living in rental units compared to 26 percent of non-Indians. One third of families pay
more than 35 percent of their income for gross rent. Gross family income for most of the American
Indians is $650.00/mo., 35% for rent equals $227.50, leaving the family with $422.50 to pay for all other
monthly expenses.
Health care programs, including wellness and prevention services, are not meeting the needs of the
residents of the Fort Peck Reservation. 50% of students on the Reservation test positive for the
preconditions associated with Type 2 Diabetes, over 800 residents have Indian Health Services funding to
address diabetes among Native Americans was “so severely under-funded that it served less than 20% of
those who could benefit from it.” The Association also said that the rate of diagnosed diabetes in Native
America is 259% higher than the U.S. average, and end stage renal disease was 579% higher. The Fort
Peck Reservation suffers from a 5-year backlog of dental needs for residents, especially children and
elders, a chronic shortage of health care professionals willing to work in this remote, rural area
contributes to lengthy waits for health care services, causing residents to take the expensive route and
head to the area emergency room for ailments that could be treated during routine office visits.
American Indian student dropout of school at rates that are six times higher than their non-Indian
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
44
counterparts according to the US Department of Education (2010). They account for 25 percent of the
student dropouts in the state. The relationship between lack of education and unemployment is clear.
Those who drop out of school are also those who cannot or do not obtain and hold employment.
Approximately 30% of Indian youth between the ages of 16 and 19 are not enrolled in school. Of those,
approximately 70% are unemployed.
Crime and violence rank above the national and regional averages on the Fort Peck Reservation. In 1993,
one out of seven children had been abused, according to the Fort Peck Tribes Comprehensive Social
Services Plan, which also noted that the Reservation had 1,700 referrals in one year. American Indian
residents on the Fort Peck Reservation are more than twice as likely to die an accidental or violent death
(homicide or suicide) than their non-Indian counterparts according to the Montana State Office of Public
Information. Accidents are the third leading cause of death in Roosevelt County, compared to fifth
statewide, according to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.
Demographic Trends
Housing
Community Infrastructure
Lifestyle and Cultural Values
The core strength of the Fort Peck Tribe lies with the commitment of the Fort Peck people to the
preservation of their culture, language, and religion, and their continuing commitment to education.
Despite centuries of western civilization encroachment and development in the West, the general
philosophy of the Tribe has fostered a long tradition of low-impact resource use that focused on
subsistence agriculture. However, as goals and interests have become more diverse over recent years,
the Tribe has considered expanding the economic base of activities to encourage economic growth,
while maintaining the cultural custom of self-sufficiency.
Environmental Justice
Presidential EO 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 CFR 7629 [1994]), instructs federal agencies to
incorporate environmental justice as part of their mission. As such, federal agencies are directed to
identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The project
area is located within a community with a significant low-income population and a minority population.
The Fort Peck are the only people involved in this development project.
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS
Current Land Uses/Land Use Plans
The topography is generally flat and the land is currently farmed in small grains. The site is
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
45
approximately 605 feet from the nearest housing development, Airport Addition, in Poplar. The
underlying site soils are associated with Williams and Zahill loams which are both comprised of welldrained, loamy glacial till. The adjacent land use is small grain farming. The dominant vegetation in the
area consists of Western wheatgrass, bluegrass, and cheatgrass.
This site has been identified by the Tribes’ Brownfields program as the site of an old landfill site used by
the City of Poplar and the Fort Peck Tribes. A Phase I assessment has been completed on this site and has
been selected for a Phase II assessment. The Phase II assessment has been initiated and will be completed
by July 2014.
It is unknown when an unofficial landfill started in the original Oxbow location of the Poplar River.
Interviews indicate that when the landfill was moved from the Oxbow because of occasional flooding to a
location further east of the River in about 1971, there was an agreement between the County and Tribe for
the County to collect the trash from Tribal and non-Tribal households, business, and industrial entities in
the area and deposited the wastes in the landfill, which was located on Tribal Trust Land. The landfill was
known then as the Poplar Landfill and today as the Old Poplar Landfill. It operated from approximately
1971- 1986. In August 1978, the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science, Solid Waste
Management Bureau issued a conditional license for operations of the landfill. An Operations and
Maintenance Plan was developed in October 1978 but needed changes to the operational procedures to be
in compliance with regulations. In 1984, the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science,
Solid Waste Management Bureau conducted an inspection and issued a report stating that the operation
should be immediately improved, a compliance plan should be developed and a solid waste management
system license be obtained. No evidence was found to indicate these steps were completed and in 1986,
the landfill operations were moved to a site further east of town and the old landfill site was covered and
seeded. (The new location east of town is also known as the Poplar Landfill.)
