Note: Nice Chapter 3 from the Taylor Fork FEIS (with both affected environment and environmental consequences combined) for three water and fish issues. It is easy to read and understand with appropriate supporting information in the project file.
Issue 1 and Issue 2:
Fisheries -
Westslope Cutthroat Trout and
Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Areas
The cumulative effects of existing roads, past timber harvest and the proposed activities in the Buck Creek drainage could have an effect on westslope cutthroat trout by potentially increasing sediment delivery to the stream course. Westslope cutthroat trout have been petitioned to be listed as a Threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act by the USFWS. The Buck Creek population has been determined to represent a hybridized population of at least 90 percent genetic purity. The Taylor Fork population is more heavily hybridized with rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and is classified as less than 90% genetically pure.
Changes between the draft and final EIS
Several comments to the draft EIS fisheries analysis requested information on the genetic purity of the westslope cutthroat trout populations found in Taylor Fork and Buck Creek drainages. This information is provided describing the genetic purity sampling methods and findings performed in 1989 and 1994 within the analysis area. In addition, sediment delivery rates have been adjusted and effects analyses for water quality and fisheries have been updated to reflect road obliteration work that will occur in the summer of 1999. a. Affected Environment
 Taylor Creek
Taylor Creek is a fourth order tributary which enters the Gallatin River about 3 miles downstream of the
Yellowstone National Park boundary on US highway 191. Several large third order tributaries to Taylor
Creek including; Wapiti, Cache, and Lightning Creek drain this high elevation 160 square kilometer basin.
Highly erosive and naturally unstable soils derived from sedimentary rocks make up the primary geology in the basin. Historic and current land uses such as timber harvest, tie driving, splash damming, livestock grazing, road construction and channelization, have all resulted in accelerated sediment delivery rates and reduced stream channel stability within the Taylor Fork drainage.
In the mainstem Taylor Fork, stream channel stability was drastically influenced by historic splash damming and tie drives. Channel instabilities remain noticeable for some distance below the splash dam located in
T9S-R3E-SEC 9. Stream channel cross-sectional profiles reflect an over widened and braided character within this reach. Ireland (1993) as part of the investigation of seasonal distribution and habitat usage of westslope cutthroat within the Taylor Fork drainage described this stream section as having a width depth ratio of about 24, a high level of surface fines, and high degree of bank instability.
Ireland (1993) provides a detailed description of several habitat variables within 4 reaches of Taylor Creek including; percent surface fines, maximum pool depths and bank stability. Surface fines were estimated to be about 26% in the lower middle portion of the mainstem and only about 4% in the upper portion of the
Taylor Fork. Sediment core samples taken from the mainstem Taylor Fork at the very lower portion of the drainage indicated that sediment levels were moderately high (average percent fine sediment less than 6.3

mm was 28%). Stream channel instability was evident in all Taylor Fork reaches and Ireland (1993) attributed the instability to operation of the splash dam, grazing and roads. Pool quality and quantity was low in all reaches.
Westslope cutthroat trout of slightly less than 90 percent genetic purity are found throughout the Taylor Fork drainage (Table III-1). The sample taken in T9S-R3E-Sec. 20, during 1989 of 93 % genetic purity was taken in upper Taylor Creek upstream of the Lightning Creek confluence, subsequent sampling in 1993 immediately upstream of this location resulted in a sample of reduced genetic purity indicating possible further hybridization of this upper Taylor Fork population. No fish have been documented as present above Taylor
Falls upstream of these sample sites. As rainbow trout were stocked within Taylor Fork Creek up to the early
1990s and as the drainage is not isolated from the Gallatin River, the chances of the mainstem Taylor Fork
Creek containing westslope cutthroat trout population of greater than 90 percent genetic purity is extremely small.
**Table III-1. Genetic sampling of westslope cutthroat trout within the Taylor Fork drainage.
Date Location Sample Size Genetic Purity WSC
1989 Taylor
1993 Taylor
1993 Tumbledown
1989 Cache
1989 Dead Horse
1992 Wapiti Ck.
T9S-R3E-SEC 20
T9S-R3E-SEC19
T9S-R3E-SEC19
T9S-R3E-SEC 4
T9S-R3E-SEC 3
T10S-R3E-SEC 3&10
25
13
3
25
25
15
93%
84%
84%
87%
85%
57%
Distributions and habitat use information indicated that the mainstem Taylor Fork supported very low densities of cutthroat (0.3-2 fish/100 sq meter in summer, 0.4-4 fish/100 sq. meter in winter). Several reasons for the very low cutthroat densities were identified and include: 1) influence of elevation and stream order; 2) competition with introduced species; 3) proximity to spawning areas; and 4) high angling mortality. Poor quality pool environments have also likely contributed to the low trout densities. It is also expected that rainbow trout from the Gallatin River utilize the lower portion of Taylor Fork for spawning.
Magee (1993) completed an in depth survey of westslope cutthroat spawning habitat within the Taylor Fork drainage. He was unable to locate cutthroat redds within the mainstem Taylor Fork because of turbidity associated with high flows at the time of sampling. Magee (1993) reported fine sediment (< 6.3 mm diameter) levels to average about 39 % within spawning substrates of the Taylor Fork drainage which is higher than the optimum level of less than 25% fines associated with high quality cutthroat spawning habitat.
Wapiti Creek was intensively inventoried by both Ireland (1993) and Magee (1993). Wapiti Creek was also addressed in Snyder's 1978 watershed assessment and the lower stream section was rated as good from a stability standpoint. Ireland (1993) surveyed three reaches of Wapiti Creek and found substantial differences between the reaches for certain habitat attributes. The lower portion of the stream had a high percentage of riffle habitat and low percentage of surface fines. Channel instability was not highlighted as a significant problem. Substrate core samples taken from the lower stream reflected a clean substrate (21% fines).
Habitat use by adult trout in lower Wapiti Creek was very low and rainbow trout were dominant.
Magee (1993) found low densities of westslope cutthroat and other trout redds in lower Wapiti Creek. Lack of spawning habitat would be consistent with the nature of the channel in this stream section. The mid section of Wapiti Creek had a higher gradient (2.5%) that is consistent with a B2 channel type with habitat associated with step pools and fast water runs. Cutthroat trout densities observed during summer months were higher than those observed in the lower Wapiti Creek section. Percent surface fines were approximately three times higher in the middle section as compared to the lower area of the stream (Ireland, 1993). Magee (1993) observed lower densities of cutthroat trout redds within this section, which would be consistent with the habitat capability.

