NEPA) Analysis and Decision on All Allotments Within the National Forest System Unit for Which NEPA Is Needed (PL 104-19 Section, General Provision 1995)

United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental

Forest Service Impact Statement

Bridger-Teton National Forest Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment

Big Piney Ranger Grazing Authorization and District

September 2013 Management Project

Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest Sublette County, Wyoming Townships 34 and 35N, Ranges 113, 114 and 115W of the 6th P.M.

In Memory of Scooter

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Final Environmental Impact Statement Sublette County, Wyoming

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Robert Hoelscher, Big Piney District Ranger Bridger-Teton National Forest 10418 South Hwy P.O. Box 218 Big Piney, WY 83113 307-276-5800

For Information Contact: Chad Hayward, Team Leader 10418 South Hwy 189 P.O. Box 218 Big Piney, WY 83113 307-276-5817

Abstract: The Forest Service proposes to authorize continued grazing under a specific management regime designed to sustain ecological conditions where they are meeting desired condition and improve the ecological conditions where they do not meet desired conditions. The Big Piney Ranger District is proposing to authorize domestic livestock grazing use under updated grazing management direction, in order to move existing rangeland resource conditions toward the desired condition via prescriptions developed to achieve compliance with Forest Plan direction. That direction includes standards, guidelines, goals, objectives and desired future conditions. Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures would also be implemented. The updated direction would be incorporated in the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) to guide grazing management within the project area. A no action alternative and the proposed action have been analyzed in this final environmental impact statement.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Background ...... 1-1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-3 Proposed Action ...... 1-4 Desired Future Conditions ...... 1-5 Forest Plan Goals and Objectives ...... 1-8 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ...... 1-9 Permit Administration Documents ...... 1-10 Public Involvement ...... 1-11 Issues ...... 1-12 Decision Framework ...... 1-14 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ...... 1-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ...... 2-1 Alternatives ...... 2-1 Monitoring ...... 2-8 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 2-10 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 Range Resources ...... 3-1 Soil Resources ...... 3-16 Hydrology Resources ...... 3-27 Heritage Resources ...... 3-56 Recreation Resources ...... 3-59 Fishery Resources ...... 3-66 Wildlife and Plant Resources ...... 3-87 Socio-Economic Resources ...... 3-163 Other Required Analyses ...... 3-167 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination ...... 4-1 Preparers and Contributors ...... 4-1 Distribution of the DEIS ...... 4-2 Appendices ...... 4-2 Glossary of Range Terms ...... G-1 Literature Cited ...... L-1 Appendices ...... A-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Summary The Big Piney Ranger District proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing and update the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. The project area is located about 35 miles northwest of Big Piney, Wyoming, and is situated on the east side of the northern end of the Wyoming Range. The Sherman Allotment encompasses 17,370 acres and is within the Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming.

The purpose of the proposed action is to maintain or improve rangeland conditions affected by domestic livestock grazing. In addition, the purpose is to comply with Public Law 104-19, Section 504(a): establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis and decision on all allotments within the National Forest System unit for which NEPA is needed (PL 104-19 section, General Provision 1995). The need for action includes: The Sherman Allotment was scheduled to be updated in 2009 (Revised Schedule, 2011). There is a need to update the AMP to reflect Forest Plan standards and guidelines and address the continued expansion of large predators into the project area. The condition of the natural resources affected by livestock grazing has led to the development of two alternatives which are described and analyzed in this environmental impact statement. The alternatives analyzed include the No Action (no grazing) Alternative and the Proposed Action. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to authorize domestic livestock grazing on the project area’s suitable rangelands and revise the AMP. Under the proposed action, the current maximum permitted livestock forage allocation of 2,172 head months (HMs), or equivalent livestock numbers and season of use, would not be exceeded without further NEPA analysis and decision. The permitted allocation is not to be confused with annual authorizations of season and livestock numbers reflected in the Annual Operating Instructions. Season and numbers so authorized may be for fewer HMs than the maximum permitted allocation at the discretion of the Authorized Forest Officer.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

The AMP written in 1987 and amended in 1990 has led to the stable condition of the upland and riparian vegetative resources (See Chapter 3 Vegetation section). The proposed action updates the AMP to include the following terms and conditions which would be required:  Streambank Alteration - No more than 20 percent of the total streambank length, within any given stream reach would be allowed to show streambank alteration as defined by Burton et al. (2007) and Simon (2008) caused by the hoof action of large herbivores during the current livestock grazing season.  Forage Utilization - Vegetation utilization limits are set at 50 percent for all riparian and upland communities.  Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures - All activities conducted by the permittee on National Forest System lands would comply with the Sherman Allotment Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures described in Chapter 2. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, grazing would not occur on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. The existing permit would be cancelled. Pasture boundary fences would be removed while fences that serve as allotment boundaries would remain.

Summary Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

Potential for a minor increase in Minor site specific improvement in ground cover, and a slight shift Range Resources rangeland vegetation; reduces the toward later seral status in chance of catastrophic wildfire vegetation species composition As compared to existing conditions, Overall improvements in soil soil compaction and erosion would quality over the long term. improve but not as much as under Areas with detrimental soil Alternative 1. Small areas of Soils conditions would improve over detrimental soil compaction and time. Effective ground cover erosion associated with salting and would increase slightly over trailing areas would continue to time. occur. Ground cover would stay the same as existing conditions. Short-term stream channel Riparian and stream conditions alteration would be greater than in would continue to improve the No Action Alternative in all where livestock grazing is the streams except North Horse Creek. primary source of direct and Long term stream channel stability Hydrological indirect impacts. Summer would decrease in Cole and Pass Resources stream temperatures in North Creeks. There would be more in- Horse Creek would continue to stream sedimentation in Mill, Cole be elevated because the source and Pass Creeks. All Forest Plan does not appear to be direction and regulatory management-caused. requirements would be met.

iii

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

Heritage Resources No Effects No Effects

No grazing would eliminate the Some recreationists avoid areas potential of human/grizzly bear used by cattle. There is potential for conflicts over cattle carcasses human/ grizzly bears conflicts over and would eliminate cattle cattle carcasses. Cattle impact trails impacts on trails, and dispersed Recreation by damaging signs and trail erosion campsites. Eliminating cattle Resources structures, creating erosion and grazing would make this area developing braided trails. Cattle more attractive to some create compaction and reduce recreationists, increasing the ground cover at dispersed use of trails, roads, and campsites. dispersed campsites.

Tributary streams are expected to maintain good to fair riparian Improvement in stream condition and North Horse Creek vegetation; Slight improvement riparian conditions are expected to in bank stability; Reduction in recover; Lower bank stability than in Fishery Resources fine sediment over time; Alternative 1 in the tributary Temperatures would drop in streams; Fine sediment would some streams with increased remain the same as current vegetation. conditions; Current water temperature regimes would be maintained

Wildlife and Plant Resources

May impact individuals but is unlikely to adversely affect the Grizzly Bear No Effect overall recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population.

Not likely to adversely affect Canada Lynx No Effect individuals or adversely modify critical habitat.

May affect individuals but not likely Wolverine No Effect to adversely impact the population. May impact individuals, but will not Greater Sage Minor Beneficial Impacts on likely cause a trend towards federal Grouse Sage Grouse Habitat listing or loss of viability.

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Gray Wolf Minor Beneficial Impacts trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

May impact individuals or habitat, Columbia Spotted but will not likely contribute to a Minor Beneficial Impacts on Frog and Western trend towards federal listing or Habitats Boreal Toad cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Pink Agoseris Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Whitebark Pine Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Elk Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Mule Deer Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Moose Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Pronghorn Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not Brewer’s Sparrow Minor Beneficial Effects likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level. May impact individuals but is not Boreal Chorus Frog Minor Beneficial Effects likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level. Colorado River May impact individuals but will not cutthroat No Effect likely to cause a trend towards federal listing. Yellowstone/ Snake May impact individuals but will not River fine-spotted No Effect likely to cause a trend towards cutthroat federal listing. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Aspen Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Soft Astor Very Minor Negative Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Willow Flycatcher Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Introduction______The Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) has conducted an environmental analysis and prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in order to describe alternatives considered for management of the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment on the Big Piney Ranger District and the potential effects associated with each alternative. This document is provided for public review and for review and consideration by the decision maker when making his decision. This analysis has been conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS is based upon background information about the allotment including current and past surveys and monitoring data, the desired future condition of resources on the allotment derived from direction and guidelines in the 1990 BTNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as well as from resource specialists’ knowledge of the allotment. This information provided in Chapter 1 forms the basis for the Forest Service’s proposed action and the current analysis. Chapter 2 provides detailed descriptions of the Forest Service’s two alternatives, Alternative 1 (No Action - No Livestock Grazing) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action Alternative). Chapter 3 includes descriptions of the current condition of the range allotment being analyzed and of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the implementation of each alternative on the resources present. Chapter 4 lists the members of the Interdisciplinary Analysis Team and others consulted before and during the analysis. Supporting documents, including resource specialists’ reports containing details of the existing condition and resource effects, are listed in the References section and are included in the project record maintained in the Big Piney Ranger District Office.

Background______The Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment is located about 35 miles northwest of Big Piney in Sublette County, Wyoming, and is situated on the east side of the Wyoming Range on the Big Piney Ranger District of the BTNF (Figure 1.1). The allotment encompasses 17,370 acres of National Forest System lands, and is located within the Townships 34 and 35 North and Ranges 113, 114 and 115 West. Dominant vegetation types found in the allotment are riparian meadow and willow, moist meadow, silver sagebrush, grassland, mountain big sagebrush, aspen, and lodgepole pine. The area is popular with fisherman, hunters and campers. Horse Creek and Pass Creek are two major drainages in the allotment which support Colorado River cutthroat trout. A diversity of wildlife species can also be found in the area, including elk, mule deer, Brewer’s sparrow, and Columbia spotted frogs. Grizzly bear activity continues to increase on the allotment.

Chapter 1-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 1.1: Map of the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment and Its North and South Pastures

Chapter 1-2

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

History of Livestock Management The grazing files for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment are located at the Big Piney Ranger District office and contain the complete history of grazing use on the Sherman Allotment. Numerous changes have occurred on the Sherman Allotment over the past 100 years. These changes include allotment boundary adjustments, changes to season of use, grazing system changes, and adjustments in livestock numbers from a high of 1,800 head in 1927 to the currently permitted 858 cow/calf pairs, to name a few. In March of 1987, Forest Supervisor Brian Stout signed a Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) which implemented an Allotment Management Plan that revised the grazing system on the Sherman Allotment to a two pasture deferred grazing system running from July 6th to September 20th. The selected alternative did not change livestock numbers which was established in 1936 at 858 cow/calf pairs or season of use which was set at July 6th- September 20th in 1961, but did implement a deferred rotation system and authorized reconstruction of 1.75 miles of fence. This Allotment Management Plan set the basis and direction for the current livestock grazing program on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. The 2002 Mule Creek fire burned approximately 2,698 acres of the 17,370 acres in the allotment. This fire burned in a light intensity mosaic pattern. In 2007, the Horse Creek fire burned about 7,654 acres in the allotment. Late seral aspen communities and coniferous timber types were the primary vegetation communities burned. In 2010, aspen suckering had already exceeded seven feet in height throughout many stands in the Pass Creek and Elk Creek drainages. The area burned by the Horse Creek fire continues to recover and is described in the Horse Creek Wildfire Reconnaissance (WGFD 2010).

Purpose and Need for Action______The purpose and need for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EIS proposed action is to:  Continue to authorize term permitted livestock grazing;  Contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan goals and objectives for livestock forage production and community prosperity;  Update the allotment grazing management to reflect current Forest Plan direction;  Provide protection for fish-bearing stream habitat;  Maintain and/or improve riparian and upland rangeland functionality; and  Address issues associated with grizzly bear population expansion in the analysis area.

There is a need to formally establish management for this allotment that meets desired future conditions and is effective and responsive to changing resource conditions such as drought, climate change and/or wildfire. Although current management is meeting desired resource conditions on the Sherman Allotment, there is a need to implement terms and conditions which would allow the Forest Service to address future resource concerns associated with livestock grazing in the analysis area should they arise. Furthermore there is a need to manage interactions between grizzly bear , livestock and humans as the bear’s occupied habitat expands to include the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment.

Chapter 1-3

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

National Forest System lands provide an important source of livestock forage during portions of the year. Forest plans allocate areas of land suitable for livestock grazing, and allow for production of livestock grazing as a goal for keeping communities vibrant. Reauthorization is needed on this allotment because:  Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976).  Continued authorization of grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment would contribute to Forest Objectives 1.1 and 1.1(h) of the 1990 Forest Plan which state: a) Communities continue or gain greater prosperity (Goal 1.1); and b) Provide forage for about 260,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually Forest-wide (Objective 1.1(h)).  Federal regulation (36 CFR 222.2(c)) states that “[f]orage producing National Forest System lands will be managed for livestock grazing and the allotment management plans will be prepared consistent with [forest] plans.”

Proposed Action______The Big Piney District Ranger proposes to continue to authorize grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment and update the allotment management direction so that livestock grazing allows for resource conditions to remain at or move towards desired conditions defined by the Forest Plan, Forest Service directives, and other legal and regulatory direction. The authorization would include a maximum permitted livestock forage allocation of 2,172 head months1 (HMs), or equivalent livestock numbers and season of use. Proposed management includes direction from the existing Allotment Management Plan, Annual Operating Instructions, and term grazing permit terms and conditions. Proposed management also sets forage utilization at a maximum of 43 percent in riparian and uplands, limits streambank alteration from livestock use to no more than 20 percent of the total streambank length within any stream reach on fish bearing streams, and requires implementation of grizzly bear conservation measures designed specifically for the Sherman grazing allotment. The proposed management would be implemented through direction outlined in the Allotment Management Plan (see Appendix B), Annual Operating Instructions, and Term Grazing Permit terms and conditions and would be tracked by the Monitoring Plan (see Appendix D). See Chapter 2 Alternative 2 for complete discussion of the Proposed Action Alternative. Currently permitted grazing on the Sherman Allotment already limits forage utilization and streambank alteration as described in the proposed action, but there is a need to incorporate these allowable use standards into the Allotment Management Plan in order to comply with Forest Plan direction and ensure the continued stable trend of the vegetation resource. The scope of this project, with respect to achieving and maintaining desired vegetation

1 A month’s use and occupancy of rangeland by a single animal.

Chapter 1-4

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest conditions, is limited to management associated with livestock grazing (e.g. allowable-use standards and other livestock management practices) sufficient to allow natural processes and other vegetation management projects to sustain desired conditions.

Desired Future Conditions______Forest Plan desired future conditions (DFCs) divide the Forest into management emphasis areas and provide respective themes, management emphases, prescriptions, and standards and guidelines. The Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment lies within Management Area 24 (Horse Creek) on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.  Approximately eighty-six percent of the allotment is located within an area designated by the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan as having a DFC of 1B (“Substantial Commodity Resource Development with Moderate Accommodation of Other Resources”) Management emphasis includes livestock production.  Approximately nine percent of the allotment is within DFC 10 (“Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences and Support for Big- game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species”).  Approximately five percent of the allotment is within DFC 12 (“Backcountry Big-game Hunting, Dispersed Recreation, and Wildlife Security Areas”). The desired future conditions for range resources and infrastructure on this grazing allotment are:  Grazing operations on National Forest System lands using a system that is responsive to changing climatic or environmental conditions;  Fair or better range condition with stable or upward indicators of long-term trend in range vegetation and soil stability;  Absence of any noxious weed infestations;  Structural improvements that enhance management control and flexibility and allow for effective distribution of forage use; and  The most efficient allotment configuration that facilitates both management by permittees and administration by the Forest Service. The desired future conditions for other resources on this grazing allotment are:  Stable or upward trends in soil condition to protect resource productivity and cultural resources;  Quality habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species; and  Recovery of a viable grizzly bear population. Table 1.1 displays descriptions of the DFCs that apply to the project area. Complete descriptions for all the DFCs for the BTNF may be found in the Forest Plan (pages 145-248).

Chapter 1-5

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 1.1: Desired Future Conditions in the Project Area

Desired Future Management Vegetation: Condition Area Theme Emphasis/Experience Range Prescription DFC 1B Substantial Commodity An area managed

Resource for timber harvest, oil Range is managed to Development with and gas, and other Management emphasis is on maintain and Moderate commercial activities scheduled wood-fiber production enhance range and Accommodation with many roads and and use, on livestock production, watershed condition of Other moderate to and on other commodity outputs. while providing forage Resources occasionally for livestock and substantial emphasis Applies to wildlife. approximately on other resources. 86 percent of the project area.

DFC 10 Provide long-term and short-term Simultaneous habitat to meet the needs of Development of wildlife managed in balance with Resources, timber harvest, grazing, and

Opportunities for An area managed to minerals development. All Range is managed to Human allow for some surface-disturbing activities are maintain and Experiences and resource designed to have no effect, or enhance range and Support for Big- development and beneficial effects, on wildlife. If watershed condition game and a Wide roads while having any portion of this area contains while providing forage Variety of Wildlife no adverse, and grizzly bear habitat, no surface- for livestock and Species some beneficial, disturbing activities can occur wildlife. Applies to effects on wildlife. there until the grizzly bear approximately cumulative effects model can be 9 percent of the run to help determine potential project area effects on grizzly bears.

Management emphasis is on providing such important habitat for big-game as winter ranges, DFC 12 feedgrounds, calving areas, and Backcountry Big- security areas. It provides for game Hunting, An area managed habitat capability and escape Range is managed to Dispersed for high-quality cover, and maintained Semi- maintain and Recreation, and wildlife habitat and primitive Non-motorized enhance range and Wildlife Security escape cover, big- opportunities that emphasize big- watershed condition Areas game hunting game hunting opportunities. If while providing forage Applies to opportunities and any portion of this area contains for livestock and approximately dispersed recreation grizzly bear habitat, no surface- wildlife, particularly 5 percent of the activities. disturbing activities can occur big-game. project area there until the grizzly bear cumulative effects model can be run to help determine potential effects on grizzly bears.

Chapter 1-6

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 1.2 Desired Future Conditions from Forest Plan

Chapter 1-7

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives______The proposed action is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan goals and objectives. Pertinent Forest Plan goals and objectives are listed in the following text box. Additional information can be found on pages 112-121 in Chapter 4 of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990).

Community Prosperity Goal 1.1 – Communities continue or gain greater prosperity. Objective: 1.1(h) – Provide forage for approximately 260,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually.

Goal 1.2 – A safe transportation system meets the need of commercial users of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Objective: 1.2(c) – Provide roads, trails and driveways for ranchers to manage approximately 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing.

Goal 4.8 – Livestock operations are not disrupted needlessly. Objectives: 4.8(a) – Help prevent human interference with livestock operations along driveways and in other areas. 4.8(b) – Help control the spread of noxious weeds. 4.8(c) – Help implement a predator control program where intolerable losses to livestock are demonstrated. Water Quality Goal 1.3 – Water quantity and quality are retained or improved for local users. Objectives: 1.3(a) – Protect municipal, agricultural, and other potable water supplies and ensure that management activities do not cause deterioration in water-flow timing, quality, or quantity. 1.3(b) – Meet or exceed current state water quality standards and Forest Service water quality goals. Wildlife and Fisheries Goal 1.1 – Communities continue or gain greater prosperity. Objective: 1.1(g) - Help re-establish historic elk migration routes to provide increased viewing and hunting opportunities for outfitters and clients.

Goal 2.1 – Adequate habitat for wildlife, fish, and edible vegetation to help meet human food needs is preserved. Objectives: 2.1(a) – Provide suitable and adequate habitat to support the game and fish populations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, as agreed to by the Forest Service.

Goal 3.1 – Grizzly bear recovery is achieved. Objective: 3.1(b) – Prevent needless encounters between grizzly bears and people, and prevent grizzly bears from gaining access to such attractants as food and garbage.

Chapter 1-8

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Goal 3.2 – Recovery is achieved for the Endangered Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Objectives: 3.2(a) – Cooperate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish the gray wolf in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Goal 3.3 – Sensitive species are prevented from becoming a federally listed threatened species in Wyoming. Objectives: 3.3(a) – Protect National Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive plant and animal species and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat to ensure that activities do not cause: (1) long-term or further decline in population numbers or habitats supporting these populations; and, (2) trends towards federal listing. 3.3(b) – In cooperation with Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Trout Unlimited, and BLM, improve lake habitat and stream habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout. Livestock Grazing Goal 4.7 – Grazing use of the National Forest sustains or improves overall range, soils, water, wildlife, and recreation values or experiences. Objectives: 4.7(a) – Retain or improve forage and overall range condition. 4.7(b) – Retain or enhance riparian vegetation, stream-channel stability, sensitive soils, and water quality where livestock are present. 4.7(c) – Coordinate the management of livestock with recreation use. 4.7(d) – Require that suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover be retained for wildlife and fish. Heritage Resources Goal 4.9 – Heritage resources values are preserved. Objective: 4.9(a) – Find and protect heritage resources so that their scientific, historic, and social values are retained.

Goal 4.10 – Natural features and landmarks are preserved and retain their settings. Objective: 4.10(a) – Find and protect natural features and landmarks so that their conditions and settings are retained.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines______The proposed action is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines are listed in the following text box. Additional information can be found on pages 121-129 in Chapter 4 of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990).

Fencing Riparian Area Guideline- New or rebuilt fences across riparian areas or upland areas adjacent to riparian areas should be built using a wooden top pole or other state-of-the-art marking technique to increase visibility of the fence and reduce possible collision of cranes and waterfowl.

Sensitive Species Management Standard- Quantifiable objectives will be developed to identify and improve the status of Sensitive Species and eliminate the need for listing.

Chapter 1-9

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Fish Habitat Management Guideline- For fish habitat providing a fishery at or near its potential, fish populations should be maintained at existing levels. For habitat below its potential, habitat should be improved and maintained to at least 90 percent of its natural potential. First priority for improvement should be streams supporting sensitive species.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Standard- Range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife habitat needs, especially on key habitat areas such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage grouse leks, and nesting sites. Special emphasis will be placed on helping to meet the needs of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species.

Livestock Grazing of Riparian Areas Standard- Livestock grazing in riparian areas will be managed to protect stream banks. This may be achieved through the use of gravel crossings, tree debris barriers, fencing, riparian pastures, development of alternate watering sites out of the riparian area, longer allotment rests, or improved livestock distribution.

Allotment Planning Standard- All livestock grazing use will be managed under the direction of an Allotment Management Plan.

Allotment Management Plan Standard– Fisheries: riparian habitats: and threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species’ needs will be addressed in allotment management plans. Findings from big-game winter range evaluations will be incorporated into allotment management plans as wildlife habitat objectives and management procedures. Plans will identify the amount and kind of streamside vegetation needed to maintain or improve riparian areas.

Proper-Use Guideline- Range proper-use standards, including forage utilization standards, should vary depending on site-specific objectives.

Forage Improvement Standard- Range in less than satisfactory condition will be improved. Disturbed areas will be stabilized or regenerated prior to resuming grazing use.

Structural Improvement Standard- Structural improvements will be designed to allow big-game movement and avoid or reduce hazards to other wildlife species.

Permit Administration Documents______Term Grazing Permit A term grazing permit is the instrument that authorizes a specific holder of the grazing permit to graze livestock on certain allotment(s) of National Forest System lands. The grazing permit contains specific terms and conditions, which must be consistent with the NEPA decision authorizing grazing on a particular allotment. Allotment Management Plan The resource objectives listed above and the Proposed Action Alternative in Chapter 2 include the basic elements of an Allotment Management Plan (AMP). The AMP that would be included in Part 3 of the term grazing permit to implement the proposed action is included in Appendix B of this FEIS. This AMP includes:

Chapter 1-10

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

 Management objectives in terms of the condition and trend of the rangeland resources;  Required livestock management practices including maximum allowable utilization;  Existing structural or non-structural improvements which would need to be maintained or reconstructed; and  Appropriate monitoring to determine if management objectives are being achieved. Annual Operating Instructions Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) specify the annual actions that are needed to supplement the management direction set forth in the term grazing permit. AOIs clearly identify the obligations of the permittee and the Forest Service, and clearly articulate annual grazing management requirements, standards, and monitoring necessary to document compliance. They set forth:  The numbers, class, and type of livestock, as well as timing and duration of use;  The planned sequence of grazing on the allotment and applicable management practices to follow;  Structural and non-structural improvements to be maintained or reconstructed, and who is responsible for these activities;  Allowable use or other standards to be applied and followed by the permittee to properly manage livestock.  Monitoring for the current season that may include, among other things, documentation demonstrating compliance with the terms and conditions in the term grazing permit, AMP, and AOIs.

Public Involvement______The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “…an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). The proposal was listed in the Bridger-Teton Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning on January 1, 2010. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies as directed in 36 CFR 215 for a 30 day comment period concurrent with scoping which began on January 5, 2010. A legal notice was published in the Casper Star- Tribune (newspaper of legal record) on January 5, 2010. The scoping letter and description of the proposed action was mailed to over 90 individuals, organizations, term grazing permit holders, community leaders, and land and resource management agencies, owners of land adjacent to the project area, and others who had expressed interest in natural resource management issues. The mailing list can be found in the project record which is located at the Big Piney Ranger District Office. Meetings were held with current grazing permittees on the allotment to discuss the proposed action. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, (see Issues section below), the Interdisciplinary Team developed a list of issues to address. The proposed action was refined as a result of the scoping comments received, permittee meetings, monitoring results, and internal interdisciplinary discussions. Terms and conditions concerning streambank alteration, forage utilization and grizzly bear management were added to the proposed action based on these issues.

Chapter 1-11

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

On October 31st, 2011, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was printed in the Federal Register providing the public and interested parties an additional 30- day comment period, which closed November 30th, 2011. Additional comments were received, none of which identified additional issues that would require the development of a new alternative. On June 4th, 2013 a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register announcing the release of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management Project. The NOA was followed by a 45-day comment period, which closed on July 18th, 2013. Seven comment letters were received (see Appendix C, Response to Comments). To develop issues for the proposed project, the Interdisciplinary Team analyzed comments from the public and Forest Service resource specialists (see Project Record available at the Big Piney Ranger District).

Issues______Issue 1 - Effects of Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Composition and Ground Cover Livestock grazing may cause undesirable effects to vegetation composition and groundcover by reducing the quantity and quality of desired species and by reducing the amount of vegetation left to be incorporated into the soil surface as litter. These factors affect overall rangeland health and productivity. An increase in bare ground and disturbance can also allow for an increase in noxious weeds. Shrub canopy cover may also be affected. (GTR-104) This issue statement will be used to evaluate the effects of livestock grazing on rangeland functionality. Indicators: Four indicators are used in this analysis to evaluate existing grazing management on the Sherman Allotment and its effects on rangeland vegetation health and functionality. The four indicators are:  Ground cover  Presence or absence of noxious weeds  Species composition  Shrub canopy cover

Issue 2 - Effects of Livestock Grazing on Soil Quality Livestock grazing may negatively affect soil quality by causing detrimental soil conditions that can increase soil erosion due to reduced ground cover and soil compaction from trampling and trailing. Indicators: Percent of acres within the allotment with detrimental soil conditions. Specific indicators include:  Detrimental soil erosion and compaction  Effective ground cover

Chapter 1-12

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Issue 3 - Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Aquatic Function Livestock grazing may affect the health and functionality of streams and riparian areas. As stated in Clary and Webster (1989), “[i]mproper livestock management, through excessive grazing and trampling, can affect riparian-stream habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, causing channel aggradation [building up of the channel bed by accumulation of sediment] or degradation [the opposite of aggradation], causing widening or incisement of stream channels, changing streambank morphology, and as an accumulative result often lowering surrounding water tables (Platts 1986).” Indicators:  Stream channel integrity and stream channel stability (percent stable banks where Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) was conducted, description of conditions and photographs where MIM was not conducted);  Extent of streambank shearing and trampling by wildlife and livestock (current year streambank alteration where MIM was conducted; description of conditions and photographs where MIM was not conducted);  Amount of instream sedimentation (Wolman pebble count and percent materials finer than 2mm, or description of sediment sources to stream, with photographs).

Issue 4 - Effects on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive Species (TEPS), as well as other Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Migratory Birds Livestock grazing may affect recovery of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive species, in addition to viability and habitat objectives for other species in the project area. The Forest Plan provides direction for Management Indicator Species (MIS). Additional species conservation is directed by laws, regulations, and policies. Effects on grizzly bears are of particular concern due to potential predation on livestock and the removal of bears from the population as a result. Amphibians are also of concern due to livestock’s attraction to riparian habitats. Indicators:  Compliance with federal law and policy  Degree of habitat protection or restoration

Issue 5 - Destruction of Cultural Resources Livestock grazing and associated activities within the allotment have the potential to affect historic or cultural resources. High concentrations of cattle could lead to trampling and subsequent erosion of historic/and or prehistoric sites resulting in the displacement of artifacts and exposure of sub-surface archeological deposits. Indicators:  Damage to prehistoric and historic sites  Damage to unknown sites

Chapter 1-13

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Issue 6 - Recreation-Livestock Conflicts Livestock grazing may result in conflicts with recreational users and the degradation of recreation dispersed sites and trails. The presence of livestock in the allotment area also has the potential to increase grizzly bear/human conflicts. The presence of livestock and/or livestock carcasses near roads, trails, and dispersed sites increase the probability of grizzly bear/human conflict that can result in death or injury of a forest user and/or death to the bear. Indicators:  Compliance with Forest Plan direction  Number of complaints from dispersed users regarding stock in dispersed camps, trails, and hunting areas  Human/grizzly conflicts in areas around carcasses

Issue 7 - Social and Economic Impacts on Local Communities Scoping for this project highlighted social and economic concern related to potential disturbance of historic range use, and the potential effects on local economies and lifestyles due to changes in livestock grazing practices. Indicators:  Employment and income information at the county level  Loss of revenue for local communities  Benefits to natural resources due to changes in livestock practices

Decision Framework______Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will review the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative in order to decide whether or not to authorize continued livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment, and if authorized, what terms and conditions should be included in the authorization.

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders______Shown below is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to grazing project- specific planning and environmental analysis on federal lands. This project and it’s EIS adheres to the following legal requirements:

American Antiquities Act of 1906 This act prohibits the unauthorized excavation of, or damage to, any historic or prehistoric ruins or objects situated on federally owned lands. All surveyed and inventoried cultural resource sites in the project area would be protected from entry and excluded from resource management activities.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) The purpose of ARPA is to protect irreplaceable archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands.

Chapter 1-14

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Clean Water Act of 1977 The objective of this act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. This objective translates into two fundamental goals: (1) eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters; and (2) achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended The purpose of this act is to provide for the conservation of endangered fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Biological Assessments must be prepared to document possible effects of proposed activities on endangered and threatened species within the analysis area potentially affected by the project. Appropriate coordination, conferencing, and consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will be completed prior to any decisions as a result of this document.

Executive Order 11990 Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when carrying out their responsibilities.

Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898 directs each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The President also signed a memorandum on the same day, emphasizing the need to consider these types of effects during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. On March 24, 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture completed an implementation strategy for the executive order. Where Forest Service proposals have the potential to disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income populations, these effects must be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through NEPA analysis and documentation.

Executive Order 12962 Executive Order 12962 requires that federal agencies evaluate the effects of federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of the order.

Executive Order 13186 Executive Order 13186 directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Federal agencies that undertake actions that may affect migratory birds must develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service that would promote the conservation of migratory birds. Federal agencies must also “ensure that environmental analysis of federal actions required by NEPA …evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.”

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as Amended The purpose of this act is to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds.

Chapter 1-15

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 This act states that renewable surface resources of the National Forests shall be developed and administered for multiple use and sustained yield. Due consideration shall be given to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) This act guides development and revision of National Forest Land Management Plans.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) This act requires federal agencies to consult with the State Historical Preservation Office and American Indian Tribes before cultural resources, such as archaeological sites and historic structures are damaged or destroyed. Section 106 of this act requires federal agencies to review the effects project proposals may have on cultural resources in the project area.

Chapter 1-16

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Chapter 2 : Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the management of the Sherman Allotment. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives are created to address issues (see pages 1-12 to 1-14 in Chapter 1). Forest Service Handbook 1909.15-National Environmental Policy Handbook provides the following direction for alternative development. For environmental impact statements: The environmental impact statement (EIS) shall briefly describe the proposed action and alternative(s) that meet the need for action. No specific number of alternates is required or prescribed. When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA, section 102(2)(E)), the EIS need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives. The intent of NEPA Handbook direction is to encourage collaboration throughout the analysis and decision making process. Ongoing collaboration may often result in modification of a proposed action or alternative(s), resulting in a better proposal and ultimately a better decision. Such changes may not necessarily require the development of a new alternative if they can be accommodated through modification of an existing alternative. Incremental modifications that occur as a result of collaboration should be clearly described and documented in the analysis record, so that interested parties have a clear understanding of the nature of and reasons for the incremental changes. The “proposed action” is defined early in the project level planning process. This serves as a starting point for the Interdisciplinary Team, and gives the public and other agencies specific information on which to focus comments. Using these comments (See Issues section in Chapter 1) and information from Interdisciplinary Team meetings, the Interdisciplinary Team develops alternatives, as needed, to the proposed action. These are discussed in detail in this chapter.

Alternatives______

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative required by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act found at 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and by FSH 2209.13 Chapter 90. Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment would be allowed to continue for a two year period and then the term grazing permits would be cancelled. The two

Chapter 2-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest year continuation would allow permittees the time needed to locate alternative forage for their livestock.

Authorization The Big Piney District Ranger of the Bridger-Teton National Forest would authorize livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment under the following terms:  Continue authorization of livestock grazing for use of up to 2,172 head months (HMs), or equivalent livestock numbers and season of use, for two years. The grazing intensity would be employed to maintain and/or improve rangeland vegetation, water quality and long-term soil productivity on the allotment. Grazing would continue to be managed utilizing improvements that assist with livestock distribution. Authorized use would continue to be controlled during the two year grace period through Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs).

Structural Improvements The term grazing permits would include a list of all improvements which the permittees would continue to maintain at a level that effectively serves their intended purposes during the two years that livestock are present (see Figure 2.1 and Table 2.3).

Monitoring While riparian and rangeland monitoring would continue under this alternative, it would end after two years.

Cancellation of the Grazing Permit After cancellation of the term grazing permits, where allotment boundary fences are necessary, the maintenance of these fences would be reassigned to adjacent grazing permit holders in order to maintain the integrity of the boundaries of adjacent allotments. Interior pasture boundary fences would be removed. Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Authorization to Continue Livestock Grazing Under this alternative, continued livestock use on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment would be authorized. Authorized use would be controlled through Annual Operating Instruc- tions. Term grazing permits would be issued for up to ten years.

Livestock Numbers, Season of Use and Grazing System The current maximum permitted livestock forage allocation of 2,172 head months (HMs), or equivalent animal unit months (AUMs), would not be exceeded. The permitted allocation should not to be confused with annual authorizations of season and livestock numbers reflected in the Annual Operating Instructions. Season and numbers so authorized could be for fewer HMs than the maximum permitted allocation at the discretion of the Authorized Forest Officer. The following table summarizes current livestock numbers and season of use, which also represents

Chapter 2-2

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

the proposed action under Alternative 2. The Proposed Action Alternative is expected to retain or continue to improve the forage and overall range condition.

Table 2.1: Summary of Livestock Numbers and Season of Use

Number Maximum 1987 Number of Livestock NEPA Allotment Permit Class of of Permitted Permitted Forage Decision Acres Type Livestock Permitted Dates Head Allocation Date Livestock Months (AUM) Sherman 858 Cattle Term cow/calf and 17,370 (10 Cow/Calf 2,172 7/6 – 9/20 2,867 pairs Horse years)

Allotment

The Sherman Allotment contains two pastures (see Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1). These pastures are mostly unfenced, but several fences are maintained in key areas to prevent cattle from moving into adjoining pastures (see structural improvement discussion on pages 2-6 to 2-7). Under the proposed action, the allotment would be grazed by livestock under a Deferred Rotation Grazing System1 as outlined in Table 2.2. This rotation was required by the 1990 Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and deferred rotation practices would continue to be implemented.

Table 2.2: Sherman Cattle and Horse Grazing System

Year Stocking Rate South Pasture North Pasture 1 858 cow/calf pairs 7/06 – 8/10 8/10 – 9/20 2 858 cow/calf pairs 8/10 – 9/20 7/06 – 8/10 Repeat schedule every two years.

The grazing intensity proposed is a continuation of current practices and is based on data collected in 1984, 1995, 2002, 2006, and 2011, and the effects of this use on resource conditions (Range Specialist Report 2013).