In addition to the landfill, there are potential environmental concerns from the adjoining properties
including the Poplar Airport and Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
equipment and maintenance products storage area – which was formerly known as the BIA equipment
and maintenance products storage area. Due to operational and maintenance products used on both sites,
contaminants may have been released to the air, soil and water that may have or could migrate to the
landfill. In a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report conducted for the Poplar Airport and Potential
Impacts Associated with Adjoining Properties (dated October 2006), the following environmental
concerns were noted. Observations and records show that airport and crop dusting operations from the
1940s – 1960s involved the use of pesticides that, if released, would pose a recognized environmental
condition. The operator of the airport had worked with Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 to mitigate fuel storage tank issues.
Small spills related to fueling, crop dusting, and maintenance and storage procedures may have occurred
over the years although current observations indicated that the products are stored in appropriate
containers. Although there is documentation of underground and aboveground storage tank releases
within a two-mile radius and major contamination issues with a nearby well, all of these sites are off of
the airport property and appear to be down gradient from the surface and ground water flows or contained
in the tight clay soils which overlay the area aquifers. A possible exception to this may be Larry’s
Conoco, which is located approximately ½ mile to the west of the Poplar Airport. It has unresolved issues
related to petroleum releases, removal and disposal of contaminated soils, the need to identify the extent
of soil and groundwater contamination, the need develop and implement a remediation plan for the site,
and a potential petroleum plume migrating towards the sewer line. The adjoining IRR/BIA equipment and
maintenance products storage area contains hazardous materials, although current observations indicate
that the products are stored in appropriate containers. A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the
Poplar Airport is currently being performed, but as of the date of this report, the Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment Report has not been completed. It is recommended that a Phase II Environmental Site
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
46
Assessment be conducted to assist in determining the type and extend of contamination in relation to the
Old Poplar Landfill. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment includes collecting samples, sending the
samples to a certified lab for analysis and then recommending options to mitigate the situation if any are
necessary. This recommendation is based upon the following findings of this Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment: unknown potential contamination from residential, business and industrial sources of wastes
deposited in the landfill that may pose a threat to health and the environment; potential contamination
leaching from the landfill towards the Poplar River; potential releases and migration impacts from
operational and maintenance uses at the adjoining properties of the Poplar Airport and
IRR/BIA equipment and maintenance products storage areas. Additionally, reuse options of the site
should take into consideration the presence of a former landfill. If prior to or during future assessment or
cleanup activities, additional information indicates potential contamination or safety issues assessment
and cleanup strategies would be developed and implemented.
OTHER VALUES
Public Health and Safety
Emergency services are provided by the Tribe, including police, fire, and medical. The BIA Fort Peck
Agency’s Police Station and Fire Rescue are located in Poplar, which in case of fire or emergency
would be the first responders to the proposed development site. The distance between the project area
and emergency services is similar to many other villages. The Fort Peck Health Indian Health Service
is located within one mile of the development area. These services would be provided on-site for the
Proposed Action.
Noise and Light
The Noise Control Act of 1972 gives the EPA the authority to establish noise regulations to control major
sources of noise, including transportation vehicles and construction equipment. The most widely accepted
land use related noise standards are those of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The most
significant existing ambient noise source is U.S. Highway 2 that runs through the entire reservation, east to
west.
Sensitive noise receptors are considered to be residences, hospitals, libraries, recreation areas, churches,
and other similar uses. No sensitive receptors exist near the project area.
Light pollution, obtrusive or unwanted nighttime lighting, is a side effect of human-occupied areas. It is
a negative externality for activities involved with astronomical observation and wilderness areas. The
project area is rural and contains little to no light sources in the vicinity. There are no observatories or
designated wilderness areas near the project area.