The upper most section of Wapiti Creek supports the highest quality trout habitat characterized by a sinuous, slightly confined channel with high pool to riffle ratio, gravel size substrate and varying amounts of surface fines (ave. 10% surface fines) (Ireland, 1993). When compared to densities of the lower portions of Wapiti
Creek, this upper area supported a ten fold higher density of cutthroat both in summer and winter, (18-23 fish/100 meters during summer; 29-33 fish/100 meters during winter).

 Meadow Creek
Rainbow trout were stocked in Albino Lake in the Meadow Creek drainage during the 1950s and have been reported to be hybridized with Yellowstone cutthroat trout, which maintain a self supporting population. It is likely this hybridized non native fish population drifts downstream throughout the Meadow Creek drainage. As
Meadow Creek is a very low gradient stream channel with no passage barrier isolating it from Taylor Creek it is very unlikely westslope cutthroat trout would be present in Meadow Creek.
Habitat conditions reflect moderately high sediment delivery. Channel instability along Meadow Creek is evident at numerous locations and fine sediment levels are high. The high sediment levels can be attributed to the naturally erosive character of the watershed and to past and present livestock and wildlife use.
Meadow Creek is classified as a Class C stream under Forest Plan implementation guidelines as the fishery is of limited significance and provides a dispersed fishing opportunity with few fish over 10 inches in length.

 Cache Creek
Cache Creek covers an area of 10.0 sq. miles in the northwest end of the Taylor Fork drainage. Snyder
(1978) commented that Cache Creek drainage was a mixture of sedimentary formations and that heavy suspended sediment loads were a consequence of the sedimentary geology aggravated by timber harvest and grazing.
Ireland (1993) surveyed three reaches of Cache Creek and found substantial differences between the reaches for certain habitat attributes. The lower and upper portions of Cache Creek were characterized by sinuous, slightly confined channels with substantial numbers of pools and high level of surface fines. The middle reach had a substantially higher channel gradient, with habitat features dominated by step pools and runs. Substrate surface fines were also high in the higher gradient stream section. Magee (1993) collected substrate core samples from cutthroat redds and found high fine sediment levels (ave. 40% fines less than
6.3mm).
Substrate core samples taken in 1990 just above the confluence with the mainstem Taylor Fork had levels of fine sediment that were substantially lower (ave. 16% less that 6.3mm). The difference in fine sediment conditions between the two sampling periods and locations may have been an artifact of sampling protocol.
Magee's samples came from actual redds and are felt to better represent substrate conditions of concern.
Land uses associated with grazing and timber harvest were identified as factors contributing to negative conditions in Cache Creek by Snyder (1978), Ireland (1993) and Magee (1993). Alteration of the timing and intensity of spring runoff in combination with the historic and current effects of the Cache/Eldridge grazing allotment has likely led to alteration of stream channel form and function. Channel overwidening, downcutting, altered riparian vegetation, and a lowering in the water table is evident in the upper reaches of the meadow section on Cache Creek.
Cutthroat trout use of Cache Creek, both from the perspective of population density and number of redds, was higher than in any other area of the Taylor Fork drainage. Ireland's (1993) population density information indicated that Cache Creek, especially the upper portion, supported relatively high numbers (22 fish/100 meters in summer; 33 fish/100 meters in winter). Magee (1993) noted that Cache Creek had the highest percentage (70%) of cutthroat trout redds located within the Taylor Fork drainage. As a result of the currently elevated sediment levels within Cache Creek, egg survival was projected to be very low (Magee, 1993).

 Buck Creek
Buck Creek is a third order tributary the Gallatin River entering about 10 miles downstream of the Yellowstone
National Park boundary on US Highway 191. Buck Creek covers a 24 sq. mile watershed. Historic logging associated with the rail road tie cutting occurred in the early 1900's. The remains of two splash dams still exist