Allowable-Use Standards for Riparian Areas One component of the Forage Utilization Standard in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, pages 127- 128) is that, during AMP revision, Interdisciplinary Teams and livestock permittees would prescribe site-specific utilization levels and other proper use standards for individual allotments to achieve Forest Plan objectives and other resource objectives on those allotments. Allowable- use standards identify parameters and measures, stated as thresholds, for determining acceptable use by livestock in a given area. For all allowable-use standards listed below, the actual use would be measured prior to and soon after livestock have been removed from the pasture.

1 Deferred rotation “involves at least two pastures with one not grazed until after seed-set”. By using deferred rotation, grasses can achieve maximum growth during the period when no grazing occurs.

Chapter 2-3

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

To meet the desired future condition of range condition, resource productivity, and high quality, diverse plant and animal habitat, two allowable-use standards would be implemented along the greenline2 and other parts of the moist zone of riparian areas and wetlands: 1. Streambank Alteration3: No more than 20 percent of the total streambank length, within any given stream reach on fish bearing streams, would be allowed to show streambank alteration as defined by Burton, Cowley, and Smith (2008) and Simon (2008) caused by the hoof action of large herbivores during the current livestock grazing season. When annual streambank alteration reaches the allowable limit livestock will be removed from the area.

2. Forage Utilization Standard (riparian): Vegetation utilization limits are set at a maximum of 43 percent utilization for all riparian communities. The intended purposes of riparian allowable-use standards are to (1) allow the health and functionality of riparian areas maintain a stable or upward trend by restoring/sustaining native vegetation on streambanks, sustaining healthy roots of riparian plants, limiting trampling effects, and fostering the catchment of sediments; and (2) ensure that an adequate amount of suitable herbaceous wildlife cover is retained in a majority of riparian zones and wetlands.

Allowable-Use Standards for Other Vegetation Types To meet the desired future condition of range condition, resource productivity, and high quality, diverse plant and animal habitat, one allowable use level would be established for all other vegetation types including uplands.

3. Forage Utilization Standard (upland) for other vegetation types would be the same as number 2 above: Vegetation utilization limits are set at a maximum of 50 percent utilization for all upland communities. The intended purposes of the allowable-use standard for all other vegetation types would be to (1) allow plant health and rangeland functionality to maintain a stable or upward trend, including litter buildup and increase organic content in soils; (2) limit browsing of aspen; (3) allow an adequate amount of suitable wildlife forage to be retained.

Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures The Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures are adjustments made to the Proposed Action Alternative as a result of scoping and consultation with the USFWS. These measures were not included in the proposed action during the initial public scoping process but are being incorporated into this refined proposed action as a result of issues raised during consultation.

2 The greenline is defined as that specific area where a more or less continuous cover of vegetation is encountered when moving away from the center of an observable stream channel.

3Streambank alteration is an annual indicator used to evaluate the effects of grazing on the movement toward and achievement of an 80 percent stability rating as required by the Forest Plan.

Chapter 2-4

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

As grizzly bears expand into the Wyoming Range, there is a potential for livestock/bear interactions that may result in removal of bears from the population and a potential for human/bear interactions due to bears feeding on livestock carcasses. The Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures are included in the proposed action for the purposes of (1) minimizing grizzly bear/livestock conflicts and associated management actions, and (2) minimizing food or other types of habituation and bear/human conflicts. They are incorporated into the Allotment Management Plan (Appendix B). The following conservation measures (BA 2013) are included in the Proposed Action Alternative:

1. The Forest will request re-initiation of consultation in the event of any significant changes in grazing operations. 2. All livestock depredation will be reported to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S Forest Service (USFS), and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Agency contact representatives and contact information will be identified annually prior to each grazing season. The notification protocol for reporting depredation incidents will be as follows:  Initial suspected depredations -- Permittee and/or their employees (Rider)  WGFD Bear Specialist  USFS District Rep (designated by the District Ranger)  Confirmed livestock depredation and initiation of trapping sessions -- WGFD Bear Specialist  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  Bear capture events -- WGFD Bear Specialist  USFWS Rep + Permittee + USFS District Rep Supervisor’s Office (SO) Forest Biologist  Bear Removal events -- WGFD Bear Specialist + USFWS Rep  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  USFWS Consultation Biologist  Bear Relocation events -- WGFD Bear Specialist + USFWS Rep  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  USFWS Consultation Biologist + SO Forest Biologist on Forest to which bear was relocated 3. Annual meetings with representatives of the USFWS, BTNF, WGFD, and permittees to discuss the conservation measures and notification protocol summarized in #2 above will be held prior to each grazing season. 4. Livestock depredations will be investigated and managed by WGFD or its authorized agent following Interagency Nuisance Bear Guidelines (pp. 51-70 in Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines; USFWS 1986). 5. Bear Sanitation Guidelines will be followed for all livestock operations as described and defined in Food Storage Order 04-00-104. 6. Riders are required to watch all livestock closely for sick, injured, or stray animals. 7. Forest Service employees designated by the District Ranger will monitor allotments on a regular basis. 8. On cattle allotments: 1) All carcasses located within 1/4 mile of the Sherman Guard Station, permitted outfitter camps, or trailheads will be removed if possible or moved so that the carcass is at least ¼ mile away from the above described facilities, trailheads or roads; 2) All carcasses in locations not described in 1 above that pose a health or safety hazard to the public or to the environment will be removed if possible or moved so that the carcass is at least ¼ mile from live streams, springs, lakes, riparian areas, system

Chapter 2-5

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

roads and trails, developed recreation areas, dispersed camping sites, and picnic sites; and 3) All sick or injured animals will be removed or treated. In the event that compliance with this measure is not physically possible, an exception may be granted per the discretion of the District Ranger and/or his designated representative. In the event that rider safety is deemed an issue, an exception may be allowed as described in CM #9 below. 9. Exceptions to requirements for removing or moving carcasses described above may be granted by the District Ranger and/or his designated representative if human rider or herder safety is of concern. Rider or herder safety concerns include the possible presence of a grizzly bear in the immediate vicinity of carcasses, and carcasses being located in hazardous terrain such that attempting to move or remove may cause injury. In such cases, a USFS employee or the WGFD bear specialist will be notified immediately of the hazard location and need for exception. 10. Through the permitting process and at annual meetings, the USFS will make grazing permittees aware of their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in regard to laws and regulations concerning the taking of grizzly bears (Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines 1986). 11. Continue to identify and implement opportunities that reduce the potential for grizzly bear conflicts. 12. Work in cooperation with the USFWS, the WGFD, and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to identify and collect information related to the habitat use, survival, reproduction, and depredation tendencies of grizzly bears inhabiting livestock grazing allotments on the Forest.

Range Structural Improvements Existing structural improvements (e.g. fences) are shown on Figure 2.1. They were located in part to take advantage of and augment topographic barriers to cattle movement. Maintenance of these structures would continue to be the responsibility of the permittees. Existing structural improvements would be maintained as necessary to retain their functionality and when reconstructed would be rebuilt to wildlife friendly specifications as described in the USFWS- USFS SRM 1999 technical guide, entitled Fences. A description of the structural improvement follows in Table 2.3.

Chapter 2-6

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 2.1: Location of Structural Improvements

Table 2.3: Description of Structural Improvements

Improvement Miles of Maintenance Improvement Name Number Fence Assignment North Horse Creek Allotment 2003 0.3 Permittee Boundary Fence North Horse Creek W Gap 2003 0.2 Permittee South Horse Creek Allotment 2005 1.5 Permittee Boundary Fence North Horse Pasture Draw 2013 1.2 Permittee Mill Creek Fence 2014 0.1 Permittee Sherman Guard Station Exclosure 2039 0.1 Permittee Spring Creek-Lead Creek Fence 2110 1.7 Permittee Spring Creek Allotment Boundary 2114 1.2 Permittee Fence Spring Creek/Lead Creek Allotment 2138 0.5 Permittee

Chapter 2-7

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Improvement Miles of Maintenance Improvement Name Number Fence Assignment Boundary Fence Horse Pasture-Merna Butte 2143 0.2 Permittee Pass Creek/Cole Creek Unit 2146 0.1 Permittee Division Fences Pass Creek Unit Division Fences 2151 0.3 Permittee North Horse-Merna Butte Fence 2244 0.3 Permittee Sherman Guard Station Fence 2245 0.8 Permittee

Monitoring ______Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluating provides information about the progress and results of project implementation for the decision makers and the public. The monitoring process involves collecting data to determine whether the project activities produce the effects predicted in the scientific analyses presented in Chapter 3. Monitoring results are evaluated to determine what, if any, adjustments are needed. The Forest Service resource specialists evaluate whether the standards and guidelines for each resource are appropriate, and determine whether resource objectives, management directives, and Best Management Practices have been met. Table 2.4 lists the monitoring that will occur if the action alternative is implemented. Monitoring results will also be available in the Big Piney District files. Appendix B contains the Allotment Management Plan and Appendix D contains the Monitoring Plan. Effectiveness Monitoring The Forest Plan requires effectiveness monitoring of range trend be performed through benchmark studies on 20% of the allotments each year (Forest Plan, page 331). Therefore, the schedule for monitoring on the Sherman allotment is once every five years. Study case files have been established for each study site and are kept in the files at the Big Piney District Office. These studies are used to determine if lands capable for grazing are in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition. Satisfactory rangeland condition exists where desired rangeland conditions are being met or short-term objectives are being achieved to move the rangeland toward desired conditions. Unsatisfactory rangeland condition exists where desired rangeland conditions are not being met and short-term objectives are not being achieved to move the rangeland toward desired conditions. Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring is annual monitoring and is conducted in an allotment while livestock are on the allotment or shortly after it was grazed by livestock, and is conducted more frequently than effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring is conducted to assess whether direction in Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions (e.g., allowable-use standards, other required livestock management practices) and terms of the permit are being followed. Implementation monitoring includes verifications of the number of cattle

Chapter 2-8

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest turned out at the beginning of the season and the number gathered at the end of the season. Allowable-use standards of this alternative would be monitored prior to and soon after livestock have been removed from the pasture. The extent to which the Forage Utilization Standards are met would be estimated using the landscape appearance method in combination with mapping of grazing use (both are described in the Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide) or equivalent methods as necessary. The following monitoring objectives and requirement are incorporated into the Allotment Management Plan for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment:

 Monitor to determine compliance with utilization standards and streambank alteration;  Wildlife/habitat monitoring to ensure adequate cover and forage is retained for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species including annual wildlife biologist/range specialist/validation and effectiveness monitoring;  Monitor riparian and upland range sites to determine the achievement of desired resource conditions;  Ensure grazing activities are following the Best Management Practices outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (USFS and WDEQ 2011). See Appendix E.

Table 2.4: Monitoring Summary

Resource Item Timing Personnel Type Upland During and shortly Range Range utilization after cattle have Implementation Specialist monitoring left the unit Upland trend At least once every Range Range Effectiveness monitoring 5 years Specialist Riparian During and shortly Range Range utilization after cattle have Implementation Specialist monitoring left the unit During and shortly Streambank Range Range after cattle have Implementation Alteration* Specialist left the unit Grizzly Bear Range Conservation Specialist/ Measures/Terms Throughout the Wildlife Wildlife Implementation and Conditions grazing season Biologist/ Amphibians Permittee Sage Grouse Sublette Water Quality County Hydrology Annually Effectiveness Conservation

District *Monitored per MIM protocol (Burton, Cowley, and Smith, 2008).

Chapter 2-9

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail______One additional alternative was considered but not analyzed as part of this analysis: Current management was not analyzed in detail because it does not meet the purpose and need. Although current management is meeting the needs of many of the resources on the Sherman Allotment, there is a need to implement terms and conditions which would allow the Forest Service to address future resource concerns associated with livestock grazing in the analysis area should they arise. The addition of the allowable use standards for riparian areas, allowable use standards for other vegetation, and the Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures and Terms and Conditions to the current grazing requirements created what is now the Proposed Action Alternative. Due to the ability of the proposed action to meet the purpose and need and objectives for the project, no other alternatives were analyzed in detail (FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90).

Comparison of Alternatives______This section provides a summary of the key differences between the alternatives. Table 2.5 compares the elements of the alternatives while Table 2.6 compares the effects of the alternatives. This information is summarized from Chapter 3 which should be read for a full understanding of the effects, including detailed descriptions of existing conditions and the expected environmental consequences of the alternatives.

Table 2.5: Comparison of the Elements of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Sherman Allotment No Action Proposed Action

2,172 HMs; authorization for Authorization 7/6 – 9/20; all authorized 2,172 HMs; authorization for (HMs, Season of Use during the 2 year grace 7/6 – 9/20; 10 year term & Term) period after which HMs would be 0

50 percent forage utilization 50 percent forage utilization in in riparian as well as Grazing Intensity riparian as well as uplands for uplands during the 2 years the duration of the permit grace period

New Improvements None None

Chapter 2-10

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Sherman Allotment No Action Proposed Action

Maintenance of Existing fences would be Discontinued after 2 years maintained during the term of Improvements the permit

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for Monitoring of livestock streambank alteration during Monitoring impacts discontinued after 2 the term of the permit and years implementation of Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures.

Yes. Contributes toward Forest Plan Goal 1.1 – Communities continue or Compliance w/ Forest No, does not comply with gain greater prosperity. Plan and Federal direction to manage Objective: 1.1(h) – Provide Regulations forage-producing lands forage for approximately 36 CFR 222.2 [c] for livestock grazing 260,000 Animal Unit Months of livestock grazing annually.

Table 2.6: Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

Riparian and stream conditions would continue to improve where Short-term stream channel Hydrological livestock grazing is the primary alteration would be greater than in Resources source of direct and indirect the No Action Alternative in all impacts. Summer stream streams except North Horse

Chapter 2-11

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

temperatures in North Horse Creek. Long term stream channel Creek would continue to be stability would decrease in Cole elevated because the source and Pass Creeks. There would be does not appear to be more in-stream sedimentation in management-caused. Mill, Cole and Pass Creeks. All Forest Plan direction and regulatory requirements would be met.

Heritage Resources No Effects No Effects

No grazing would eliminate the Some recreationists avoid areas potential of human/grizzly bear used by cattle. There is potential conflicts over cattle carcasses for human/ grizzly bears conflicts and would eliminate cattle over cattle carcasses. Cattle Recreation impacts on trails, and dispersed impact trails by damaging signs Resources campsites. Eliminating cattle and trail erosion structures, grazing would make this are more creating erosion and developing attractive to some recreationists, braided trails. Cattle create increasing the use of trails, roads, compaction and reduce ground and dispersed campsites. cover at dispersed campsites. Tributary streams are expected to maintain good to fair riparian Improvement in stream condition and North Horse Creek vegetation; Slight improvement in riparian conditions are expected to bank stability; Reduction in fine recover; Lower bank stability than Fishery Resources sediment over time; in Alternative 1 in the tributary Temperatures would drop in streams; Fine sediment would some streams with increased remain the same as current vegetation. conditions; Current water temperature regimes would be maintained

Wildlife and Plant Resources

May impact individuals but is unlikely to adversely affect the Grizzly Bear No Effect overall recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population. Not likely to adversely affect Canada Lynx No Effect individuals or adversely modify critical habitat. May affect individuals but not Wolverine No Effect likely to adversely impact the population. May impact individuals, but would Greater Sage Minor Beneficial Impacts on Sage not likely cause a trend to federal Grouse Grouse habitat listing or loss of viability. Gray Wolf Minor Beneficial Impacts May impact individuals or habitat,

Chapter 2-12

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, Columbia Spotted but will not likely contribute to a Minor Beneficial Impacts on Frog and Western trend towards federal listing or Habitats Boreal Toad cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Pink Agoseris Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Whitebark Pine Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Elk Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Mule Deer Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Moose Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Pronghorn Minor Beneficial Effects populations at the forest or herd unit level. May impact individuals but is not Brewer’s Sparrow Minor Beneficial Effects likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level. May impact individuals but is not Boreal Chorus Frog Minor Beneficial Effects likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level. Colorado River May impact individuals but will not cutthroat No Effect likely to cause a trend towards federal listing. Yellowstone/ Snake May impact individuals but will not River fine-spotted No Effect likely to cause a trend towards cutthroat federal listing. Aspen Beneficial Effects May impact individuals or habitat,

Chapter 2-13

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Soft Astor Very Minor Negative Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Willow Flycatcher Minor Beneficial Effects trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Chapter 2-14

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The affected environment describes those portions of the natural and human environment that could be affected by implementation of either of the alternatives. The environmental consequences sections depict the potential changes to the social, economic, physical, and biological environments due to implementation of the alternatives. The scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives in Chapter 2 is also presented in this chapter.

Range Resources______Information provided in this final environmental impact statement about the range resources of the project area is excerpted from the Sherman Allotment EIS Range Resource Report by Vegetation Natural Resource Specialist Chad Hayward. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Rangeland Functionality Livestock grazing may cause undesirable effects to vegetation composition and groundcover by reducing the quantity and quality of desired species and by reducing the amount of vegetation left to be incorporated into the soil surface as litter. These factors affect overall rangeland health and productivity. An increase in bare ground and disturbance can also allow for an increase in noxious weeds. Shrub canopy cover may also be affected. (O’Brien et al. 2003) This issue statement will be used to evaluate the effects of livestock grazing on rangeland functionality. Issue Indicators Four indicators of rangeland functionality are used in this analysis to evaluate existing grazing management on the Sherman Allotment and its effects on rangeland vegetation health and functionality. The four indicators are:  Ground cover  Presence or absence of noxious weeds  Plant species composition  Shrub canopy cover

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Domestic livestock grazing occurs primarily in “capable rangelands”, or areas that provide forage and water located on terrain that is gentle enough to be preferred by livestock. Lands not categorized as “capable” are not preferred by domestic livestock but often connect capable and suitable rangelands. Incidental use of these connecting lands by domestic livestock occurs within the boundaries of Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. In general, allotment boundaries are located on ridge tops that provide natural barriers to livestock travel and are buffered by forested vegetation that provides limited forage for livestock. Other portions of the allotment boundaries

Chapter 3-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest are located along land ownership boundaries; livestock management on non-Forest Service lands is beyond the scope of this analysis. History of Livestock Grazing in the Project Area Cattle and sheep were grazed in the area through 1944 even though a “deadline”, a line which sheep were not allowed to cross, was established in 1909. Prior to 1927 the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment was part of the Big Piney Round-Up Association Allotment. During this time roughly 1,846 cattle were permitted to use the area. During the summer of 1920, the D.A. Shoemaker Grazing Survey determined the capacity of the allotment to be 1,217 cattle in addition to 750 head to graze in common on adjacent sheep ranges. Local Forest Officers did not agree with the assessment of the number of cattle on the sheep ranges and reduced the number allowed to graze on the sheep range to 250. From 1927-1935 1,800 cattle grazed the area, after which time the number was reduced to the present estimated capacity, which is 858 cow/calf pairs. In 1936, the season of use was adjusted from 6/16-10/15 to 6/25-10/15. In 1950 the season of use was shortened to run from 6/26 through 9/30. During the same time period the Maki Creek drainage was taken out of the Sherman Allotment and combined with the North Cottonwood Cattle and Horse Allotment. The South Horse Creek Unit was pulled from the Sherman Allotment in 1960 and combined with North Cottonwood. Adjustments in season of use were made to accommodate the reduction of acreage. The allotment boundaries were adjusted over the years as a form of adaptive management. As the resource was over or underutilized, adjustments were made to bring demand into balance with supply to insure the resources ability to remain sustainable. From 1961 through 1964 the grazing season ran from 7/06 through 9/20 to help facilitate sagebrush spraying projects. During the grazing season of 1966 a three pasture deferred rotation system was initiated and was used through 1986. NEPA analysis was completed and a Decision Notice was signed in 1987 implementing a two pasture deferred grazing system running from 7/06 to 9/20. The subsequent Allotment Management Plan set the basis and direction for the current livestock grazing program on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Current Livestock Management Management provisions and practices applied on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment include: Each year prior to the grazing season, Forest personnel and permittees meet to prepare the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. These provisions specifically describe the responsibilities, terms and conditions of the grazing permit, and the goals and objectives set forth in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP), which must be met to graze on National Forest System lands. In preparation of the AOI, discussion occurs pertaining to livestock management practices that are working, those practices not working, and potential changes that need to be made to achieve desired conditions on the allotment. As part of AOI development, changes may be made in season of use, pasture rotation, and number of livestock that use the pastures and allotment. Also, during the grazing season minor changes may be made in the timing of use in a pasture based on current climatic conditions, stock use patterns, and vegetative growth. Management variations allowed in AOIs must fall within the maximum livestock forage allocation authorized by the permit, and within the effects analysis upon which

Chapter 3-2

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest the permit is based. This flexibility in livestock management is necessary to maintain or improve the resources to meet the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) desired conditions. Pasture inspections are performed prior to livestock turn-out on BTNF grazing allotments whenever current year climatic or resource conditions create uncertainty about “range readiness1”. Range readiness objectives for the project area include six to eight inches of leaf growth on wheat and brome grasses and/or the presence of seed heads on bluegrass or fescue grasses. Additionally, soils should be dry enough to withstand concentrated hoof action without sustaining permanent damage. The average date of range readiness for this allotment occurs before July 6. Pasture seasons and rotations are based on current year climatic conditions and allowable utilization limits of key forage plants. Once allowable vegetation utilization is reached on a pasture the livestock must be removed from that pasture. When livestock have been rotated into the next pasture, no stock will be allowed to return to the pasture previously used. Vegetation utilization limits are set at 50 percent of current annual growth (dry matter weight) for all riparian and upland communities in satisfactory condition. A lower vegetation utilization limit may be used if a pasture is found through long-term condition and trend monitoring to be in unsatisfactory condition or is in a downward trend. As a condition of the term grazing permit, permittees are responsible for the day to day management of livestock, including livestock distribution, pasture moves, meeting vegetation utilization objectives, and annual maintenance of structural range improvements on the allotment. The Forest Service conducts compliance inspections periodically throughout the grazing season to insure all permit requirements are being met. Long-term condition and trend monitoring is accomplished by the Forest Service in cooperation with permittees on established bench-mark areas to insure the prescribed livestock management practices are meeting desired conditions of the resources as described in the Forest Plan. The Sherman Allotment is managed under a deferred rotation grazing system as outlined in Table 3.1. Current permit information is summarized in Table 3.2. A map of the allotment is depicted in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1: Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing System

Year Stocking Rate South Pasture North Pasture 1 858 cow/calf pairs 7/06-8/10 8/10-9/20 2 858 cow/calf pairs 8/10-9/20 7/06-8/10 Repeat schedule every two years.

Table 3.2: Existing Livestock Use

Maximum Number of Permit Number of Livestock Allotment Class of Permitted Permitted Type Permitted Forage Acres Livestock Head Dates (Term) Livestock Allocation Months (AUM) 17,370 10 yr. Cow/Calf 858 2,172 7/6 – 9/20 2,867

1 For the purposes of this analysis, range readiness may be characterized as “The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin under a specific management plan without permanent damage to vegetation or soil.”

Chapter 3-3

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.1: Map of Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment

Chapter 3-4

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Criteria Used to Validate Livestock Capable Range The following is an excerpt from Intermountain Region (R4) recommended criteria for rangeland capability (Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions / Revised 2/20/98): The following criteria should be addressed as a minimum. The determination of capability should be made considering the whole of the criteria rather than any one criterion alone. National Forest System lands meeting the following criteria are considered capable: - Areas with less than 30 percent slopes (for cattle) and less than 45 percent slopes (for sheep) - Areas producing more than or having the potential to produce an average of 200 pounds of forage/acre on an air dry basis over the planning period - Areas with naturally resilient soils (Not unstable or highly erodible soils). - Areas where ground cover (vegetation, litter, rock > 3/4 inch) is sufficient to protect soil from erosion - the minimum percentage cover will be 60 percent unless local data is available for use in setting more specific ground cover requirements. - Areas accessible to livestock (without such factors as dense timber, rock or other physical barriers). - Areas within 1 mile of water or where the ability to provide water exists. National Forest System lands that meet the above criteria will be considered capable of being grazed and acreage of capable lands will remain constant for all alternatives. Livestock capable range within the Sherman project area was mapped in 2011 and was based on the 2008 Bridger Teton Forest-wide Range (GIS) Capability Layer. Acreage included in this Forest-wide layer meets the following criteria:  Slope does not exceed 30 percent (threshold for cattle)  Distance to perennial surface water does not exceed 1 mile  Canopy cover of conifer vegetation does not exceed 30 percent  Adequate vegetation cover exists to classify the area as belonging to one of the following vegetation types: o Conifer with less than 30 percent canopy cover o Aspen (aspen and aspen/conifer mix) o Sagebrush (all sagebrush species) o Mountain brush (mountain mahogany and mountain shrubland other than sagebrush) o Dry meadow and grassland (grassland/forbland and alpine) o Perennial forb (tall forbland) o Wet meadow (all riparian / wetland) All non-vegetated areas, sparsely vegetated areas (less than 10 percent canopy cover of all vascular plants), and areas with greater than 30 percent canopy cover of conifer species are excluded from capable range. The burned timber stands on the Sherman Allotment are not calculated into the capable acreage due to the transitory nature of the burned area. As the burned timber falls to the ground the area will again be inaccessible to livestock.

Chapter 3-5

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Exclusion of areas with greater than 30 percent canopy cover of conifer species is assumed to adequately screen out areas producing less than an average of 200 pounds of forage/acre, and areas where dense timber may prevent livestock access. Project level verification of capable range for the Sherman project area involved consideration of additional information as follows:  Forage production estimates based on clipped and weighed herbage data from 36 sites within the Sherman Allotment were reviewed to verify that areas with estimated forage production below 200 pounds/acre were excluded from capable lands. The lowest estimate found was for 221 pounds/acre in an area of naturally low production. (District Files)  A map was generated depicting areas within the Sherman Allotment where capable range (as shown in the 2008 Bridger Teton Forest-wide Range Capability Layer) intersects with soils of high erosion potential. The soils specialist reviewed this map and determined that soil erosion is not occurring at levels of concern in the areas of intersection. (Winthers 2013) Therefore, although the areas have high erosion potential, the absence of erosion concerns under existing livestock management indicates that they need not be removed from capable acreage based on this single criterion.  Ground cover monitoring observations from ongoing allotment inspections, along with transect data and field notes collected specifically for this project were reviewed to determine the location and extent of areas where ground cover does not meet standards, and is not expected to meet standards for the duration of the project. No such areas were identified within the project area.  Range management specialists with extensive knowledge of landscape features and livestock grazing patterns within the Sherman Allotment reviewed allotment maps overlain with the BTNF GIS capability layer to determine whether any additional areas should be removed from capable acreage based on topographic features or other factors which would preclude livestock access. Consideration of the above information did not result in project level modification of acreage shown in the 2008 Bridger Teton Forest-wide Range Capability Layer. There are a total of 6,943 capable acres on the Sherman Grazing Allotment. See Figure 3.2.

Chapter 3-6

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.2: Livestock Capable Range in the Sherman Allotment

Chapter 3-7

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Criteria Used to Validate Livestock Suitable Range The following is an excerpt from Intermountain Region (R4) recommended criteria for rangeland capability (Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions / Revised 2/20/98): Situations listed below may or may not be suitable for livestock grazing depending on an overall evaluation of potential effects and opportunities to mitigate adverse effects: - Developed recreation sites or special use sites - Special area designations such as research natural areas - Administrative sites and research facilities or study sites - Key wildlife habitat areas (such as winter ranges) - Important habitats for threatened, endangered and sensitive species (viability considerations) - Noxious weed infestations where forage is not used by livestock or use would contribute to increase of the infestation - Unique habitats such as bogs, fens, jurisdictional wetlands, or rare plant communities - Areas where livestock grazing is impracticable due to economic considerations, either from a permittee or agency standpoint - Transitory range created by timber harvest activities where the associated mitigation costs to protect timber resource values is excessive - Areas where the social consequences and values foregone are not acceptable. The above categories were considered in validating the extent of livestock suitable acreage within the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. There are 17,370 suitable acres in the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Indicators of Rangeland Functionality Resource monitoring shows that the vegetation conditions on the Sherman Allotment are generally meeting objectives established for proper rangeland health and functionality. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) defines healthy and properly functioning rangeland as “…land where erosion is not occurring at an accelerated rate, where most precipitation infiltrates into the soil and is used onsite for plant growth or flows as ground water to stream systems. The plant community effectively and productively takes advantage of the nutrients and energy that occur on the site. While plant species composition is dynamic, there is a tendency on healthy rangelands for soils, the plant community, and ecological functions to maintain or recover health following release from natural (drought, insect outbreak, wildfire) or human-caused stress.” (NRCS 2013) A key area or key site is defined as a relatively small portion of a pasture that is selected because of its location, use, or grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. Key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall effectiveness of current grazing management over the entire pasture. All monitoring data for this analysis was collected from key sites (see map below).

Chapter 3-8

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.3 Locations of Key Sites

Chapter 3-9

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Study case files have been established for each key site and are kept in allotment files at the Big Piney District Office. A schedule for re-reads of these studies was established at 10 years for studies currently meeting standards and 5 years for studies not meeting standards. These studies are presently being used to determine if lands capable for grazing are in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition. For the purposes of this analysis rangeland is considered to be in satisfactory condition when the desired rangeland condition is being met or short-term objectives are being achieved to move the rangeland toward desired condition. Conversely rangeland is considered to be in unsatisfactory condition when desired conditions are not being met and short- term objectives are not being achieved. This monitoring data is also used to measure how well livestock management is meeting other goals, objectives, standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-104 (O’Brien et al. 2003) describes several rangeland health indicators and interpretation criteria that can be used to characterize rangeland health and functionality. The indicators that are being used for this analysis are ground cover, presence or absence of noxious weeds, plant species composition, and shrub canopy cover.

Ground Cover Ground cover is a percent measure of litter, basal vegetation, rock (greater than ¾ inch in diameter), moss, and cryptogams2 relative to the percent bare ground. This indicator is used to determine which areas are or are not providing adequate cover to protect soil surfaces from excessive erosion. GTR-104 (O’Brien et al. 2003) recommends an 85 percent groundcover threshold for properly functioning mountain big sagebrush communities on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. This value is greater than the 70 percent recommended in the Standards for Ground Cover Functionality by Vegetation Cover Type (FSH 2209.21). See Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3: Standards for Ground Cover by Vegetation Cover Type (FSH 2209.21) Vegetation Cover Ground Cover % for Type Functioning Alpine 90 Aspen 80 Tall Forb 80 Mountain Big 70 Sagebrush

Key sites in mountain big sagebrush communities monitored on the Sherman Allotment in 1984, 1995, 2002 and 2011 had ground cover reading between 95 and 98 percent. All sites reflect a stable trend in ground cover which exceeds the GTR-104 recommended 85 percent threshold by a minimum of 10 percent.

2 Ecology (of a desert soil or surface crust) covered with or consisting of a fragile black layer of cyanobacteria, mosses, and lichens, which is often important in preventing erosion.

Chapter 3-10

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Noxious Weeds Presence or absence of noxious weeds is an important indicator of rangeland health. Based on weed surveys in the project area, noxious weeds tend to occur within or adjacent to historic logging activity and along road corridors, with the largest and most dense infestations occurring in the recovering burned area of the Horse Creek fire. Weeds were not present on any of the key sites monitored in 2011. Weeds within the project area boundary are limited to Canada and musk thistle. As mentioned above, presence of weeds in the project area is tied to historic logging disturbance. Current weed dispersal in the project area is primarily associated with motor vehicle impacts. The control and management of noxious weeds in the project area is being accomplished in cooperation with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and the Sublette County weed control districts, using integrated pest management techniques, following procedures outlined in the Bridger-Teton Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Control and appropriate technical guides.

Species Composition Species composition is another rangeland health indicator which can be used to characterize rangeland health and functionality. Species composition for the rangeland vegetation on the Sherman grazing allotment has been determined through monitoring of long-term studies (Nested Frequency). The Nested Frequency sample method provides a measure of plant species frequency. The method records presence/absence data within multiple nested quadrats along transects. Hironaka (1985) and Moseley (et al. 1991) support this method as a repeatable and statistically rigorous way to detect change on a large number of species with a minimum amount of effort. Rangeland vegetation can be broadly grouped into one of two categories depending on how it responds to grazing pressure. These two categories are decreasers and increasers. Decreasers decrease in frequency (occurrence) under grazing pressure while increasers will increase in frequency under heavy grazing pressure. The Nested Frequency data summarized from the transects on the Sherman Allotment showed high frequencies of Idaho fescue, Columbian needlegrass, and mountain brome; all are decreasers which can be reduced in frequency as a result of grazing at higher utilization levels than the plants are able to sustain. (Eckert et.al. 1986) Ellison notes that Columbia needlegrass is unaffected by moderate grazing, but disappears under heavy grazing (Ellison, Lincoln. 1954). Slender wheatgrass, which is also an decreaser showed an overall reduction in frequency, however, this is offset by the overall increase of decreaser brome species which belong in the same functional group of short lived perennials. Overall, abundance of decreaser grasses reflects the stable trend of the grasses on the Sherman Allotment. See the Range Specialist report for details about individual increaser or decreaser species. The following text box represents the Desired Condition for the ARTRV/FEID vegetation communities on the Sherman Allotment.

Chapter 3-11

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Nested Frequency Relative Composition Decreaser Graminoids 1,100 47% Decreaser Forbs 50 2% Increaser Graminoids 150 6% Increaser Forbs (perennial single-stem) 600 26% Bare Soil Increasers (mat forbs) 175 8% Annual Forbs 50 2% Minor* Grasses & Forbs 200 9%

TOTALS 2,325 100% *Minor = present only in small amounts with no clear grazing response.

The following table displays the current conditions and trends for vegetation and ground cover for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Capable acres are considered: Less than or equal to 1 mile from water, slope less than or equal to 30 percent, vegetation types include aspen, all non- forested, all riparian, and all conifers with a crown density less than or equal to 30 percent.

Table 3.4: Existing Rangeland Condition and Upland Trends

Capable Capable Total Total Pasture Acres in Acres Not in % Ground Upland Allotment # Satisfactory Satisfactory Cover/Trend Capable Acres Condition Condition Acres Sherman C South 4,049 0 97/S 4,049 9,083 and H Allotment North 2,894 0 97/S 2,894 8,287 17,370 Trend: U=upward trend, S=stable trend, D=downward trend, N= no trend only one reading

Shrub Cover According to GTR 104, “The approach taken with sagebrush cover is slightly different from the approach taken with the first three indicators. Instead of rating an individual site’s health and aggregating those ratings to represent the health of the cover type, this indicator only assesses the properly functioning aspect of the entire cover type. It is essentially a landscape level indicator. The desired mix of cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosystems for all ecological purposes and needs (USFS 1996) was determined to be:  10 percent of the sagebrush area has 0 to 5 percent shrub canopy cover  50 percent of the sagebrush area has 6 to 15 percent shrub canopy cover  40 percent of the sagebrush area has greater than 15 percent shrub canopy cover If the mix of sagebrush cover is outside the desired cover class distribution, the cover type may be functioning at risk for the overall ecological health and diversity of a sustainable sagebrush community at a landscape level.”

Chapter 3-12

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Sagebrush cover is not routinely monitored for grazing allotments on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The canopy cover data available for the project area was generated using the 2007 existing vegetation layer. Canopy cover in this GIS layer was grouped into two categories: 10-24 percent and 25-100 percent. Based on these categories, it is not possible to estimate what percent of sagebrush habitats in the project area is within the percentages indicated by the Forest Service in Properly Functioning Condition Process (USFS 1996). This being said, in the project area there are approximately 1,221 acres of sagebrush in the 10-24 percent category and 1,799 in the 25-100 percent cover class. This data combined with high ground cover, absence of noxious weeds on key sites, and a dominance of desirable forage species in the understory, suggests that removal of fire from the ecosystem is most likely the primary reason for the large percentage of acreage falling within the more than 25 percent sage canopy category, and that the effects of livestock grazing have been minor by comparison. Vegetation Recovery after the Horse Creek Fire Existing vegetation in the project area is the result of past climatic regimes and disturbances, both natural and human-caused. Fire, timber harvesting, livestock grazing and other natural and human-caused disturbances have played significant roles in shaping existing conditions in this area. The Sherman Allotment was rested in 2008 due to a wildfire that burned through the area in 2007. This fire was not prevalent in rangeland vegetation types and burned primarily timber and late seral aspen communities. The fire burned with relatively low intensity and the burned areas are recovering to stable early seral conditions. Vegetation is recovering and grazing resumed in 2009. Limited grazing in the burned area is occurring. Grazing impacts to the recovering timber vegetation are not expected to slow the regeneration of the timber stands. Cattle appear to be selecting for hollyhock in the burned area and grazing of this plant species is not a concern. Due to the shade intolerance of hollyhock, it is expected to decrease in density as the timber begins to compete with it for sunlight. Incidental trailing through the burned area is expected to occur until the timber skeletons begin to fall and stop cattle movement.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative is synonymous with No Grazing. The selection of this alternative would remove permitted grazing from the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Domestic livestock have been permitted on the Sherman grazing allotment with very little change in management over the past 24 years. All four indicators of rangeland functionality assessed on the Sherman Allotment (ground cover, presence or absence of noxious weeds, species composition, and shrub canopy cover) meet or exceed the thresholds of functionality set forth in RMRS GTR- 104 (Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West). Over the long-term, static to slightly upward trends in ground cover and species composition would be expected under the No Action Alternative. A measureable shift in trends for sagebrush cover and invasive species populations would not be expected under this alternative. Removal of livestock grazing as a vegetation management tool would not be expected to substantially improve

Chapter 3-13

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest rangeland resources on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment.