Visual
Landscapes and their scenic quality vary according to the diversity of landforms, vegetation, and
cultural or human-made features present. In general, landscapes with greater diversity of features are
considered to be of higher scenic quality. The Fort Peck Plan does address visions, goals, and policies
for landscapes and open space.
The project area and immediately adjacent lands offer little topographic variation, and vegetation
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
47
consists of grasslands and range land. The project area has also been partially cleared and contains
access roads. Surrounding views are wide and few obstructions or large natural features are present in
adjacent areas.
Climate Change
On February 18, 2010, the CEQ issued three draft guidance documents, one of which addresses when
and how Federal agencies should consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their
proposed actions, and the other addresses when agencies need to monitor commitments made in EAs
and EISs (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). Where the proposed activity is subject to GHG emissions
accounting requirements, such as Clean Air Act reporting requirements that apply to stationary sources
that directly emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2-equivalent GHG on an annual basis, the agency
should include this information in the NEPA documentation for consideration by decision makers and
the public (CEQ 2010). However, it is not currently useful for the NEPA analysis to attempt to link
specific climatological changes, or the environmental impacts thereof, to the particular project or
emissions, as such direct linkage is difficult to isolate and to understand. The estimated level of GHG
emissions can serve as a reasonable proxy for assessing potential climate change impacts, and provide
decision makers and the public with useful information for a reasoned choice among alternatives.
The Fort Peck reservation in general is a sparsely populated, low carbon intensity area, with little to no
heavy industry, commercial or institutional activity.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
48
This page intentionally left blank.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
49
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the changes or impacts to the human and natural environment that can be expected
from implementing the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 2, the
Proposed Action includes conceptual plan elements, but the exact footprint of each element, timing or
types of construction, etc., are unknown. As a result, the following impact analysis is programmatic in
nature. Potential impacts are described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity. Definitions are
defined as follows.

Type describes the classification of the impact as either beneficial or adverse, direct
or indirect:
o
Beneficial: A positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource or a change
that moves the resource toward a desired condition.
o
Adverse: A change that moves the resource away from a desired condition or detracts
from its appearance or condition.
o
Direct: An effect that is caused by an action and occurs at the same time and place.
o
Indirect: An effect that is caused by an action but occurs later in time or is farther
removed in distance, but is still reasonably foreseeable.

Context describes the area or location in which the impact would occur. Are the effects sitespecific, local, regional, or even broader?

Duration describes the length of time an effect would occur, either short-term or long-term:

o
Short-term impacts generally last only during construction, and the resources resume
their pre-construction conditions following construction.
o
Long-term impacts last beyond the construction period, and the resources may not
recover to their pre-construction conditions for a longer period of time following
construction.
Intensity describes the degree, level, or strength of an impact. For this analysis, intensity has
been categorized into negligible, minor, moderate, and major.
Impacts are considered minor if project-related impacts would occur, but resources would retain existing
character and overall baseline conditions. Impacts are considered moderate if project-related impacts would
occur, and resources would partially retain existing character. Some baseline conditions would remain
unchanged. Finally, project-related impacts would occur that would create a high degree of change within
the existing resource character and overall condition of resources.
LAND RESOURCES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the BIA would not approve a Master Development for the Fort Peck
Tribal - Old Airport. Existing land use at the site would continue, and the tribe would not be authorized to
develop space, submit grants or requests for many types of funding, or construct any buildings or
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
50
improvements on the property. No changes to land resources at the site (topography, soils, and geology,
minerals or paleontological) are anticipated.
The Fort Peck Tribe could proceed with elements of the Fort Peck Tribal - Old Airport project or other
tribal projects using tribal money as long as no other Development, right-of-way, or approval is required
that might trigger a federal action. Impacts would thus be similar or less than those discussed under the
proposed action alternative. Alternatively, existing land use at the site could continue and the site could
remain undeveloped.
Proposed Action Alternative
Under the Proposed Action, the tribe and associated parties would be able to develop the parcel consistent
with the terms of the Master Development. The timing, phasing, and extent of development are unknown,
however site-wide grading would be necessary for utilities, buildings, and roadways prior to construction.