in sections 13 and 14 on the main stem of Buck Creek. Recent road construction and timber harvest, within the last 10 to 15 years, has resulted in a cumulative sediment delivery estimate of about 600% over natural.
Buck Creek supports a westslope cutthroat trout population of 97% genetic purity. A sample of 26 trout was collected in T8S-R3E-Sec 15 in 1994 to determine genetic composition.
Stream substrate sediment core samples taken in July of 1996, reflected moderately high fine sediment levels. Cores taken from actual redds (two sites) had an average of 19% fines. Fine sediment levels in undisturbed spawning sites averaged 30.5%, which is a level consistent with sediment model/substrate relationships that has been verified through monitoring.
Based on fish habitat surveys completed in 1996 it is evident that main stem Buck Creek has been significantly influenced by past timber harvest activities (e.g. splash damming, riparian harvest, road construction and harvest outside of riparian areas). The lower three miles of Buck Creek have been heavily influenced by historical splash damming. The scouring action of tie drives has resulted in extensive stream bed and bank scour in many locations. The lower portion of Buck Creek is dominated by fast water habitat types such as high gradient riffles and runs with little habitat complexity. Pool habitats are very limited and those that do exist are small and have limited cover and complexity.
The middle section of Buck Creek upstream of the splash dam supports higher quality habitat and moderate numbers of slightly hybridized westslope cutthroat trout. Pool habitats were more abundant and fish were observed in most pools. Substrate conditions reflected moderately high levels of fine sediment. Streambank instability was evident throughout most of the middle stream section.
The upper most section of Buck Creek was substantially higher in stream gradient. Fast water habitats dominated and pool environments were limited to smaller plunge pools and pocket water. Increased fine sediment within the channel was also observed in this upper stream channel. Fish were observed in three tributaries to Buck Creek. The most significant of these tributaries entered Buck Creek in section 13. This tributary supported a substantial population of westslope cutthroat trout and had habitat that was in good condition.
Other fish species present in Buck Creek include rainbow trout, which inhabit the lower two miles of stream channel downstream of an old splash dam that prevents upstream migration. Also, Lizard Lakes in the upper end of the drainage supports a self sustaining stocked Yellowstone cutthroat trout population. b. Direct and Indirect Effects
The potential effects of the proposed timber sale are of two types: direct and indirect effects. The direct effects would be those effects, which would result in the direct mortality of fish or destruction of fish habitat, such as a fuel spill from logging equipment traveling to and from the harvest sites. Indirect effects would be effects resulting in changes to fish habitat as a result to changes in the aquatic environment such as the potential for altering the rate in which sediment or woody debris enters the stream channel.
As this proposal contains no riparian timber harvest those habitat attributes related to riparian vegetation need not be analyzed such as; large woody debris recruitment to stream channels, alteration of water temperatures through reduced shading, and changes in streambank stability from near channel activities.
Sediment delivery rates to fish bearing streams and the increased risk of a fuel spill in the Gallatin River associated with log hauling intensities was used to determine the potential effects to fisheries. The potential of additional sediment delivery to salmonid spawning and rearing areas is the primary issue of concern relative to effects on fish habitat from this proposal and will be used to make comparisons between the alternatives. Elevated levels of fine sediment (material < 6.3 mm in diameter) have been shown to affect salmonid habitat used for spawning, rearing and overwintering (Chapman and McLeod, 1987). Pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate abundance, survival of embryos to emergence, pool volume, and quantity of overwintering habitat for salmonids are correlated with the level of fine sediment in streams (Chapman and
McLeod, 1987).

2
No
Harvest
No Road
Rehab
2A
No
Harvest includes
Road
Rehab
Existing and potential sediment yields including reductions from road rehabilitation were calculated by the
Gallatin National Forest hydrologist (Story 1999) for all alternatives using a modification of the R1/R4 sediment model (Cline et al. 1981). The effects of additional delivery of fine sediment on fish habitat quality will be dependent on precipitation, streamflow, how quickly exposed soil is stabilized, and how the sediment is delivered to and routed within the stream during harvest activities. The effects of additional sediment delivery from harvest activities on fish spawning and rearing habitat was estimated for all alternatives using a modification of the Fish/Sed model which estimates the change in substrate composition that results from changes in sediment delivery rates (Stowell et al. 1983). This modification more accurately reflects sediment routing relationships of geologies found on the GNF. The coefficient of 0.24 best reflects this relationship from an annual perspective.
**Table III-2 shows the estimated increase in annual percentage over natural sediment delivered to streams within the analysis area from the Taylor Fork timber sale (Timber harvest and Road Construction theoretically implemented in 1999), and the resulting estimated incremental change in the percentage of fine sediments deposited in spawning substrates from the existing condition. Adjustments to delivery rates due to scheduled road obliteration of roads used in this proposal starting in 1999 were included in water resource effects analysis (Issue 3). The estimated values of fine sediment deposition reflect no recovery from in channel routing of sediment, and as no functional relationship exist for reduced delivery, a negative (-) is used to denote this condition.
Table III-2 values obtained from the sediment delivery and routing models should not be interpreted as absolute due to the models inability to predict all aspects of natural variation associated with sediment delivery and routing. Therefore, quantitative estimates should only be used to make generalized observations about the magnitude of effects and relative comparisons between the proposed alternatives and existing condition represented by delivery rates in 1998.
**Table III-2. Estimated increase in annual percentage over natural sediment delivered to streams within the analysis area from the Taylor Fork timber sale (Timber harvest and Road Construction theoretically implemented in 1999) and the resulting estimated incremental change in the percentage of fine sediments deposited in spawning substrates from the existing condition.
Alt.
1
Year
98
Taylor Fork Creek
Increase Sediment
% over natural delivered
Increase in % fines in substrate
0.0 0.0
Buck Creek
Increase Sediment
% over natural delivered
0.0
Increase in % fines in substrate
0.0
99
00
01
02
03
04
98
99
0.0
1.6
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.0 no net increase no net increase
0.0
0.38
0.26
0.19
0.07
0.0
-
-
0.0
1.3
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.0 no net increase no net increase
0.0
0.31
0.33
0.17
0.17
0.0
-
-
00
01
02
03
04
98
99
00
01
02 no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Alt. Year
Taylor Fork Creek
Increase Sediment
% over natural delivered
Increase in % fines in substrate
Buck Creek
Increase Sediment
% over natural delivered
Increase in % fines in substrate
3
No
Harvest
In Buck
Creek
03
04
98
99
00
No Road rehab
3A
No
Harvest
01
In Buck Ck 00 includes 01
Road
Rehab
02
02
03
04
98
99 in Buck Cr. 03
04
4 98
99
00
01
02
03
04
5 98
99
00
01
02
03
04 no net increase no net increase
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
Comparison of Alternatives
 Sediment Delivery and Percent Fine Sediment
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.38
0.58
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.26
0.38
0.31
0.14
0.07
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.38
0.58
0.14
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.0
0.0 no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase no net increase
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.0
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.24
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.24
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Alternative 1
Maximum annual sediment delivery due to harvest activities would be expected to increase in Taylor Creek and Buck Creek by 1.6 and 1.3 percent respectively the first year after entry. The resultant changes in substrate conditions are predicted to be a 0.38 and 0.31 percent increase respectively in fine sediment deposited the first year after disturbance. The total cumulative annual fine sediment deposition from this proposed action is estimated to result in less than a 1.0 percent increase in fine sediment for both Taylor Fork
Creek and Buck Creek, assuming no recovery from in channel routing would occur. This is such a minor change in substrate composition over existing conditions that measurement of the change would be difficult given existing methods.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
There would be no additional timber harvest proposed and current fish habitat conditions would not be expected to change. The cumulative effects of past, present, and future activities by man would continue to influence fish habitat found within area streams.