Cumulative Effects Historic impacts of human activities and natural disturbances to range resources within the project area include timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, road closures/reclamation, landslides, dispersed recreation/camping, recreational livestock grazing, sagebrush spraying, noxious weed treatments and domestic livestock grazing. There is the potential for a minor increase in ground cover, and a slight shift toward later seral status in vegetation species composition due to the elimination of livestock grazing, but Alternative 1 would not be expected to result in measureable contributions to cumulative effects on rangeland resources within the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Elimination of livestock grazing on the Sherman Allotment would reduce the current percentage attainment for Forest Plan Goal 1.1 and Objective 1.1(h) of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Forest Plan Goal 1.1 states that “communities continue or gain greater prosperity” Forest Plan Objective 1.1(h) states “provide forage for about 260,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually Forest- wide”. The Forest continues to trend away from meeting Forest Plan Objective 1.1(h). Since the establishment of this objective in the Forest Plan, approximately 13 allotments have been closed to scheduled livestock grazing or vacated on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, resulting in over 12,000 AUMs no longer being available for domestic livestock grazing. The previous decisions are outside the scope of this analysis, but this alternative would contribute toward the downward trend in livestock numbers.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the allowable use standards and associated additional livestock management requirements would maintain the existing stable trend of the vegetation resource and other indicators of rangeland functionality. Moderate levels of grazing can reduce the potential severity and probability of wildfires in sagebrush rangelands due to removal of fine fuels for fires by grazing cattle. According to Davies et al, “the potential severity of wildfires or prescribed fires is decreased because of a reduction in fuel accumulations with moderate levels of grazing and probably, more importantly, a reduction in fuel loading on perennial bunchgrass crowns”. Large scale disturbance caused by wildfire removes the competition of perennial bunchgrasses and provides the disturbance needed for invasive species to become established. Moderate grazing when compared to long-term grazing exclusion may decrease the risk of exotic plant invasion. (Davies et al. 2010). Because cattle are not contributing significantly to weed dispersal on this allotment, the biggest concern as it relates to weeds is not weed seed dispersal but keeping uncontrolled high intensity wildfire out of the sagebrush communities and thereby not creating an environment where weeds can become easily established. By reducing the chance of catastrophic wildfire, moderate livestock grazing may

Chapter 3-14

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest protect sagebrush rangeland plant communities and the wildlife which are dependent on them (Beck et al. 2009).

Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action Alternative would implement minor changes to the Allotment Management Plan, last revised in 1990, which has led to the stable or upward trend of the rangeland vegetation resource. Implementation of this alternative would be expected to show only minor site specific improvement in rangeland vegetation with the exception of the areas that sustain impacts that are primarily caused by activities other than grazing. Historic impacts of human activities and natural disturbances to range resources within the project area include timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, road closures/reclamation, natural landslides, dispersed recreation/camping, recreational livestock grazing, sagebrush spraying, noxious weed treatments and permitted livestock grazing. Two of these historic impacts will continue to have a negative cumulative effect on rangeland vegetation with or without the continuance of permitted livestock grazing. Illegal off-road vehicle use and dispersed recreation/camping will continue to occur and affect the range resources in the reasonably foreseeable future in the project area. Illegal off-road vehicle use is causing damage to streambank vegetation in isolated locations on Elk, Coal, and Pass Creeks where vehicles continue to cross the streams. Continued grazing of livestock and their use of the same crossings would contribute toward preventing the streambank vegetation from completely healing. Herding of livestock away from these areas would continue to reduce livestock impacts to these areas. Dispersed recreation/camping causes impacts to the range resource in the form of trampling of vegetation. This trampling of sagebrush can lead to the removal of sagebrush from the dispersed camping sites. The areas denuded of sagebrush by dispersed camping activities are often adjacent to the edge of the timbered vegetation. Cattle are attracted to these areas cleared of sagebrush and adjacent to timbered vegetation for bedding purposes. Concentrated livestock bedding can have a cumulative impact to the bare ground in these areas. Although the reduction in frequency of sagebrush might be construed as an indicator of seral regression under certain circumstances, sage cover in the project area is more skewed than is desirable toward a high cover class category. Due to the overall high cover class of sagebrush in the project area the isolated reduction in sagebrush discussed in this paragraph is not cumulatively significant. Continued livestock grazing combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would not be expected to have a measurable cumulative effect on the vegetation resource or the other indicators of rangeland functionality.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Authorization of grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment would contribute toward attainment of Forest Plan Objectives 1.1 and 1.1(h) of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) which state: (1) Goal 1.1 “communities continue or gain greater prosperity”; and (2) Objective 1.1(h) “provide forage for about 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing annually Forest-wide.

Chapter 3-15

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Summary of Effects on Range Resources Neither the Proposed Action Alternative nor the No Action Alternative would be expected to have long-term effects on the current condition of the range vegetation resource. The primary differences between alternatives will be in the area of Forest Plan Goals and the ability to contribute to the Forest Objectives 1.1 and 1.1(h) of the Forest Plan which state: (1) Goal 1.1 “communities continue or gain greater prosperity”; and (2) Objective 1.1(h) “provide forage for about 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing annually Forest-wide. The Proposed Action Alternative would contribute toward attainment of these goals and objectives and the No Action Alternative would not. Neither of the alternatives, when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, are expected to exceed the capacity of the resource to sustain itself. There are no unresolved conflicts related to vegetation condition or rangeland functionality on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment.

Soil Resources______Information provided in this final environmental impact statement about the soil resources of the project area is excerpted from the Sherman Allotment Soil Resource Report by Forest Soil Scientist Eric Winthers. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Soil Quality Livestock grazing may negatively affect soil quality by causing detrimental soil conditions that can increase soil erosion due to reduced ground cover and soil compaction from trampling and trailing. Issue Indicators  Percent of acres within the allotment with detrimental soil conditions. Specific indicators include:  Soil erosion  Soil compaction  Percent effective ground cover

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Soil Types within the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Soil information collected as part of the Bridger West Soil Survey is used to describe the soils within the affected environment and to disclose the potential hazard of each soil type to be compacted or eroded (USFS 1993). Soil types within the allotment are summarized for potential erosion and compaction hazard ratings and maps indicate their relative distribution, throughout the allotment. Soil map unit descriptions and maps are summarized below and complete descriptions are filed in the project record.

Chapter 3-16

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

The analysis area for this project is the outer boundary of the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment totaling approximately 17,370 acres. The allotment occurs on several main soil types. The layout of the allotment and the distribution of soils are illustrated in Figure 3.4. The dominate soil map units are listed in Table 3.5 and described below. Detailed descriptions are on file in the project record. Soil map unit 203 occurs on the south and southwest facing slopes. Soils are formed in the Tertiary-aged Wasatch formation and are very deep (Rubey et al. 1980). Soil surface textures are silt loam and clay loam which are prone to compaction. Vegetation is a mix of conifer, aspen, and sage grass types. Overall productivity is high. This unit comprises about 27 percent of the allotment (USFS 1993). Map unit 303 occurs on north and northeasterly facing slopes which are dominated by conifers. Soils formed in the Tertiary-aged Wasatch formation and are very deep (Rubey et al. 1980). Soil surface textures are loam and silt loam. Understory production is low and predominately composed of shrubs. This unit comprises about 25 percent of the allotment (USFS 1993). Soil map unit 432 occurs on the open sagebrush-grass foot slopes and basins along the south and southeastern portions of the allotment. Soils are very deep and are formed colluvium from the Tertiary Wasatch formation (Rubey et al. 1980). Soil surface textures are predominantly silt loam. Areas of wet meadows and riparian stringers along small streams are present. Figure 3.4 illustrates the wet meadow conditions found near point 12. This unit comprises about 11 percent of the allotment (USFS 1993). Soil map unit 202 occurs on the south and southwest facing slopes dominated by a mosaic of aspen, conifer and sagebrush-grass-forb types. Understory production is relatively high. Soils formed in the Tertiary-aged Wasatch formation and are very deep (Rubey et al. 1980). Soil surface textures are predominately silt loam. Some seeps and wet areas are found throughout this unit. This unit comprises about 11 percent of the allotment (USFS 1993). Map unit 101 occurs in the riparian areas found along major drainages in the allotment. Soils are formed in a mixed sedimentary alluvium. This unit comprises about 6 percent of the allotment (USFS 1993). See following table.

Table 3.5: Acres of Each Soil Map Unit within the Allotment

Acres Soil Map Unit Acres Percent of Allotment Detrimentally Disturbed 203 4600.91 26.50 46 303 4303.23 24.79 43 432 1995.46 11.49 20 202 1907.04 10.98 19 101 1030.54 5.94 0 232 925.91 5.33 0 311 860.00 4.95 0 301 823.99 4.75 0 413 379.85 2.19 0 321 213.84 1.23 0

Chapter 3-17

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Acres Soil Map Unit Acres Percent of Allotment Detrimentally Disturbed 434 165.39 0.95 0 171 93.45 0.54 0 205 29.00 0.17 0 161 27.54 0.16 0 401 4.88 0.03 0

128 acres TOTAL 17,360 100% (0.73%)

Chapter 3-18

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.4: Soil Map Units, Wildfires and Soil Data Points

Chapter 3-19

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Potential Soil Compaction and Erosion Hazard Ratings The criteria for soil compaction and erosion hazard ratings were adopted from the Region 4 Soil Interpretive Guide (USFS 2010) and the NRCS National Forestry Manual (NRCS 1998). The ratings are determined from the soil map units developed from the Bridger West Soil Survey conducted in the area from 1987 through 1993 (see Table 3.5 above).

Potential Soil Compaction Rating This rating describes the relative risk of inducing soil compaction through timber harvest, livestock grazing, or recreational activities. Soil compaction decreases the macropore space, increases bulk density, and results in damaged soil structure. Decreased porosity reduces infiltration and percolation, increases surface runoff, and encourages erosion. The physical, chemical and biological effects of compaction can restrict plant growth and reduce soil productivity (NRCS 2003b). The ratings are based on the soil textural class, coarse fragment content and shape, O horizon thickness, and soil structure, and use a weighted average of the top 12 inches of mineral soil. This rating assumes moist or wet soils. Dry soils are not as easily compacted as moist or wet soils. Frozen ground also tends to minimize the effects of compaction. Areas with high or moderate compaction hazard ratings may require restrictions on use during high moisture conditions (USFS 2010). In the Sherman Allotment, approximately 90 percent of the soils rated as having a high potential soil compaction hazard. The remaining 10 percent rated moderate.

Potential Erosion Hazard Rating This rating describes the relative risk that soil erosion will occur as a result of disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Erosion hazard ratings are based on slope, k-factor, and rock fragments on the surface layer. "Slight" refers to soils where erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. "Moderate" refers to soils where some erosion is likely and control measures may be needed. "Severe" refers to soils where erosion is very likely and control measures for vegetation re-establishment on bare areas and structural measures are advised. Ratings assume a 50 to 75 percent exposed, roughened mineral surface layer (USFS 2010). According to the criteria, for the Sherman Allotment, approximately 90 percent of the soils are rated as having a severe potential erosion hazard. The remaining 10 percent rated moderate.

Review of Grazing Capability Determination The BTNF’s 2008 Grazing Capability Determination (USFS 2008) was reviewed to determine if areas capable of grazing should be adjusted based on soil erosion and ground cover concerns. Figure 3.5 displays the capable grazing areas with soils that have a high potential erosion hazard rating. The high potential erosion hazard rating assumes that if the soils were to have 50 to 75 percent bare ground, erosion would be very likely. Ground cover data collected at soil survey data points (USFS 1993), soil evaluation points (Winthers 2013), fire effects monitoring (Abendroth 2012), and by the long term range studies (Hayward 2013) indicate that bare ground does not exceed 12 percent; there is 88 percent effective ground cover. This is well below the 40 percent bare ground or 60 percent effective ground cover threshold criteria identified in the R4 Grazing Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions (USFS 1998b). Thus, no adjustments to the capable grazing acres in the Sherman Allotment are recommended.

Chapter 3-20

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.5: Capable Rangeland with High Potential Erosion Hazard

Chapter 3-21

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Ground Cover Ground cover consists of vegetation, litter and rock fragments larger than three-fourths inch in diameter. Effective ground cover is expressed as the percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface and includes live vegetation, dead vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel more than ¾ inch in size, stones and bedrock (USFS 2011). Effective ground cover is measured using a line-intercept method along a 100-foot tape. At each foot marker, two measurements are taken; the first “hit” is referred to as foliar cover and the second “hit’ is the basal cover or the ground cover at the soil surface. The basal cover measurement is used for the effective ground cover value. A threshold of 60 percent effective ground cover was used to determine when impaired or unsatisfactory ground cover conditions exist. This threshold is supported by research conducted by Robichaud et al. (2000) who concluded that sediment production is inversely related to ground cover, that is, runoff and sediment production decreases with increasing ground cover and levels off at 60 percent cover. Previous studies by Noble et al. (1971) and Orr (1970) also found that 60 percent cover reduced sediment movement to negligible amounts, and 30 percent cover reduced erosion by about half compared to 100 percent bare ground (Robichaud et al. 2000). The 60 percent threshold is also used as criteria for determining capable range as described in the Region 4 Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions (USFS 1998). Ground cover values for existing vegetation types within the allotment follow recommendations in the Rocky Mountain Research Station Report, GTR-104: Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West (O’Brein et al. 2003). These standards include maintaining sagebrush/grass vegetation types at 85 percent, tall forb types at 80 percent, and aspen types at 95 percent. Ground cover percentages for willow and riparian areas should be maintained at 95 percent or greater. Ground cover data was collected in key areas by Range Conservationist’s across the allotment in 1984, 1995, 2002 and in 2011 (Hayward 2013). A key area is a tract of land that is assumed to be representative of much larger areas and is likely to reflect the effects of management changes on these larger areas (Herrick et al. 2009). According to the data cited in the Vegetation Specialist Report all key areas had ground cover readings between 95 and 98 percent. Existing Soil Conditions Soil quality is the capacity of soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance the quality of water and air, and support human activities (NRCS 2001). Soils were evaluated during the summer of 2008 and 2011 to determine soil conditions and soil quality in the allotment. The allotment was traversed on foot and horseback. Photo points, soil quality assessments, and visual evaluations were conducted. Shovel tests were used to evaluate compaction.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance In 2008, less than 1 percent of the area or 127 acres was estimated to have detrimental soil conditions occurring in map units 202, 203, 303 and 432 (see Figure 3.6 and Table 3.5). Most of

Chapter 3-22

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest the detrimental disturbance was due to the 2007 Horse Creek fire and also from unauthorized off road vehicles as shown in Figure 3.6, near point 12, 13 and 14. Pass Creek Road is also an area of detrimental soil disturbance because of unstable soils with several areas of soil erosion occurring from the roadway (Simon 2009). Less than one acre of detrimental soil disturbance caused by grazing was identified.

Figure 3.6: Detrimental Soil Conditions in June of 2008 Caused by Unauthorized Travel in a Wet Meadow near Point 12

Compaction and Erosion Past timber harvest in the Horse Creek and Pass Creek area has led to some erosion and compaction along access roads, old skid trails and in clearcut units. The Pass Creek road remains in poor condition and is impassable when wet. Culverts are plugged with mud and sediment from the road is reaching Pass Creek (Simon 2009). Dispersed camping along the Horse Creek and Pass Creek roads has led to some localized erosion and compaction. Small areas (less than 1/10th acre) of soil compaction are present in and around the dispersed campsites. This is mainly caused by vehicle and foot traffic around these areas. In addition, small areas (less than 1/10th acre) of soil compaction associated with cattle grazing occur around salting areas, trailing areas, and watering areas.

Burned Soil Figure 3.8 illustrates the perimeter of the two fires that burned in the Sherman Allotment in the past 15 years. The 2002 Mule Creek fire affected approximately 2,698 acres in the northwestern part of the allotment, burning in a mosaic pattern. However, this area has fully recovered.

Chapter 3-23

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

The 2007 Horse Creek fire burned about 7,654 acres in the southern half of the allotment. This fire was not prevalent in rangeland vegetation types and burned primarily timber and late seral aspen communities (Hayward 2013). According to the Soils Specialist Report for the Burned Area Emergency Response most of the area burned in a mosaic pattern; approximately 18 percent of the fire area was unburned, 32 percent was classified low soil-burn severity, and 50 percent was moderate soil-burn severity (Kleinschmidt 2007). None of the area was classified as high burn severity. Figure 3.7 near point 22 (photo taken in 2008) illustrates an area of moderate burn severity in the once conifer component of map unit 202. In this area, runoff has down cut the channel slightly as indicated by the sharp edges along the channel margins. New vegetation, primarily fire weed, is emerging along the banks and alongside slopes. The allotment was rested from grazing in 2008 to allow for natural vegetation recovery. Fire effects monitoring of aspen stands within the allotment five years after the fire show that bare ground decreased from 40 percent in 2009 to 11 percent in 2012 (Abendroth 2012).

Figure 3.7: Area of Moderate Burn Severity near Point 22 in 2008 with Intermixed Spots of Detrimental Soil Burn Severity and Erosion

Summary Less than one percent of the area has detrimental soil conditions which are primarily due to the 2007 burn, unauthorized off-road vehicles, and cattle activity around salting areas. Areas of moderate burn severity are recovering and erosion is within acceptable limits.

Chapter 3-24

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.8: Past Fires in the Sherman Allotment

Chapter 3-25

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The temporal effects of reduced ground cover, which leads to soil erosion can last anywhere from 5 to 500 years depending on how much soil is lost and how fast the soil organic matter is replaced from the vegetation it supports. Severely compacted soils that limit root penetration can permanently reduce soil productivity if they are not treated. Light to moderately compacted soils (not root limiting) can recover overtime with natural freeze/thaw cycles and reduced use. The spatial effects of reduced ground cover and soil erosion can be highly variable depending on the inherent erodibility of the particular soil types found within an allotment. Soils can vary spatially within short distances depending on the type of parent material in which they are derived, percent slope, aspect and vegetation type.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects Discontinued grazing would result in overall improvements in soil quality over the long term. Areas with detrimental soil conditions would improve over time. Effective ground cover would increase slightly over time.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This alternative meets soil quality management policy and guidelines as described in FSM 2550 – R4 Supplement 2011 (USFS 2011) and all Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Soil quality would be maintained over the long term throughout the allotment.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and future negative effects of other actions not related to grazing (stated above under “Existing Soil Conditions”) would continue to occur, but the positive effects of discontinuing grazing would not add to these negative effects of unrelated actions.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, allowable use would be limited to 50 percent utilization in riparian and wetland areas as well as uplands. Stream bank alteration standards would also be implemented. Managing the allowable use in riparian and wetland areas would protect soils since animals would be spending less time in those areas. Riparian and wetland areas tend to hold more soil moisture and are more prone to soil compaction. Managing the allowable use in upland areas would also protect soils and prevent erosion,Small areas (less than one acre) of detrimental soil compaction and erosion associated with salting and trailing areas would continue to occur as these impacts are unavoidable. Effective ground cover would be expected to remain the same as existing conditions.

Chapter 3-26

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be met. Under this alternative soil quality management policy and guidelines as described in Forest Service Manual 2550 – Region 4 Supplement 2011 (USFS 2011) would be complied with and desired conditions would be achieved. Alternative 2 would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and future negative effects of other actions not related to grazing (stated above under “Existing Soil Conditions”) would continue to occur, but the positive effects of managing utilization and applying streambank alteration standards would not add to these negative effects of unrelated actions.

Effects Summary Following is Table 3.6 that briefly compares the effects of the alternatives on soil quality.

Table 3.6: Summary of Effects on Soil Quality

Alternative 2 – Proposed Indicator Alternative 1 – No Action Action Potential for detrimental soil none Less than one acre compaction from grazing Potential for detrimental soil none Less than one acre erosion from grazing Effective Ground Cover Increases slightly over time. Remains the same.

Hydrology Resources______Information provided in this final environmental impact statement about the water resources on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment is excerpted from the Hydrology Report by Forest Hydrologist Ronna Simon. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Aquatic Function There is concern that livestock grazing may affect the health and functionality of streams and riparian areas. As stated in Clary and Webster (1989), “[i]mproper livestock management, through excessive grazing and trampling, can affect riparian-stream habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, causing channel aggradation [building up of the channel bed by accumulation of sediment] or degradation [the opposite of aggradation], causing widening or incisement of stream channels, changing streambank morphology, and as an accumulative result often lowering surrounding water tables (Platts 1986).” Issue Indicators  Stream channel integrity and stream channel stability (percent stable banks where Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) was conducted, description of conditions and photographs where MIM was not conducted);

Chapter 3-27

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

 Extent of streambank shearing and trampling by wildlife and livestock (current year streambank alteration where MIM was conducted; description of conditions and photographs where MIM was not conducted);  Amount of instream sedimentation (Wolman pebble count and percent materials finer than two millimeters, or description of sediment sources to stream, with photographs).

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment for Hydrology Resources is best described in terms of water quality, ground water, stream channel function, and water quantity.

Data Sources Field data collected in 2008 and 2013 constitute the primary basis of information for this analysis. Data consist of measured Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) parameters (Burton et al. 2008), supplemented with documented visual observations and photographs.

Discharge/Streamflow Data The U.S. Geological Survey operated a stream gaging station on North Horse Creek downstream from the Sherman Guard Station from October 1954 through September 1974. The site was actually on North Horse Creek, but is called “Horse Creek at Sherman Ranger Station, Wyoming” in the USGS records.

Water Quality Data The Sublette Conservation District has collected water quality information on North Horse Creek at the Forest boundary since 2001 (Sublette CD, 2009). Applicable data are cited in this report. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STORET database contains information from one water quality sample taken by EPA on Horse Creek on private land (T34N, R112W, sec. 11) downstream from the allotment, on July 10, 2003. Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed by USGS on Horse Creek at the Sherman Guard Station from 1976 through 1978; the data are likely too old to be meaningful for this analysis so most results – except for stream temperature – are not included in this document. Wetland and riparian vegetation maps supplement the field data. Two data sources are used to show potential wet areas on maps. The first data source is the Bridger-Teton National Forest 2007 vegetation map. Dominant land cover, canopy closure, and tree size classes are mapped to a scale of 1:100,000, based on field survey and remote sensing data. Riparian areas are mapped down to a minimum polygon size of two acres (upland vegetation is mapped down to five acres). Riparian map groups include areas dominated by cottonwoods, riparian herblands, and willows. The second data source is the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The NWI was created, and is managed, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the principal federal agency responsible for providing information to the public on the extent and status of the nation’s wetlands. The NWI is comprised of maps showing different types of wetlands, based on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Source imagery for the NWI is from the 1980s for the portions of the Bridger-Teton National Forest that have been mapped (most, but not all, of the Forest has been mapped and digital data are available).

Chapter 3-28

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Three automated data-loggers collected water temperature data in North Horse Creek from July to mid-October, 2009. The Forest Service monitored temperature at three sites—upstream from Mule Creek, upstream from the 10390 (Pass Creek) road junction, and downstream from Sherman Guard Station—to see if causes for stream heating below the guard station could be determined. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) uses the WY RIVPACS (Hargett 2012) and the Wyoming Stream Integrity Index (WSII) (Hargett 2011) bio-assessment methodologies to assist in determinations of whether water quality standards are met via support of designated uses. Ratings from the two methodologies are used in combination to arrive at a narrative designated use support rating. A site on North Horse Creek near Mule Creek was evaluated on October 24, 2002 (T34N, R115W, section 11) and a site on North Horse Creek near Merna Butte was evaluated on September 26, 2001 (T34N, R114W, section 1). The Mule Creek site was upstream from the allotment (but within the cumulative effects analysis area) but the Merna Butte site was inside the allotment.

Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) MIM is a method for monitoring streambanks, stream channels, and riparian vegetation. It includes both annual and long-term indicators, making it useful for both annual management implementation and for assessing long-term trends in resource conditions. For the Sherman Allotment, both short-term channel alteration and long-term channel stability were measured on several streams, on reaches of stream that would be capable of showing impacts of grazing (but not in areas that would lead to animal concentration, e.g., adjacent to fences). On other streams, visual observations constitute the basis of input. The Bridger-Teton National Forest adopted MIM as the method for implementing the BTNF Forest Plan Streambank Stability Guideline in a “white paper” signed in 2008. That paper acknowledged the importance of reducing annual channel alteration to maintain long-term stream channel stability. A default value of 20 percent maximum allowable annual channel alteration on fisheries streams was established, based on literature and other forests’ guidelines, to meet the Forest Plan guideline. Water Quality There are no 303(d) listed streams within or immediately downstream from, the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment analysis area. These are streams where the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has determined that water quality is either impaired or threatened: the list is updated every two years as required by Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. No municipal watersheds are located in the analysis area. Wyoming DEQ classifies streams in the Wyoming Surface Water Classification List, Tables A and B, according to designated uses that are, or should be, supported for a given stream or reach. North and South Horse Creeks, Pass Creek, Mill Creek, Spring Creek, Cole Creek, and Elk Creek are classified as 2AB streams. The other streams in the project area have not been classified by Wyoming DEQ. According to Chapter 1 of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Class 2AB waters are those known to support game fish populations or spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally and all their perennial tributaries and

Chapter 3-29

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

adjacent wetlands and where a game fishery and drinking water use is otherwise attainable. Class 2AB waters include all permanent and seasonal game fisheries and can be either “cold water” or “warm water” depending upon the predominance of cold water or warm water species present. All Class 2AB waters are designated as cold water game fisheries unless identified as a warm water game fishery by a “ww” notation in the Wyoming Surface Water Classification List. Unless it is shown otherwise, these waters are presumed to have sufficient water quality and quantity to support drinking water supplies and are protected for that use. Class 2AB waters are also protected for nongame fisheries, fish consumption, aquatic life other than fish, recreation, wildlife, industry, agriculture and scenic value uses. (http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/Chapter_01.pdf) One water quality sample was collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Horse Creek approximately 10 miles downstream from National Forest System lands. The sample was collected on July 10, 2003. Relevant results are summarized in the following table.

Table 3.7: July 10, 2003 Water Quality Results, Horse Creek (STORET)

Wyoming water quality Were criteria / Constituent Result criterion standards met? Human-caused wastes shall not pH 8.27 cause pH to be less than 6.5 or Yes greater than 9.0 Total suspended 1.1 mg/l None Not applicable solids Cold water fisheries or drinking water: no human-caused increases of more than 10 NTU. Turbidity 1.34 NTU Yes For warm water or non-game fisheries, no human-caused increase of more than 15 NTU. Human health value, fish and Nitrate N 0 ueq/l drinking water: 10,000 ug/l (= 10 Yes (NO3) as N mg/l) At a pH of 8.3, 3.15 mg N/l (acute value for salmonids). Chronic 1 ueq/l criteria for fish early life stages at (approx. pH = 8.3 varies depending on 0.0047 mg/l water temperature and the Ammonia per pers. presence or absence of fish; if Yes (NH3) as N comm. from early stages of fish were present J. Sheets, at the time of sampling (July 10, USEPA, 2003), and if water temperatures 2/23/2009) were sustained at 24ºC, the criterion would be 0.827 mg N/l. Applicable criteria: (a) For Class 1, 2 Water and 3 waters, effluent attributable to Perhaps not (see 24.2ºC or influenced by the activities of man Temperature shall not be discharged in amounts following text) which change ambient water

Chapter 3-30

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Wyoming water quality Were criteria / Constituent Result criterion standards met? temperatures to levels which result in harmful acute or chronic effects to aquatic life, or which would not fully support existing and designated uses. (d) Except on Class 2D, 3 and Class 4 waters, the maximum allowable stream temperature will be the maximum natural daily stream temperature plus the allowable change, provided that this temperature is not lethal to existing fish life and under no circumstance shall this maximum temperature exceed 68 degrees F (20 degrees C) in the case of cold water fisheries and 86 degrees F (30 degrees C) in the case of warm water fisheries.

As Table 3.8 shows, most water quality parameters met state standards. Temperature may have exceeded state standards, but the sampling site was approximately 10 miles downstream from the forest boundary and exceedances cannot be judged from a single measurement, so a firm determination cannot be made. The Sublette Conservation District has collected water quality data on North Horse Creek at the forest boundary (T34N, R113W, sec. 6 NE1/4) since April 2001. Samples are generally taken four times per year and data through November 2008 are used for this document. Applicable data are summarized in the following table. See Table 3.8 (data from Sublette Conservation District 2009) for applicable Wyoming water quality criteria.

Table 3.8: Sublette Conservation District Water Quality Data

Measured values Constituent Were water quality criteria/standards met? (range) pH 7.20 to 8.56 Yes There are no criteria. Field notes for the date that 27 mg/l Total was reported (7/27/07) state that “Creek is very cloudy, Non-detect to 5.0, with suspended recent large wildfire in area [Horse Creek fire]… Also one value of 27 solids (mg/l) recent rainstorm night before.” The storm could well account for the increased suspended sediment load. No reason for the high value on 9/11/03 is given in the 0.22 to 2.53 NTU for field notes, and total suspended solids were not high. The most readings. Two high value on 7/27/07 is associated with the high value for Turbidity values exceeded 2.53: total suspended solids on the same day, possibly resulting (NTU) On 9/11/03, turbidity = from the rainstorm on the recently burned area. No 33.69 NTU; on 7/27/07, human-caused source for the high values was noted, so turbidity = 54.9 NTU. criteria were probably met. Nitrate + Nitrite as N Non-detect Yes (mg/l) Water -1 to 24.3 degrees C July stream temperatures measured by Sublette

Chapter 3-31

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Measured values Constituent Were water quality criteria/standards met? (range) temperature Conservation District often exceed 21 degrees C (70 (degree C) degree F). There are likely exceedances of state water quality criteria.

In looking through all the available data, most parameters meet state of Wyoming water quality criteria. Summer (July) stream temperatures on North Horse Creek are likely exceeding state water quality criteria (i.e., are too warm) for cold water fisheries. To follow up further on potential stream temperature issues, the Bridger-Teton National Forest installed temperature loggers at three sites on North Horse Creek in 2009. They were located to provide data on effects of the Horse Creek fire, and potential impacts of beaver ponds through the middle reaches of the stream. Temperature readings were taken every 72 minutes at each site and manual temperature readings confirmed the loggers’ accuracy. Table 3.9 summarizes the data (a plot of the data is in the Hydrology project file). Temperatures after September, 29, 2009 dropped considerably, with lows reaching 0˚C at night (loggers were retrieved in the snow) and highs reaching no more than approximately 8˚C during the day, so temperatures are summarized for the period through that date. Temperature extremes shown in Table 3.9 reflect conditions through the period of record. Maximum and minimum temperatures were consistently highest at the Sherman Guard Station site (the farthest-downstream site). The farthest-upstream site above Mule Creek had the next- highest temperatures, but also had the lowest temperatures (and a higher range of temperatures than the middle site). There is no evidence that the fires are affecting maximum stream temperatures. Beaver ponds may be moderating the range of daily stream temperatures. The highest temperatures at the lowest site may be due to a combination of factors, including vegetative and topographic shading (the valley opens up considerably between the middle and lowest sites), but there are no apparent management-related reasons for the elevated temperatures at the lowest site.

Table 3.9: Summary of North Horse Creek Temperature Data, 2009

T min Site description Mean T (C) Date through Site relative to watershed T max (C) through installed* 9/29/09 impacts 9/29/09 (C) Upstream from Horse Upstream from 10.80 Creek Fire, Upstream 7/23/09 20.19 1.17 Mule Creek from most beaver ponds Within Horse Creek Fire watershed, upstream Upstream from from most beaver ponds, 10.88 7/23/09 18.66 4.15 Pass Creek road about halfway between Mule Creek and Sherman GS Downstream Downstream from Horse 13.24 (for the from Sherman Creek Fire and beaver 7/14/09 22.09 4.99 dates 7/23 Guard Station ponds through 9/29) *All loggers were retrieved on October 15, 2009

Chapter 3-32

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

North Horse Creek is in the Sedimentary Mountain Bioregion for WDEQ bio-assessment purposes, using WY RIVPACS (Hargett 2012) and the Wyoming Stream Integrity Index (WSII) (Hargett 2011) assessment methodologies. Ratings from the two methodologies are used in combination to arrive at a narrative designated use support rating. One site upstream from the allotment was evaluated [North Horse Creek – Mule (T34N, R115W, section 11 SENE)] and one site within the allotment was evaluated [North Horse Creek – Merna Butte (T34N, R114W, section 1 SWNE)]. The combined rating for both sites was “full support”. This means that water quality standards were being met to support all designated uses at both sites. Stream Channel Conditions Physical stream channel characteristics and riparian vegetation are used as indicators of water quality condition, in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Wyoming Grazing Best Management Practices (BMPs) (WDEQ 1997). BMPs are defined in the Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards as “a practice or combination of practices that after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and in some cases public participation, are determined to be the most technologically and economically feasible means of managing, preventing or reducing nonpoint source pollution”. (WDEQ 2007) As stated in the grazing BMPs, “… (BMPs) are guidelines for reduction of nonpoint source water pollution from grazing by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses”. As stated in the Management Direction section of the Hydrology Specialist Report, the Bridger-Teton National Forest uses these BMPs as mandatory minimum measures for protecting watershed resources, generally exceeding them. Wyoming grazing BMPs are written as general guidance, with an explanation describing how the practice is to be applied and a list of literature citations to provide more specific information for implementation. Some of the Wyoming BMPs include proper grazing of riparian and wetland areas (with management of stocking rates, distribution, timing and duration of rest, and water developments to protect riparian and wetland areas, etc.), livestock herding, water developments, and weed and pest management. Riparian areas and stream channels that are in good condition act as filters for sediment, bacteria and nutrients. They also provide cover to maintain water temperatures, ensure that stream channels have a form that allows them to transport the sediment being supplied to them from streambank erosion and from their watersheds, and supply good habitat for aquatic organisms. Agouridis et al. (2005) noted that numerous studies document the negative impacts of grazing on stream channel condition and water quality, but that few studies have evaluated the success of BMPs in mitigating these adverse impacts from grazing. The few studies they were able to find on BMP effectiveness did show water quality and stream channel benefits from BMPs. The impacts to water quality from grazing, and the water quality benefits from maintaining riparian and stream channel conditions, are also summarized in the Wyoming Grazing BMPs and in other literature, including (for example) Leffert 2005; Sovell et al. 2000; Dissmeyer 2000; and Mosley et al. 1997. It is reasonable, based on these and other references, to assume that channel and riparian area conditions are good indicators of water quality conditions. Channel vulnerability to impacts from livestock, and the ability of channels to recover from past adverse impacts, depends on inherent channel characteristics. One way of describing these characteristics is via assignment of Rosgen channel types (Rosgen 1996); channel types in this document are assigned, where possible. The Forest Plan accounts for characteristics of different types of streams in the Streambank Stability Guideline and the 2008 BTNF Forest Plan

Chapter 3-33

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Streambank Stability Guideline white paper that implements the guideline also accounts for these differences. This information is included where relevant and available in the following text. Most observations or stream surveys were made in 2008; the southern allotment pasture had not been grazed in 2007 and the entire allotment was rested in 2008 (livestock were moved to another allotment) due to the Horse Creek fire. The allotment had been grazed annually prior to 2007, and regularly scheduled grazing resumed in 2009 with approximately 60 percent of pre-2007 numbers (pers. comm., P. Archual, July 21, 2010). Although short-term stream channel alteration from livestock grazing would not have been evident at the time of the 2008 surveys, it is important to note that the stream channel stability indicator used in Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM)—and measured during surveys—validated long-term channel conditions, even with two years of non-use. A review by the University of Idaho, cited in the MIM manual as a reason for developing the MIM protocol, found that it was important to understand that annual indicators such as streambank alteration are “short-term indicators of grazing effects on meeting long-term riparian management objectives (e.g., …streambank stability).” The study emphasized the distinction between the use of short-term and long-term parameters by stating, “Long-term monitoring of [parameters including] streambank stability are the true measures of whether riparian management objectives are being met or not. Annual indicators … are only useful for interpretation of why trend is not satisfactory and for use in adaptive management.” (University of Idaho, 2004) For these reasons, it is valid to have evaluated streams to see if objectives were being met after two years of non-use. Several sites were subsequently re-evaluated in 2013, after resumption of grazing, and results are displayed in the Hydrology Specialist report. A review by the University of Idaho, cited in the MIM manual as a reason for developing the MIM protocol, found that it was important to understand that annual indicators such as streambank alteration are “short-term indicators of grazing effects on meeting long-term riparian management objectives (e.g., …streambank stability).” The study emphasized the distinction between the use of short-term and long-term parameters by stating, “Long-term monitoring of [parameters including] streambank stability are the true measures of whether riparian management objectives are being met or not. Annual indicators … are only useful for interpretation of why trend is not satisfactory and for use in adaptive management.” (University of Idaho 2004) For these reasons, it is valid to have evaluated streams to see if objectives were being met after two years of non-use.