The majority of the site has been previously disturbed through acts of road construction, rough grading,
farming and airport development. Added disturbances for the Proposed Action would have a minor impact
on existing topography both during the short term and long term. Direct impacts resulting from the
Proposed Action would include exposure of soils and increased risk of erosion, as well as the potential for
soil compaction. Indirect impacts resulting from the Proposed Action could include increased risk of
erosion from increased storm runoff across paved areas and from wind in disturbed areas.
The potential for paleontological resources in the project area is low to moderate (Class 2 or 3 using the
PFYC system described in Chapter 3). Monitoring during ground disturbing is only required for areas
classified as 4 or higher (see Appendix D).
Any development would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit to ensure that erosion-control measures are implemented during construction. Buildings would be
constructed to meet nationally adopted building codes that would be adopted under the local Zoning Code.
Due to the implementation of mitigation and project design features, the Proposed Action would have longterm, negligible, direct, and indirect impacts to land resources in the project area and minor beneficial
impacts to topography through enhancement of existing rock outcroppings, and to soils through improved
landscape and agricultural practices.
WATER RESOURCES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, existing land use at the site would continue and there would be no
change to water resources at the site (surface water or groundwater). Water demands would only be
commensurate with existing demands from existing Fort Peck developments, meaning its use under the no
action alternative would have little to no net effect to the local aquifer.
Proposed Action Alternative
The Fort Peck Water Resource Program oversees water management on the Fort Peck Reservation and the
Fort Peck Tribes have the right to withdraw groundwater beneath the Reservation for on-Reservation
beneficial use in accordance with any groundwater management plan which may be developed by the
Tribe. Regulations and procedures outlined in the city Water Code would be implemented and integrated
into surface water use and groundwater use plans. The Proposed Action would have short- and long-term,
minor, direct, and indirect impacts to water resources in the project area.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
51
LIVING RESOURCES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, existing land use at the site would continue and there would be no
change to living resources at the site (vegetation and wildlife)..
Proposed Action Alternative
As noted in Chapter 3, vegetation in the project area has already been modified from years of agricultural
practices and airport management. The Proposed Action would include ground disturbance and site
grading that would result in the additional modification of vegetation and grazing habitat in areas where
construction, excavation, and paving are planned (short term). Ground disturbance also increases the
potential for invasive plant species to propagate because of disturbance of areas and possible seed
introduction from machinery. Best management practices identified in Chapter 2 are expected to mitigate
the introduction of invasive species.
Ground disturbance and grading that would remove vegetation would result in habitat modification in the
project footprint; however, unique vegetation communities, riparian areas, water, or forage sources attracting
and concentrating wildlife populations do not occur in the development area. Wildlife would likely avoid the
area during construction (short-term) activities. This could result in disturbances to individual wildlife from
increased human presence in the area including vehicle traffic, recreational uses, and other activities. There
would also be an increased potential for road mortality due to increased vehicle traffic in the area. Overall,
the Fort Peck Reservation is rural and undeveloped, providing undisturbed habitat for the vast majority of its
area. The Proposed Action would likely result in some short- and long-term impacts to habitat and individual
wildlife, however in the context of overall habitat available on the Reservation; these impacts are expected to
be minor. The Proposed Action would have short- and long-term, negligible, direct, and indirect impacts to
vegetation and wildlife in the project area, particularly with implementation of project sustainability
features. No designated critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species exists on or near the
proposed project area.
The Proposed Action alternative would have short- and long-term, moderate, direct and indirect impacts
in the project area and minor beneficial impacts through planned range improvement programs.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, no construction activities and, therefore, no additional ground
disturbance would occur in the project area. There would be no new impacts to cultural resources under
the No-Action Alternative.
Proposed Action Alternative
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act considers the effects of the Old Poplar Airport
Economic Development have on the cultural resources. The BIA in consultation with the fort Peck Tribal
Historic Preservation Office mitigates any effect to cultural resources this project may have.
Ft Peck Tribe is proposing a commercial development area consisting of a wellness center, hotel, travel
information center, commercial plazas and housing development. The area proposed for the project is
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
52
located at the old Poplar airport. Along with using township, range and sections, the proposed project area
can be defined on a map between the streets of: The Poplar River Rd, Medicine Bear Rd, Airport Addition
Rd and the Frontage Rd, located in the city limits of Poplar, MT, Fort Peck Reservation.