Alternative 2A
Under Alternative 2A only road restoration would occur in both the Taylor Fork and Buck Creek drainages.
Very short term minor increases in sediment delivery would occur from ground disturbance associated with road rehabilitation. However, over time accelerated sediment delivery rates would decrease. With reduced delivery, routing rates of in channel sediments would increase thus reducing the amount of fine sediment in the substrate and improve the quality of fish habitat spawning and rearing habitat.
Alternative 3
Annual sediment delivery would be expected to increase in Taylor Creek by about 1.6 percent one year after entry. The resultant changes in substrate conditions are predicted to be a 0.36 percent increase in fine sediment deposited by the first year after disturbance, assuming no recovery from routing would occur.
Subsequent predicted delivery over the next 2 years would result in a total cumulative delivery rate of 4.6 percent over natural and a predicted total increase in fine sediment deposition of about 1.1 percent in Taylor
Fork Creek. As activities proposed in Alternative 3 are located completely outside of the Buck Creek drainage no accelerated sediment delivery and/or subsequent deposition of fine sediment would occur. As in alternative 1 this is such a minor change in substrate composition over existing conditions that measurement of the change would be difficult given existing methods.
Alternative 3A
This alternative would result in a slightly higher level of accelerated sediment delivery to Taylor Creek as in
Alternative 3. With the total cumulative annual delivery of sediment from the proposal estimated to be 4.9 percent over natural and a increase in deposition of fine sediment estimated to be 1.16 percent. However, as this alternative includes only road rehabilitation within the Buck Creek drainage, long term sediment reduction and subsequent effects to fish habitat as described in Alternative 2A would occur in the Buck Creek drainage.
Alternative 4
Under alternative 4, annual sediment delivery rates would be expected to increase in Taylor Creek and Buck
Creek by 1.6 and 1.0 percent respectively one year after entry. The resultant change in substrate conditions are predicted to be 0.38 and 0.24 percent increase respectively in fine sediment deposited by the first year after disturbance, assuming no recovery from routing would occur. Cumulative annual delivery rates for
Taylor Fork and Buck Creek are predicted to be 4.6 and 3.8 percent over natural, with subsequent estimated increased levels of fine sediment measuring 1.1 and 0.92 percent respectively. As in alternative 1 this is such a minor change in substrate composition over existing conditions that measurement of the change would be difficult given existing methods.
Alternative 5
Under alternative 5 cumulative annual sediment delivery rates would be expected to increase in Taylor Creek and Buck Creek by 1.1 and 3.8 percent respectively one year after entry. Changes in substrate conditions are predicted to increase 0.27 and 0.86 percent, respectively, in fine sediment deposited, assuming no recovery from routing would occur. As in alternative 1 this is such a minor change in substrate composition over existing conditions that measurement of the change would be difficult given existing methods.
 Fuel Spills
A high frequency of sharp curves and black ice in combination with heavy traffic between Big Sky and
Bozeman increases the risk of traffic accidents and possible fuel spills into the Gallatin River, an internationally reknoun trout fishery. As the road closely follows the Gallatin River through Gallatin Canyon this risk is increased by the shear increased volume of truck traffic.
The risk of fuel spills will be dependent on the volume of logs removed from the drainage and the number of hauls made. The proposed action alternatives would pose an increased risk of fuel spill to the Gallatin River as logging trucks would be required to travel on U.S. Highway 191 in route to milling locations. Alternative 1 would include the hauling of about 444 (4500 board feet/load) truck loads of lumber, alternatives 3 and 3A would result in the travel of about 193 loads traveling down US 191 Gallatin Canyon adjacent to the Gallatin
River, alternative 4 would require about 333 truckloads, and alternative 5 would require about 244 loads.