Chapter 3-34

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.9: Observation Sites in the Sherman Allotment

Spring Creek A survey of a section of Spring Creek was conducted on July 28, 2008. The reach appeared to be representative of the entire stream. There were both intact and breached beaver dams in the area, and their presence has led to the creation of ponds throughout the reach. The following table summarizes conditions that were noted at the time of the survey.

Table 3.10: Summary of Channel Conditions, Spring Creek Site, 2008

95% Confidence Interval for Observation Measured Metric Metric Bank alteration (current year) 7% (left bank); 3% (right bank) +/- 6.0% Bank stability 91% stable +/- 5.2% Bank covered (with vegetation or rock) 89% covered +/- 4.5% Rosgen channel type E6

There was a high percentage of fine materials in the channel (greater than 50 percent of instream materials were finer than two millimeters), but this was characteristic of the stream type and was likely due to both the local geology and the presence of active beaver dams, which store fine sediments. According to Rosgen (1996), E6 channels have a very high sensitivity to disturbance,

Chapter 3-35

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest good recovery potential once they are disturbed, moderate streambank erosion potential, and vegetation has a very high controlling influence on channel form and function. This channel is in excellent condition (all parameters are within expected ranges for the type where such ranges are known), and showed no evidence of long-term adverse impacts from livestock grazing via its high measured channel stability and high percent of bank covered with vegetation, rock, or wood. Expected ranges for channel stability of “E” type channels are not well documented but, as stated in Cowley, 2002, observations of 767 reaches of low-gradient meadow-type streams in Idaho (probably E type channels) found that over two-thirds had stabilities of over 95 percent stable and four-fifths exceeded 80 percent stability. As expected, due to the two years of rest, short-term channel alteration values were low (3 percent and 7 percent for the left and right banks, respectively). This alteration was likely due to wildlife. Because of its excellent condition, the site has been shown in Figure 3.10 as a “benchmark” site to be monitored in the future. Such sites serve as references to gauge change and to evaluate potential conditions at other, similar, sites. The following figure shows one view of the reach that was sampled.

Figure 3.10: Upstream End of Surveyed Reach, Spring Creek

The same reach of Spring Creek was re-sampled in 2013. The following table shows those data.

Table 3.10a: Summary of Channel Conditions, Spring Creek Site, 2013

95% Confidence Interval for Observation Measured Metric Metric 6% average (both Bank alteration (current year) +/- 6% banks) Bank stability 90% stable +/- 5.2% Bank covered (with vegetation or 95% covered +/- 4.5% rock) Rosgen channel type E6

Chapter 3-36

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Streambank stability and streambank cover increased from 2008 to 2013. Including the 95% confidence intervals showing that the change from 2008 and 2013 was not statistically significant for any parameter. All conditions are within the expected ranges for E6 channel types. Bankfull channel widths were measured along the Spring Creek study reach, a measure known as “cumulative bankfull widths” when plotted to show what percent of the channel widths have a given width in feet (in this instance). Looking at cumulative bankfull widths for 2008 and 2013, there has been no notable shift in bankfull channel widths The channel is not widening to any noticeable degree, in agreement with the MIM data which also indicate that the channel is stable.

Mill Creek The lower reach of Mill Creek was walked, and photos and observations were taken in an area that was approximately 100 yards upstream from the mouth. There was an obvious trail crossing the stream, and it appeared that wildlife (and possibly horses) had been using the area recently. Streambanks were mostly stable in the reach, except at the trail crossing. Bank vegetation consisted of willow, sedge, and forbs, and there was a narrow floodplain (the stream was highly confined here). Overall, it appeared to be a stable gravel-bed stream; the following figure shows the reach.

Figure 3.11: Mill Creek

North Horse Creek Two areas of North Horse Creek were walked and photographed; see Figure 3.9 for their locations. The upper site was walked both upstream and downstream from an old road that accesses the stream (and used to be a ford crossing). Upstream from the old crossing, the stream is extremely dynamic and is carrying a high sediment load (predominantly cobble/gravel). There are fresh cut banks, as well as instream bars and “drowning” willows which are evidence of recent channel movement (Figure 3.12). This is a depositional reach of stream and the bed is building up vertically (aggrading) as well as actively shifting horizontally. No management- related source for these conditions was evident.

Chapter 3-37

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.12: Upper Reach of North Horse Creek, Upstream from Old Road Crossing

Although there were also abundant fresh sediment deposits and sections of multiple channels downstream from the old ford crossing, the channel was much more stable (and unstable areas were stabilizing more rapidly) than upstream from the crossing (Figure 3.13). Blown-out beaver dams were present throughout the reach.

Figure 3.13: Upper North Horse Creek, Downstream from Old Ford Crossing

The lower reach of North Horse Creek extended upstream from the trail ford for the Horse Mountain trail for a distance of approximately 150 yards (past the mouth of Mill Creek). This reach of stream also had an extremely dynamic cobble/gravel channel, and there were many unstable streambanks along the reach. High water marks and fresh sediment deposits from spring runoff were present along the reach, as were fresh stumps of streambank trees in one dispersed recreation site (Figure 3.14). There was no evidence of livestock impacts, but they would be hard to see except on terraces due to the composition of stream substrate. The channel generally lacks coarse wood.

Chapter 3-38

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

High water marks/mud lines

Figure 3.14: High Water Marks/Mud Lines from Spring Runoff, North Horse Creek

Pass Creek One site was surveyed on the stream (on July 29, 2008) and miscellaneous observations were made at the other sites, which included both stream channel sites and sites along the Pass Creek road where culverts had been replaced and the road had been graded as a result of the Horse Creek fire (2007). The surveyed site was in a wet meadow within the fire perimeter, and it is located at the farthest upstream (westernmost) light-colored dot on Pass Creek in Figure 3.9. The following table summarizes conditions that were noted at the time of the survey.

Table 3.11: Summary of Channel Conditions, Pass Creek Survey Site, 2008

Observation Measured Metric 95% Confidence Interval for Metric 9% (left bank); 6% Bank alteration (current year) +/- 6.0% (right bank) Bank stability 85% stable +/- 5.2% Bank covered (with vegetation or 98% covered +/- 4.5% rock) E6 (with slightly low Rosgen channel type sinuosity)

Stream materials were all fine in texture (which is characteristic of the stream type and setting), probably due to a combination of the presence of beaver dams nearby, lush sedge cover (which traps fine sediments), nearby burned hill slopes, and deep alluvial valley fill materials. According to Rosgen (1996), E6 channels have a very high sensitivity to disturbance, good recovery potential once they are disturbed, moderate streambank erosion potential, and vegetation has a very high controlling influence on channel form and function. There has been no livestock grazing on the allotment in two years, but past heavy browsing is evident on willow leaders. The

Chapter 3-39

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest channel is stable, there is little channel alteration, and riparian vegetation is healthy, although Canada thistle was present near the survey site. The following figure shows one view of the reach that was sampled.

Figure 3.15: Pass Creek Survey Reach; Horse Creek Burn on Background Hill- slope

The meadow site was resurveyed on July 24, 2013. The following table shows those data.

Table 3.11a: Summary of Channel Conditions, Pass Creek Site, 2013

95% Confidence Interval for Observation Measured Metric Metric Bank alteration (current year) 24% average (both banks) +/- 7% Bank stability 63% stable +/- 5.2% Bank covered (with vegetation or rock) 88% covered +/- 4.5% Rosgen channel type E6

Streambank alteration did not meet the 20 percent standard in 2013, and it was evaluated in July, which is fairly early in the grazing season. Alteration in 2013 increased significantly over 2008 levels, taking the 95 percent confidence interval into account. Streambank stability decreased significantly between 2008 and 2013. Streambank cover decreased significantly between 2008 and 2013. Stubble height was measured in 2013, and the average stubble height for all key species was 12.1 inches (median stubble height was 12.0 inches). The dominant key species was Carex utriculata, and its average height was 12.9 inches. At this site, streambank alteration limits were reached before stubble height limits. There is a potential decline in long-term stream channel conditions at this site and this indicates the need for further monitoring. It also indicates the validity of the 20 percent annual stream channel alteration indicator as a measure of long-term conditions. Much of the length of Pass Creek is ponded by beaver dams. The eastern light-colored dot on Pass Creek (Figure 3.9) is one ponded area. It is noteworthy because there was a patch of thistle and tansy on the site in 2008 (District Range personnel were aware of this, and were planning to treat the site). Minor bank trampling was visible, and it appeared to be from wildlife use.

Chapter 3-40

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

The easternmost dark-colored dot on Pass Creek (Figure 3.9) is located in a large meadow past the end of the Pass Creek road. According to District Range personnel, this meadow receives heavy use from cattle when the allotment is grazed. The channel here is comprised of fine- grained material, so channel stability depends on vegetative roots (vs. rocks). There is thick, healthy, willow growth along the channel, herbaceous vegetation is healthy, and the channel appeared to be stable at the time of the visit in 2008. (Figure 3.16)

Figure 3.16: Pass Creek in Meadow beyond End of Road, 2008

The most noteworthy impacts to Pass Creek were from the Pass Creek road. Where new culverts had been installed after the Horse Creek fire, inlets and outlets lacked armor, fill was being delivered to the stream channel, road fill was poised to plug culverts (due to extending to the ends of pipes), inlets and outlets had not been cleared, and one outlet was perched and unarmored. The road was still in the process of being graded during the site visit, and it was thought that these concerns would be addressed afterward. Figure 3.17 shows some of the road- related impacts seen during the site visit (on July 30, 2008).

Chapter 3-41

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.17: Culvert Outlet Delivering Sediment to Pass Creek

A repeat visit to examine the road after winter snowpack and heavy spring rains was conducted on June 19, 2009. Erosion of the road running surface and fillslope were noted, a number of culvert inlets were filled – or nearly so – with sediment, two small landslides had filled ditches with their material, and the culvert shown in Figure 3.17 was in much the same condition. The road was still a notable impact to Pass Creek and its riparian area. (Simon 2009)

Cole Creek Upland slopes above Cole Creek burned in 2007. Cole Creek appeared to be an entrenched Rosgen “E” type channel, in fine-textured materials, but it was not formally assessed during the site visit because there were no apparent channel stability issues. Healthy recent leader growth (last 1-2 years) was evident on willow, and it appeared that there were at least three willow species in the riparian area. There were many old cow feces outside of the riparian area, but the channel appeared to be stable and there was little bank alteration. A MIM survey was conducted on Cole Creek in 2013 because the channel appeared to be sensitive to impacts in 2008 and because it appeared that cattle favored the area. No woody species use was noted on the willows along Cole Creek. Cattle were present when the survey team approached the site. Approximately the lower 2/3 of the survey reach had thick willow cover and there was virtually no sign of ungulate impacts along this reach. Impacts were not evident until the upper portion of the reach, where herbaceous vegetation became dominant and the channel was more exposed.

Elk Creek Upland slopes adjacent to the Elk Creek riparian area burned in 2007. There are beaver dams along the channel on National Forest System land (above the boundary fence); the lowest ones

Chapter 3-42

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest have breached (and the lodge has been abandoned), leading the channel to become downcut and producing extensive raw banks. Where the dams are intact, riparian vegetation is vigorous and the ponds appear to be stable. (Figure 3.18) Canada thistle is present along the stream bottom. A stream assessment was not conducted because it would be difficult to separate beaver dam effects from grazing effects.

Figure 3.18: Overview of Intact Ponded Reach on Elk Creek; Burned Slope in Background.

Riparian Vegetation Based on riparian data collected in 2006 and field visits, overall riparian conditions on this allotment are satisfactorily moving toward objectives in the Forest Plan. All of the streams monitored within the allotment are meeting the vegetation portion of the Streambank Stability Guideline (District Files). Approximately 96 percent of riparian vegetation along Pass Creek is rated as “properly functioning” while four percent of riparian acres are rated as “functioning at risk” according to the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocol. However, the small percentage of area identified as functioning at risk is an area on Pass Creek where the stream channel substrate becomes gravelly and the stream becomes intermittent (Figure 3.19). The functioning at risk determination is a reflection of the seasonal stream flows and their inability to sustain late seral riparian vegetation and is not a function of nor is it exacerbated by livestock use. By definition PFC is a methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process, and a defined, on-the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area. Upon further review of the data and multiple site visits to the area in 2011 and 2012, the Interdisciplinary Team concluded that PFC is not the appropriate measurement for the vegetation community and by excluding this small area the entirety of Pass Creek is properly functioning.

Chapter 3-43

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.19: Pass Creek Area - Functioning at Risk

Riparian monitoring follows the protocol in the publication by Alma H Winward, Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-47, April 2000. Overall monitoring summary of North Horse Creek indicates the stream is functioning. Pass Creek is rated as functioning as indicated by monitoring data. Due to an annual two-pasture deferred rotation grazing system, a short grazing season, and proper stocking, browsing of willows by livestock is minimal on the Sherman Allotment. Photos taken after livestock were removed during the fall of 2011 showed light utilization along a section of Elk Creek adjacent to the forest boundary fence (Figure 3.20). As long as palatable herbaceous forage is available in the riparian zone, willow utilization will remain minor. (Kauffmann et al. 1983)

Figure 3.20: Elk Creek Area Adjacent to Forest Boundary

Wetlands are generally located along streams in the analysis area (where riparian vegetation is also predominantly mapped), although there are also small isolated wetlands. (Figure 3.21)

Chapter 3-44

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Livestock use of wetlands would be expected to correspond to use on riparian areas when livestock are in the allotment. At this time, all wetlands observed during field visits have robust vegetation reflective of healthy conditions, aside from occasional noxious weed occurrences. The area of the Pass Creek survey showed signs of heavy past browse on willow; it could not be determined if the browsing was from livestock or from wildlife. There was approximately 30 percent current-year use of willows in the area of the Pass Creek MIM survey in 2013.

Figure 3.21: Riparian Areas and Wetlands in the Sherman Allotment

Groundwater The Eastern Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer underlies southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming. A Sole Source Aquifer is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one that “supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer”, and EPA wants to review projects that may coincide with the aquifer boundaries (source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/SSA). The Sherman Cattle and Horse allotment does not overlie the Sole Source Aquifer as can be seen in

Chapter 3-45

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest the following figure. It drains away from it, and does not affect the aquifer.

Figure 3.22: Sole Source Aquifer and Sherman Allotment Boundary

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled groundwater quality in a well approximately eight miles east of the Sherman Guard Station in 2004, 2005, and 2010. Water from this well, which is down-gradient from the project area, had the following values on the given dates for constituents that might have been influenced by livestock grazing.

Table 3.12: Groundwater Data from USGS Well

Ammonia Ammonia water, Nitrate Nitrite NO3 + water, Sample date filtered, as N (NO3) as (NO2) as NO2 as unfiltered, as N (mg/l) N (mg/l) N (mg/l) N (mg/l) (mg/l) 9/23/2004 <0.04 0.123 <0.008 0.12 4/25/2005 <0.04 0.106 <0.008 0.11 8/19/2010 <0.050 E 0.16 <0.020 0.5 for domestic 0.5 for domestic 10.0 for 1.0 for 100.0 for State standard use (0.1 for special use (0.1 for special domestic domestic livestock aquatic life) aquatic life) use use use E=estimated value Well Number: 425633110142401 34-112-05cbd01

Chapter 3-46

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Orthophosphate was below 0.055 mg/l (filtered) and below 0.02 mg/l as phosphorus. There is no water quality standard for phosphorus in any form in Wyoming, but it is still important to note phosphorus levels because like nitrogen, it is a nutrient that can be related to enrichment of receiving waters by fecal material. Total coliform and E. Coli bacteria were less than one colony per 100 milliliter sampled. As can be seen above, groundwater samples are meeting state standards for groundwater quality (WDEQ 2005). A search of the U.S. EPA STORET database found no groundwater quality data in the Upper Green HUC (14040101) going back to 1980. See the Spatial Context section under Environmental Consequences for an explanation of HUCs. Water Quantity Precipitation The nearest long-term weather station to the project area is at Blind Bull Summit, approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the northwestern corner of the allotment. Average annual precipitation at the site (for water years 1981 through 2007) is 30.9 inches. In 2007, total precipitation was 25.5 inches, and summer precipitation (June through September) totaled 5.6 inches, compared with the long-term average of 6.5 inches for the same period. Precipitation is highest from fall through spring (November through May). (source: ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/climate/mtn_prec/table/history/ wyoming/10g02s.txt) In recent years (water years 2000-2010), total precipitation and snow water equivalent have mostly been below or near long-term average values (averages are compared to the period 1971- 2000). In 2011, an exceptional year, there was high snowpack in the mountains providing elevated snow water equivalents into July. (source: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/wygraph-multi-1page.pl?stationidname=10g02s& state=WY). Total precipitation was 38.7 inches, and summer precipitation (June through September) totaled 6.2 inches. (source: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/snotel/snotelday2.pl?site=353&station=10 g02s&state=wy&report=precip_accum_hist)

Streamflow The U.S. Geological Survey operated a stream gaging station on North Horse Creek below the Sherman Guard Station between 1954 and 1974. Means of monthly discharges for the period of record were distributed as shown in the following figure (arranged according to water year). Peak streamflows during the period of record occurred from late May to mid-June. The highest peak of record was 1,860 cubic feet per second on June 1, 1956. As can be seen from Figure 3.23, flows are extremely low for most of the year, with a rapid rise in discharge through spring due to snowmelt from the Wyoming Range. In recent years, high runoff occurred in 2011, resulting from the high snowpack mentioned above. No discharge measurement data from 2011 are available in or near the project area, and the U.S. Geological Survey has not posted the 2011 data on the Green River to their website as of the date of this document.

Chapter 3-47

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Mean of monthly discharges, Horse Creek at Sherman GS (1954-1974)

450 420 400 350

300 274 250 200

150 Discharge (cfs) Discharge

100 65 50 22 7.7 6.4 5.3 4.7 4.8 5.6 12 8.4 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Figure 3.23: Mean of Monthly Discharges, North Horse Creek below Sherman Guard Station

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Spatial Context for Effects Analysis Hydrologic Units The lands of the Bridger-Teton National Forest have been divided into hydrologic units (HUCs) for analyses. These HUCs are typically watersheds, although there are rare exceptions when HUC boundaries do not follow watershed divides. HUCs are assigned numbers based on a watershed coding system: the longer the number, the smaller the watershed being described, with two numbers identifying each successively smaller watershed. For most purposes, the Forest analyzes cumulative watershed impacts on a 6th-field HUC basis (i.e., the watershed codes have twelve numbers). These HUCs are usually 5,000 to 50,000 acres in size. The following HUCs in Table 3.13 are included in the project area:

Table 3.13: 6th Field HUCs in the Sherman Allotment Analysis Area

HUC number HUC name Size of HUC (acres) 140401010501 Upper Horse Creek-Green River 36,460 140401010502 South Horse Creek 27,572 Total 64,032

Chapter 3-48

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

The boundary between the two HUCs runs roughly along the pasture fence dividing the north and south pastures of the allotment, with the northern pasture being in the Upper Horse Creek- Green River HUC, and the southern pasture in the South Horse Creek HUC. Where analysis deals with direct impacts to resources (e.g., impacts to wetlands), the allotment serves as the analysis area. The following figure shows the allotment boundary, 6th field HUC boundaries, and major streams in the analysis area.

Figure 3.24: Sherman Allotment HUCs, Allotment Boundary, and Major Streams

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects Observations made after two years of rest in the southern pasture and after one year of rest in the northern pasture, indicate that without grazing conditions would be maintained or would continue to improve along all streams and riparian areas where livestock grazing is the primary source of direct and indirect impacts. Both short-term and long-term indicators would reflect these conditions. However, summer stream temperatures in North Horse Creek would likely

Chapter 3-49

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest continue to be elevated even without grazing, because the source for heating appears to be natural and not management-caused. Aside from stream temperature, water quality would continue to meet water quality standards as seen in the Sublette Conservation District data on North Horse Creek. With regard to specific streams, conditions on all streams would meet or exceed current state water quality standards and Forest Service water quality goals (Forest Plan Objective 1.3(b)),

Spring Creek, Mill Creek, and North Horse Creek Based on channel surveys and observations, there would be less short-term stream channel alteration under the Alternative 1 on Spring Creek and Mill Creek than under Alternative 2. These conclusions are based on the observed lack of notable streambank alteration at the time of the survey (5 percent, +/- 6.0 percent on Spring Creek), and the fact that there had been no livestock grazing for two years during that time. Under Alternative 2, grazing would resume and there would be more alteration than existed at the time of the survey. There would be no measurable difference on North Horse Creek because it is difficult to determine grazing impacts there. Conditions for long-term indicators such as stream channel stability would be similar to those under Alternative 2 for Spring Creek and Mill Creek. This conclusion is based on the knowledge that channel stability that was seen at the time of the survey would have reflected long-term conditions, and there was no indication of long-term instability along either stream. Differences in channel stability on North Horse Creek attributable to grazing would not be measurable for the same reason. Instream sedimentation would not change on Spring Creek under this alternative; in 2008 the channel reach that was surveyed had over 50 percent fines and it was likely due to the presence of beaver dams and local geology. Instream fines in Mill Creek would be less than under Alternative 2 (due to the resumption of grazing and potential increase in channel alteration under the latter alternative), but there would be no measurable difference in North Horse Creek under this alternative because no notable inputs of fine sediments from grazing were seen during field investigations.

Cole Creek, Elk Creek and Pass Creek On Cole, Elk, and Pass Creeks current year (short-term) stream channel alteration would be lower under the no grazing alternative than under Alternative 2. These conclusions are based on the observed lack of notable streambank alteration at the time of the survey (7.5 percent, +/-6.0 percent on Pass Creek), and the fact that there had been no livestock grazing for two years during that time. Under Alternative 2 grazing would resume and there would be more alteration than existed at the time of the survey. Streambank stability, a long-term indicator, would be higher (i.e., streambanks would be more stable) under Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 on Cole Creek and Pass Creek. These conclusions are based on evidence from the 2008 field visits showing that cattle have lingered along these streams, the appearance of the streams’ susceptibility to impacts, and data from the Pass Creek MIM survey. It would be somewhat difficult to assess stability on Elk Creek due to beaver presence. See more detailed information under the discussion of Alternative 2, Direct and Indirect Effects, below. Instream fine materials would not change between alternatives on Elk Creek due to beaver presence, but they would be lower under this alternative on Pass and Cole Creeks, especially in downstream reaches. This is based on the differences in channel alteration described above and potential changes in channel stability.

Chapter 3-50

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Cumulative Effects Sources of cumulative effects are described below, under the Proposed Action Alternative. Cumulative effects connected to roads, dispersed recreation, and fire along Pass Creek would partly offset the beneficial direct and indirect impacts as a result of elimination of livestock grazing along streams.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Livestock grazing would continue under Alternative 2 but would implement two allowable-use standards in riparian areas and wetlands. These standards are described below:

Direct and Indirect Effects Some of the indicators used for evaluation of stream channel conditions reflect short-term impacts (current year bank alteration). Other indicators (bank stability, Rosgen channel type) reflect long-term conditions that would persist over at least five to twenty years. Percent of bank covered reflects both short- and long-term impacts, as does the amount of instream fine sediment. Beaver activity, both past and ongoing activity, is a natural influence on almost all the channels visited. Channel stability assessments and reported levels of fine materials in channels take the effect of beavers into account.

Spring Creek Short-term impacts would be greater than under Alternative 1. When current-year alteration was measured in 2008, after two years of non-use, average alteration was five percent (+/-6.0 percent). This would increase with continued grazing. Long-term channel stability would be similar to that under Alternative 1, based on the lack of observed long-term instability seen in 2008. Instream sedimentation would be the same as under Alternative 1 because the substrate is already composed of a high percentage of fine materials.

Mill Creek There would be more short-term channel alteration than under Alternative 1 due to continued livestock grazing under this alternative. Long-term, stability would be similar to that seen under Alternative 1 based on the lack of observed long-term instability seen in 2008. Instream sedimentation would be greater than Alternative 1 due to the increase in channel alteration and due to the nature of the substrate along the lower reach of the stream (gravel-bed, fine banks).

Cole Creek and Elk Creek Under this alternative, both streams would have more short- and long-term adverse impacts than under Alternative 1 due to continued grazing, but would meet Forest Plan direction due to enforcement of the additional allowable use standards. It is evident based on observations made

Chapter 3-51

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest in 2008 that cattle use the riparian area of Cole Creek, in particular, providing a basis for these rationales, and this was seen via MIM results on Cole Creek in 2013. Beaver impacts on Elk Creek could make evaluation of stability somewhat difficult. There would be no change in fine sediment inputs due to the fine texture of materials present in Elk Creek, and due to the impact of beavers, but fines would increase in downstream reaches of Cole Creek.

North Horse Creek There would be no measurable increase in short-term impacts compared with Alternative 1 due to the difficulty in distinguishing grazing impacts from other impacts on North Horse Creek. No measurable change in long-term impacts would result when compared with Alternative 1 for the same reason. There would be no measurable difference in instream sedimentation resulting from grazing when compared with the other alternative because no notable inputs of fine sediments from grazing were seen during field investigations. The source of high stream temperatures in North Horse Creek at the Forest boundary has not been determined: it may result from a variety of natural causes, including valley widening in the lower reaches.

Pass Creek Under this alternative the channel is likely to have more short-term impacts (current year streambank alteration) than Alternative 1 due to resumption of grazing. Field surveys found 7.5 percent (+/-6.0 percent) current year streambank alteration on Pass Creek in 2008 with two years of non-use. This would increase to a measurable degree under this alternative. In 2013, streambank alteration exceeded the 20 percent Streambank Alteration Standard, with values of 24 percent (+/- 7 percent). Impacts to willows would be similar to those described for the stream channel: generally continued good conditions with some willows being browsed. It is not expected that browsing or stream channel impacts under the proposed action would be as heavy as past impacts that have taken place, based on new riparian allowable use standards and associated monitoring. Long-term channel stability would be lower than under Alternative 1 based on the evidence of past use (browsing on willows), knowledge that other areas on the stream have received heavy use, and measured values in 2013 of 63 percent stability (+/- 5.2 percent). Instream sedimentation would be unchanged at the MIM site, but potentially higher than under Alternative 1 at other sites along the stream with resumption of grazing. Forest Plan direction and regulatory requirements are not currently being met; this is the first year that this has been documented. The situation could improve with closer livestock management.

Cumulative Effects Wildfires have the potential to add fine sediment to streams in addition to sediment added by grazing. Fires could cause streams to temporarily become more susceptible to destabilization from spring runoff events by removing riparian vegetation that holds banks in place. They also have the potential to cause increases in stream temperatures due to short-term removal of canopy cover along water bodies and via the indirect effect of channel widening from destabilization, an impact that could add to potential impacts from grazing. Two fires have burned in the allotment and in the HUCs they occupy over the past ten years, affecting much of the area in the allotment. The most recent fire was the Horse Creek fire of 2007, which burned 7,654 acres within the allotment (8,589 total acres burned). This fire burned over approximately the southern two-thirds of the allotment. Forty-nine percent of the fire burned at moderate severity; the greatest risk was deemed to be accelerated water and sediment

Chapter 3-52

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest runoff from storm events, along with the potential for affecting road drainage structures. (Wasniewski et al. 2007) Hydrologic changes would be expected to last approximately five years after the burn with vegetative recovery, but changes in sediment loading and transport could persist for a longer period of time. Field work in 2008 confirmed the findings of Wasniewski et al. with little evidence of direct or indirect impacts to streams from fires, except those associated with roads. The Mule Fire burned over the northern portion of the allotment in 2002, mainly affecting the Mill Creek drainage, a portion of the Spring Creek drainage, and northern tributaries of the upper North Horse Creek drainage. Approximately 2,698 acres burned within the allotment out of a total of 3,925 acres burned. There were no apparent residual instream impacts from this fire seen in 2008 surveys. Sediment production from roads and delivery to stream channels and riparian areas would continue at existing rates, adding to sediment potentially delivered to streams by grazing. In addition, channels and floodplains would continue to be confined and altered by roads, and water routing would be altered by roads and their drainage structures. This would apply to both system roads (e.g., the Pass Creek and North Horse Creek roads) and user-created roads. The latter are more of an impact on uplands than in riparian areas in this project area. Along North Horse Creek, road impacts are confined to locations near stream crossings and places where the road is near the stream. An example of the latter is shown in the following figure, where a seasonally closed road crosses just below the confluence with the South Fork of North Horse Creek. Pass Creek road impacts are described in the Affected Environment section and consist of direct sediment inputs to Pass Creek, poorly installed and maintained culverts, erosion of the running surface and fillslope, and landslides filling ditches.

Figure 3.25: Road Sediment Impacts in North Horse Creek

Impacts from dispersed recreation are generally restricted to locations along North Horse Creek. Dispersed recreation use also takes place at the end of the Pass Creek road. Impacts to stream channel and riparian resources would add to the potential impacts caused by livestock. Timber harvest units in the Pass Creek drainage were cut between 1990 and 1992. The units were planted, are well stocked, are located away from streams, and would not be expected to cause any added cumulative impacts to grazing impacts by causing additional channel instability

Chapter 3-53

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest or by adding sediment to stream channels. Cumulative effects from fire, roads, and dispersed recreation would have the greatest potential additive impact to grazing effects along Pass Creek. Grazing would not be a major contributor of sediment to the stream, but existing and continuing inputs from these additional disturbances are increasing sediment delivery to the channel beyond the relatively small amount that would be delivered from grazing under the Proposed Action Alternative. Water quality standards would not be exceeded primarily due to impacts from grazing; it is the impacts from the Pass Creek road, in particular, that may lead to a decline in water quality in Pass Creek.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest Plan direction and regulatory requirements would be met on all streams in the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment except for Pass Creek. In addition, the following specific citations are provided:  Streambank Stability Guideline: All streams with the exception of the surveyed reach on Pass Creek in 2013 are meeting this, per direction for implementation adopted by the Forest in November 2008, and would be managed to continue to meet this guideline. Under the 2008 implementation guidance, 20 percent current year bank alteration is the maximum amount allowed that should lead to acceptable long-term channel stability. Management action on Pass Creek in future years is needed to meet this guideline. North Horse Creek is naturally dynamic, leading to higher bank instability than was observed on the other streams in the allotment.  Allotment Management Plan Standard: This standard is being met.  Livestock Grazing of Riparian Areas Standard: The allotment is currently meeting this standard except in the Pass Creek surveyed riparian area in 2013. Enhanced management to improve streambank and stream channel conditions in future years would allow for meeting this standard here. Resting the allotment following the Horse Creek fire was a sound management decision that allowed for resource recovery and prevented potential riparian and stream channel degradation from bringing livestock back on the allotment too soon after the fire. The allotment would continue to be managed to meet this standard.  Water Development Standard: There are two water developments in the allotment that are not currently being used. They are associated with a spring, not a stream, so this standard does not apply in this instance.  State Water Right Standard: This standard would apply if any water right applications were to be made.  Water Quality Standard: The allotment is meeting State water quality standards via implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Improvement of conditions in the surveyed reach of Pass Creek would better ensure meeting this standard in that location. Elevated stream temperatures on North Horse Creek cannot be readily traced to management-related causes, so no violation of state water quality standards is taking place. This would also be the case with implementation of this alternative.

Chapter 3-54

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

 Watershed Restoration Standard: Watershed restoration would occur in areas most in need of restoration, regardless of location within the watershed. This would meet the intent of this standard.  Wyoming Grazing BMPs are being used, would continue to be used, and are documented via this report and other specialists’ reports for this project. Resting the allotment in 2008 is considered a BMP by allowing for resource recovery after the 2007 Horse Creek fire and avoiding adverse water resource impacts.  Memo of Understanding (MOU) with Wyoming DEQ: The MOU with the state of Wyoming would be met with continued monitoring of BMPs and sharing of information with Wyoming DEQ.  E.O. 11990 would be met where wetlands associated with streams are currently in good condition. As described above, wetlands are currently in good condition throughout the allotment and are meeting the Executive Order.

Effects Summary Following is a summary table that briefly compares the effects of the alternatives.

Table 3.15: Summary of Potential Impacts to Hydrology Resources

Stream Potential Impact Alternative A Alternative B Spring Short-term (alteration) 5% (+/- 6.0%) Slightly greater than A (2013 results = 6% +/- 6.0%) Long-term (stability) 80% stable Similar to A (2013 (+/5.2%) results = 90% +/- 5.2%)

Sediment Greater than No change 50% finer than 2 mm

Mill Short-term (alteration) Little alteration— Greater than A mostly at one trail crossing Long-term (stability) High stability Similar to A

Sediment Little instream Greater than A fine sediment; gravel bed

N. Horse Short-term (alteration) Cannot No measurable determine difference vs. A impacts from grazing

Chapter 3-55

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Stream Potential Impact Alternative A Alternative B Long-term (stability) Cannot No measurable change determine impacts from grazing Sediment No notable No measurable change impacts from grazing

Cole Short-term (alteration) No notable Greater than A (2013 alteration from results = 5% +/- 6.0%) grazing Long-term (stability) High stability Lower than A due to sensitivity of site (2013 results = 75% stable +/- 5.2%) Sediment No notable Greater than A in alteration from downstream reach grazing

Elk Short-term (alteration) No notable Greater than A alteration from grazing Long-term (stability) Low to moderate Beaver influence complicates assessment.

Sediment High No change.

Pass Short-term (alteration) 7.5% (+/-6.0%) Greater than A (2013 results = 24% +/- 7%) Long-term (stability) 85% (+/- 5.2%) Less than A (2013 results = 63% +/- 5.2%) Sediment 100% less than 2 Same as A. Other sites mm at MIM site. may differ. Other sites differ.

Would regulations be met? Yes Yes, except at Pass Creek site in 2013

Chapter 3-56

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Heritage Resources______The following discussion and analysis are based on the Heritage Resources Report for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment FEIS prepared by Forest Archeologist James Schoen. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Destruction of Cultural Resources Livestock grazing and associated activities within the allotment have the potential to effect historic or cultural resources. High concentrations of cattle could lead to trampling and subsequent erosion of historic/and or prehistoric sites resulting in the displacement of artifacts and exposure of sub-surface archeological deposits. Issue Indicators  Damage to prehistoric and historic sites  Damage to unknown sites

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Heritage Resources include prehistoric sites, historic sites and traditional cultural properties. These sites are collectively known as historic properties. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, mandates the Forest Service to take into account the effects that management actions will have on historic properties. In 1995, the BTNF entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for rangeland management activities that established a process by which historic properties would be considered in accordance with the intent of Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA. This process calls for a Class I overview of existing information on each allotment. This is followed by a Class III inventory in areas expected to have a high density of heritage resources and areas receiving severe impacts due to livestock grazing. If historic properties are identified and physical damage from rangeland activities is indicated, the Forest Service shall consult with the Wyoming SHPO in applying criteria of effects and adverse effect pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 and appropriate treatment will be determined and scheduled for implementation. Appropriate treatments may include avoidance, mitigation, or other actions such as fencing. Cultural resources surveys conducted within the allotment indicate that the overall density of prehistoric sites is low while the density of historic sites is moderate. This is due largely to the nature of the topography and vegetation cover within the allotment. Steep land surfaces and heavily timbered areas are generally not conducive to historic and/or prehistoric land use patterns. It is generally noted that these site types are found in open vegetation settings, on land surfaces of less than 15 percent, and within ¼ mile of permanent water. Historic and prehistoric sites are also generally lacking in flood plains of active stream and river corridors or in marshy areas with poorly drained soils. Only a few small prehistoric sites have been recorded within the allotment. These sites are generally light scatters of stone artifacts indicative of seasonal campsites where hunting and plant gathering activities took place. A notable exception to this pattern is the Old Indian Trail that runs north/south along the eastern portion of the allotment. Interviews conducted with long

Chapter 3-57

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest time ranchers in the area indicate that Indians were using this trail during the 1880s and possibly earlier. The trail was used by the Indians as they migrated to the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho from the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. The trail crossed Union Pass and continued to the west side of the Green River Basin where it headed south along the foothills of the Wyoming Range. The trail went down to Snider Basin, then cut across the Wyoming Range to Smiths Fork, then continued into Idaho. Early General Land Office maps and Forest Service maps indicate that the trail continued to be used as a pack trail from the early 1900s to the present time. The Horse Creek drainage was the scene of intensive tie hack operations starting in 1927 and lasting until 1937. Railroad ties were cut from the stands of lodgepole pine and floated down stream to the Green River, then on to the railhead in Green River City. A number of tie hack cabins and small tie hack villages were constructed throughout the area, and the remains of these structures have been recorded. The Horse Creek fire that burned through this area in 2007 destroyed many of these cabins; however the charred remains of the cabins, some with extensive artifact scatters, still remain.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The cultural resource surveys that have been conducted within the allotment, together with monitoring of known site locations in 2007 and 2008, indicated that there were no effects occurring to sites within the allotment even in the presence of grazing. Under this alternative, grazing would not occur and therefore direct or indirect effects to sites due to grazing would not occur. Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The cultural resource surveys that have been conducted within the allotment, together with monitoring of known site locations in 2007 and 2008, indicated that there are no direct or indirect effects to sites within the allotment. In no case were historic properties being damaged by livestock grazing activities. Continuation of grazing would not result in direct or indirect effects to historic properties. A report summarizing cultural resource investigations within the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment was prepared and submitted to the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office in March 2009. A determination of no effects on historic properties was made for the allotment. Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects.