Setting: Historically the whole project area was seeded farm ground. In present time the current setting is
half seeded farm ground and the other half is the decommissioned Poplar airport, with native grass. The
project area in its entirety was previously disturbed and continues to be so. The farm ground is broken up
and re-seeded annually and the old airport area has construction activities currently happening to clean up the
area and take out the air strip and associated comments.
BIA archaeologist conducted a pedestrian survey using 15 meter transects survey method. The survey was
conducted on April 29 and 30, 2013. After survey was completed on the 30th, the BIA archaeologist brought
a Ft Peck THPO monitor out to the survey area to look at possible cultural areas. Herman Pipe (monitor) did
not have any concerns over the area; specifically mentioning “no cultural concerns”.
Results/Recommendations: No archaeological or cultural sites were located within the project area. BIA
offers two recommendations; one prior to construction and one during construction. First, the road slated for
development located on the south side of hotel development area is recommended to be re-designed into a
road with a turn-around at the end; there should not be a need to cut into the hill side for connection to
Medicine Bear Rd. This recommendation reduces the probability of soil erosion and road maintenance in
that section. The second recommendation is to have a Fort Peck THPO monitor present for all ground
disturbing activities watching for inadvertent discoveries.
SOCIOECONOMICS
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the BIA would not approve a Master Development for the Poplar
Community and existing land use at the site would continue, and tribe would not be authorized to space,
request funding, or construct any buildings or improvements on the property. The need for additional
housing development on the Reservation would not be met by this Proposed Action. The Fort Peck Tribal
Council would not realize tribal land use goals of developing a major development center as part of their
self-determination efforts as a tribal nation.
Proposed Action Alternative
The Proposed Action would result in a short-term increase in available jobs in the area during
construction. There could be a minor, short-term increase in population as workers would likely come
from the Reservation and Reservation people returning home from Winslow, Flagstaff, and other
locations for these construction jobs.
After the development is complete, an increase in commercial services in the area, and newly available
housing to Fort Peck residents would result, including an increase in attendant employment. Additional
housing at the site is intended to alleviate the Reservation-wide housing shortage, therefore no increase in
population is expected in the long term.
Housing would be designed to meet a full range of housing needs for ownership and rental conditions.
The housing increase would increase the number of homes on the Fort Peck Reservation, something the
community is in need of.
Indirect impacts would include a potential increase in tourism in the area, because the Fort Peck Tribal Old Airport would provide an anchor and gateway for tourist activity on the Reservation. Increased
tourism activity would result in an increase in incomes for Tribal residents and general revenues for the
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
53
Fort Peck Tribe.
The Fort Peck Reservation is considered an environmental justice community (minority and low-income).
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term employment opportunities,
potentially leading to an increase in local resident income. Development of housing and associated
facilities within the development would raise the availability of housing on the. No disproportionately high
or adverse impacts to environmental justice communities are anticipated. The Proposed Action would result
in short- and long-term, minor, direct, and indirect beneficial impacts to minority and low-income
populations on the Reservation.
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the BIA would not approve a Master Development for the Fort Peck
Tribal - Old Airport and existing land use at the site would continue. No changes to transportation
networks or land use would result. There would be no increase in vehicular traffic on project area
roadways.
Proposed Action Alternative
The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term, minor, direct, and indirect impacts to resource
use patterns on the Reservation.
OTHER VALUES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the BIA would not approve a Master Development for the Fort Peck
Tribal - Old Airport and existing land use at the site would continue. No changes beyond current
conditions are anticipated.
Proposed Action Alternative
Public Health and Safety
The Proposed Action includes plans for an institutional campus, space for health and wellness services
within the Town Center, sites for a fire station and police station, sites for elder housing within the
housing neighborhoods, and possibly a detention facility. Public health and safety would be addressed
within the developed community.
The Proposed Action would result in generation of domestic trash, which would be accommodated by the
Office of Solid Waste Management. The project is not expected to generate or utilize hazardous chemicals
during construction. Additional waste generated would be transported to the solid waste landfill 2 miles east,
which is lined to protect groundwater supplies. Radiation has not been a problem in the vicinity of the project
area, but if concerns about radon are raised during construction processes, additional surveys can be
completed after the earthwork construction is complete.