The no action alternative would require no additional truck traffic and therefore no increased risk of a fuel spill to the Gallatin River associated with timber harvest is expected.
Effects Common to all Action Alternatives
All action alternatives would result in slight increases in accelerated sediment delivery to Taylor Creek. Only the proposed action alternatives 1, 4, and 5 would result in slight increases in sediment delivery to Buck
Creek. Proposed alternative 3A does not propose any harvest units within the Buck Creek drainage; however, it does propose road restoration projects.
Estimated cumulative increases in fine sediment deposited within the stream substrate for the most aggressive action alternatives are less than 1.0 percent for
Buck Creek and less than 1.2 percent for Taylor Creek. These "modeled" increases in substrate composition are so minor that actual field measurement of the change would be difficult given existing methods. All alternatives (with harvesting and road restoration or just with restoration proposed) pose a very slight short term risk of reduced fish spawning and rearing habitat quality and quantity within the Buck Creek drainage as past activities have already degraded the condition of aquatic habitats. However, this short term risk is far outweighed by the benefits of the road obliteration and watershed restoration associated with completion of this sale and removal of the threat of future development of BSL lands within the four sections of Taylor Fork to be acquired. c. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are spatial and/or temporal environmental effects to fish habitat resulting from the additive, repeated, and synergistic effects of other actions. Historic human caused activities in the Taylor Fork and
Buck Creek drainages include timber harvest, road construction, splash damming, tie driving, fire, watershed rehabilitation, grazing, recreation, and stocking of non-native salmonids. Much of the timber harvest occurred in the late 1800s with much more recent activity occurring on private lands owned by BSL. These land management activities and supportive facilities have and will continue to cumulatively effect fish habitat by modifying: 1) the way sediment, water, and wood enter and travel through stream channels; 2) riparian vegetative community structure; and 3) other habitat perturbations. The introduction of non-native fish species has also affected native fish species assemblages through competitive interactions and hybridization.
The Taylor Fork grazing allotment was reviewed during 1994 and 1995 to assess the effects of cattle grazing on stream form and function, riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and trampling of redds within the drainage. Due to the existing high inherent streambank stability and a healthy stand of riparian vegetation in combination with stream channel types resistant to disturbance by grazing the Taylor Fork grazing allotment has not reduced the biological productivity of Taylor Creek. However, riparian and stream channel degradation resulting from cattle grazing in the Cache/Eldridge allotment in upper Taylor Fork Cache Creek has been documented. The Taylor Fork grazing allotment is composed of five fenced pastures, which prohibit cattle from accessing mainstem Taylor Creek and its associated riparian area. Several small fishless tributary streams of a B3 channel type are located in these pastures and show little evidence of effects from grazing.
Habitat degradation within the Cache/Eldridge grazing allotment has resulted in decreased streambank stability and alteration of stream channel form and function in Cache Creek. There is also recent evidence that cattle presence within the Cache Creek basin has resulted in trampling of spawning redds. A pasture of the Cache/Eldridge allotment also extends down into the mid Taylor Creek Basin and has likely led to streambank instability in Taylor Creek between Cache and Eldridge Creek. It is also possible that changes in stream channel form and function and in the composition and structure of riparian vegetation may have resulted from historic sheep and cattle grazing within the Taylor Basin during the early 1900s.
Ireland (1993) identified several "reaches" of stream channel instability, which include; main Taylor Creek between the Lightning Creek/Taylor Creek confluence downstream to the Wapiti Creek/Taylor Creek confluence, lower Cache Creek Basin , and most of Wapiti Creek. Areas of known documented effects of cattle grazing within the Taylor Fork drainage include Cache Creek and Taylor Creek between Eldridge Creek and Lightning Creek. The activities of splash damming, roading, and grazing, have all historically affected habitat quality in Taylor Fork Creek in the reaches described by Ireland. No cattle grazing exist on Taylor
Creek downstream of Eldridge Creek.