Chapter 3-58

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative. The Forest received a letter of concurrence from the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office on March 24, 2009. Monitoring Monitoring of existing sites as well as additional cultural resource surveys would continue under both alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. These monitoring and survey activities would be conducted to follow the Cultural Resource Management Guideline of the Forest Plan to study and evaluate cultural resources with the results being used as the basis for informing people about the relationships with the past.

Recreation Resources______Information provided in this final environmental impact statement about recreation resources is excerpted from the Recreation Resource Report by Recreation Officer Mary Brown. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Recreation-Livestock Conflicts Livestock grazing may result in conflicts with recreational users and the degradation of recreation dispersed sites and trails. The presence of livestock in the allotment area also has the potential to increase grizzly bear/human conflicts. The presence of livestock and/or livestock carcasses near roads, trails, and dispersed sites increase the probability of grizzly bear/human conflict that can result in death or injury of a forest user and/or death to the bear. Issue Indicators  Compliance with Forest Plan direction  Number of complaints from dispersed users regarding stock in dispersed camps, trails, and hunting areas  Human/grizzly conflicts in areas around carcasses

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment is actively used by recreationists for camping, hunting, and snowmobiling. Recreation use in the Sherman Allotment is concentrated into two primary seasons of high use: hunters, campers, and OHV users in the late summer and fall for hunting, and snowmobiling in the winter. Cattle have been grazed in the Sherman Allotment since the early 1900s. Recreational uses have increased in the area and developed around cattle grazing. As recreation has continued to expand in the allotment area, cattle have become an accepted part of the recreational experience. There have been no complaints in the last 4 years from recreationalists about cattle.

Chapter 3-59

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a recreation management tool developed by the Forest Service in the early 1980s to manage and administer natural settings for specific visitor experiences. It focuses on the identification and management of space, facilities, and social and ecological conditions. The Sherman Allotment is described by three ROS settings: Roaded Natural (RN), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) (Figure 3.26). The primary area of the Sherman Allotment is made up of SPNM which can be described as backcountry served by trails and primitive access roads, on-forest corridors with access to backcountry and places to camp along roadsides, and a lower developmental level at trailheads. There is only one developed site, five roads, and no developed trailheads within the Sherman Allotment boundary.

Figure 3.26: ROS Classifications of the Sherman Allotment Developed Facilities There is only one developed site that exists in the Sherman Allotment, the Sherman Guard Station. The Sherman Guard Station is currently an administrative site only, although the potential exists to make it a rentable site to the public in the near future. Just outside the allotment boundary is the Horse Creek Trailhead and parking lot, however being outside the allotment, it will not be included in this analysis.

Chapter 3-60

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Dispersed Recreation Developed Roads There are five roads within the Sherman Allotment area, with a total mileage of approximately 12.5 miles. The main Horse Creek road, Forest Service Road (FSR) #10389, is remote but easy to access from a high-standard county road. The Horse Creek road provides access to multiple dispersed camping sites which are popular in the summer but almost completely occupied in the fall, during hunting season. Attractions include wildlife viewing along the creek, fishing, hiking, hunting, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle (ORV) use on roads. The second most used road is the Pass Creek road, FSR #10340. Pass Creek provides access to dispersed camping sites, and ends at a trail that enters the South Horse Creek area. Pass Creek is predominantly used in the fall hunting season as early season snow melt and rains make the road difficult to navigate in the early spring/summer and late fall. There are three other small spur roads off of these main two roads; two are decommissioned logging roads that end at gates but provide non-motorized hunter access along the old roads. The third, off of Pass Creek, terminates at a single dispersed site that is used primarily in the fall hunting season.

Figure 3.27: Map Showing Roads and Trails

Developed Trails There are three developed trails that originate within the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. These trails are open to all non-motorized use including foot, horse, and bicycle use. There has

Chapter 3-61

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest been increased illegal use of ORVs on the trails as ORV use becomes more popular among the public. The majority of the illegal ORV use occurs on the trails in the fall hunting season from September 15 through October 31. The Old Indian Trail experiences the highest rate of illegal use by ORVs during hunting season, with individuals using all-terrain vehicles for camp transport and game retrieval. The three trails are on a regular maintenance schedule, however, with their low use they are not priority trails. There is an ongoing need for signing, maintenance, and enforcement of travel regulations. The table below summarizes recreation trails from the current INFRA3 data base along with the approximate miles located within the allotment.

Table 3.16: Trail INFRA Data

Miles in INFRA District Trail Name Miles Allotment Number (Approximately) Big Piney 2047 Old Indian Trail 12 5 Big Piney 2052 Horse Mountain 7.2 4.5 Big Piney 2057 Prospect Peak 2.5 .5

Winter Recreation One of the most popular forms of recreation in the Horse Creek drainage and the Sherman Allotment is winter recreation in the form of snowmobiling. Typical use on the allotment is through-travel on the way to Blind Bull Warming Hut from the Horse Creek parking lot and trailhead. Since the scope of the proposed action is well outside the winter season, effects on winter recreation will not be analyzed.

Outfitters and Guides The Horse Creek drainage has a long history of outfitting and guiding for hunting big game animals. Outfitters on the Big Piney Ranger District are limited by the species hunted and hunt areas listed on their Wyoming State Outfitters License, and are allowed to hunt anywhere within their designated hunting area. Six outfitters are authorized to hunt elk and five outfitters are authorized to hunt deer within the Sherman Allotment. No designated outfitter camps occur within the allotment boundary and there are only two camps in the vicinity of the allotment; one has not been used in five years. Outfitters are well aware and accustomed to occupying the same land as cattle, and there have been no conflicts between outfitters and stock to date. There has been one conflict between an outfitter with their client and a grizzly bear that resulted in the death of the bear. The men were hunting for moose in willow bottoms when they came across the grizzly feeding on an elk carcass. The bear was surprised and rushed them. This is the only conflict between outfitters, and humans in general, in the allotment area.

3 The Forest Service uses a database application called INFRA (infrastructure) to manage information on national resources, such as buildings, trails, roads, wilderness areas, and water systems.

Chapter 3-62

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects If cattle grazing were suspended on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment there would be minimal direct and indirect effects on recreation resources. The developed site, Sherman Guard Station, is fenced; so the presence or absence of cattle would have no impact on the site condition. As cattle have been a historic use on this portion of the forest, the absence of cattle could, in fact, affect the historical visual context of cattle on the national forest. There is currently no routine dispersed campsite condition survey to evaluate the existing condition of dispersed campsites and potential changes. Elimination of grazing in the Sherman Allotment would eliminate the potential for cattle to occupy and negatively impact dispersed recreation sites. Suspending grazing would eliminate the use of system trails by cattle and ensure that trail conditions are not directly impacted by cattle use in the future. Although there have been no complaints to date by recreationalists about cattle, suspension of grazing would ensure that no complaints would be received in the future. It is possible that some members of the public avoid recreating in areas where cattle are allowed to graze. Eliminating cattle grazing could make this area more attractive to some recreationists and could potentially increase the use of trails, roads, and dispersed campsites in the Sherman Allotment. Suspension of grazing in the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment would eliminate the potential for human/grizzly conflicts over cattle carcasses in the allotment area.

Cumulative Effects Existing dispersed sites are already hardened and heavily impacted by recreationalists. Heavy use in the spring and fall hunting seasons reduce the ability for these sites to recover or improve. Due to the high dispersed recreation activity in the fall hunting season, changes to site condition would not be anticipated due to the suspension of grazing. The high presence of campers, hunters, and big-game carcasses during the fall hunting season would still encourage increased grizzly bear activity and have potential to result in grizzly bear/human conflicts during the hunting season. Eliminating the potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts as a result of bears’ attraction to cattle could decrease the potential for bear/human conflicts during other times of the year, thus reducing, to some extent, the overall potential for negative encounters between humans and grizzly bears.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative is to authorize continued livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment consistent with goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, management prescriptions, and monitoring requirements specified in the Bridger-Teton Forest

Chapter 3-63

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Plan, the Rescission Act of 1995, and other applicable law, regulation, and policy, along with the addition of Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures.

Direct and Indirect Effects Some users may find that evidence of livestock grazing detracts from their recreational experience by occupying destination areas, leaving manure, or conflicting with their perception of a natural environment. Livestock and recreational user-conflicts can occur when popular dispersed camping sites are occupied by livestock, when popular dispersed camping sites have recently been occupied by livestock leaving manure and reducing the understory and components of vegetation. These perceptions can lead to a reduction in recreational use. However, cattle have had a very visible presence on the forest for over 100 years and recreation trends have only increased. In the Sherman Allotment area cattle grazing has been a long accepted practice by recreational users of the area. The Proposed Action Alternative has the potential direct effect of degrading dispersed camps and recreation sites in the project area. Cattle typically congregate in large, flat, open areas near water; these are the same areas that are popular for dispersed recreationists and campers. The majority of the sites are already heavily impacted from recreational users and cattle and they contain a large amount of bare ground. There is currently no routine dispersed campsite condition survey to evaluate the existing condition of dispersed campsites and determine how much of the degraded condition is due to recreation or how much is due to livestock use. Grazing in the Sherman Allotment could result in the use of dispersed sites by cattle, but overall it is anticipated that the direct effect to the condition of these dispersed sites would be minimal since they are already heavily impacted by recreationists. The potential degradation of forest system trails can be a direct effect of cattle grazing. Livestock may rub against trails signs or markers, knocking over the signs. Livestock commonly use or cross system trails; the recreation trail may become eroded with heavy trailing use, water bars dislodged, and in severe cases the trail tread may become obliterated. Trails may become difficult to follow due to trail braiding which can obscure the true trail and lead users down a stock trail that may look more evident than the true trail. Maintenance and use conflicts can also occur at stream or riparian crossings where congregation of livestock and wallowing can turn trails into bogs. However, trails in the project area are currently maintained to standard and are on a regular maintenance plan. If increased trail damage did occur, mitigation could be easily implemented through the permittees’ Annual Operating Instructions. The direct effect of grazing on recreation trail conditions is anticipated to be minimal for this alternative because trails are in good condition now, even after many years of livestock grazing. A third direct effect is the potential for an increase in grizzly bear/human conflicts. As grizzly bears continue to increase their occupancy of the Wyoming Range, there is a potential for increased grizzly bear/livestock interactions that could increase grizzly bear/human conflicts. These conflicts can result, in part, from bears feeding on livestock carcasses in and around roads, trails, and dispersed recreation sites, where humans frequent. These interactions can lead to damage of property, injury or death to humans, and injury or death to the bears. The Proposed Action Alternative includes Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures in the Allotment Management Plan. These conservation measures would reduce grizzly bear/livestock, and thus grizzly bear/human, conflicts. Please see Chapter 2, pages 2-5 to 2-6 for the list of conservation

Chapter 3-64

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest measures. These added measures would reduce the role that livestock can play in grizzly bear/human conflicts. There may be some individuals that avoid recreating in areas where cattle are allowed to graze for all the reasons mentioned above. Under Alternative 2, these people would continue to avoid the Sherman Allotment.

Cumulative Effects Historic impacts of human activities and natural disturbances to recreation resources within the project area include timber harvest, off road vehicle use, road closures/reclamation, natural landslides, dispersed recreation/camping, recreational livestock grazing, sagebrush spraying, noxious weed treatments and permitted livestock grazing. Illegal off-road vehicle use and dispersed recreation/camping will continue to occur and affect the overall recreation resources in the reasonably foreseeable future in the project area, regardless of the continuance of livestock grazing. Current trends suggest that recreational use of the forest will continue to increase, which will result in a higher and more continuous use of dispersed recreational sites. Existing dispersed sites are already hardened and heavily impacted by recreationalists. Heavy use in the spring and fall hunting seasons reduce the ability for these sites to recover or improve. Due to the high dispersed recreation activity in the fall hunting season, these dispersed sites will continue to experience high usage regardless of the presence of cattle. Cattle are attracted to these areas cleared of sagebrush and adjacent to timbered vegetation for bedding purposes. Concentrated livestock bedding can have a cumulative impact to the bare ground in dispersed recreation sites. Regardless of livestock grazing the high presence of campers, hunters, and big-game carcasses during the fall hunting season will still encourage increased grizzly bear activity and have potential to result in grizzly bear/human conflicts during the hunting season. However, livestock grazing in the Sherman Allotment has the potential to provide opportunities for grizzly bear/human conflicts as a result of bears’ attraction to cattle in the area. The presence of cattle could bring bears more frequently into the allotment area, outside of the hunting season, increasing the potential for grizzly/human conflicts to increase. Livestock grazing under Alternative 2 combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not be expected to have more than a minimal cumulative effect on the recreation resource, but could potentially increase human/bear conflicts.

Effects Summary Minimal effects would occur to the recreation resource under either the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives. Continued trends in recreation use in the Sherman Allotment area will continue to impact and influence the recreation resource regardless of the continuance of livestock grazing. The No Action Alternative would eliminate the impacts of livestock grazing on recreational resources, but as use trends continue, this will not greatly affect the overall recreation resource condition. The No Action Alternative would remove the potential for grizzly/human conflicts around cattle carcasses; however the potential for grizzly/human conflict cannot be completely mitigated as big game carcasses and dispersed camping could still continue to lead to conflicts.

Chapter 3-65

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Continued livestock grazing under Alternative 2 would have minimal effects to recreation resources, and as stated above, these effects could be easily mitigated. The Proposed Action Alternative also includes management measures to mitigate and reduce the potential of grizzly/human conflicts around cattle carcasses; however the presence of livestock has the potential to increase grizzly bear/human conflicts in the area outside the traditional hunting season.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative.

Fishery Resources______Information provided in this final environmental impact statement about fish is excerpted from the Fisheries Specialist Report by Fisheries Biologist Mathew Anderson. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Aquatic Function Livestock grazing may affect the health and functionality of streams and riparian areas. As stated in Clary and Webster (1989), “[i]mproper livestock management, through excessive grazing and trampling, can affect riparian-stream habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, causing channel aggradation [building up of the channel bed by accumulation of sediment] or degradation [the opposite of aggradation], causing widening or incisement of stream channels, changing streambank morphology, and as an accumulative result often lowering surrounding water tables (Platts 1986).” Issue Indicators  Stream channel integrity and stream channel stability (percent stable banks where Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) was conducted), riparian condition class where Wyoming Habitat Assessment Methodology was conducted);  Extent of streambank shearing and trampling by ungulates (current year streambank alteration where MIM was conducted; description of conditions and photographs where MIM was not conducted);  Amount of instream fine sedimentation (sediment core samples to determine the amount of fine sediment less than 6.3 millimeters).

Methodology for Analysis Habitat surveys were performed in the project area during the 2008 field season. The protocol used was the Wyoming Habitat Assessment Methodology (WHAM) developed by the WGFD (2009c) and performed by the Bridger-Teton National Forest Fisheries Crew. Sediment core samples were taken from major streams, North Horse and South Horse Creeks, using the McNeil sampling methodology to determine the quantity of fine sediment in the streams. Analysis for

Chapter 3-66

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest fisheries was done at the 6th Hydrologic Unit Code. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Pinedale Region Sub-Basin Management Plan was used for background information, state management objectives, limiting factors and management opportunities (WGFD 2001). In addition, fisheries population data was gathered during the 2009 field season. Battery powered backpack electrofishing units were used to complete three pass depletion estimates for trout populations. Non-game fish species were collected and identified for species distribution purposes but no population estimates were performed on these species.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT History The Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment is entirely within the Horse Creek drainage, a tributary to the Green River. The Horse Creek drainage has Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), all of which are native to the drainage, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and Bonneville redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus hydrophlox), which are not native to the drainage. Horse Creek was routinely stocked from 1933 until 1963 with cutthroat (likely Yellowstone cutthroat), brown trout, rainbow trout and brook trout. Snake River cutthroat were stocked from 1958 until 1981. South Horse Creek was stocked with brook trout but was discontinued in 1963. Stocking was more common on North Horse Creek than South Horse Creek or the mainstem of Horse Creek because of the extensive public access via the USFS maintained gravel road. Since 1981, management has emphasized native trout and Colorado River cutthroat trout have been stocked when available (WFGD 2001).

Table 3.17: Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species Considered and Evaluated

Chapter 3-67

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Species or habitat present in Species Habitat Fish Species project area Type Rational / Comments Species / Habitat This species does not occur within the project area and no new water depletion Humpback is expected with the Proposed chub No No Endangered Alternative or the No Action Gila cypha Alternatives; therefore, the determination for this species is: No Impact This species does not occur within the project area and no new water depletion Razorback is expected with the Proposed sucker No No Endangered Alternative or the No Action Xyrauchen Alternatives; therefore, the texanus determination for this species is: No Impact Critical Habitat for Bonytail, No Critical Habitat for these species is Colorado located within the project area and no pikeminnow, Designated / new water depletion or distant N/A No Humpback Endangered downstream effects will occur. For chub, & these reasons the determination for Razorback this species is: No Impact sucker The endangered Kendall Warm Springs dace is endemic to Kendall Warm Kendal Warm Springs located approximately 30 miles Springs dace from the project area. There is no Rhinichthys No No Endangered spatial overlap between the species or osculis its habitat and the proposed action or thermalis any of the alternatives. For this reason the determination for this species is: No Impact The Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) is native to Wyoming in the Salt Creek and Smith Fork drainages of the Bear Bonneville Ecological River system. Any BCT that may be cutthroat trout (riparian) found in the project area are of hatchery No No Oncorhynchus and origin and are not endemic to the clarki utah Sensitive stream system. Therefore, the species is not carried forward for analysis. For these reasons the determination for this species is: No Impact The Colorado River cutthroat trout is native to Wyoming in the Green River Colorado River Ecological drainage of the Colorado River system cutthroat (riparian) and are present in the project area. The Oncorhynchus Yes Yes and effects to this species are analyzed in clarki Sensitive this BE. The determination for this pleuriticus species is: May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards

Chapter 3-68

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Species or habitat present in Species Habitat Fish Species project area Type Rational / Comments Species / Habitat federal listing. The Northern Leatherside Chub (NLS) is native to Wyoming in the Bear and Northern Upper Snake River systems and is not Leatherside No No Sensitive suspected to be present in the project Lepidomeda area. For these reasons the copei determination for this species is: No Impact This non-native trout was historically stocked in many lakes and streams in the Upper Green River drainage and may be found in the allotment, but it is Rainbow trout not a managed species in the Horse Oncorhynchus Yes No Harvest Creek drainage and has not been mykiss detected in or near the project area in recent sampling. For these reasons the determination for this species is: No Impact The Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YSC) is native to the Snake River system and was historically stocked in many lakes and streams in the Upper Green River drainage. YSC in the project area are of Yellowstone/ hatchery origin and are not endemic to Snake River Ecological the stream system. The direct, indirect fine-spotted (riparian) and cumulative effects of both the No Yes No cutthroat and Action and Proposed Action alternatives Oncorhynchus Sensitive are the same as for the Colorado River clarki spp. cutthroat trout and therefore this species is not carried forward for analysis. The determination for this species is: May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.

Aquatic Species Distribution Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Sensitive Species The National Forest Management Act of 1976 provides direction for selecting MIS. These species are selected “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19). Management indicators are “any species, group of species, or species habitat element selected to focus management attention for the purpose of resource production, population recovery, maintenance of population viability, or ecosystem diversity” (FSM 2605). MIS are identified in the Forest Plan (USFS 1990), and these MIS represent threatened and endangered species, important harvest species, ecological indicator species, and sensitive species. Twenty-three MIS occur on the BTNF: seven mammals, four

Chapter 3-69

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest birds, three fish, two amphibians, and seven plant species. CFR 219.14(f) allows for those plans under the 1982 Planning Rule to use habitat as an indicator instead of population trends unless the plan specifically talks to population trends, which the Forest Plan does not.

Threatened and Endangered Species The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided the BTNF with a Forest-wide list (ES-61411) of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species which may occur on the Forest in October 2009. Threatened and endangered species possibly occurring or potentially affected by project actions are Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (Table 3.17).

Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Bonytail, and Razorback Sucker All four endangered species are restricted to the Upper Colorado River system including the Green River below Flaming Gorge Reservoir, where distribution and abundance are far below historic levels due to the effects of dams and exotic fishes. Although these four species do not occur within the project area, any water depletion from the Colorado River basin is considered to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify the critical habitat of these four Colorado River endangered fish species (50 CFR 17.95 (e)).

Sensitive/ Management Indicator Species Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) The Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) is a BTNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) and R4 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. The CRCT has been petitioned in 1996 and in 2006 to be protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 2007, the USFWS determined that listing CRCT was not warranted. CRCT historically occupied portions of the Colorado River drainage in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico (Behnke 1992). Current distribution on the BTNF occurs primarily in the headwaters of the Green River and down the eastern slope of the Wyoming Range. Distribution of CRCT within the project analysis area closely matches the historical distribution (see Figure 3.28). CRCT require relatively cool, well-oxygenated water and the presence of clean, well-sorted gravel with minimal fine sediment for successful spawning. They generally spawn in clear, cold, shallow riffles of small streams soon after ice is off in the spring. The initiation of spawning is influenced by water temperature, increased water discharge from runoff, elevation and latitude. The distance cutthroat trout travel to spawn is generally short and eggs hatch within 28-40 days depending on water temperature. Optimal stream habitat is characterized by clear, cold, relatively silt-free water with rocky substrate and riffle: pool ratios approximately 1:1. The Upper Green River populations are maintaining to slightly decreasing in population size and in numbers. The Wyoming Range populations are also maintaining to slightly decreasing in population size and numbers with the exception of LaBarge Creek.

Chapter 3-70

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.28: Map of Historical and Current Colorado River Cutthroat and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Distribution within the Project Analysis Area

Cutthroat trout density in the reach of North Horse Creek that falls within the Sherman grazing allotment appears to be on a stable to increasing trajectory based on fisheries monitoring data. Three stations were established by WGFD in 1987 on the mainstem of North Horse Creek. These sites were surveyed by WGFD using 2-pass electrofishing depletion estimates in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1996 (except Station 3 was not surveyed in 1991). The USFS conducted surveys at two locations in 2009. One site was just downstream of Station 1 and the other was just downstream of Station 2. The original stations were 580 feet in stream length, and the USFS sites were 325 feet in length. To account for this difference, the number of fish was calculated as a density (cutthroat trout per mile). In addition, cutthroat trout over 6 inches in total length were included since the density of small, juvenile fish is a poor indicator of year-round habitat suitability. Although cutthroat trout densities dropped modestly at most stations during the period from 1987 to 1996, the more recent monitoring effort in 2009 indicated that the population has rebounded.

Chapter 3-71

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.) The Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YSC) is a Bridger-Teton National Forest MIS and R4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species. The YSC has been petitioned in the past to be protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 2001, the USFWS determined that listing YSC was not warranted. YSC are widely distributed within their historic range in the states of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. On the Bridger-Teton National Forest, YSC are found throughout their original range in the upper Snake River above Palisades Dam. There are approximately 1,537 miles of river and streams and 3,116 acres of lake on the BTNF that support YSC. These populations contain both historical and currently occupied habitat and encompass the headwaters of the Snake River, Gros Ventre, Greys-Hoback, and Salt River watersheds. Typical of most trout, YSC require relatively cool, well-oxygenated water and the presence of clean, well-sorted gravel with minimal fine sediment for successful spawning. They generally spawn in clear, cold, shallow riffles of small streams soon after ice is off in the spring. The initiation of spawning is influenced by water temperature, increased water discharge from runoff, elevation and latitude. Sexual maturity varies from 2-3 years for males and 5-11 years for females with a high post-spawning mortality rate. The distance cutthroat trout travel to spawn is generally short and eggs hatch within 28-40 days depending on water temperature. Optimal stream habitat is characterized by clear, cold, relatively silt-free water with rocky substrate and riffle: pool ratios are approximately 1:1. YSC were introduced to the streams within the project area and are a threat to the genetic purity of native CRCT. As a result, they are not a desired species in the drainage. The habitat requirements are the same as those for CRCT.

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) The rainbow trout (RBT) is a Bridger-Teton National Forest MIS. The rainbow trout is native to coastal streams flowing into the Pacific Ocean along the west coast of North America and is an introduced species on the BTNF. This trout has been introduced into many streams and rivers as a game fish. Rainbow trout are generally considered stream-dwelling species, but they also thrive in lakes. Rainbow trout are a popular species for sport fisheries and due to historical introductions they now occur throughout the BTNF. Wyoming Game and Fish Department has discontinued stocking of rainbow trout in streams and rivers in order to reduce impacts to the native cutthroat trout. Current stream distribution data for the Forest indicates a decline in rainbow trout populations due primarily to the discontinuation of stocking, but self-sustaining lake populations and pockets of stream dwelling rainbow trout below the Forest boundary remain stable. Rainbow trout are not present within the analysis area. Habitat Conditions Riparian Condition Riparian vegetation plays an important role in maintaining habitat for fisheries. Riparian vegetation provides root strength, which resists erosion and helps maintain channel form, particularly in low-gradient alluvial valleys. Riparian vegetation also provides roughness, thereby reducing flow velocities during high flow conditions and encourages sediment

Chapter 3-72

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest deposition on the banks. Shade provided by streamside vegetation buffers streams from solar heating and affects levels of primary production (plant and algae growth), which can alter macroinvertebrate communities, important as a forage base for fish, as well as stream temperature. Riparian areas were evaluated at a broad-scale, based on data collected under the Wyoming Habitat Assessment Methodology (WHAM) Level 1 survey. Habitat surveys were completed on most perennial streams and some intermittent streams within the analysis area. The Level I assessment is a rapid process that provides a characterization of upland, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions. The protocol is designed to identify potential problems and management improvement or restoration opportunities in a watershed. This is a visual survey that involves walking a stream from the forest boundary or the mouth of the stream to its headwaters. Stream condition class was assigned based on surveyors’ evaluations of the following criteria: 1) Riparian function – riparian area is functioning to capture sediment and maintain high water table, riparian area has a diversity of vegetation that is capable of slowing high flows and protecting and stabilizing the banks. 2) Hydric soils – soils saturated with water are present indicating that the stream is not incised. 3) Riparian vegetation recruitment – saplings and young woody plants are present in the reach. 4) Bank erosion – the fraction of the length of the bank that shows evidence of recent erosion and that would be susceptible to further erosion under high-flow conditions. Riparian condition class was assigned at the reach level employing the WHAM data set using the criteria listed in Table 3.18. The results of the riparian condition class are displayed by WHAM reach in Figure 3.18 below.

Table 3.18: Criteria for Riparian Condition Class Ranking Based on WHAM Survey Data

Class I Class II Class III < 25% bank erosion and; < 50% bank erosion and; >50% bank erosion or;

At least three of: At least two of: Fails to meet two of:  <10% bank erosion  <25% bank erosion  <25% bank erosion  Riparian Function  Riparian Function  Riparian Function  Hydric Soils  Hydric Soils  Hydric Soils  Vegetation  Vegetation  Vegetation Recruitment Recruitment Recruitment

Riparian condition class was evaluated on 15.1 miles of stream within the analysis area. Of those stream segments analyzed, 54.5 percent of streams had riparian areas in Condition Class I, 13.6 percent in Condition Class II, and 31.9 percent in Condition Class III. Most of the reaches of tributaries and the headwaters of North Horse and South Horse creeks were in Condition Class I with one segment of Mill Creek and one segment of Pass Creek in Condition Class II. The mainstem of both North Horse and South Horse creeks had segments that ranked in Condition Class III. In both cases, the streams met most criteria of riparian function and health but had low bank stability. These streams both have high spring runoff and a highly mobile bedload. As a result, the channels tend to be naturally very dynamic, with actively migrating meanders and channel avulsions. In addition, past sheep grazing in the headwaters has resulted in elevated erosion rates. While the sheep grazing has been discontinued, the erosive features are healing

Chapter 3-73

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest gradually, and the sediment is still in the process of moving through the streams. This excess bedload contributes to the instable channel and low bank stability, particularly in North Horse Creek. In addition to the WHAM surveys, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) sites were established as key sites on tributaries of North and South Creeks, which are used to monitor conditions in stream reaches that are sensitive to management impacts and representative of broader conditions. The MIM riparian assessment is described in detail in the Hydrology section. MIM sites indicated healthy and functioning riparian condition. Also, riparian vegetation surveys were conducted at numerous locations within the allotment. During those surveys, one location on Pass Creek was determined to be ‘functioning at risk’. Based on a site visit in October 2012, it was clear that the reason for the limited development of riparian vegetation was due to the geomorphic conditions of the site. The reach that was determined to be functioning at risk is at a transition from a narrow valley with a relatively steep gradient into a wide valley with a very low gradient. As a result, this location is highly depositional with deep deposits of sand and gravel sized substrates. The combination of substrate deposition and coarse material causes this reach of the stream to be intermittent and the summer water table to be low relative to the floodplain. The low water table appears to be the primary limiting factor for the development of riparian vegetation types.

Figure 3.29: Riparian Condition Class Assessment of the Sherman Allotment Rangeland Analysis Area Based on WHAM Surveys

Chapter 3-74

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Bank Stability Streambank condition is a good indicator of the health of a stream channel and fish habitat. Streambank instability can be initiated by natural events (extreme floods, wildfires, mass wasting) or human disturbances that change discharge, sediment load, and channel stability (Clary and Webster 1989). Bank material and vegetation type and density also affect the stability of streambanks (Platts 1984). Unstable streambanks can lead to accelerated bank erosion and subsequent channel widening, increased sediment supply, and decreased sediment transport capability, which has the effect of reducing stream depths, interstitial gravel spaces, and pool volumes (Platts 1991). Eroding streambanks support little or no riparian vegetation, resulting in a loss of stream shading, bank undercut, and terrestrial insect drop in to the stream. Such degraded riparian and channel conditions can affect fish by increasing summertime stream temperatures, reducing wintertime temperatures resulting in anchor ice, reducing cover through lack of undercut banks or overhead vegetation, and decreasing terrestrial and aquatic fish food items (Platts 1991). Bank stability in the project area is indicated by the WHAM survey derived riparian condition class, which is sensitive to bank stability, and the MIM surveys discussed in detail in the Hydrology section. The MIM sites and WHAM surveys indicated high bank stability on the tributaries, but the WHAM surveys indicated low bank stability on North Horse and South Horse creeks.

Fine Sediment Fine sediment deposition in streams can adversely affect fish and fish habitat, particularly for salmonids, by reducing the quantity and/or quality of spawning habitat, reducing food supply by impacting invertebrate habitat, reducing interstitial habitat, thereby decreasing egg-to-fry survival, and reducing pool quality and quantity (Irving and Bjornn 1984). Livestock grazing can influence fine sediment in streams by reducing vegetation cover in the upland or riparian areas and reducing bank stability through altering riparian vegetation or physical bank trampling (Clary and Webster 1989). The following table estimates cutthroat trout survival to emergence based on occurrence of fine sediment analyzed according to Chapman and McLeod (1987) Table V.a.1 pages 213-214.

Table 3.19: Estimated Cutthroat Trout Survival to Emergence

Estimated Percent Estimated Cutthroat Stream Fine <6.3 Trout Survival to Millimeters Emergence North Horse Creek (sample 1) 10.3% 80% North Horse Creek (sample 2) 14.6% 65% South Horse Creek 22.9% 40%

Stream Temperature Summer water temperatures are critical to cutthroat trout, which prefer water temperatures of 55°F (13°C) and do best when water remains continuously below 68°F (20°C) (Bear et al. 2007; Johnston and Rahel 2003). High water temperatures can negatively affect cutthroat trout growth

Chapter 3-75

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest and fitness and alter inter-specific competitive interactions. Cutthroat can suffer mortality when continuously exposed to high stream temperatures. Experimental studies have found that Bonneville cutthroat suffered 50 percent mortality under 7-day continuous exposure to 24.2ºC (Johnston and Rahel 2004), and westslope cutthroat had 50 percent mortality following a 60-day exposure of 19.2ºC (Bear et al. 2007). Stream temperatures have been found to be a major factor limiting the distribution of cutthroat trout populations in the intermountain west (Sloat et al. 2005; Hirsch et al. 2006). Cutthroat trout have lower optimal growth temperatures and temperature tolerance limits than brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout and have been observed to have a competitive disadvantage at warm temperatures (Bear et al. 2007; Staso and Rahel 1994). Where cutthroat are coexist with non-native salmonids, maximum temperatures of 13-15ºC would ensure that temperature was not a major factor in the decline of cutthroat trout (Bear et al. 2007). Survival of cutthroat trout through the winter season is related to the thermal conditions in the summer season. Juvenile cutthroat must have adequate thermal conditions during the summer to build sufficient energy reserves to survive cold (<4ºC) winter conditions (Coleman and Fausch 2007). Water temperature on North Horse Creek at the Forest boundary can exceed desirable levels for cutthroat trout. Stream temperature conditions are reported in the Hydrology section. Continuous temperature loggers deployed in 2009 found maximum temperatures slightly exceeding the state water temperature standard of 20ºC, but the Sublette County recorded temperatures as high as 24.2ºC in July 2003 at the Forest boundary just downstream of the allotment on North Horse Creek.

Stream Descriptions Riparian vegetation on North Horse Creek is predominately willow across a relatively wide “U” shaped valley bottom. The stream channel is a Rosgen “C” channel type which is usually associated with good trout habitat (see Figure 3.30). The stream has substantial flooding in the spring and has relatively low summer flows. During low flow periods, the stream has a narrow wetted channel compared to its wide active channel. Beaver ponds are uncommon on North Horse Creek within the active channel because of the high volume of spring runoff and large and mobile bed load. Ponds occur within the riparian area but are usually off channel and are created from spring seeps. The stream and riparian area has some evidence of livestock and wildlife impacts, such as trails in the riparian area and across streams and browsed willows, but those impacts are limited. North Horse Creek provides important spawning and year-round habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout and other native fishes. The habitat on North Horse Creek is suitable to support cutthroat trout, although non-native cutthroat, rainbow trout and brook trout are present and will continue to apply biotic pressure to the population.

Chapter 3-76

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.30: North Horse Creek during WHAM Survey (July 2008) at the Start of Segment 4 Looking Upstream

Spring and Mill Creeks are small drainages, which have trout only in the lower extent. Use of this habitat by trout is likely limited to relatively high flow years (WFGD 2001) and to periods during the life history of the fish. The streams may provide important cool-water refuge for fish during warm summer periods. These streams do not likely provide spawning habitat for trout. Pass and Cole creeks are tributaries to South Horse Creek. These creeks are small with trout populations existing primarily in the lower reaches (WGFD 2001). See Figure 3.31. Similar to Spring and Mill creeks, these tributaries may play an important role in juvenile rearing or thermal refugia, but do not likely provide much spawning habitat for cutthroat trout beyond the very lowest reaches.

Figure 3.31: Cole Creek during WHAM Survey (July 2008) at the End of Reach 1 Looking Upstream.

Elk Creek does not have fish populations present.

Chapter 3-77

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects Riparian Condition Alternative 1 would remove livestock grazing impacts from the stream, riparian area, and watershed. As a result of removing this disturbance element from the ecosystem, vegetation would be expected to grow taller and canopies would be more closed. Riparian vegetation on tributaries to North and South Horse Creeks would respond quickly and would result in a high percentage of canopy cover of the stream channel. On North Horse Creek, the unstable stream channel would continue to cause regular disturbance events in the riparian area and the recovery toward a stable riparian condition would be gradual.