Noise and Light
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
54
The development of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in no long-term increase in noise or
light over that presently occurring in the project area. Construction noise would be intermittent and
temporary. Activities within the development would generate ambient noise through vehicle, electric, and
other infrastructure equipment. Noise receptors would only be created within the proposed action,
although this is temporary during the construction activities.
Outdoor lighting would comply with Fort Peck development guidelines and ordinances to minimize the
effects of light pollution. The proposed development is not expected to increase the light pollution;
lighting at the proposed facility would comply with Fort Peck ordinances to minimize the effects of light
pollution from the facility by use of shields, dimmers, and/or full cutoff lighting fixtures.
Visual
Similarly, the development of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in no decrease in the scenic
quality of the landscape, and would not obstruct or detract from viewsheds, except in within the immediate
area of buildings. Proposed development includes buildings designed with facades, shapes and at heights to
maintain goals of the Fort Peck Reservation, which include balancing economic development and
traditional values (OCPED 2001: Appendix I).
Climate Change
The proposed development is not be subject to laws and regulations of the Clean Air Act, as no major or
minor point sources are anticipated in future development. No individual facilities within the proposed
action are expected to be subject to GHG emissions accounting requirements.
The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term, negligible, direct, and indirect impacts to public
health and safety, Noise and Light, Visual, and Climate Change.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts analysis area includes the project footprint and the Fort Peck Reservation.
The projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis are listed in Appendix C, Table C-1.
Water Resources
Low- to medium-density residential housing is expected to develop slowly throughout the village areas,
but population projections are modest, and residential water uses are significantly lower than agricultural
or industrial uses. The Proposed Action would not contribute cumulative impacts to groundwater depletion,
as water used for demolition, construction, and operation wouldl come from an existing well. Additional
demands on the Fort Peck water development program may arise if it becomes integrated into the village
network of wells and storage, but the future growth is expected to be modest on the Reservation. The
Proposed Action is not expected to impact the current or projected water delivery amounts for the region.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife from ongoing development would include removal of
native vegetation. Cumulative impacts to habitat in the area would not be significant.
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Approval by the BIA of the Master Development would enable the Fort Peck Tribe to generate new
revenues, both directly through leasing of facilities and indirectly by attracting customers to other cultural
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
55
and recreational amenities in the immediate area. This would have the potential cumulative effect of
contributing to greater employment opportunities, delivery of quality services and improved quality of life
for Tribal members.
Resource Use Patterns
The increase in traffic discussed above would result in a minor incremental cumulative impact to the
modest growth within the Reservation, particularly near the villages.
The possible extension of roads within the project area would become an important future roadway into
Fort Peck from the north, creating much-needed connections with tourism traffic in the area. With
extensions of this roadway would come future improvements to the existing BIA roadway system
necessary for the increased traffic.
If multiple construction activities occur simultaneously, then cumulative impacts from demolition
construction noise could occur. In the future, when construction of buildings takes place, the CDC would
be responsible for assessing other construction activities in the area to determine whether the project
would cause noise or air quality impacts. If multiple construction projects are implemented at the same
time, construction activities can be phased to minimize noise and air quality impairment.
IMPACT SUMMARY
Table 4-1.
Impact Summary
Resource/ Resource
Use
No-Action Alternative
Proposed Action Alternative
Land Resources (Topography)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to topography.
Land Resources (Soils)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to soils.
Land Resources (Geology, Minerals,
Paleontology)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to geology.
Water Resources (Surface)
No impact expected.
Minor impacts to surface water.
Water Resources (Ground)
No impact expected.
Minor impacts to ground water.
Living Resources (Vegetation)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to vegetation.
Living Resources (Wildlife)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to vegetation.
Living Resources (Agriculture)
No impact expected.
Negligible impacts to agriculture
Cultural Resources
No impact expected.
No impact expected.
Socioeconomics
Revenues unrealized and
no additional temporary
or permanent jobs. No
additional housing.
Minor beneficial impacts expected through additional housing, job
creation, and revenue generation.
Environmental Justice
No impact expected.
Minor beneficial impacts expected through additional housing, job
creation, and revenue generation.
Resource Use Patterns (Transportation)
No impact expected.
Minor impacts to transportation.
Resource Use Patterns (Land
Use)
No impact expected.
Minor impacts to land use.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as “the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
56
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7).