Extensive timber harvest and road building on both private and federal land in the western United States has generally led to stream channel simplification and the loss of habitat complexity (Bisson and Sedell 1984).
Past forest practices in combination with other land management activities are thought to have greatly contributed to the loss of habitat complexity and the resultant simplification and loss of biodiversity of aquatic communities (Bisson et al. 1992; Cairns and Lacky 1992). This is very evident in the lower Buck Creek drainage and portions of the Taylor Fork downstream of reminant splash dams.
Bisson et al. (1992) calls for the use of BMPs (Best Management Practices) to preserve the integrity of habitat complexity and biodiversity at the ecosystem level. These BMPs are oriented toward preserving biological and physical connections between the stream and the entire watershed. Linkages of the delivery processes that transfer woody debris, organic, and inorganic material to the channel are essential for maintaining habitat complexity and biodiversity of aquatic organisms.
Up to 50 miles of proposed road obliteration are scheduled to be completed within the analysis area after completion of the land exchange, most of these roads occur on BSL sections within the Buck Creek drainage.
Sediment delivery from the existing and potentially much more extensive road system if held in private ownership is the greatest threat to maintaining the long term productivity to aquatic communities within the
Buck Creek and Taylor Fork drainages.
In summation, the cumulative effects of past actions including road construction, historic splash damming, and historic livestock grazing have been the primary influences on existing fish habitat quality throughout the
Buck Creek and Taylor Fork drainages. Cumulative accelerated sediment delivery rates of approximately
270 and over 600 percent over natural respectively for the Taylor Fork and Buck Creek drainages give an indication of the degree of potential subsequent effects to the aquatic environment and fish production capability of these streams. Both Buck Creek and Taylor Fork Creek are Classified as Class A streams which carry a habitat management objective of 90 percent habitat capability and a cumulative sediment yield guideline of 300% over natural.
As Buck Creek cumulative accelerated sediment delivery rates currently exceed the 300 percent over natural
GNF guideline, any additional sediment delivery would likely result in reduced fish habitat quality and fish production capability. As the Taylor Fork cumulative accelerated sediment delivery estimate is below the
300 % over natural GNF guideline, the risk is low that implementation of any action alternatives would result in reduced fish habitat quality from a slight increases in deposited sediment (< 1 %).
 Fisheries Biological Evaluation Determination
A Biological Evaluation was prepared and can be found in the project file. Following is a summary of the determination and the rationale for that determination.
The current distribution of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout in the state of Montana is estimated to be less than 2.5 percent of their historic range. Only three genetically pure and several hybridized populations of westslope cutthroat trout are known to be present on the Gallatin National Forest within the
Gallatin and Madison River drainages. The Buck Creek population has been determined through electrophoretic analysis to represent a hybridized population of at least 90 percent genetic purity. The Taylor
Fork population is more heavily hybridized with rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and is classified at less than 90% genetic purity.
A concern was expressed that the proposed activity would negatively affect westslope cutthroat trout and/or
Arctic grayling. Westslope cutthroat trout have been recently petitioned to be listed as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act by the USFWS. Westslope cutthroat trout and fluvial Arctic grayling historically inhabited the upper Missouri River drainage. Therefore, the Gallatin River drainage classifies as historical habitat for these two species. An attempt has been made by MTFWP to reintroduce fluvial Arctic
Grayling into the upper Gallatin River over the past several years. The success of this effort is not known.
There is no documented presence of Arctic grayling inhabiting either Buck Creek or Taylor Creek.
Determination for Alt. 1, 4 ,5, and (3 and 3A for Taylor Creek Only) Based on the extremely minor predicted effects and the future benefits associated with large scale watershed rehabilitation it is my determination

that the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the proposed action (Alternative 1, 4 and 5) of the
Taylor Fork Timber Sale may impact individuals but would not reduce the viability of the westslope cutthroat trout populations within the Buck Creek and Taylor Fork drainages.
There would be no impact to Arctic grayling populations.
Determination for Alt. 2 (No Action) and (3 No Action only in Buck Creek drainage) - As alternative 2 and 3 have no proposed harvest units within the Buck Creek watershed, there would be no impact on the westslope cutthroat trout populations within the Buck Creek or Taylor Fork Creek drainages.
Determination for 2A and 3A for Buck Creek- (No activities associated with timber harvest but allows for road restoration in Buck and Taylor Fork drainage) Even though road restoration activities will result in minor accelerated sediment delivery increases in Buck Creek due to ground disturbing activities such as culvert removal, ripping, and re-contouring there will be a substantial long term sediment delivery reduction due to reduced road presence in the drainage. This long term reduction would result in a beneficial effect to westslope cutthroat trout inhabiting Buck Creek as defined by the short term conservation strategy.
Rationale for Determination:
1) No Arctic grayling are documented as present within the affected watersheds.
2) For all action alternatives predicted maximum accelerated sediment deposition rates for Buck Creek and Taylor Creek is estimated to result in less than 1.0 and 1.2 percent increase respectively in deposition of fine sediment in the stream substrate. These sediment levels are very low and potentially would only cause a temporary reduction in salmonid habitat quality and quantity. After that, the rate of sediment delivery would diminish and subsequent in-channel routing would increase the overall health of the Buck Creek drainage.
3) For the No Action alternative (#2), there would be no change to the accelerated sediment delivery rates.
4) For alternatives proposing only road restoration activities, long term reductions in accelerated sediment delivery would result in reduced sediment deposition and ultimately improved the condition of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat.
Issue 3.
Water Quality
Changes between the draft and final EIS
As previously mentioned in Chapter II, approximately 14 sections of BSL-owned land were acquired and consolidated into public ownership in January 1999. The water quality analysis has been updated to reflect this change in ownership in terms of the amount of roads that can be considered for restoration actions. Also, the cumulative effects of other actions within the analysis area in conjunction with the proposed actions in this EIS has been revised to reflect new information since the issuance of the draft EIS (e.g., acquisition of the 14 sections of BSL lands).
a. The Affected Environment
Average precipitation in the Taylor Fork and Buck Creek areas varies from 25 to 55 inches a year with about
50% occurring as snow in lower elevations and 75% at higher elevations. June receives the largest amount of moisture. Average snowfall varies from about 100 inches at the mouth of Taylor Fork to about 350 inches in the Taylor peaks (Farnes and Shafer, 1972). Precipitation intensity is relatively moderate. The two year- six hour precipitation varies from 0.9 to 1.1 inches, which is some of the lowest precipitation intensities on the
Gallatin National Forest (Department of Commerce precipitation intensity maps). Winters are long and cold and snow usually remains at the higher elevations for eight to nine months. Snow drifts can persist in some high elevation cirques and passes throughout the year. Summertime temperatures remain in the 70's and 80's with