Bank Stability In the tributaries to North and South Horse Creeks, bank stability would be expected to increase slightly; however, since the tributaries are within the natural range of variability, the change may be minor and in some years the bank stability may actually be lower than when the MIMs were measured. The stream conditions described in the Hydrology section as well as the WHAM data and MIMs data were collected after two year of rest. North Horse Creek would likely continue to have low bank stability due to the excess bedload in the stream. The rate of recovery of this stream to a new equilibrium condition would not likely be improved by removing cattle grazing from the lower stream segments found in the allotment.

Fine Sediment Fine sediment in the spawning riffles would likely reduce over time without grazing. The disturbance from cattle to both the uplands and the streambanks contributes fine sediment to the streams. However, the amount of fine sediment in the streams would continue to be elevated above natural background levels due to impacts from roads, recreational activities, and past management activities in the watershed.

Stream Temperature Removing livestock grazing would be likely to provide a measureable change to the canopy over the small tributaries, such as Elk Creek, Pass Creek, Cole Creek, Spring Creek, and Mill Creek, due to an increase in streamside sedge height and canopy density of willows. As a result of the increased shade component, temperatures in these tributaries may drop. While there is no monitoring data on the stream temperature of these tributaries, they are suspected to maintain cool temperatures due to topographic shading, generally intact riparian vegetation, and narrow channel forms. North Horse Creek would continue to have periods of high summer stream temperatures. The excess bedload has contributed to a highly active channel width to wetted width ratio, so there are many places that riparian vegetation cannot provide shade to the stream. Because the tributaries are a small proportion of the flow contribution and the temperatures in the tributaries would experience only modest decreases.

Chapter 3-78

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Cumulative Effects Sources of cumulative effects are described below, under Alternative 2. The benefit of eliminating livestock grazing impacts along streams would be partly offset by the negative cumulative effects connected to roads, dispersed recreation, and fire along Pass Creek.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Negative effects to fisheries are associated with grazing but current and proposed management practices can mitigate those effects. Where cattle are able to enter the stream during the period that trout have active redds, there is a risk of trampling redds and reducing egg survival. In the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment, cattle are allowed on the allotment on July 6th. Since it is a deferred rotation, pastures alternate years for early grazing. For CRCT, spawning can occur from May until July, and fry emergence is typically in late July or early August (Young 1995). Due to the timing of emergence, only the first pasture grazed has a risk of substantially impacting redds in a given year. The south pasture does not have any CRCT spawning habitat so these direct impacts only apply to those years that the north pasture is grazed first. To estimate the potential impacts, the project was compared to Gregory and Gamett (2009). The density and duration of grazing (approximately 3 weeks at 0.7 head/ hectare) is similar to Timber Creek pasture in Gregory and Gamett (2009), which had approximately 12 percent of redds destroyed while cattle were on the pasture. Trampling in this project would likely be less because cattle are much more likely to disperse into the uplands during spring when upland forage is plentiful and ephemeral water sources are available. Although it is anticipated that some CRCT redds will be destroyed, those direct effects would not be expected to cause a recruitment bottleneck for the population, therefore would not affect the population trends. Cattle grazing can negatively affect fish habitat by altering watershed or riparian conditions. Reduced streamside vegetation can result in increased summer water temperatures from lack of cover and increased icing during winter months. Widening of stream channels can occur due to bank impacts from physical alteration or reduction of deep-rooted vegetation in the riparian area. Where grazing reduces vegetation cover and increases runoff and sediment delivery to streams, there will be subsequent changes in stream function and modified fish habitat.

Riparian Condition Within the project area, all tributaries to North and South Horse creeks have riparian areas in Condition Class I and II. North Horse Creek within the project area has a riparian area in Condition Class II and III. The low riparian condition class on North Horse Creek is driven by low bank stability, which is caused principally by erosion in the headwaters from high natural rates of sediment production, which are exacerbated by past sheep grazing practices. The specified maximum utilization criteria are sufficient to protect riparian vegetation. The project design criteria in this project include a maximum utilization level of 50 percent in the riparian areas, which is appropriate to maintain plant vigor and minimize woody species browse (Hall

Chapter 3-79

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest and Bryant 1995). Stream and riparian conditions that had been subjected to historical overgrazing improved for salmonids over a 10 year period when subjected to light (20-25 percent utilization) and medium (35-50 percent utilization) grazing (Clary 1999). Generally, the literature supports allowable utilization levels of 50 percent to maintain conditions (Leffert 2005). Under this alternative, the tributary streams are expected to maintain riparian Condition Class I and II and North Horse Creek riparian conditions are expected to recover on a similar trajectory to the current trend.

Bank Stability Cattle impacts to bank stability are typically due to either reduction of riparian vegetation (discussed above) or physical bank alteration. Bank alteration by ungulate hooves can be as important as changes in riparian vegetation to stream form and bank stability (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Cattle can cause compaction, shearing, and caving of overhanging banks. Maximum bank alteration based on stream type, as specified in the design criteria, will help maintain properly functioning stream bank stability or allow recovery of streambanks that are below current management objectives. The proposed action will result in lower bank stability than the No Action Alternative in the tributary streams and will likely vary with current year alteration. Long term declines in bank stability on these tributaries are not expected under this alternative. Alternative 2 may increase the amount of time until recovery of North Horse Creek to meet the quantifiable objective of 80 percent bank stability compared to the No Action Alternative, but there is not sufficient information to determine how much longer it would take to reach target bank stability.

Fine Sediment This proposed action will cause fine sediment to enter the stream channels within the project area, but would not increase fine sediment beyond the current conditions. Fine sediment is within an acceptable range for cutthroat spawning habitat in North Horse Creek. Fine sediment is elevated in South Horse Creek, but this project is a small fraction of the entire watershed and represents a minor contribution to that condition. The design criteria that specify maximum utilization and maximum streambank alteration will prevent watershed and streambank conditions from deteriorating. As a result, fine sediment related to the project will not pose a risk to continued sustainability of the fishery.

Stream Temperature Stream temperature is affected by climatic drivers, streamflow, riparian condition, channel form, and ground water influence (Poole and Berman 2001). In the simplest terms, water temperature is proportional to heat load divided by discharge (Poole and Berman 2001). The natural drivers include elements such as precipitation, air temperature, cloud cover, and land form. However, land management activities usually have more effect upon the elements that buffer stream temperature increases including riparian vegetation, channel shape, bedload, and groundwater connectivity. The major risk factors associated with stream temperature are dams or impoundments, water withdrawals, channel modification (straightening, armoring, etc.), and vegetation alteration. The project would maintain current water temperature regimes. Monitoring of North Horse Creek indicated that the stream is near the maximum water temperature for cool water fisheries. The effects of this project, however, are not the primary cause of high water temperatures in

Chapter 3-80

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Horse Creek. The current recovery trajectory of watershed conditions due to the elimination of sheep grazing in the headwaters will result in reduced bedload in North Horse Creek, resulting in a narrower, more stable channel with increased pool capacity. All of these elements would improve the insulating capacity of the stream from temperature fluctuation. The effects of livestock grazing in the riparian area may extend the amount of time required to recover the channel conditions that would result in lower water temperature as compared to the No Action Alternative but would not prevent recovery.

Fish Management Indicator and Sensitive Species See Table 3.17 for evaluation of impact on MIS and Sensitive species.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the incremental impacts of the action when added to the impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and that overlap with those impacts in space and in time. Roads, historic grazing, and dispersed recreation all have cumulative impacts on the fish population and fish habitat within the project area. In combination, the past and ongoing management impacts that overlap with this project will contribute fine sediment, which can negatively affect cutthroat egg survival, can alter habitat quality, and can impact macroinvertebrate communities. Based on the fact that fine sediment delivery would be reduced over time under both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2, the cumulative effects related to sediment should not approach the threshold of greater than 20 percent fines sediment <6.3mm. Stream temperatures are currently near or exceeding the maximum temperature objective. In combination with the cumulative effects in the project area, the temperature condition is anticipated to improve over time as past management impacts, particularly excessive bedload from eroding hillsides due to historic sheep grazing in the headwaters, are reduced as the vegetation recovers. See Table 3.20 for analysis of cumulative effects on fishery resources.

Chapter 3-81

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.20: Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action and Past, Present and Future Actions on Fishery Resources

Overlap Overlap Measurable Potential Aquatic Species or Project in in Cumulative Extent, Detectable? Effects Habitat Effect Time Space Effect? Although roads are Minimal effect to Horse limited in the project Creek, with only localized area, there are riparian areas of accelerated road segments along bank erosion or road- North Horse Creek and generated fine sediment. Pass Creek. The North The Pass Creek road is Horse Creek road is likely producing enough relatively well-maintained fine sediment to be and much of it buffered impacting pool conditions Roads (FS Fine by low slope floodplain, in Pass Creek. Pass Yes Yes Possible system) sediment so it is not likely a Creek is not believed to significant contributor of provide much spawning fine sediment to North habitat, so the impacts to Horse Creek. The Pass spawning habitat within Creek road is a native the project area are surface road that has limited. The road may be significant impacts to the contributing to the surface, particularly elevated fine sediments during the fall hunting measured in South Horse season. Creek. User-created roads have been a problem in the past in the North Horse Although there will Creek watershed; under continue to be some Roads current management and impacts from illegal motor Fine (user Yes Yes Possible enforcement, which vehicle use, it is expected sediment created) includes increased to have minimal effect to educational and fisheries resources in the patrolling efforts, the watershed. problem has been abated.

Chapter 3-82

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overlap Overlap Measurable Potential Aquatic Species or Project in in Cumulative Extent, Detectable? Effects Habitat Effect Time Space Effect? Current restrictions to Riparian removal of firewood near Firewood condition/ streams prevents Yes Yes No None Removal stream potential habitat trees temperature from being extracted from the forest Projects are completed. Since there are no remaining sediment effects due to mitigation measures and design criteria implementation Past timber Fine No Yes No on the original projects None harvest sediment there would be no current impact to pool habitat or spawning habitat from a sediment perspective.

Tie hacking occurred throughout the Wyoming Range decades ago. In many streams, the effects of those activities are still apparent where the tie drives down the Riparian Tie hacking No Yes No stream left the channel None condition incised. Due to the high sediment load in North Horse Creek, however, the stream has aggraded and the channel is well- connected to the floodplain.

Chapter 3-83

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overlap Overlap Measurable Potential Aquatic Species or Project in in Cumulative Extent, Detectable? Effects Habitat Effect Time Space Effect?

Watershed effects from the Mule Creek Fire have had sufficient time to recover. The Horse Creek Fire of 2007 burned much of the Southern Pasture. Wildfires – Riparian vegetation in Mule Creek the lower portions of Elk Fire in Pool quantity and Pass Creek and the 2000 (2698 and quality/ majority of the North and acres); fine sediment No Yes No None South Fork of Horse Horse in riffles/ Creek sustained little Creek in hydrology damage. Population 2007 (7654 monitoring in 2009 acres) revealed sufficient fish populations to achieve WGFD objectives. In addition, monitoring did not show adverse levels of ash or sedimentation in the stream where sampled (BAER 2009).

Because of the restriction to using chemicals that are toxic Noxious to aquatic ecosystems weed Water quality Yes No No None near water, weed treatments treatments will have no effect to fisheries in the project area.

Chapter 3-84

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overlap Overlap Measurable Potential Aquatic Species or Project in in Cumulative Extent, Detectable? Effects Habitat Effect Time Space Effect? Although sheep grazing was discontinued in the headwaters of Horse Creek approximately seven years ago, there is The mainstem of North substantial erosion due Horse Creek has excess to bare ground and sediment load due in gullying that are currently large part to grazing Riparian in the process of impacts in the upper condition/ revegetation. Although watershed. This Fine Historic past cattle grazing, contributes to low sediment/ Yes Yes Yes grazing involving much higher channel and bank Stream stocking than recent or stability, low residual pool temperature/ proposed grazing, likely depths as pools are filled Bank stability had some effects to with sediment, and high streams and riparian water temperatures areas, field surveys because of the wide, suggest that there has shallow channel form. been sufficient time for streams and riparian areas to recover from that disturbance.

Chapter 3-85

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Recreational activities throughout the watershed have some effect; however, Stream-side campsites dispersed campsites in contribute fine sediment riparian areas are the that reduces pool depth Riparian greatest impact. and reduces the quality of Dispersed condition/ Yes Yes Yes Numerous campsites on spawning riffles. Reduced recreation Stream North Horse Creek, riparian condition temperature/ Spring Creek, and Pass contributes to bank Creek have created large instability and degraded openings with no woody channel form. riparian vegetation and bare soil exposed to erosion.

Chapter 3-86

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction All Forest Plan direction and other state and federal regulations would be met under this alternative.

Threatened and Endangered Species (Citation for the BA,BO) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated Threatened and Endangered Species for the Bridger- Teton National Forest (USFS 2013). Colorado Endangered Fishes – Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). - Because there are no new water developments proposed with this project, the determination of effect for the Colorado River and Wyoming listed species and their designated critical habitat is “No Effect”.

Intermountain Region Sensitive Species (Roberts 2013) Intermountain Region designated Sensitive Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2013). Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) The streams within the project area, particularly North Horse Creek, provides important habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout. The proposed action would cause direct effects by damaging some redds and indirect effects including some modifications to riparian vegetation, bank stability, and contributions of fine sediment to streams. As a result of these impacts, it is determined that the project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Yellowstone/Snake River fine spot cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) The Yellowstone cutthroat trout is native to the Snake River system and is not native to the streams in the allotment. The population causes inbreeding and competition risks to native Colorado River cutthroat trout. The population is not desired in the Horse Creek drainage or the project area. The impacts to this species would be the same as for CRC; as a result, the project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Species (Roberts 2013) Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan designated MIS fish species including cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii spp.) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii spp.) - Horse Creek and its tributaries that are within the project area provide habitat for sustaining populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Both spawning and rearing of cutthroat occur within the project area. Monitored cutthroat trout density indicates that the population has been stable or increasing over the past 25 years. For the reasons discussed above, alternative 2 may impact individuals and habitat but is not likely to negatively affect the population at the forest level. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Rainbow trout stocking by Wyoming Game and Fish Department has been discontinued but the species are still present in small numbers in Horse Creek. Few rainbow trout are found in the project area, with most individuals in the Horse Creek sub-basin far enough downstream of the project that no negative effects are expected from the

Chapter 3-87

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest project to this species. For this reason, the project will have no impact to rainbow trout.

Forest Plan Goals, Standards, and Guidelines:  Goal 3.3 – The project meets goal 3.3 of the Forest plan as it does not contribute to a trend toward listing for sensitive fish species.  Goal 4.7 – The limited impacts of grazing as proposed in the project are consistent with a sustainable fishery or with fishing recreation.  Sensitive Species Management Standard – Quantifiable objectives: o North Horse Creek is not currently meeting the stream temperature objective (maximum of 68°F). However, livestock grazing on this allotment is not believed to be a primary contributor to elevated stream temperature conditions. The proposed action is expected to maintain current stream temperature conditions or allow recovery of stream and riparian conditions in North Horse Creek that will lead to a gradual reduction in stream temperature. o The draft quantifiable objective for sensitive fish species indicates that bank stability should be maintained at 75-85 percent depending on channel type. The allotment has primarily C3/4 (North Horse Creek) and E4-6 (tributaries to North and South Horse Creek) channel types. The C-channels have bank stability objectives of 75 percent or greater and the E-channels have an objective of 85 percent or greater. The tributaries to North and South Horse Creek are currently meeting the objective based on both the MIM data and the WHAM data. However, WHAM data and field observations indicate that North Horse Creek is not currently meeting the objective. The hydrology report describes the condition of North Horse Creek and specifies that the stream is currently unable to attain the target bank stability. That level of stability may be possible as watershed conditions improve. The primary factor (sheep grazing) contributing to increased sediment production in the watershed has been removed and the watershed is trending toward recovery. o The project does not create any barriers to fish passage or connectivity. There are no known barriers within the project area. o The project maintains water quality consistent with the Wyoming State water quality standards.  Fish Habitat Management Guideline – The fishery in the project area is considered to be function at its potential (WGFD 2001). The proposed project will not alter the current condition of the fishery.  Streambank Stability Guideline – Streambank stability in North Horse Creek is below the target condition in this guideline. Livestock have some impact on the bank stability in this section of the stream but are not the primary causal factor. The bank stability is expected to improve gradually as watershed conditions improve. Other streams in the project area are meeting the bank stability guidelines. The project will meet the guideline to maintain 80% of natural riparian vegetation.

Chapter 3-88

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

 Livestock Grazing of Riparian Areas Standard – The project will meet the standard to protect streambanks through proper utilization levels, limits on bank alteration and continued efforts to disperse livestock distribution.  The Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Standard from a fisheries perspective is applicable to Colorado River cutthroat trout. The project will meet this standard by implementing maximum utilization and bank alteration criteria. In addition, continued administrative management to ensure proper distribution of cattle, particularly moving cattle out of riparian areas, will be needed to maintain and improve riparian conditions.  Desired Future Condition (DFC) 1B comprises most of the project area. This DFC is focused on resource production over fisheries values. The forest plan states that the fisheries catch levels may decrease over time.  DFC 10 describes simultaneous development of resources, human experience, and wildlife habitat. This DFC accounts for approximately 2.3 sq. mi. within the project area. The project meets DFC 10 by maintaining resource utilization while supporting habitat for fish populations.  DFC 12 is a back-country big-game hunting, dispersed recreation and wildlife security areas. This DFC only accounts for a small area within the project area (about 1.3 sq. mi.) covering one intermittent tributary to North Horse Creek and approximately 1,500 feet of North Horse Creek itself. The DFC emphasizes management of fisheries to achieve harvest success and population levels indicated by WGFD. Alternative 2 would not cause fish populations to drop below target levels.

Wildlife and Plant Resources______Information provided in this final supplemental environmental impact statement about wildlife resources and sensitive plants is excerpted from the Livestock Grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Biological Evaluation and MIS Report by Wildlife Biologists Jenna Casey and Ann Roberts. This report in its entirety is incorporated by reference. Species considered in this analysis include Endangered Species Act (ESA) Threatened, Endangered, Experimental, and Candidate Species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (MIS), Migratory Birds, and Birds of Conservation Concern (USFS 1991). Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Effects on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive Species (TEPS), as well as other Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Migratory Birds Livestock grazing may affect recovery of threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive species, in addition to viability and habitat objectives for other species in the project area. The Forest Plan provides direction for management indicator species (MIS). Additional species conservation is directed by laws, regulations, and policies. Effects on the grizzly bear are of particular concern due to potential predation on livestock and resulting control actions. Amphibians are also of concern due to livestock’s attraction to riparian habitats.

Chapter 3-89

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Issue Indicators 1. Compliance with federal law and policy 2. Degree of habitat protection or restoration

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Threatened, Endangered, Experimental and Candidate Species The species identified in the table below originate from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s current list of endangered, threatened, candidate and proposed species which may occur within the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Big Piney Ranger District in or near the project area (USFWS Endangered Species Listing Actions Status; USFWS Website at: http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Pages/Species/Species_Endangered.html).

Table 3.21: Federally-listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Species Status project area? Habitat/Comments Species /Habitat Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered Species Grizzlies require large areas to meet basic needs, w/ home ranges of 50- 500 mi2, where they use diverse Federally- forest, wet meadow, grassland, and listed riparian habitats. Remote areas Threatened, isolated from human activity are Grizzly bear needed for feeding, denning, and (Ursus arctos and Yes Yes reproduction. Dense forest cover, horribilis) such as lodgepole pine forests Management provide necessary denning and Indicator hiding security. Ungulates provide Species (MIS) an important food source in spring and fall. This species is present within the project area and further analysis is warranted. Lynx use montane forest, especially north-facing slopes with mixed conifer and strong sub-alpine fir Canada lynx content. However, cattle use does (Lynx Threatened Historic Yes not typically overlap this late seral canadensis) stage forest type. This species is present within the project area and is carried forth for further analysis. Canada lynx Mapped lynx habitat occurs in the (Lynx project area (LAUs: N. Horse Ck

canadensis) and S. Horse Ck.). North Horse Ck. Critical contains approximately 17,200

Chapter 3-90

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Species Status project area? Habitat/Comments Species /Habitat habitat acres of lynx habitat. However, cattle use does not typically overlap this late seral stage forest type. Critical habitat is present and carried forth for further analysis. USFWS Proposed Species Habitat: Subalpine to alpine communities; This species and Proposed for habitat are suspected within the North listing as project area however, cattle use American Known Threatened or does not typically overlap with their Wolverine Y Endangered denning habitat, or affect their prey (Gulo gulo Historic (USFWS, (small mammals and carrion), This luscus) 2/13) species is suspected within the project area and is carried forth for further analysis.

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) The following information, with the exception of data post-2005 and project specific data analysis, references information in the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (USFWS 2007a), the Final Biological Assessment for the Forest Plan Amendments for Grizzly Bear Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (USFS 2005), and the May 24, 2011 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Continuance of Livestock Grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment on the Big Piney Ranger District. Grizzly bear mortality and conflict data is from the corresponding Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Reports (2000-2012), and pers. comm. with Z. Turnbull, WGFD, 12/12- 2/13.

Home Rang Size and Dispersal Home range sizes vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions, and interactions with other bears. In addition, individual bears may extend their range seasonally or from one year to the next (USFWS 1993) and the home ranges of adult grizzly bears frequently overlap. The home ranges of adult male grizzlies are generally two to four times larger than that of females, averaging approximately 341 square miles for females and 1,450 square miles for males (Blanchard and Knight 1991). Dispersing young males apparently leave their mother’s home ranges and their dispersal may be mediated by the avoidance of the home ranges of established adults. Young females may establish a home range soon after family breakup, often within the vicinity of their mothers’ home ranges. Grizzly mothers may tolerate female offspring and may shift their home ranges to accommodate them. (USFWS 1993) Long distance movements of some bears increase the risk of contact with highway crossings, hunters, recreationists, and a variety of developments associated with human use (USFWS 1993).

Food Habits Specific to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), four seasonal foods have been identified

Chapter 3-91

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest as being important to the grizzly bear population. Ungulates are especially important during spring after emergence from dens and through the calving/fawning seasons (Cole 1972; Gunther and Renkin 1990; Mattson et al. 1991; Mattson and Knight 1992; Green et al. 1997; Mattson 1997a). Whitebark pine seeds are the most important fall food of Yellowstone grizzly bears, and the availability of nuts influences annual feeding strategies and movement patterns (Kendall 1983; Blanchard 1990; Mattson et al. 1992a and 1992b; Mattson and Reinhart 1997; Mattson 1997b). Army cutworm moths are a preferred source of nutrition for many grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem and represent a high quality food that is available during the summer (Mattson et al. 1991; French et al. 1994; Ternent and Haroldson 2000). The search for food has a primary influence on grizzly bear movements. Upon emergence from the den, they seek lower elevations, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter ranges where their food requirements can be met. Throughout late spring and early summer, they follow plant maturity back to higher elevations. In late summer, there is a transition to fruit and nut sources, as well as other plant materials. Whitebark pine seeds are an important fall source of food for grizzly bears in the GYE. Bears consume whitebark pine seeds contained in red squirrel cone caches (Mattson and Reinhart 1997). In years when the whitebark pine crop is low, increases in human/bear conflicts may occur when bears seek alternate food sources in human use areas. Grizzly bears are also attracted to hunter-killed carcasses and remains (“gut-piles”) (Haroldson et al. 2004). In fall, bears enter a stage of hyperphagia characterized by extended hours of foraging, high caloric intake, and drinking large quantities of water in preparation for hibernation (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Bears may delay hibernation when quality forage is available.

Decline of Whitebark Pine Whitebark pine seeds are an important fall source of food for grizzly bears in the GYE. Bears consume whitebark pine seeds contained in red squirrel cone caches (Mattson and Reinhart 1997). In years when the whitebark pine crop is low, increases in human/bear conflicts may occur when bears seek alternate food sources in human use areas. Whitebark pin is now a candidate for listing as an endangered species (warranted, but precluded USFWS 2011). The species appears to be in danger of extinction, potentially within as few as two to three generations (USFWS, Fed. Reg. 2011). In many areas, whitebark pine populations are being depleted by altered fire regimes, succession by more shade-tolerant species, and insect and disease outbreaks, which may be exacerbated by climate change. Widespread losses have led to concern for wildlife such as bears, red squirrels, and Clark’s nutcrackers that depend upon its seed sources (Kendall and Arno 1989). Whitebark pine has thin bark, but it’s generally open stands and low fuel characteristics make it relatively resistant to low intensity wildfire. However, fire suppression and invasion of shade tolerant species such as Engelmann spruce and Douglas fir can increase fire susceptibility (McCaughey and Schmidt 1989). High mortality of lodgepole stands by mountain pine beetles can also increase fuel loading and potential for higher intensity crown fires that can spread through adjacent climax whitebark pine stands to timberline. Whitepine blister rust can also threaten populations of whitebark pine when climate conditions allow. See the Sensitive Species section below for more detailed discussion on whitebark pine. Grizzly Bear Population Estimates in the GYE and Project Area Using current demographic recovery criteria protocols, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) estimates a current population of 257 independent females, 163 independent males and

Chapter 3-92

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

190 independent young within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), for a total population size of 610 grizzly bears (USGS, 2013). Research observations of independent females with cubs of the year (COY) in 2012 for the GYE were 49 (Ibid). Under the 2013 USFWS proposed revision to the demographic recovery criteria, the IGBST estimate would be 250 independent females, 250 independent males, and 218 dependent young, for a total GYE population size of 718 grizzly bears (Ibid). Grizzly bears have historically occupied the project area (Sherman Allotment) and the Wyoming Range, and a small number of individuals are currently known to be present in the project area. However there is not adequate data to estimate how many bears currently occupy the area. Grizzly bear numbers are not currently monitored in the Wyoming Range because it is outside of and just south of the Recovery Zone. Therefore, the IGBST has not attempted to estimate grizzly populations in the project area are within the Wyoming Range. However, it is likely additional bears will move into the project area in the future as the population within the GYE continues to grow and expand its current range

Grizzly Bear/Human Interactions Long-term conservation of grizzly bears is directly related to human activity (Schwartz et al. 2012). Grizzly bear survival is inversely related to the number of roads, human residences, developed sites, and amount of exposure to areas open to ungulate hunting (Schwartz et al. 2010). A primary factor in providing for the conservation of grizzly bears is the management of grizzly bear/human interactions to avoid fatal outcomes. Human presence can limit bear use of habitat, create tolerance among some bears that allows for interaction at great risk to the bears, or attract bears to unnatural or unsecured food sources increasing the risk of habituation to unnatural foods and human conflict. The project area is used heavily by outfitters and guides and local sportsmen in the fall, during which time bears can be foraging up to 18 hours per day in preparation for hibernation, increasing the potential for human/bear interactions, and the risk of grizzly bear mortality. A majority of grizzly bear mortality is attributable to grizzly bear/human conflicts that result from being shot by humans in self-defense, or lethal removal by interagency bear managers following accepted protocol. Providing secure habitat (areas free of motorized access) is important to enable bears to fully use their food resources, denning sites and other living needs. Human presence can limit bear use of habitat, create tolerance among some bears that allows for interaction at great risk with other bears, or attract bears to unnatural or unsecured food sources, which can increase the risk of habituation to unnatural foods and human conflict. In addition, there is a need for greater awareness and more education for hunters, outfitters, permittees, and recreationists. Programs that encourage taking proper precautions while in bear country, such as the carrying and proper use of pepper spray, proper food storage techniques, and hanging game carcasses out of the reach of bears, can reduce the potential for conflicts and grizzly mortalities that result from grizzly bear/human encounters.

Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts/Mortalities in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly bear/human conflicts are defined as incidents, in which grizzly bears injure people, damage property, kill or injure livestock, damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic (unnatural) foods, or damage or obtain garden and orchard fruits and vegetables. All conflicts reported to state and federal agencies are entered into state databases and complied annually by Yellowstone National Park and reported in the IGBST Annual Report. The IGBST 2012 Grizzly Bear

Chapter 3-93

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Investigations Report (USGS, 2013) reported 229 grizzly bear conflicts in the GYE in 2011, which is one of the highest conflict years reported since record keeping began in 1992. These incidents included bears obtaining anthropogenic foods and damaging property (37 percent, n=86), damaging property without obtaining food (10 percent, n=24), killing livestock (38 percent), obtaining vegetable and fruits from gardens and orchards (9 percent) and injuring people (6 percent).

Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts/Mortalities in the Project Area There are four recorded (IGBST 2012 Grizzly Bear Investigations Reports and WGFD database) and confirmed grizzly bear mortalities attributed to conflicts with humans (during the recent past) on the Forest and within the Wyoming Range, but none of the four were due to conflicts with livestock grazing in the Sherman Allotment. In 2002, a grizzly bear was lethally removed from the Blind Bull drainage on the Greys River Ranger District approximately six miles west of the Sherman Allotment as a result of depredating domestic sheep. In 2008, a bear mortality occurred in the Cliff Creek drainage on the Big Piney Range District several air miles northwest of the Sherman Allotment as a result of a conflict with a hunter. And, in fall of 2010, one human- caused grizzly bear mortality occurred within the Sherman Allotment; this bear mortality was attributed to a self-defense killing resulting from a hunter’s surprise encounter with a grizzly bear feeding on the remains of a hunter-killed elk carcass (pers. com. Z. Turnbull WGFD 1/2011). On 9/17/12, an adult male grizzly bear was lethally removed from private property just east of the Forest Boundary in the North Piney Creek drainage for repeated property damage and obtaining multiple food rewards.

Grizzly Bear Livestock Conflicts in the Project Area There have been a limited number of confirmed grizzly/livestock conflicts reported within the Sherman Allotment; in fall of 2010, there were two confirmed grizzly bear/livestock conflicts reported within the Sherman Allotment (2010 WGFD data, reported to IGBST). On September 2012 a grizzly-bear injured calf was reported and confirmed near Prospect Peak within the allotment at S. Horse Ck., and in October, 2012, one of the permittee’s calves was reported as grizzly-bitten at Merna Butte after coming off the allotment (under investigation, Z. Turnbull, WGFD, Jan. 2013). Prior to 2010, the nearest and only grizzly/livestock conflict reported to WGFD occurred in 2007 on an adjacent Big Piney Ranger District allotment approximately 1 mile north of the Sherman Allotment boundary. In August 2012, two calves were killed in the adjacent allotment to the north: one two miles north of the Sherman Allotment near south fork Middle Beaver Creek and one six miles north on Chall Creek. Other confirmed 2012 Wyoming Range grizzly/livestock conflicts occurred to the south of the allotment, including: two grizzly bears broke into an elk feedground station approximately 25 miles south of the allotment in spring of 2012, and in fall 2012, a grizzly bear which was captured and relocated earlier in the season (for conflicts on private land) returned, but denned without further conflict approximately 15 miles south of the project area, near North Piney (WGFD [Z. Turnbull, pers. comm.] Dec., 2012).

Secure Habitat in the Project Area Grizzly bears require dense forest cover for hiding and security. In the Yellowstone ecosystem, un-roaded lodgepole pine and other coniferous forest cover types are an important component of

Chapter 3-94

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest secure grizzly bear habitat. Providing secure habitat (areas free of motorized access) is important to enable bears to fully use their food and water sources, denning sites, and meet other needs for survival. Secure habitat for grizzly bears is defined as areas more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line, greater than or equal to 10 acres in size (as defined in the Conservation Strategy). There are numerous motorized roads and trails throughout the allotment, including a major Forest Service access road (Horse Creek road), which limits the availability of secure habitat available to bears within the allotment. The project (Sherman Allotment) is located within “Occupied Habitat” boundaries defined by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in 2012, and bears are known to occur there in small numbers. However, the Sherman Allotment is not located within the “Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone” or within the “Biologically Suitable Habitat” boundary as currently defined by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). Guidance for managing security habitat is defined by the Secure Habitat Standard in the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (USFWS 2007a), and applies to grizzly habitat within the Recovery Zone. The allotment was not modeled to estimate secure habitat (USFS 1990) since it is outside the Recovery Zone (Ibid). As stated previously, the existing number of motorized roads and trails within the allotment limits the availability of secure habitat available to bears within the allotment; in addition, the Horse Creek and Mule Creek wildfires burned large amounts of forest cover in 2007 and 2002 further reducing the availability of security habitat for grizzly bears. (See discussion under lynx habitat).

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Habitat Requirements, Home Range and Food Habits Canada lynx are solitary carnivores, generally occurring at low densities in boreal forest habitats. In most of their range, Canada lynx densities and population dynamics are strongly tied to the distribution and abundance of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), their primary prey. Foraging habitat for lynx is typically described in terms of suitability for snowshoe hares. Hares use young conifer stands that are densely stocked with seedlings or saplings, tall enough to provide browse for snowshoe hares above typical winter snow depth (Koehler and Brittel 1990). Buskirk et al. (1999) suggested that snowshoe hare abundance should be high in sapling and old, “gap phase” forests, where tree mortality and snag loss create gaps in the mature forest canopy allowing increased understory production. Denning habitat is defined by the presence of ground-level structures that provide security and cover for kittens. Suitable structures are most often found in old and mature forests with substantial amounts of coarse woody debris. Lynx may avoid recent clear-cuts that are more than 100 meters wide because they lack sufficient cover (Koehler 1990). Such areas may also not be recolonized by prey species (mainly snowshoe hares) until as much as 20 to 25 years after harvest (Koehler and Brittell 1990). On a landscape scale, Canada lynx habitat includes a mosaic of early seral stands that support snowshoe hare populations and late seral stands of dense old-growth forest that provide ideal denning and security habitat.

Canada Lynx Locations within the Project Area The presence of Canada lynx in the Wyoming Range has been well documented both historically and recently (Meaney and Beauvis 2004; Squires et al. 2003; McKelvey 2000; Oakleaf 1997; Chapter 3-95

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Reeve et.al. 1986). The Wyoming Range is unique and indicative of the boreal forest habitat required by lynx. Although few data are available, researchers believe that lynx in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have a patchy distribution and the Wyoming Range may represent some of the most important lynx habitat in this ecosystem (Squires, pers. comm. 2008; Berg, pers. comm. 2008). This area is considered some of the most essential habitat in Wyoming, both historically and currently (Oakleaf, pers. comm. 2008). This belief is based on the historic abundance of lynx in the area, known den sites, snowshoe hare abundance, and continuous documentation of lynx presence. The Wyoming Range has the longest and most consistent lynx occupancy in the state (Squires, pers. comm. 2010). Over 50 percent of the lynx records in Wyoming are associated with the project area (Oakleaf, pers. comm. 2009). See the Wildlife Biological Evaluation and MIS Report for details of historic occurrences and radio-collared individuals in the Wyoming Range. There have been several studies and surveys for Canada lynx during the past few years on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Most recently, Endeavor Wildlife Research surveys discovered potential lynx tracks in the North Cottonwood Creek and Hoback Rim area on the Big Piney R.D and according to information received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW); a radio- collared Canada lynx that was monitored by the CDOW passed through the Wyoming Range on the Greys River District. The most recent location was from 3/15/2010, on the Greys River District, approximately 40 miles southwest of the project area. This individual is no longer in the Wyoming Range and the CDOW has halted their radio-telemetry lynx research so information from these individuals will no longer be available as collars drop off (pers. com. A. Belleman FWS 2/2011). In the winter of 2004/05, Endeavor Wildlife Research conducted snow track surveys in the Sheridan Creek watershed in the Wind River Range on the Shoshone National Forest, approximately 40 miles northeast of the project area. They found tracks from potentially two different lynx. DNA amplified from scat collected from one of the lynx in the Sheridan Creek area came from the lynx that was collared in the Wyoming Range (near the project area) by Squires and Laurion (2000). According to “Distribution of Lynx and Other Forest Carnivores in the Wyoming Range, southcentral Wyoming” (Squires et al. 2003); one male and one female lynx were captured and equipped with radio transmitter collars (Squires and Laurion 2000). The two lynx home ranges overlapped and were located in the Beaver and Horse Creek watersheds, the location of the project area. During winter of 2001, four sets of lynx tracks were located (1 in North Horse Creek Watershed and 3 in Beaver Creek watershed). It was believed that the 2001 survey indicated that three lynx plus the collared male occupied the Wyoming Range. These lynx made periodic exploratory movements outside of their home ranges which included the northern end of the Wind River Range on the Pinedale Ranger District. A majority of these locations in the Beaver Watershed are within the Sherman Allotment. These individuals died in the Wyoming Range in 1999 and 2001 of natural causes. Currently, there are no known resident lynx in the Wyoming range, however there are currently no formal track surveys being conducted. Track surveys for American marten are being conducted throughout the Bridger-Teton, and there have been no lynx tracks reported to date.