If the actions under each alternative have no direct or indirect effect on a resource, then the cumulative
impacts on that resource are not addressed. In any NEPA analysis, it is preferable to quantify the
assessment of effects (changes) on each affected resource. This is true for direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects. Where possible, the analysis is quantified. Where quantification is not available, a meaningful and
qualified judgment of cumulative effects is included to inform the public and the decision maker.
The cumulative impacts analysis area includes the project footprint and the Fort Peck Reservation. The
following projects were considered in the cumulative effects analysis; the actual analyses are presented by
resource in Chapter 3, not in this appendix.
Projects Considered
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to this project are considered.
The impacts of past and present actions (Table C-1) have been incorporated into the existing condition
discussions included within each resource presented in Chapter 3.
Table C-1. Past and Present Actions
Past and Present
Activities*
Location
Geotechnical testing
Within project area
Water well testing
Within project area
Fort Peck Arsenic
Mitigation Project
(HAMP), Turquoise Well
2 miles southeast of
the Fort Peck Tribal
- Old Airport
Past and Present
Activities*
Fort Peck Tribal - Old
Airport
Electricity/Transmission
Location
To be determined
General Description
WLB 2004; testing conducted
for project
WLB 2004; testing conducted
for project
Past, Present,
Future
Past
Past
Two additional HAMP wells
Ongoing
and a storage tank proposed
along with a waterline, located
approximately 1 and 2 miles
southeast of the Fort Peck
Tribal - Old Airport. These
Past, Present,
General Description
would
Future
provide/expand/upgrade the
network
of wells
to meet tribal Future
Power
source
for community,
demands,
either
APSincreasing
or NTUA supply
stability with high quality
water. In addition to the
Turqoise Well producing up to
345 gpm, these two wells are
estimated at similar capacities.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
57
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
As discussed in the agency scoping summary in Chapter 1, federal, state, local, and Tribal agencies
cooperatively wrote this PEA. The parties are listed below.
Fort Peck Health Care Center
Fort Peck Tribe Office of Range Management
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Fort Peck Agency – Wildland Fire Management
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Fort Peck Agency – Law Enforcement Services
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
59
CHAPTER 6. LIST OF PREPARERS
Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocky Mountain Region
Justin Moshelle Staff Archaeologist Chapter 4 Cultural Resources
Jo’Etta Plumage Regional Archaeologist reviewer
Fort Peck Tribe
Tribal Historic Preservation Office -Curly Youpee Chapter 3 Cultural Resources
Environmental -Deb Madison Chapter 2 , 3, 4
Economic Development Walter White Tail Feather Chapter 3 and 4 Social Economic
Felix M. McGowan, CEO Nishnaabe/Pembina Enterprises LLC Editor Chapter 1-4
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
60
This page intentionally left blank.
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
61
CHAPTER 7. LITERATURE CITED
1905 Curtis Edwards S. The North American Indian: Volume 3 by
Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition 1804 – 1806
1907 Edward S. Curtis The North American Indian: Vol.3.; The Yanktonai; 119, The
Assiniboine; 125, The Teton Sioux 137, pub. ()
1908 Thomas C The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas:
1911 Winchell N.H. Aborigines of Minnesota: A Report; Based on the Collections of Jacob
V. Brower, and on the Field Surveys and Notes of Alfred J. Hill and Theodore H.
Lewis – Collated, Augmented and Described By – Published By the Minnesota Historic
Society (1906– 1911)
1920 Major Stephen H. Long The Yellowstone Expedition of 1819 – 1920: Secretary of War;
Corps of Engineers, USA "You will conciliate the Indians by kindness and presents,
and will ascertain as far as practical the number and character of the various tribes, with
the extent of the country claimed by each." Library of Congress Cataloging-inPublication Data; Chittenden, Hiram Martin
1953 Hurt, Wesley R, House Types of the Santee Indians; Museum News W. H. Over
Museum 14(11): 1-3, Additional Notes on Dakota House Types of South Dakota;
Museum News, W. H. Over Museum 15(1): 3.
1986 Raymond J. Demallie, Royal B. Hassrick, and Glenn E. Markoe Vestiges of a Proud
Nation: The Ogden B. Read Northern Plains Indian Collection. With essays by.