occasional 90 degree temperatures. Average annual runoff (on a per acre basis) varies from about 1.0 acrefeet/acre at the lowest elevations to about 3.5 acre-feet/acre at the highest elevations. Average annual water yield in Taylor Creek is estimated at 51,000 acre-ft/year of which 354 (0.7%) is attributable to transpiration reduction from existing roads and clearcut. Average annual water yield in Buck Creek is estimated at 12,000 acre-ft/year of which 192 (1.6%) is attributable to transpiration reduction from existing roads and clearcut.
Peak flows for USGS gaging stations on the Gallatin River and Taylor Fork include:
Station Mean discharge cfs Water yield ac-ft/ac Peak Q cfs & date
Gallatin River @ Gallatin Gateway
Taylor Fork @ mouth
803
96
1.1
1.1
9670 (1974)
1020 (1952)
An additional peak discharge for a USGS station occurred at Wapiti Creek (1384 cfs, 1984). With the exception of snowmelt runoff in 1991, 1996, and 1997, streamflows for the last decade (1988-1998) have averaged less than the previous 2 decades (1967-1987).
Extensive timber harvesting has occurred in Taylor Fork and Buck Creek. Historic logging camps were established in Gallatin Canyon on lower Hellroaring Creek, Greek Creek and Taylor Fork in the early 1880s when logs were floated down the Gallatin River to a saw mill located in Gallatin Gateway and the former Central
Park, now west of Belgrade. By the early 1900's several logging and milling sites had been developed in the
Taylor Fork, each with about 50 loggers. Most of these logs were milled into railroad ties and sent down river during spring runoff with the assistance of splash dams (Burlingame, 1972). The use of splash dams, log drives, and the associated "stream clearing" practices used to facilitate the passage of logs was well documented in coastal rivers of the Pacific Northwest and predicted environmental effects were analyzed by
Sedell and Luchessa (1982). Long term damage to channel morphology and sediment transport capabilities likely resulted in scour, loss of habitat complexity, and widening (Sedell and Luchessa 1982). Some evidence of stream bank destabilization as a result of splash damming is still evident immediately downstream of an old splash dam on Buck Creek (T8S-R3E-Sec 14).
Taylor Fork, and to a lesser degree Buck Creek, have extensive areas of Cretaceous fine textured sediment with naturally high sediment yields. Existing sediment yields are discussed in the next section. b. Direct and Indirect Effects
Timber harvest and road construction on lands in Taylor Fork and Buck Creek has the potential to increase erosion and sediment yield. Sediment modeling was done using the R1R4 model (USFS, 1981, Guide for
Predicting Sediment Yields for Forested Watersheds). The following factors were considered in the model:
 Modeling considered the entire Taylor Fork and Buck Creek watersheds at the Forest Boundary.
 Included all existing timber harvest and road sediment on National Forest lands and private lands.
 All existing roads were assumed to be constructed in 1980 unless information was available to allow a more refined date.
 All new roads and timber harvest units associated with this proposal were assumed to be completed by
2004.
 Planned road obliteration in recently acquired BSL lands: includes obliteration of 8 miles in Taylor
Fork and 8 miles in Buck Creek in 1999 completed in 1999; 8 miles in Taylor Fork and 4 miles in Buck
Creek in 2000; 8 miles in Taylor Fork and 3 miles in Buck Creek in 2001; and 4 miles in Taylor Fork in

year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2002. Approximately 7-10 miles of additional road obliteration would be done after 2001 after some roads are no longer needed for reforestation, however these additional roads were not entered into the sediment model due to the uncertainty of exact outyear reforestation timing.
 Most of the road obliteration would be accomplished with USFS appropriated watershed rehabilitation
(NFSI) funds.
 Road obliteration will consist of ripping or subsoiling with a dozer and asphalt rippers and/or subsoilers.
The ripped road segments will then be drained with waterbars, seeded, fertilized, and slashed.
Culverts will generally be removed and the streambanks reconfigured to natural morphology.
Generally sediment increase with the road obliteration disturbance is very minor, primarily in stream sections where culverts have been pulled. Road segments will be visually monitored to ensure project accomplishment.
The R1R4 model implies that baseline sediment is a stable number. In actuality, the R1R4 model presents an average value which factors in the variability associated with influence of fire frequency, natural mass wasting, and precipitation. In any year natural sediment yields in tons of materials routed to the stream courses can be expected to fluctuate substantially and stream sediment may vary by more than a magnitude.
For that reason, the R1R4 model results should be used primarily to compare between alternatives and secondarily as an index of compliance with sediment guidelines.
Tables III-3 through III-7 - TAYLOR FORK CREEK
**Table III-3. Taylor Fork Creek Alternative 1 natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over tons/year
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577 tons/year
0
62
46
32
22
10
0 tons/year
323
255
196
176
176
176
167 tons/year
2900
2894
2878
2785
2776
2763
2744 sediment
12.5
12.3
11.7
8.1
7.7
7.2
6.5 natural sediment
270
283
266
254
246
241
239
**Table III-4. Taylor Fork Creek Alternative 2 (no action - no road obliteration) natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577 tons/year
0
6
3
2
1
0
0 tons/year
323
313
313
304
304
304
304 tons/year
2900
2896
2893
2883
2882
2881
2881 sediment
12.5
12.4
12.3
11.9
11.8
11.8
11.8 natural sediment
270
282
265
257
253
253
256
**Table III-5. Taylor Fork Creek Alternative 2A (no action; includes road obliteration) natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over