Chapter 3-96

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat within the Project Area Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) have been delineated across the BTNF and provide the fundamental scale at which to evaluate and monitor effects of management actions on lynx habitat. The project area is located within two LAU’s; North Horse Creek and South Horse Creek. Lynx habitat has been mapped following criteria in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) and direction provided by the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD). The best opportunities for snowshoe hares and lynx are within mixed conifer forest types that include strong subalpine fir and spruce components and high horizontal cover. Subalpine fir retains live and dead branches close to the ground for an extended period of time. Cattle use typically does not overlap with late seral forest types of the type described above. Historically, naturally occurring, stand-replacing wildfires resulted in dense natural regeneration in the Wyoming Range. Historically, there were large expanses of dense regeneration, as indicated by present-day forests interspersed with sagebrush openings and mountain meadows. The resulting mix of late seral spruce/fir forests, dense early seral lodgepole stands, and conifer encroached aspen stands provide the best possible conditions for snowshoe hares. Several wildfires have occurred in the LAUs that encompass the project area in the past 40+ years. The recent Mule fire (2002) and Horse Creek fire (2007) burned approximately 80 percent (7,980 out of 9,987 acres) of the lynx habitat mapped within the allotment. Currently, approximately 30 percent of mapped lynx habitat within the North Horse Creek LAU and 47 percent of mapped lynx habitat within the South Horse Creek LAU are in an unsuitable condition for snowshoe hare and lynx as a result of these recent wildfire events. Forested stands (mapped lynx habitat) that burned in these fires have not yet regenerated, and another 25 years (or more) will be required before they are again capable of providing sufficient cover for snowshoe hare and lynx.

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) The following is from the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23, February 4, 2013: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules and references therein (USFWS 2013).

Habitat Requirements, Home Range, Food Habits In North America, wolverines occur within a wide variety of alpine, boreal, and arctic habitats, including boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains throughout Alaska and Canada. The southern portion of the species’ range extends into the contiguous United States, including high- elevation alpine portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, and Colorado. Wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat aspects, but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow into mid-May (Copeland et al. 2010). Deep, persistent snow provides a thermal buffer for denning kits and refuge from predators. The requirement of cold, snowy conditions means that, in the southern portion of the species’ range where ambient temperatures are warmest (like Wyoming), wolverine distribution may be restricted to higher elevations. Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. They primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small animals and birds, and eat fruits, berries, and insects. Home ranges of wolverines are large, and vary greatly in size depending on

Chapter 3-97

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest availability of food, gender and age of the animal, and differences in habitat quality. Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem had average adult male home ranges of 797 square kilometers (311 square miles) and average adult female home ranges of 329 square kilometers (128 square miles) (Inman et al. 2007).

Wolverine Population Status No systematic population census exists over the entire current range of wolverines in the contiguous United States, so the current population level and trends remain unknown. However, based on current knowledge of occupied wolverine habitat and wolverine densities in this habitat, it is reasonable to estimate that the wolverine population in the contiguous United States numbers approximately 250 to 300 individuals (Inman pers. comm.). The bulk of the current population occurs in the Northern Rocky Mountains with a few individuals in the North Cascades and one known individual each in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Rocky Mountains. Within the area known to currently have wolverine populations relatively few wolverines are likely to coexist due to their naturally low population densities, even if all areas were occupied at or near carrying capacity. Given the natural limitations on population density, it is likely that historic wolverine population numbers were also low (Inman et al. 2007). Because of these natural limitations, the USFWS believes that densities and population levels of wolverines in the Northern Rocky Mountains and North Cascades are likely not substantially lower than population densities were in these areas prior to European settlement. The USFWS has proposed the distinct population segment of the Northern Rocky Mountains for listing as threatened or endangered (Fed Reg. 3/4/13), including portions of Wyoming. Wolverines were extirpated from Colorado (due to trapping and poisoning). The wolverine is now protected in Colorado as a state endangered species, making reintroductions a possibility (USFWS 2013). As of March 4, 2013, the wolverine was designated as a Sensitive Species in U.S. Forest Service Regions 1 and 2, and 11 of 16 National Forests in U.S. Forest Service Region 4, including the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2011). But, in December of 2010, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a 12-month finding that the North American wolverine is a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and that this wolverine DPS was warranted to be included on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2010). In February of 2013, the Service published in the Federal Register their proposal to list the distinct population segment of North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA. They also concluded that critical habitat is not determinable at this time. Thus, as of February 2013, the wolverine was removed from the R4 Sensitive Species list, and is afforded protections under the ESA as a proposed species; however, specific protections provided by the ESA have not yet been provided to the USFS by the Service.

History of North American Wolverine in the Project Area The Bridger-Teton National Forest consists of 3.4 million acres (14,000 square kilometers), of which 1.2 million acres are designated wilderness. Brock et al. (2007) estimated that the BTNF holds 11,342 square kilometers (2,802,669 acres) of predicted primary wolverine habitat (including a range of low to high wolverine habitat values). The most recently documented wolverine in the Wyoming Range was a radio-collared male that moved on its own from the southern Greater Yellowstone Area of Wyoming, through the Wyoming and the Wind River Range into the Southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado where it still persisted as of August 2010 (Inman et al. 2009; Inman 2010 pers. comm.). It is unknown

Chapter 3-98

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

whether wolverines are in the Wyoming Range currently. However, based on their large home ranges and known historic presence in the Wyoming Range and within the allotment (WYNDD 2009), it is possible that wolverines may pass through the project area or be present without documentation. Sensitive Species Sensitive species are defined as those plant and animal species (identified by the Regional Forester) for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a:  Significant current, or predicted, downward trend in population numbers or density; or  Significant current or predicted, downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). The Forest Service objective (FSM 2670.22) for sensitive species management is to "develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions." Sensitive species are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588), and are administratively designated by the Regional Forester (FSM 2670). The Region 4 Sensitive Species list was last updated in February, 2013. The Forest is currently developing quantifiable objectives for sensitive species, as called for in the Forest Plan. These are in the draft stage at the time of report preparation.

Sensitive Species Relevancy Screen Sensitive wildlife and plant species known or suspected to occur on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2010) were reviewed for their relevancy to the proposed action (Table 3.22 and Table 3.23 below). Relevancy was determined if there is evidence of species occurrence and/or capable/suitable habitat present that could potentially be impacted by the proposed actions. Further analysis was not conducted for those species that: 1) are not known to occur within the influence zone of the proposal; 2) have no suitable habitat within the project area; or, 3) would not be impacted by the proposal as described in the table. The determination for those species dismissed from further review is No Impact. Species known or suspected to occur because of suitable habitat or observations nearby were further evaluated in sections that follow.

Table 3.22: Screening Process and Results – Forest Sensitive Wildlife Species

Present in Habitat Species Status project Habitat/Comments present? area? Preferred prey includes big game/ (esp. Forest elk, bison, moose, and deer). Also prey Sensitive, on smaller mammals such as beaver. (delisted in WY Secure areas for denning and Gray wolf (Canis 9/12; USFWS Known, Yes rendezvous sites (free from human lupus) to monitor Recent* disturbance and persecution) are also population preferred. This species is known status for 5 within the project area and further years) analysis is warranted.

Chapter 3-99

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Habitat Species Status project Habitat/Comments present? area? This species requires nesting trees/platforms near large rivers or lakes and available fish and water bird Sensitive, species prey. Nesting habitat and Bald eagle Bird of Not foraging habitat are outside the project (Haliaeetus Conservation No Suspected area and cattle utilization typically does leucocephalus) Concern (BCC) not interfere with their habitat use. For

these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated. Dismissed from further analysis. Nesting requirements include vertical cliff habitat with large potholes or ledges that are inaccessible to land predators and are preferentially located American near habitat that has a high avian prey peregrine falcon Sensitive, population such as wetlands, large Not (Falco BCC No bodies of water, or rivers. Cliff Suspected peregrinus nesting/roosting habitat is not present anatum) in the project area and cattle utilization typically does not overlap with their habitat use. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated. Dismissed from further analysis. This species inhabits large expanses of contiguous forests that are typically structurally complex Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir habitats and adjacent transition forest; with the Boreal owl mean stand size of 538 hectares. This (Aegolius Sensitive Suspected Yes habitat is available in the project area; funereus) however, cattle utilization typically does not overlap with their preferred habitat type. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species has been found to prefer mature or old growth Douglas fir forest on flat ground for nesting, but it is generally associated with the lodgepole pine/Douglas fir/aspen forest zone. The Great gray owl project area contains potential nesting Sensitive Known Yes (Strix nebulosa) and foraging habitat. However, cattle use does not typically overlap with primary nesting habitat. For these reasons, no impact is anticipated, and this species is dismissed from further analysis. This species is most commonly Flammulated owl Sensitive, Not associated with ponderosa pine (Otus Yes BCC Suspected forests, but is sometimes found in flammeolus) Douglas fir stands mixed with aspen.

Chapter 3-100

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Habitat Species Status project Habitat/Comments present? area? Flammulated owls forage in open and semi-open forest, small openings, and the edges of meadows. There is potential habitat in the project area; however, they are not known in this part of Wyoming. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Habitats consisting of recently burned and beetle-killed conifers are present in the project area. This species is known Three-toed to be present in the area; however, Woodpecker Sensitive Known Yes cattle use typically does not overlap (Picoides their preferred habitat. For these tridactylus) reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Nesting habitat includes very low gradient streams with dense shrubs, braided channels, swift currents, and Harlequin duck Not water with abundant aquatic insects. (Histronicus Sensitive No Suspected This habitat is not present in the project histronicus) area. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. They nest on a wide variety of freshwater ponds, lakes and occasionally rivers, and prefer areas with abundant and diverse Trumpeter Swan Not communities of aquatic plants. Swan (Cyngnus Sensitive No Suspected nesting/foraging habitat is not present buccinator) in the project area. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species prefers mature forests with large trees, relatively closed canopies, and open understories for nesting, diverse habitat conditions for Northern foraging. Habitat exists in the project Goshawk Sensitive Suspected Yes area; however, cattle utilization (Accipiter typically does not overlap with their gentilis) preferred habitat type. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Breeding habitat includes lakes more Common loon Not than 10 acres in size, are secluded, Sensitive No (Gavia immer) Suspected between 6-8,000ft, and have clear water with a high fish population.

Chapter 3-101

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Habitat Species Status project Habitat/Comments present? area? Habitat is not present in the project area. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by sagebrush and a diverse native grass and forb (flowering herbaceous plants) understory. Large landscapes with

sufficient sagebrush are necessary for Forest spp. conservation. Greater sage Sensitive grouse have large annual ranges that Greater Sage- can exceed 1000 mi2, and birds often grouse Federal Known Yes migrate (12-50 mi) between seasonal (Centrocercus Candidate for ranges. The nearest recorded lek is 4.5 urophasianus) listing as miles south of the allotment. Portions of Threatened or the allotment are within mapped SG Endangered habitat and contain sage brush

communities that provide brood-rearing and possibly nesting habitat. This species and habitat is present within the project area and further analysis is warranted. The distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) west of the Continental Divide is

a candidate for listing under the ESA Forest (66 FR 143, 25 July 2001). In Sensitive Wyoming, the yellow-billed cuckoo is

Yellow-billed dependent on large areas of woody, Federal Cuckoo Not riparian vegetation that combine a Candidate for No Suspected dense shrubby understory for nesting (Coccyzus listing as and a cottonwood overstory for americanus) Threatened or foraging: however, such habitat types Endangered, do not occur within the project area.

Therefore, the proposed project BCC would have No Impact on this species or its habitat and further analysis is unwarranted This species prefers high elevation alpine habitats with steep escape terrain adjacent to open foraging areas. Sensitive Bighorn Sheep High elevation areas near the project

(Ovis Not area contain year round range for Ecological MIS: No canadensis Suspected bighorn sheep, There is no bighorn High mtn. canadensis) sheep habitat within the project area. meadow For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Fisher Not This species prefers extensive, mature Sensitive Yes (Martes Suspected to old-growth spruce-fir forests with

Chapter 3-102

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Habitat Species Status project Habitat/Comments present? area? pennanti) high levels of canopy closure. This species has been recorded in the GYE, but not in the project area or the Wyoming Range. Habitat is present in the project area; however, cattle utilization typically does not overlap with their preferred habitat type. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species can occupy a variety of habitats, from desert to montane. In Wyoming, the elevation for known distribution averages less than 4,000 feet. Spotted bats primarily roost in Spotted Bat Not steep, high cliffs. This habitat is not (Euderma Sensitive No Suspected known in the project area cattle maculatum) utilization typically does not overlap with their preferred habitat type. For this reason, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Occupies a diversity of habitats and uses caves and abandoned mine shafts for day and hibernation roosts. Townsend’s In Wyoming, the elevation for the Western Big- known distribution averages 7,000 feet. eared Bat Not Sensitive No Habitat is not known within the project (Corynorhinus Suspected area and the species is not expected to townsendii occur based on known occupancy. For pallescens) these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Habitat primarily includes oxbow ponds Columbia (without fish) with emergent sedges Spotted Frog Forest located in wet meadows at the edge of Known Yes (Rana Sensitive lodgepole pine forests. This species is luteiuentris) present within the project area and further analysis is warranted. Forest Sensitive and Boreal toads occupy montane forest MIS habitats between 7,000’ and 12,000’

Boreal Toad elevation. Requires breeding ponds, (USFWS (Bufo boreas Known Yes summer range, and winter refugia. 90-day finding boreas) This species is present within the substantial project area and further analysis is (Fed. Reg. warranted. 4/12/12))

Chapter 3-103

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Western Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Population Status in Wyoming The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Western Gray Wolf was recently delisted from protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the state of Wyoming on August 31, 2012 (Fed Reg. Vol 77, No. 175, Sept. 10, 2012), and was soon after placed on the R4 Sensitive Species List by the Intermountain Regional Forester. The USFWS is required under the ESA to continue to monitor delisted populations for a minimum of five years to ensure that delisting has not occurred prematurely and that new threats do not arise or increase unexpectedly after delisting to the degree that wolves may again become threatened. If it appears, at any time, that the status of the gray wolf again warrants the protections of the ESA, the Service can initiate the normal or emergency listing process. The state of Wyoming has a management plan in place for the wolf, effective October 1, 2012 (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 2011). The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and the federal agency, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, are responsible for monitoring mortalities and reporting them to USFWS. Human-caused mortality is the most significant issue in the long-term conservation status of the wolf population in Wyoming (USFWS, Fed Reg. Vol 77, No. 175, Mon. Sept. 10, 2012). WGFD plans to use an adaptive management approach to annually reassess the adequacy of the estimated human-caused mortality rate that will result in achieving the desired management goal and will adjust the rate up or down depending on the wolf population response as. They will collect data on the wolf population’s response to human-caused mortality to guide management decisions for the wolf subpopulations under the Wyoming Wildlife Commission’s jurisdiction.

Habitat Requirements, Home Range, Food Habits The following information is from: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 2009b). Wolves inhabit ungulate summer and winter ranges, calving and fawning areas, and riparian habitat. They prey primarily on ungulates (primarily elk, deer, bison, and moose). Beavers are an important secondary prey. Wolves can effectively regulate elk populations to reduce browse pressure on key forbs, such as tall umbels, and berries, which are an important component of the grizzly bear diet (Ripple, et al., 2013). Wolves normally live in packs of two to twelve animals. In the Northern Rocky Mountains, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (Jimenez 2009). Packs typically occupy large distinct territories from 200 to 500 square miles and defend these areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003).

Chapter 3-104

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Population in the Project Area The Wyoming Range contains historic and suitable gray wolf habitat, with ample natural elk moose and deer prey species; it provides a dispersal corridor for wolves to spread throughout their former range southward to Utah and Colorado. Key components of wolf habitat include suitable and secluded areas for denning and rendezvous sites, and sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans (USFWS 1987). The allotment has low security due to the amount of area accessible by road to hunters, and it is within the area of the state declared a “predator zone,” with no seasonal regulation or limit. The only known pack identified within the Wyoming Range and project area is referred to as the “Daniel Pack.” In early 2008, the entire Daniel Pack was removed, or killed, for “harassing” elk near a feedground south of the Sherman Allotment. In 2009, a pack reformed, killing one calf on private property. No additional depredations were reported that year. A pack was again seen in the Horse Creek area in spring of 2010. In 2012, after delisting, 26 wolves were killed in the “predator” zone of Wyoming, including all or most of the Daniel Pack (K. Mills, pers. comm., Dec. 2012). Six additional wolves have been reported killed by hunters in the predator zone in January 2013. Currently, the number of individuals that might still remain in this pack and the pack’s den location are not specifically known (WGFD 2012). The Daniel Pack home range is within the predator zone just south of the Wyoming trophy hunting zone and in the vicinity of several elk feedgrounds. Local outfitters and hunters have targeted hunts in these areas (WGFD 2012), and the majority of wolves taken by hunters within the predator zone were killed in less than three months. While human-caused mortality has not prevented population recovery, it has affected the distribution of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population, and prevented successful pack establishment and persistence in historic habitats (Bangs et al. 2009: Service et al. 1989-2012). Wolves are resilient and can repopulate quickly, however, overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes, and human intolerance remain a challenge to maintaining a recovered wolf population throughout their historic geographic range (USFWS 2012).

Wolf/Livestock Conflicts in the Project Area No livestock predations by wolves were recorded in the Sherman Allotment in 2012 (K. Mills, WGFD, December 2012). Recent livestock conflicts in the Wyoming Range have primarily occurred with sheep, and there are no sheep on this or adjacent allotments.

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Management Direction In March 2010, the USFWS published its petition decision for the greater sage-grouse (hereinafter sage-grouse) as “Warranted but Precluded” for listing under the ESA (75 FR 13910 – 14014; 03/23/2010); thus, in addition to being a Sensitive Species on the BTNF, the sage- grouse is now also considered a “Candidate Species” under the ESA. The USFWS identified habitat loss and fragmentation from wildfire, invasive plants, energy and infrastructure development, urbanization, and agricultural conversion as the primary threats to the species throughout its range. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures in state and federal land management plans was also identified as one of the major factors in the USFWS’s finding on sage-grouse. The Forest Service is engaged in a planning process, which includes NEPA disclosure and public input, to determine whether to amend 20 Land

Chapter 3-105

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Management Resource Plans to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures, with a target decision date of September 2014. The BTNF is included in the Wyoming 9-Unit Plan EIS currently in preparation. The goals of this planning process are: to reduce risks to sage-grouse and its habitat; to maintain ecosystems on which sage-grouse depends; and to conserve habitat necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations to an extent that precludes the need for its listing under the ESA. In the interim, the Forest Service Washington Office provided Interim Conservation Recommendations for Sage-Grouse in USFS Regions 1, 2, and 4 in October of 2012 that provides direction for conserving occupied sage-grouse habitats on planning units. Occupied habitat on the BTNF has been mapped; maps of occupied habitat are filed in the project record.

Habitat Sage-grouse are large upland game birds that use extensive areas of sagebrush habitats. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by sagebrush and a diverse native grass and forb (flowering herbaceous plants) understory. The composition of shrubs, grasses and forbs varies with the subspecies of sagebrush, the condition of the habitat at any given location, and range site potential. Seasonal habitats must occur in a patchwork or mosaic across the landscape. Their spatial arrangement, the amount of each seasonal habitat, and the vegetative condition determine the landscape's potential for sage-grouse. This arrangement is an important factor in determining if a population is migratory or non-migratory in nature. Both quantity and quality of the sagebrush environment determines suitability for and productivity of sage-grouse (WGFD 2003). Historically, wildfire has been a primary factor in shaping the vegetation communities of the Wyoming Range. Naturally-ignited wildfire created large expanses of dense forest regeneration, as indicated by present-day forests interspersed with sagebrush openings and mountain meadows. However, altered fire regimes (attributable to exotic plant invasions such as cheatgrass), human development, and climate change have dramatically reduced sagebrush cover and distribution across its range. Sage Grouse Habitat in Management Zone II: The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies identified seven Management Zones (MZ) for sagebrush and sage grouse management based on differences in floristic provinces. The BTNF is in MZ II, the Wyoming Basin. MZ II contains approximately 41,996 square miles of sagebrush habitat. A majority of this MZ is under jurisdiction of the BLM (49 percent) and Private (35 percent). The remainder of this habitat is state lands (seven percent), Bureau of Indian Affairs (four percent), Forest Service lands (four percent) and other federal lands (one percent).

Population Status Recent declines in sage-grouse are primarily associated with loss of sagebrush due to fire, agriculture, or human development. Carrying capacity (amount of birds the habitat can support) declined 2-12 percent per year in 44 percent of the populations modeled. Lek abandonment increases with increases in a cumulative measure of human influence on the landscape. Between 1965 and 2007, the probability of a lek being abandoned increased by 12 percent for each square mile burned. The population of sage grouse throughout Wyoming (a combination of MZ I and MZ II) was estimated at 207,560 individuals in 2007. The long-term population trend estimate based on annual rates of change from 1965-2007 for the sage grouse in MZ II is -2.7 to -3.5. According to

Chapter 3-106

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Garton et al. (in press) (in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a), the percent change in number of males per lek between 1965 and 2007 was -30 percent and during that time there has been an estimated seven percent reduction in active leks.

Greater Sage-Grouse within the Project Area Of the eight sage-grouse working groups formed in 2004, the Upper Green River Basin Working Group (UGRBWG) is the local chapter that covers this project area. According to the working group; habitats in the UGRBWGA support greater numbers of sage-grouse, probably one of the highest densities of occupied sage-grouse habitats range-wide (WGFD 2007). The eastern portion of the Sherman Allotment is within mapped, general sage-grouse habitat (see Figure 3.32 below), but just outside of mapped core sage-grouse habitat on private and BLM lands located approximately one mile east of the Sherman Allotment boundary. Both habitat designations were mapped per guidelines in the Wyoming Executive Order (WGFD 2012). Although no formal sage-grouse occupancy surveys have been conducted in the project area, suitable habitat for late brood-rearing is suspected within sagebrush communities of the Sherman Allotment (Figure 3.32), and nesting habitat may also occur within the allotment. A few incidental observations of sage-grouse with young have been recorded during the brood-rearing season (WNDD 2009; WGFD 2009b), but use during the nesting season has not been confirmed. The closest leks to the project area are within the Ryegrass Lek Complex. These leks, Brodie Draw #2 and Brodie Burn are approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast of the Sherman Allotment. As of 2010, these leks are considered active and occupied by the WGFD and have maintained a stable trend in attending males over the past years (WGFD 2010).

Figure 3.32: Sage Grouse Habitat in Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Chapter 3-107

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Habitat Columbia spotted frog breeding occurs in ponds, marshes, slow streams, and along lake edges. Their preferred habitat primarily includes oxbow ponds (without fish) with emergent sedges (Carex sp.) located in wet meadows at the edge of lodgepole pine forests. Adults disperse after breeding to inhabit marshes, riparian areas, and moist or seasonally-wet forests and meadows. Breeding occurs in shallow ponds or wetlands, but over-wintering generally requires perennial, oxygenated water such as ponds, lakes, springs, or streams (Patla and Keinath 2005). Managing and protecting breeding habitats is important to conserving populations (Maxell 2000; Keinath and McGee 2005; Patla and Keinath 2005; USFWS 2011). Cover is a vital component of amphibian habitat; it aids in thermoregulation, providing foraging habitat, and protection from predation and trampling. Spotted frogs can move considerable distances from water after breeding (450-675 yards from water), often frequenting mixed conifer and subalpine forests, grasslands, and shrub lands of sagebrush and rabbitbrush and using riparian areas as migratory or dispersal corridors. Females may travel up to 2/3 mile between breeding sites and summer foraging habitat; males up to 1.25 miles. Because some of the breeding sites dry up, the frogs must move to permanent wetlands or streams which may be up to ¼ or 1/3 mile away. Spotted frog migrations can occur day or night, with or without rain (Pilliod et al. 2002; Patla and Keinath (2005).Population Status Northwest Wyoming is at the southeast edge of the main range of the spotted frog. Within the zone of the main population (central and north Idaho, western Montana, and northwestern Wyoming) spotted frogs are generally believed to be widespread and/or common, with only localized declines. Spotted frogs are listed as sensitive by Regions 2 and 4 (USFS 2011), and as a species of special concern in Wyoming and southwest Idaho. A USFS Region 4 Conservation Assessment was prepared for spotted frogs in 1994 (Gomez 1994) and a Region 2 Conservation Assessment was prepared in 2005 (Patla and Keinath 2005). The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WNDD) lists Columbia spotted frog as S3 (vulnerable), meaning “at moderate risk of extinction due to restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or less), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.” Surveys of the BTNF indicate that spotted frogs are relatively widespread and common on the northern Ranger Districts, but uncommon or rare on the southern districts (Patla 2000, district records). Although a number of breeding sites are known on the BTNF, the locations and distributions of summer-long habitat and wintering habitat are largely unknown. With respect to historic distribution, the WNDD (2011) identifies 271 breeding sites within the GYE from 1892 to present. Causes of decline throughout its range include bullfrog introductions, although this has not been an issue on the BTNF to date. Other causes of decline are still undetermined, but may include chitrid fungus and climate change.

Status of the Species in the Proposed Project Area Columbia spotted frog habitat exists in the project area, specifically around beaver ponds associated with Horse Creek. These ponds were surveyed in 1999 by D. Patla and by Forest Service fish crews during the summer of 2010. In 1999 Patla located 4 Columbia spotted frog breeding locations, and 3 adult Columbia spotted frogs were found during the 2010 surveys. During 2010 surveys, spotted frogs were not found in any other locations in the project area; however this may have been due to varying seasonal conditions and timing of this survey in 2010 and may not fully reflect breeding status in the project area.

Chapter 3-108

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

No hydrologic data was collected for any wetlands in the project area; however Horse Creek (the neighboring stream to the spotted frog location) was photographed and summarized by the hydrologist. According to Simons’ report (2010), Horse Creek is characterized as extremely dynamic, carrying a high sediment load (predominantly cobble/gravel), with fresh cut banks and instream bars and “drowning” willows which are evidence of recent channel movement. The hydrologist noted that most of the Horse Creek wetlands appeared to have robust vegetation reflective of healthy conditions, aside from occasional noxious weeds.

Western Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Habitat The following is from the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat With Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009) and the Draft Conservation Assessment for Boreal Toads and Columbia Spotted Frogs on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2013).with review comments by W. Estes- Zumpf of the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Boreal toads occur from northern New Mexico to Alaska, including the Rocky Mountains and west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, its range is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions (Baxter and Stone 1992), ranging in elevation from about 6,500 to 12,000 feet (WGFD 2005:438). Breeding Habitat: In the GYE, breeding sites include shallow-water edges of ponds and lakes, stream and river edges where water is pooled or very slow moving, oxbow ponds, thermal pools and streams, flooded meadows, ephemeral pools, abandoned and active beaver-impounded ponds, and man-made impoundments including reservoirs and quarries. Adult toads often disperse away from breeding sites after the breeding season. Males tend to stay near the breeding sites (~330-550 yards), while females can range as far as 1.5 – 4 miles (E. Bull, pers. comm., 12/09). Sedges and other emergent vegetation appear to be important for breeding habitat, and toads have a propensity to lay their eggs in or near the marshy parts of wetlands. (Kenaith and McGee 2005) Breeding begins when snow melts or ice thaws at breeding sites and varies from year to year, and by elevation (Keinath and McGee 2005). Most breeding takes place between mid-May to late June in the GYE, although local microclimates may allow for earlier and later breeding efforts (mid-July and later). Breeding activity can extend over a few or several weeks at a given site. Habitats occupied by adult boreal toads in summer are diverse, including forested and non- forested wet, moist, and even dry areas. It is suspected that toads spend more time in areas with willows and sedges where the soil stays wet or moist (Hammerson 1982; Keinath and McGee 2005). Pierce (2006) reported that adult toads move into high grasses and surrounding forests after breeding. Vegetative cover for toads and other amphibians is important for predator avoidance, thermoregulation, prey, etc. According to a radio-telemetry study on the Targhee National Forest (TNF), toads use terrestrial habitats extensively and they inhabit underground burrows over 26 percent of the time (Bartelt 2000). Shrub cover (particularly willows), woody debris, and breaks in the shrub or tree canopy layer that allow sunlight to reach the ground appear to be important habitat features. In the TNF study, even when they used terrestrial habitats, toads did not venture far from water.

Chapter 3-109

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Patla (2001) and Keinath and McGee (2005) recommend protecting important habitat –including the network of upland habitat and migration corridors (i.e., riparian and wetland complexes, moist microclimates, etc.) from human-caused or management-related habitat disturbances that might have adverse impacts to the breeding population. For breeding areas, they recommend buffers (areas in which management activities are minimized, monitored, and/or controlled) to avoid adverse impacts to spotted frogs and boreal toads. While size of recommended buffers varies [from 100 yards (Semlitch and Bodie 2003) to 1.5 mi (Patla 2001; Keinath and McGee 2005), a buffer of approximately 1/3 mile (~600 yards) would likely encompass a majority of the breeding male and female population (USFS 2013).

Current Status Boreal toads were formerly widespread and common, but have declined dramatically in the last three decades in many portions of its extensive range in western North America (BTRT 2001). It is a species of concern in Wyoming. “Boreal toad populations appear to be in a state of severe decline. Numerous factors may be contributing to these declines…” (WGFD 2005:438). Although amphibian populations of this region face many threats, and not all are directly related to habitat (i.e., climate change, chitrid fungus), protection of amphibian habitat is vital to maintaining amphibian species and diversity and abundance in the long term (Patla 2000). Boreal toads have been found in all districts of the BTNF, but appear to mainly exist at higher elevations. The historic distribution and abundance on the BTNF is unknown, and it is unclear whether they historically had occurred at lower elevations. On May 25, 2011, the USFWS received a petition requesting the Service list either the eastern population or southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad as a threatened or endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA. On April 12, 2012, the USFWS published their 90-day finding on the petition in the Federal Register (USFWS 2012 website); their decision was that there was not substantial evidence to warrant the listing of the Southern Rockies population as a distinct population segment in and of itself. But, the Service determined that there was sufficient information to move forward with a 12-month review on the larger eastern population, which includes Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. For Wyoming, the eastern population includes boreal toads in the Laramie Range, Medicine Bow Mountains, Sierra Madres, and populations in southwestern Wyoming, including Uinta, Sweetwater, and Lincoln counties. Completion of the 12-month review and a decision on whether or not the eastern population warrants listing as a threatened or endangered DPS would be expected in April of 2013. Currently, the boreal toad is listed as a Sensitive Species on the BTNF, and was so designated by the R4 Regional Forester. The boreal toad is also designated as a management indicator species (MIS) for wetland habitats in the BTNF Forest Plan.

Status in the Project Area Amphibian survey data for the allotment was documented in 1999 (Patla), 2003 (WGFD), and 2010 (BTNF). Forest Service amphibian surveys conducted in June 2010 recorded numerous boreal toads throughout wetlands associated with Horse Creek and Pass Creek, the major drainages in this allotment. Boreal toad adults were located in the Horse Creek drainage and boreal toad adults, tadpoles and egg masses were located throughout Pass Creek.

Chapter 3-110

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Boreal toads were found in slow-moving back water of the creeks and adjacent wetlands that contained heavy vegetation (Figure 3.33). Boreal toad breeding sites documented during these three surveys are displayed in Figure 3.34 below. All potential breeding habitats for boreal toads within the project area overlaps with lands mapped as capable and suitable for cattle grazing.

Figure 3.33: Western Boreal Toad and Breeding Habitat, Pass Creek (2010 survey)

Figure 3.34: Sensitive and MIS Amphibian Breeding Site Locations within the Project Area – Horse Creek (Top) and Pass Creek Drainage (Center)

Chapter 3-111

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.23: Screening Process and Results – Sensitive Plant Species

Present in Sensitive project Habitat Habitat/Comments Plants area? This species occurs primarily in disturbed areas on sandy soils that have a low cover of forbs and grasses at elevations of 5,850 – 9,600 feet (Heidel 2008 in USFS 2009). This species was not found in the project Payson's area during surveys; however there is potential for this milkvetch species to occur due to the presence of two wildfires Not Known Y (Astragalus that have occurred in the project area. Utilization paysonii) standards for livestock grazing are set such that the early seral conditions preferred by this species will not be impacted. For this reason, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species occurs primarily in alpine and subalpine moist tundra and wet rock ledges 10,000-12,200 feet in elevation. Suitable elevation for this type of habitat is present in the project area. However, after survey of the Seaside sedge habitat, it was determined that the habitat was not (Carex Not Known N suitable (not true alpine, subalpine tundra, or rock incurviformis) ledge). Additionally, the species was not found during surveys. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found on alpine or subalpine limestone talus slopes at 11,000 feet elevation. Habitat is not Wooly daisy Not N present in the project area. For this reason, no impact (Erigeron lanatus) Suspected to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is typically found in semi-barren, whitish clay flats and slopes, gravel bars, and sandy lakeshores Narrowleaf at elevations 7,700 to 10,300 feet. Suitable elevation for goldenweed this type of habitat is present in the project area. Not (Ericameria N However, after survey of the habitat, it was determined Suspected discoidea var. that the habitat was not present and the species was linearis) not found. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is largely endemic to the carbonate mountain ranges of west-central Wyoming, in Teton, Sublette, and Lincoln counties (Scott 1966; Dorn 1988; Fertig 1992; 1994 in Moseley 1996) It is found on rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, often calcareous substrates Payson's at elevations 6,000 to 10,300 feet and is not known in bladderpod Not Known N the project area. Most identified populations of this (Lesquerella species are large, at high elevations with few threats, paysonii) and some are in designated Wilderness and proposed Research Natural Areas. According to Moseley (1996), there is little evidence of threats to viability of this species. Suitable elevation for this type of habitat is present in the project area. However, after survey of the

Chapter 3-112

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Sensitive project Habitat Habitat/Comments Plants area? habitat, it was determined that the habitat was not present and the species was not found. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found on alpine talus, often on limestone Naked-stemmed substrates at 10,700 to 11,400 feet in elevation. Habitat Not parrya N is not present in the project area. For this reason, no Suspected (Parrya nudicaulis) impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. P. egaliksensis in Wyoming occurs on calcareous substrates derived from adjacent mountain slopes. Often these occurrences are associated with flooded deposits of marl, a fine-grained, pinkish soil type rich in calcium carbonate and organic matter (Fertig and Jones Greenland 1992; Fertig 1996 in Anderson et.al. 2006). This species primrose Not N is known in one location on the Bridger-Teton National (Primula Suspected Forest on the Pinedale Ranger District, north of Lower egaliksensis) Green River Lake. This type of habitat is not present in the project area and the species was not found during surveys. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. In Wyoming, Weber’s saw-wort is restricted to the Gros Ventre and northern Wind River ranges (Fertig 2000 in USFS 2009). This aster family species’ habitat is on Weber's alpine talus slopes and gravel fields. Its primary saussurea Not N substrate is limestone-derived at elevations of 9,600 – (Saussurea Suspected 11,500 feet (Fertig 2000 in USFS 2009). Habitat is not weberi) present in the project area. For this reason, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found in subalpine wet meadows with Pink agoseris saturated soils at 8,500 to 10,600 feet in elevation. This Agoseris Known Y species is present within the project area and lackschewitzii further analysis is warranted. In Wyoming this species is known in the east slope of the Wind River Range, eastern Absaroka Mountains and the Owl Creek Mountains. Preferred habitat is on exposed settings of rocky ridge crests, slopes with rock outcrops and thin soils of limestone or dolomite Sweet-flowered substrate at 8,500 – 10,800 feet in elevation. The plant rock jasmine itself may be found in rock crevices, in the open (dry Not (Androsace N meadow or scattered limber pine) or in patches of Suspected chamaejasme ssp. common juniper or bearberry (Fertig 2001 and B. Heidel carinata) personal communication 2008). This type of habitat is not present in the project area and the species was not found during surveys. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary.