University of Nebraska Press,. (Illustrated catalog of a well-documented collection in
the Robert Hall Fleming Museum, University of Vermont)
1987 USACE,US Army Corps Of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm
2002
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water
System Fort Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie Service Areas Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
2003 Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (DOT FHWA). .
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054, DOTVNTSC-FHWA-05-01. USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Acoustics Facility, Cambridge,
MA 02142.
2004 Therivel, Riki Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, http://www.ebookcenter.ir
2006 Atkinson, S.J. and Dood, A.R.. Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. Montana
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
62
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, Montana. 78 pp.
2008
Montana Noxious Weed Summit Advisory Council Montana Noxious Weed 1 Summit
Advisory Council2 Weed Management Task Force. 2008. The Montana Weed
Management Plan. In Cooperation 3 With Montana Weed Control Association, Federal
and State Agencies, Montana University 4 System, County Weed Districts, and Private
Land Managers. Available online at: 5
http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Weeds/PDF/2008weedPlan.pdfMontana
2010 Final Fort Peck Detention Center Environmental Assessment. Fort Peck Tribes
Environmental Protection
2010a US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS).. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes).
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/factsheets/Black-Footed-Ferret.pdf.
2010b US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 1,
2010 Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System (ASRWSS). Fort Peck Tribes. BOR
2012 US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed
6/1/2013, from Wetlands Inventory Data - Keyhole Markup Language File:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/index.html
2012
Indian Affairs National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guidebook, 59 IAM 3-H.
` Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Division of Environmental and Cultural Resources Management.
2012a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Guidance for the Montana/Dakotas Bureau of
Land Management to Meet Responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and Executive Order 13186. Instruction Memorandum No. MT-2012.
2012a. Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, List of Migratory Birds. U.S. Fish and
WildlifeService Migratory Bird Program. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/taxolst.html.
2012b. List of threatened and endangered species. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Threatened.htm#CountyList.
2012b. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Nest Dragging Protects Migratory Bird Nests.
online at: http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/info/newsroom/steward/07fall/nest.html
2013 Klienfelder, Environmental Assessment For The East Poplar Unit Carbon Dioxide
Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Project East Poplar Unit 200, 201, 202iw, 203, & 204
Wells
2013 Cardno ENTRIX. Environmental Assessment For Fort Peck 3D Seismic Survey
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
63
2013 SWCA Tawa’ovi Community Development Project Programmatic Environmental
Assessment Available at www.hopi-nsn.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/06052013_Tawaovi-EA
2013 Montana Field Guide, Animals Plants, Lichen and Ecological Systems
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/
2013a Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT). Traffic Data Collection and
Analysis. Available24 online at
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/statewide_traffic.shtml
2013 American Prairie Reserve. Swift Fox Reintroduction and Study.
2013a US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS).. Species Profile, Black-Footed ferret (Mustela
nigripes).
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004.
2013b US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS).. Black-footed ferret information, USFWS
Montana Ecological Services Field Office, listed species information. Accessed
6/4/2013 online at http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/.
2013 Fort Peck Tribes. 2013. Fish and Game Department. Available online at
16 http://www.fortpecktribes.org/fgd/.
2013c US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed 6/3/2013
online at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/.
2013d US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and
Candidate Species Montana Counties, Endangered Species Act.
httpttp://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/countyl
ist.pdf
2013e US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS).Fact Sheet, Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirynchus
albus). http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/fishes/palld_fc.html.
2013f US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Denver, CO. February 2013.US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). 2013g. List of
Migratory Birds.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/regulationspolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html.
2013h US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) Species
Profilehttp://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0GD
2013i US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). Threatened, Endangered and Candidate
Species For the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Accessed 5/23/2013 online at
http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Reservati
ons/Fort_Peck_Reservation_sp_list.pdf
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
64
2013j US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) Whooping crane (Grus Americana) Species
Profile http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003.
nd.
Fort Peck Tribes Cultural Resources Department – World Views of the Fort Peck
Traditionals
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
65
APPENDIX A.
FORT PECK RESERVATION USFWS SPECIES LIST
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
66
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013
67
APPENDIX B.
THPO LETTER AND RESPONSE
Fort Peck Tribal – Old Airport Development Project Programmatic Environmental
September 2013