year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577 tons/year
0
6
3
2
1
0
0 tons/year
323
255
196
176
176
167
167
**Table III-6. Taylor Fork Creek Alternatives 3, 3A & 4 natural sediment timber sediment road sediment year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577 tons/year
0
32
36
25
17
0
0 tons/year
323
254
206
186
176
176
167 tons/year
2900
2838
2776
2755
2754
2744
3744 total sediment tons/year
2900
2864
2819
2788
2770
2763
2744 sediment
12.5
10.1
7.7
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5 natural sediment
270
280
259
237
243
232
229
% over natural cumulative % over sediment
12.5 natural sediment
270
11.1
9.3
8.2
7.5
6.8
6.5
281
261
249
241
236
233
**Table III-7. Taylor Fork Creek Alternative 5 natural sediment timber sediment road sediment year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577
2577 tons/year
0
30
16
12
8
0
0 tons/year
323
254
196
176
176
167
167
TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over tons/year sediment natural sediment
2900
2861
12.5
11.0
270
282
2789
2765
2761
2744
2744
8.2
7.3
7.1
6.5
6.5
261
248
239
234
231
Tables III-8 through III-11 - BUCK CREEK
**Table III-8 .
Buck Creek Alternative 1 natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
714
714
714
714
714
714
714 tons/year
0
0
4
2
1
1
1 tons/year
138
73
51
30
23
21
16 tons/year
852
787
769
746
738
736
731 sediment
19.5
10.2
7.7
4.5
3.4
3.1
2.4 natural sediment
555
565
507
465
433
408
388
**Table III-9 .
Buck Creek Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (no action, no road restoration in Buck Cr.) natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over year tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year sediment natural sediment

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
714
714
714
714
714
714
714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
852
852
852
852
852
852
852
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
555
574
528
500
481
471
469 year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
**Table III-10. Buck Creek Alternative 2A & 3A (no action with road obliteration) natural sediment timber sediment road sediment TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 tons/year
714
714
714
714
714
714
714 tons/year
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 tons/year
138
73
49
30
23
21
16
**Table III-11. Buck Creek Alternative 4 & 5 natural sediment timber sediment road sediment tons/year
852
787
760
736
733
731
731 sediment
19.5
10.2
6.4
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.4 natural sediment
555
565
505
461
429
403
383 tons/year
714
714
714
714
714
714
714 tons/year
0
0
7
5
5
5
0 tons/year
138
73
49
30
23
21
16
TOTAL sediment % over natural cumulative % over tons/year sediment natural sediment
852
787
19.5
10.2
555
565
767
746
738
736
731
7.4
4.5
3.4
3.1
2.4
506
464
432
407
387 c. Cumulative Effects
Taylor Fork and Buck Creek are designated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as a
B1 streams for water quality standards. The most limiting beneficial use is fishery habitat and sediment which is defined by the Gallatin National Forest sediment guidelines should annually increase by no more than 30% and cumulatively increase by no more than 300% over a 20 year period. Cumulative sediment yields were accumulated from 1980-1999 but adjusted for 2000-2002 for the preceding consecutive 20 year period.
All of the Taylor Fork harvest alternatives have sediment reductions due to the road obliterations proposed from 1999 though 2004. The minor increase in sediment from timber harvesting in alternatives 1, 3, 3A, 4, and 5 is more than offset with sediment reduction associated with road obliteration. Alternative 2 (no action and no road obliteration) would not have the additional sediment delivery concern from a timber harvest action or the 2002-2004 sediment reduction as seen in the action alternatives because no road obliteration work would occur. Alternative 2A (no action with road obliteration) has the lowest sediment yields since no additional timber would be harvested on National Forest lands but the road obliteration projects would be accomplished. For each alternative Taylor Fork meets the sediment guidelines for both the 30% annual and cumulative 300% over natural.

All of the Buck Creek harvest alternatives have sediment reductions from 1999 though 2004 except for
Alternative 2 which would not include road obliteration. The minor increase in sediment from timber harvesting in alternatives 1, 4, and 5 is more than offset with sediment reduction associated with road obliteration. Buck
Creek sediment yields, estimated currently at 19.5% over natural meet the Gallatin NF sediment standard of
30% over natural but cumulative 20 year sediment yields exceed the Gallatin NF sediment standard of 300% over natural. However, this increase would be offset by the road obliteration that occurred in 1999 and those proposed in 2000 when several road segments in highly erosive sediments would be obliterated. Alternative
2 (no action) would retain the current sediment levels in Buck Creek at about 19% over natural with no opportunity to reduce 1999-2004 sediment levels. Alternative 2A and 3A have the lowest sediment yields since no additional timber would be harvested on National Forest lands even though road obliteration projects are proposed within the Buck Creek drainage. For all of the action alternatives that consider both timber harvesting and road restoration actions, sediment modeling for the Buck Creek drainage would comply with the 20 year
300% over natural sediment by the year 2008 when the 20 year sediment cumulative percent over natural sediment total drops to 296%.
Water yield increase for all alternatives is very minor. For the largest treated acreage Alternative 1, average annual water yield in Taylor Fork is estimated to increase by 48 acre feet (0.1%) to a net increase over baseline of 0.8%. Alternative 1 average annual water yield in Buck Creek is estimated to increase by 19 acre feet
(0.2%) to a net increase over baseline of 1.8%. These levels of water yield increase are far too low to be measurable or of geomorphic concern for channel scour effects.
None of the sale units have known lacustrine, palustrine, or riverine wetland areas. No riparian harvesting will be done, however streamside management zone BMP's are included in Appendix B (14.06).
Taylor Fork is listed in the Montana Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 305(b) report
(March 1998) as a WQLS (Water Quality Limited Segment) for siltation from natural erosive sediments, silviculture, and land development. In compliance with WQLS constraints, the DEQ has reviewed the proposed timber harvest activities in Taylor Fork. DEQ did not raise any concerns over the proposed harvesting or new road construction or road obliteration described in this document.