Chapter 3-113

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Sensitive project Habitat Habitat/Comments Plants area? In Wyoming, this species has been found in the Big Horn Mountains and Hoback Canyon on the Bridger- Teton National Forest and according to USGS 2006, it is considered endemic to these two areas. It prefers sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 8,500 feet elevation. This species has not been found in the project area during surveys; however the preferred habitat is present. There Soft aster is a potential for minor impacts from trampling in the (Symphyotrichum Not Known Y action alternative. However, the possibility is slight, molle) because the species is not known in the project area. Additionally, The majority of the species occurrences are within active grazing allotments on the Bighorn National Forest and according to Fertig (1999), low levels of herbivory do not appear to have negative impact (Biscoff 2010). For these reasons, the action alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability further analysis is warranted. This species is found in moist, often alkaline meadows and swales in sagebrush valleys at 4,400 to 6,300 feet elevation. In Wyoming, it grows in alkaline meadows at Meadow milkvetch fringes of playa landscapes at 6,500-6,620 feet. Soils (Astragalus are subirrigated silt loams (Heidel 2008). Suitable Not Known N diversifolius var. elevation for this type of habitat is present in the project diversifolius) area. However, after survey, it was determined that the habitat was not present and the species was not found. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found on dry barren ridges and bluffs of shale and stone, clay or cobblestones at 6,000 to 7,100 Starveling feet elevation. Suitable elevation for this type of habitat milkvetch is present in the project area. However, after survey it (Astragalus Not Known N was determined that the habitat was not present and the jejunus var. species was not found. For these reasons, no impact jejunus) to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found in subalpine wet meadows and Black and purple stream sides at 10,000-10,600 feet elevations. Habitat sedge Not N is not present in the project area. For this reason, no (Carex luzulina Suspected impact to this species is anticipated and no further var. atropurpurea) analysis is necessary. Wyoming tansymustard is restricted to the southern Absaroka Range (Fremont, Park and Teton Counties) and the Rock Springs Uplift (Sweetwater County) (Fertig Wyoming 2000). Wyoming tansymustard’s habitat is sandy soil at tansymustard Not N the base of cliffs composed of volcanic breccia or (Descurainia Suspected sandstone, under slight overhangs, in cavities in the torulosa) volcanic rock, or on ledges. It is found at elevations of 7.700 – 10.500 feet (Fertig 2000). Habitat is not present in the project area. For this reason, no impact to this

Chapter 3-114

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Present in Sensitive project Habitat Habitat/Comments Plants area? species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found on moist gravelly alpine meadows and talus slopes, often on limestone-derived soils at Rockcress draba Not 10,400 to 12,000 feet elevations. Habitat is not present N (Draba globosa) Suspected in the project area. For this reason, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species is found on barren, rocky, calcareous hills Creeping twinpod and slopes at 6,500-8,600feet elevations. Habitat is not (Physaria Not N present in the project area. For this reason, no impact integrifolia var. Suspected to this species is anticipated and no further analysis monticola) is necessary. In Wyoming this species is known from the southwestern Absaroka, western Wind River, Gros Ventre, Salt and Wyoming ranges, Jackson Hole and the Yellowstone Plateau (Fertig 1999 in USFS 2009). Boreal draba’s habitat is on north-facing limestone, dolomite or volcanic slopes, cliffs and riparian areas. It is found at elevations of 6,200 – 8,550 feet (Fertig 1999 in USFS 2009). Plants in more accessible wetland sites Boreal Draba Not Known Y are potentially threatened by grazing or loss of habitat, (Draba borealis) however in Wyoming; the species is considered stable and is a low conservation priority. Additionally, this species was not found in the project area during 2010 surveys. The majority of its known habitat is inaccessible to livestock and there is only slight potential of presence in the allotment. Therefore, No Effect from this action is expected and further analysis is unwarranted.

The center of Schultz’s milkvetch distribution is in the Teton, Salt and Wind River ranges of Wyoming (Heidel and Fertig 2008 in USFS 2009). It is found primarily in Shultz’s Milk subalpine forb communities on shallow, rocky, Vetch Not N calcareous soils at elevations of 8800 – 11500 feet (Astragalus Suspected (Heidel and Fertig 2008 in USFS 2009). Habitat is not schultziorum) present in the project area. For this reason, No Effect to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary.

This newly listed sensitive species is known to exist in Whitebark pine Known Y pure and mixed stands in the project area. Further (Pinus albicaulis) analysis is necessary.

Chapter 3-115

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Pink Agoseris (Agoseris lackschewitzii) Habitat Pink agoseris is a regional endemic of east-central Idaho, western, central and south-central Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and southern Alberta, Canada. It occupies perennially wet montane and subalpine meadows, marshes and swales, or at the edge of meadows and Abies lasiocarpa/Picea engelmannii forest at 8,000-10,600 feet elevation (Henderson et al. 1990). These habitats represent a range of substrates and vegetation types but are sparse and discontinuous across the landscape. Based on this, its distribution is characterized as somewhat patchy (Fertig 2000).

Abundance/Trend Population estimates are lacking for many occurrences, but those which have been sampled typically average 25-50 individuals in small areas of sufficiently wet habitat. The largest known populations have several thousand plants. Trend data are lacking for nearly all occurrences, but populations are probably stable at the present time. Long-range trends, however, are probably downward given the amount of historical loss of riparian habitats (Fertig 2000).

Threats Threats to this species are probably low. Some Wind River and Bighorn Range populations are found near trails where trampling by hikers and horses is a potential threat. Populations in the Bighorns have been observed to persist in disturbed areas. Grazing by livestock is also a potential threat in some areas (Fertig 2000).

Status of the Species In Wyoming, this species also occurs in the Gros Ventre, Wyoming and Wind River mountain ranges in Sublette and Teton counties. At least 15 known occurrences are protected within designated Wilderness areas (North Absaroka, Cloud Peak, Gros Ventre, and Bridger) or in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Parkway. One population is also found within the potential McLain Lake Research Natural Area on Bighorn National Forest. This species is designated sensitive in Forest Service Regions 2 and 4 (Fertig 2000). However, this species is not listed as a species of concern or a species of potential concern for the state of Wyoming (Heidel 2007).

Status of the Species in the Project Area Surveys for this species and all other sensitive and MIS plants were conducted in the project area daily from 6/16/2010 through 7/30/2010 by USFS botany technician L. Henault. During this survey effort, the technician traversed the project area approximately 20 times, locating pink agoseris once along Horse Creek road. The patch was approximately 2 acres in size, with an estimated 75 genets (40 percent flower, 45 percent fruit, 5 percent juvenile and 10 percent vegetative). It was noted that the population seemed healthy; even though plants had been grazed by native ungulates (cattle were not present in this pasture of the allotment prior to this survey).

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Habitat Whitebark pine has a limited distribution and occupies high elevation sites with steep slopes and poor soils in exposed areas in western North America, where this species is often the last erect

Chapter 3-116

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest tree at timberline. The species grows in pure or mixed stands at elevations ranging from 3,000 feet in its northernmost distribution in Canada to well over 12,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada (McCaughey and Schmidt 2001). In Wyoming the species grows at elevations between 8,500 and 10,500 feet where it functions as both a foundation and keystone species. The presence of whitebark pine in forested ecosystems influences ecosystem processes such as water retention and is central to the ecology of many other species of conservation concern including grizzly bears (Tomback et al. 2001 and references therein).

Abundance/Trend Three factors, typically acting in concert, have led to a wide-spread decline in whitebark pine throughout its range in the last 50 years (Kendall and Keane 2001). There is considerable variation in the mortality of whitebark pine even within a specific region. Most areas have on average at least 10 percent mortality and in some areas it can be as high as 58 percent. Additionally the mortality rate seems to be accelerating in most areas (Kendall and Keane 2001).

Threats The introduction and spread of an exotic fungus, the episodic infestation by native insects and changes in successional dynamics caused by altered fire regimes have led whitebark pine to decline in recent years over most of its range (Kendall and Keane 2001). There are regional differences in the specific agent of mortality and the severity of whitebark pine decline. A changing climate seems to compound the three major agents of mortality making the management of this newly listed US Forest Service Region 4 Sensitive Species all the more challenging.

Status of the Species Whitebark pine is a Sensitive Species as listed by the USFS Region 4 Regional Forester. Additionally this species is considered a candidate species for listing by the USFWS. Whitebark pine is a component of most forested areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest that are above 8,500 feet in elevation. Recent declines in whitebark pine in these areas are likely the direct result of an outbreak of native insects compounded by previous mortality caused by whitepine blister rust and the successional replacement of whitebark pine in a fire-deprived landscape, and the indirect result of climate change.

Status of the Species in the Project Area Both pure and mixed stands of whitebark pine exist in the project area. Combined, these areas constitute approximately 160 acres where the majority consists of mixed stands. Specific levels of mortality in the project area are unknown as is the demographic structure of the extant stands. Surveys for this species as a sensitive species have not been conducted because the species was only recently listed.

Soft aster (Symphyotrichum molle) Habitat Soft aster occupies grasslands associated with sagebrush or mountain meadows at 6,400-8,500 feet. This species is generally found in areas where the soil is deep along the edges of aspen or pine stands. Soft aster is endemic to two different regions of Wyoming where the vast majority of known and historic occurrences are from the Bighorn Mountains and a single historic occurrence is located in the Hoback Canyon area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Chapter 3-117

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Abundance/Trend Soft aster is known to be locally abundant in 32 extant occurrences in the Bighorn Mountains. The historical occurrence located on the Bridger-Teton National Forest was described in 1922 and has not been observed since. This is in spite of many attempts to re-locate it by both state and federal botanists over many years.

Threats Previously soft aster was thought to be susceptible to damage from grazing. However, more recent observations have shown that under low to moderate usage there is little evidence of livestock impact. Fertig (1999) indicates that no direct herbivory has been observed, the species seems to thrive in semi-disturbed soils, and that grazing may remove other vegetation that could cause competitive exclusion of soft aster.

Status of the Species Soft aster appears to be stable in the areas where it is known and monitored (Fertig 1999). The occurrence on the BTNF, if it still exists, is likely to be very small since exhaustive efforts have been made to find it. This occurrence may have been lost due to hybridization with a much more common relative or may have been replaced by a later successional plant community.

Status of the Species in the Project Area There are no known soft aster occurrences in the project area. However, there is potential habitat which may be impacted by the proposed actions of this project. Surveys for the species were undertaken in the project area and the species was not found. Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are selected “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19). Management indicators are “any species, group of species, or species habitat element selected to focus management attention for the purpose of resource production, population recovery, maintenance of population viability, or ecosystem diversity” (FSM 2605). Four types of MIS were identified in the 1990 BTNF Forest Plan; harvested species, ecological indicator species, Forest Service sensitive species, and threatened and endangered species. There are 23 MIS; seven mammals, four birds, three fish, two amphibians, and seven plant species. Elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose are all harvest MIS within the BTNF. They are habitat generalists, for the most part, selected for analysis to represent important harvest species that may occur in the project area. The American marten is an ecological indicator species for old- growth coniferous forests and the brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species and an ecological MIS for sagebrush. Two amphibians are identified as ecological MIS for wetland habitats; the boreal chorus frog and the boreal toad. The boreal toad was also recently added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. The bighorn sheep is a harvest and ecological MIS for mountain meadows. The bighorn sheep was also recently added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list on all Forests in the Region. It is now classified as both a MIS and a sensitive species on the BTNF. The analysis for this species is in the “Sensitive Species” section. Of the six plant MIS species, only one, aspen, will be discussed in detail.

Chapter 3-118

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Relevancy Screen MIS wildlife and plant species designated in the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan (USFS 1990) were reviewed for their relevancy to the proposed action (Table 3.24 below). Relevancy was determined if there is evidence of species occurrence and/or capable/suitable habitat present that could potentially be impacted by the proposed action. Further analysis was not conducted for those species that: 1) are not known to occur within the influence zone of the proposal; 2) have no suitable habitat within the proposal project area; or, 3) would not be impacted by the proposal as described in the table. The determination for those species dismissed from further review is No Effect. Species known or suspected to occur because of suitable habitat or observations nearby were further evaluated in sections that follow.

Table 3.24: Screening Process and Results – Management Indicator Species

Species or habitat present in project MIS Type Habitat/Comments Species area Species/Habitat Primarily inhabits old-growth coniferous forest, mainly spruce/fir with well-developed understory and abundant woody Ecological American debris. Habitat present in project - old-growth Y Y Marten area, but cattle use typically does forest not overlap. For these reasons, No Effect to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. This species prefers high elevation alpine habitats with steep escape terrain adjacent to open foraging areas. High elevation areas near the project Ecological- Bighorn Not area contains year round range mountain No sheep suspected for bighorn sheep however, there meadow is no bighorn sheep habitat within the project area. For these reasons, no impact to this species is anticipated and no further analysis is necessary. Moose primarily use riparian areas, and year-round habitat Moose Harvest Y Y exists in the project area. Further analysis is warranted. Pronghorn use low elevation sagebrush and grassland habitats. These exist within the eastern edge of the allotment and Pronghorn Harvest Y Y the adjacent public and private lands provide crucial winter range. Retained for further analysis.

Chapter 3-119

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Species or habitat present in project MIS Type Habitat/Comments Species area Species/Habitat Elk are habitat generalists that summer throughout the forest and winter at and below the project Elk Harvest Y Y area. The project area provides elk habitat. Retained for analysis. Mule deer are habitat generalists that summer throughout the forest and winter at or below the project Mule deer Harvest Y Y area on the adjacent public and private lands that provide crucial winter range. Retained for analysis. Sagebrush The species prefers lower MIS, elevation sagebrush shrub lands. Brewer’s Bird of Y Y This species is present in the Sparrow Conservation project area and further Concern analysis is warranted. (BCC) Boreal toads occupy montane forest habitats between 7,000’ and 12,000’ elevation. Requires Wetland MIS breeding ponds, summer range, Boreal toad and Forest Y Y and winter refugia. This species Sensitive is present within the project area and further analysis is warranted. Found in small streams and non- flowing water bodies e.g., Boreal Wetland Y y marshes, ponds, and small lakes. chorus frog Present in the project area. Retained for analysis. Aspen Ecological Known Y This species is present in the (Populus project area and further tremuloies) analysis is warranted.

Lands Capable and Suitable for Grazing Please refer to the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat with Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009) for details on how these lands were identified on the BTNF. Based on the method identified in this document, an estimate of lands capable and suitable for cattle grazing in the project area was calculated and the amount of overlap of this habitat by each MIS species’ preferred or known habitat was identified. (See species assessment sections in this document.) According to 36 CFR 219.20, “In forest planning, the suitability and potential capability of National Forest System lands for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management indicator species shall be determined as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

Chapter 3-120

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest this section. Lands so identified shall be managed in accordance with direction established in forest plans. (a) Lands suitable for grazing and browsing shall be identified and their condition and trend shall be determined. The present and potential supply of forage for livestock, wild and free-roaming horses and burros, and the capability of these lands to produce suitable food and cover for selected wildlife species shall be estimated. The use of forage by grazing and browsing animals will be estimated. Lands in less-than-satisfactory condition shall be identified and appropriate action planned for their restoration.” Unless otherwise noted, MIS habitats were considered in satisfactory condition. This determination resulted from an analysis of the needs of the species compared to the current condition of the vegetation from monitoring and if the status of the species showed a positive trend and/or the species was present in predicted habitats.

Harvest Management Indicator Species The following information comes from the 2011 WGFD Pinedale Region Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports.

Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) Habitat Elk are habitat generalists and are mobile, adaptive and wide-ranging (Wisdom and Thomas 1996, Skovlin et al. 2002). They use a wide variety of vegetation types to meet their life history needs, including aspen, several conifer types, big sagebrush, several mountain shrubland types, meadows, grasslands, herblands, and tall forbs. The WGFD has defined seasonal ranges for elk, including summer, winter and transition ranges, as well as parturition areas. During winter, elk movements are typically dictated by forage and browse availability and snow conditions. Prior to Euro-American settlement, most elk on the BTNF migrated off the Forest to lower elevation shrub-steppe zones often located within major river basins. Currently, approximately 80 percent of elk spend their winters on feedgrounds operated by the WGFD (22 feedgrounds) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1 feedground) (WGFD 2004). For more detailed habitat information on elk, refer to the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat With Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009), located in the project record. Table 3.25 below displays herd units and population trends from 2011 WGFD Job Completion Reports for the area.

Chapter 3-121

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.25: Harvest Management Indicator Species Populations and Trends

Herd Unit Population Herd Unit Harvest MIS Herd Unit 2010 Population Post WGFD Trend Season Objective Estimate

Elk 106 – Piney 3,100 2,400 Upward Cervus elaphus nelson

131- Wyoming

Range 28,900 50,000 Downward Mule Deer

Odocoileus

hemionus Downward 104-Sublette 20,825 32,000

Moose Slowly Alces alces 105-Sublette Upward shirasi 5,000 5,500

Pronghorn

Antelope 37,800 48,000 Recent Downward Antilocarpa 401-Sublette americana

121- Darby Bighorn Sheep Long-term Mountain 150 Ovis (reintroduced) 60 Downward canadensis canadensis 107-Jackson 454 500 Slowly Upward

Status in the Project Area The entire project area is mapped as spring, summer, and fall (SSF) habitat for the Piney elk herd (106), approximately 17,371 acres. Of this habitat, approximately 38 percent (6,600 acres) overlaps with lands mapped as cattle capable grazing lands. Approximately 11,000 acres of elk calving (parturition) areas are also mapped within the project area, which is roughly 65 percent of the project area. Of this mapped elk parturition habitat, 27 percent (2,950 acres) overlaps with lands mapped as capable for cattle grazing. Forest Plan management guidance restricts human activity and disturbance in calving areas between May 15 and June 30 if big game species are

Chapter 3-122

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest present in the area. Cattle turn-out on this allotment does not overlap with this time frame. There are no other elk seasonal habitats mapped within the project area. The postseason population estimate for the Piney Herd Unit for 2011 was 3,123 elk (31 percent above WGFD objectives). Over the past decade, it appears this population has been trending upward. Hunting seasons have been designed to continue reducing the Piney elk herd toward the objective of 2,400 elk (WGFD 2012). There are four WGFD elk feedgrounds within the mapped range of the Piney elk herd: Jewett, Bench Corral, North Piney, and Finnegan. The closest feedground to the project area is Jewett, about 1.5 miles south of the allotment boundary. There are approximately 2,300 acres of crucial winter/year-long and 2,600 acres of winter/year-long mapped elk habitat associated with this feedground, which is adjacent to the project area. Bench Corral is about 19 miles to the southeast and North Piney is approximately 17 miles to the south. A recent elk study of the Piney elk herd that uses the Bench Corral feedground documented that elk wintering at Bench Corral do venture into the project area, foraging after the recent Horse Creek fire (2006). The quality of winter range is less important to elk that consistently use winter feedgrounds, like the Piney herd unit. However, a portion of elk using feedgrounds use native winter range in some winters and some elk migrate to native winter range every winter. Forage conditions on native winter range are critically important to elk that use natural habitat areas (Cook 2002). The Horse Creek fire (2006) and the Mule fire (2002) have regenerated aspen stands, a preferred food source for elk.

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Habitat Mule deer are habitat generalists and are mobile, adaptive and wide-ranging (Peek and Krausman 1996; Wisdom and Thomas 1996; Skovlin et al. 2002; Kie and Czech 2000). The species uses a wide variety of vegetation types to meet their life history needs, including aspen, several conifer types, big sagebrush, several mountain shrubland types, meadows, grasslands, herblands, and tall forbs. The WGFD has defined seasonal ranges for mule deer and show mule deer inhabit nearly all habitats of the BTNF at most elevations during summer and fall, although they are most abundant between 7,500 and 10,000 feet in elevation where abundant forage is available. Transition range is found at the lower elevations of the summer range. Late summer and fall habitats are important to over-winter survival and fawn production (Peek and Krausman 1996; WGFD 2009a). Since all mule deer on the BTNF rely on native winter range, much of this habitat type is located off the BTNF on adjacent lower elevation BLM and private lands (Sawyer et al. 2005). For more detailed habitat information on mule deer, refer to the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat With Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009), located in the project record.

Current Status in the Project Area The following information comes from the 2011 WGFD Job Completion Report. The project area provides spring/summer/fall and parturition ranges for a portion of the Sublette mule deer herd, possibly the most migratory deer population in the United States. No crucial winter range is present. Approximately 11,000 acres of the allotment is mapped as parturition and approximately 2,950 of these acres overlaps lands that are mapped as capable and suitable for cattle grazing. Spring, summer and fall ranges for the Sublette mule deer herd unit 104 encompass the entire Chapter 3-123

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest project area. During the past 10 years, this deer herd experienced two winters that resulted in above normal fawn mortality (more than 40 percent loss). Management in the late 1990s was conservative, antlerless harvest was not used, and buck harvest was reduced to allow this population to increase toward objective. In the past decade, the herd unit has experienced numerous increases and decreases due to harsh winter and spring conditions. Winter conditions were mild during the winter of 2008-2009, although winter condition persisted well into spring resulting in a slight population decline postseason 2009. The 2010 postseason population remained similar to 2009 as cold wet conditions persisted into the spring resulting in some fawn losses. Significant (>60 percent) fawn loss was estimated from tough winter and spring conditions during 2010-2011 resulting in an estimated decline in deer numbers over 20 percent by postseason 2011. Winter and spring conditions were mild during 2011-2012, which should result in a population increase by postseason 2012. Although the 2010-2011 winter killed most of the fawns, overall buck ratios remained similar to previous years due to improved adult buck ratios resulting from reduced harvest rates in 2011. Even with the impact of periodic heavy winter losses, it is evident that current management is maintaining a good distribution of buck age classes in this population. With the overall large size of this herd unit, weather conditions can be somewhat different by geographic area (i.e. Wyoming Range Mountains vs. Wind River Mountains vs. Gros Ventre Mountains). In general, the overall amount of precipitation was below normal during 2009 and 2010, although spring moisture was good during those years resulting in improved forage production on winter range habitat. In 2011, winter and spring moisture was well above normal resulting in very good forage production, while 2012 saw precipitation well below normal with higher than normal temperatures. Of particular importance to this deer herd is shrub production on native winter ranges at lower elevations in the Green River Basin. Late winter and spring precipitation (April to early June) is essential for good annual shrub production. Above average annual production on shrubs throughout the Pinedale Region was documented during 2011. Snowpack last winter and cool spring temperatures presented good opportunity for shrub leader growth. The Mesa winter range demonstrated a notable increase in annual production in 2011. Also, bitterbrush and true mountain mahogany transects presented the greatest relative increase compared to other species monitored, indicating moisture and temperature regimes were beneficial for these species. On some transects, young plants were observed, but overall age class diversity was lacking in all shrub communities. Also, plants with severe hedging demonstrated lower levels of annual production, indicating poor vigor limited growth potential even on years of good precipitation. Fall weather conditions allowed wildlife to spend additional time on transitional range in 2011. This combined with lower animal densities on winter ranges provided good forage conditions for the 2011-12 winter for both mule deer and pronghorn. The following table provides the acres of seasonal ranges of the Sublette mule deer herd (Herd Unit 104) on lands designated as capable and suitable for cattle grazing within the allotment compared to total acres of range for the herd unit.

Chapter 3-124

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.26: Acres of Seasonal Ranges of the Sublette Mule Deer Herd

Crucial CRUWIN/ Winter/ SSF Winter Parturition* Winter Yearlong Yearlong

Total Acres of Range 2,656,020 153,291 353,370 98,375 161,976 627,715 Total Acres in Project 17,341 0 0 0 0 11,000 Area (PA) Acres on capable cattle grazing lands in 6,600 0 0 0 0 2,950 the PA *This mapped habitat within the project area is identical to the mule deer and elk parturition habitat mapped by the WGFD.

Moose (Alces alces shirasi) Habitat Moose thrive in areas with relatively ‘stable’ habitats (e.g., willow bottoms) and transitory habitats, particularly post-fire conifer forestland and aspen. Vegetation types used by moose on the BTNF include aspen, many conifer types, several mountain shrubland types, big sagebrush, meadows, herblands, and tall forbs. Because thermal stress for moose begins at approximately 57-68°F during summer months (Schwartz and Renecker 1997), thermal cover is especially important during the hottest months of summer. During winter, moose are primarily associated with willow bottoms, mountain shrubland, aspen, and conifer forestland with a high composition of young subalpine fir and/or shrubs/deciduous trees. Such habitat exists across the BTNF and on other federal and private lands adjacent to the BTNF, however, winter recreation activity and loss of willow habitat off the BTNF appears to have shifted their habitat use to a greater reliance on conifer uplands. For more detailed habitat information on moose, refer to the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat With Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009), located in the project record. Current Status in the Project Area Five moose herd units encompass the BTNF (herd units 103, 105, 211, 417, and 620). The Sherman Allotment occurs within Herd Unit 105-Sublette. Approximately 90 percent of the project area is mapped as SSF (Spring/Summer/Fall) habitat for this herd unit, however only 30 percent of that habitat (5,311 acres) overlaps with capable cattle grazing lands. These 5,311 acres represent 0.0002 percent of the total SSF habitat mapped for this herd unit. The following table provides acres of seasonal ranges of the Sublette moose herd on lands designated as capable and suitable for cattle grazing within the project area compared to total acres of range for the herd unit. Approximately 10 percent of the project area is mapped as winter/yearlong habitat for this herd unit, and 67 percent (1,289 acres) of that overlaps with lands capable for cattle grazing. This habitat represents an extremely small percentage of the winter/yearlong habitat for this herd unit

Chapter 3-125

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.27: Acres of Seasonal Ranges of the Sublette Moose Herd on Lands Designated as Capable and Suitable for Cattle Grazing

Crucial CRUWIN/ Winter/ SSF Winter Parturition* Winter Yearlong Yearlong Total Acres of 18,889,401 69,306 0 597,306 320,874 627,715 Range Total Acres in 15,497 0 0 0 1,907 11,000 Project Area Acres on capable Cattle Grazing 5,311 0 0 0 1,289 2,950 Lands in the PA *This mapped habitat within the project area is identical to the mule deer and elk parturition habitat mapped by the WGFD.

The following information comes from the WGFD Pinedale Region Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports for 2011. Analysis of the current data (WGFD 2012) suggests the postseason moose population was declining in the late 1990s, stabilized in 2004 and 2005, and then began slowly increasing through 2011. During 2011, reproduction rates remained good at 42 calves/100 cows, male ratios remained relatively stable at 60 bulls/100 cows. Trend counts increased, and harvest success remained high at 86 percent. In addition, average age of harvest for both males and females were adequate, maintaining good bull quality throughout the herd unit. All reported and observed data suggest the population is currently stable to slowly increasing. The 2011 postseason population is estimated at 5,000, 9 percent below the objective of 5,500 moose.

Pronghorn Antelope (Antilocarpa americana) Habitat Approximately 57 percent of the world population of pronghorn antelope lives in Wyoming (Hack and Menzel 2002). On the BTNF, they primarily inhabit lower elevations of big sagebrush habitat and grasslands (spring, summer, and fall range) on both sides of the Green River basin and into the Gros Ventre River drainage (USFS 2009). While pronghorn prefer sagebrush and grassland habitat (Yoakum and O’Gara 2000), they also use riparian and other meadows within the sagebrush/grassland matrix, as well as more limited use of transitory habitat (e.g., other types after a fire), short-stature mountain shrublands, open conifer forestland, and open aspen stands. Lesser preferred habitats typically are only used when animals are traveling (e.g., during migration and during exploratory movements). Two major habitat requirements are high visibility and opportunity for fast movement through the vegetation and, therefore, preferred habitats typically have little if any vegetation over about 18 inches tall on flat or low rolling terrain (Yoakum and O’Gara 2000). For more detailed habitat information, refer to the Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat With Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009), located in the project record. The two pronghorn herd units that inhabit the BTNF are units 401 and 419. Herd 401 is the Sublette pronghorn herd unit, considered the most migratory pronghorn population in the United States. Some of the pronghorn in this herd have been documented to migrate over 240 air

Chapter 3-126

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest kilometers from winter to summer range, one of the longest migrations of any North American ungulate (Sawyer and Lindzey 2000, Rudd 2001). The Sublette pronghorn data analysis unit (DAU) occupies most of the Green River drainage north of Interstate 80 along with portions of the Gros Ventre, Hoback, and Sweetwater river drainages. Within these boundaries pronghorn migrate farther between seasonal ranges than any other known herd in North America. Pronghorn that summer along the Gros Ventre River and within Grand Teton National Park winter as far south as Rock Springs, a distance of 150 air miles. The Sublette DAU covers 10,546 square miles of total surface area, which is approximately 11 percent of the state of Wyoming. Pronghorn occupy 7,938 square miles of habitat within the DAU boundaries (WFGD 2008).

Current Status in the Project Area The population objective for the Sublette herd unit is 48,000 pronghorn (WGFD 2012). Due to its massive size, the herd is cooperatively managed between three Wyoming Game and Fish Department administrative regions: Green River, Pinedale and Lander. The allotment provides approximately 1,244 acres of spring, summer, and fall range for pronghorn in the Sublette herd and 813 acres of this habitat overlaps with lands capable for cattle grazing. This is a very small fraction of the total SSF habitat mapped for this herd unit, 3,006,640 acres (0.0004 percent). Pre-season ground classifications conducted in August of 2011 resulted in observed ratios of 63 fawns per 100 does, and 58 total (15 yearlings) bucks per 100 does for the herd unit. Due to difficult winter conditions in southwest Wyoming during the 2010-2011 winter, the Sublette herd experienced higher than normal over-winter mortality, although observed ratios did not deviate much from average observed values for this population. However, it is important to note that approximately 3,000 fewer pronghorn were classified in 2011 than were classified in 2010, suggesting numbers had declined significantly in the herd unit. The population trend for both herd units that inhabit the BTNF has been at or above population objectives for a number of years (USFS 2008; WGFD 2009).

Ecological Management Indicator Species Ecological management indicator species are used to represent specific habitats that meet important life requirements. Bighorn sheep, boreal toad, boreal chorus frog, aspen, American marten, and Brewer’s sparrow represent groups of species associated with key habitats that could be affected by land management activities. Bighorn sheep, boreal toad and American marten were discussed in Table 3.20 (Sensitive Species) and Table 3.22 (MIS Species) previously; see those tables for discussion of the Affected Environment for those species. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) The following (with exception of the project specific habitat analysis) is from Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat with Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009).

Habitat Brewer’s sparrows, which are sagebrush obligates, summer in North America and winter in Central or South America. They are obligates of sagebrush communities, particularly where canopy height is less than about 5 feet (Nicholoff 2003; Holmes and Johnson 2005). In a study in Idaho, average sagebrush height surrounding nest sites was about 1½ feet and average nest shrub

Chapter 3-127

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest height was just over 2 feet. Optimum sagebrush height appears to be 2-2½ feet tall. Opinions vary on optimum shrub canopy cover for Brewer’s sparrows. Wyoming Partners in Flight (2003) identified 5-25 percent, whereas other research (e.g., Reynolds 1981; Petersen and Best 1985) indicates that less than 25 percent canopy cover is preferable and that canopy cover as low as 15 percent is fair. Nest building and egg-laying in this area typically begins in early May to early June, depending on snow melt (Baicich and Harrison 1997; Holmes and Johnson 2005). They build cup nests of grass, rootlets, and forbs low in the branches of live sagebrush shrub or on the ground at the base of a live sagebrush plant. Brewer’s sparrows frequently have two broods per season, and they commonly re-nest after nest failure, meaning that the egg-laying period extends into early to late July depending on elevation. The nesting period for this area ends in late July to early August (Wyo. Partners in Flight 2003; Holmes and Johnson 2005). Canopy cover of sagebrush communities is also known as an indicator of the health of a sagebrush community (O’Brien et al. 2003) and is a variable in Brewer’s sparrow natural history (Wyoming Partners in Flight 2003). According to O’Brien (2003), because of ecological processes such as fire, insects and disease, and normal life cycles; sagebrush ecosystems have a broad range of self-sustaining communities with a variety of age classes and structures. The desired mix of cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosystems was determined to consist of 10 percent of the area with 0-5 percent shrub canopy cover, 50 percent with a 6-15 percent shrub canopy cover, and 40 percent with greater than 15 percent canopy cover (USFS1996). In addition to canopy cover and height of sagebrush, contiguous big sagebrush patches that are hundreds to many thousands of acres are best, but patches down to roughly 100 acres also provide good habitat (Wilson 2005). Patches less than 100 acres may also provide habitat for Brewer’s sparrow; however isolated patches that are considerably smaller than 100 acres do not offer good habitat.

Threats to the Species According to Holmes and Johnson (2005:25), “The current hypothesis is that processes operating on the wintering grounds, which are mainly density-independent, regulate population size on the breeding grounds,” which was supported by several other experts. Across their breeding grounds, the largest threat is permanent loss of big sagebrush due to land use changes such as cultivated agriculture and residential development. Fire and other disturbances temporarily reduce nesting habitat, but this turnover of the big sagebrush type is needed for its sustained health (Miller et al. 1994) and is a natural part of their habitat. Where big sagebrush habitat remains on their breeding grounds, Holmes and Johnson (2005) assessed that variation in local reproductive success appears to mainly be a function of nest predation, and that nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds can also affect reproductive success.

Current Status Brewer’s sparrow populations are a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), and have declined from historic levels, but Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data from 1980 to 2004 indicates that Brewer’s sparrow numbers in Wyoming have declined and rebounded, but that there is no discernible downward or upward trend. More current BBS data is unavailable at this time. An analysis cited by Holmes and Johnson (2005) showed a significant decline in Brewer’s sparrow numbers during the period 1966-2002 for the entire state of Wyoming. While the number of Brewer’s sparrows counted on BBS routes in southern and eastern Wyoming declined during this period, numbers of Brewer’s sparrows increased on routes in northwestern Wyoming (Dobkin

Chapter 3-128

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest and Sauer 2004, as cited by Holmes and Johnson 2005). There are five North American BBS routes on the BTNF. Species occurrence data collected from 1968 to 2003 was analyzed at the route level to determine species trend per route. Four of the routes showed a positive trend during this period (+3.3, +18.1, +8.8, and +29.1 percent increase in the number on each route). The other route showed a negative trend of -16.2 percent/year (BBS GIS data). Transect data was not collected for every route during every year of the survey period and these surveys were not specifically targeting sagebrush habitat. Depending on the route, the number of years that survey data was collected ranges from 8 to 21 years. Regionally in Wyoming, Brewer’s sparrow population trends have been relatively stable with a -0.9 percent decrease in the occurrence of Brewer’s sparrows on survey routes from 1968-2005 (USGS 2007). Current Status in the Project Area Brewer’ sparrow surveys were conducted throughout a majority of the project area in 2010 by Forest Service technicians following the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory point count survey protocol. This species was found throughout the allotment as expected, in large patches (over 100 acres) of big sagebrush habitat (see map, Figure 3.35). A small section of the project area was omitted from surveying due to time constraints, however the results from the data collected in neighboring stands of sagebrush and other areas throughout the project area are assumed to be similar and this area is assumed to be occupied Brewer’s sparrow habitat. Patches smaller than 100 acres that were isolated from other patches of sagebrush were omitted from the MIS analysis because these patches are considered unsuitable based on recently stated habitat requirements (Wilson 2005). Approximately 40 percent of the Brewer’s sparrow habitat within the project area has 10-24 percent canopy cover and 60 percent has 25-100 percent canopy cover. Of this habitat, approximately 92 percent (2,783 acres) is mapped as lands capable for cattle grazing (1997 vegetation data).

Table 3.28: Total Acres of Big Sagebrush within the Project Area, by Canopy Cover and Patch Size, Compared to the Cattle Capable and Suitable Lands

Patch > 100 acres

Big Sagebrush in the Project Area 10-24% cc 25-100% cc

Total Acres 1,221 1,799

Acres on capable Cattle Grazing Lands in the PA 1,092 1,691

Chapter 3-129

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Figure 3.35: Results from Brewer’s Sparrow Point Count Surveys

Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculate) The following (with exception of the project specific habitat analysis) is from Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat with Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009). Habitat In the spring and early summer, chorus frogs breed in shallow, ephemeral pools, marshes, and sometimes more permanent waters. They typically do not breed in pools kept cool by large influxes of water (Hammerson 1982), which has been observed on the BTNF. Although ephemeral pools and marshes are preferred for breeding, these sometimes dry up before tadpoles have metamorphosed (Hammerson 1982). At higher elevations in Colorado (e.g., above 9,000 feet), breeding begins immediately after the spring thaw in late May or early June, and breeding extends into June, which is comparable to timing on the BTNF. Spencer (1971, as cited by Hammerson 1982) observed breeding chorus frogs in July at elevations above 11,800 feet.

Chapter 3-130

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Breeding sites usually have emergent vegetation, and eggs are usually deposited on submerged portions of vegetation (Hammerson 1982). On the BTNF, most breeding sites have emergent vegetation (annual monitoring reports). They metamorphose during July and August in the mountains of Colorado, which is likely comparable to the situation on the BTNF. In the mountains of Colorado, chorus frogs spend most of the summer in wet meadows, sometimes as far as 1/3 mile from breeding pools, although some remain in or near pools of water (Hammerson 1982). Other authors have reported they usually remain within about 100 yards of wetlands. For example, WGFD (2005) stated they are rarely found away from permanent water. With the exception of breeding season, chorus frogs were found to be most active between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. at about 9,700 feet in Colorado. When inactive, they hide in water, thick vegetation, under objects on the ground, and in rodent burrows. They usually remain active until September-October, depending on elevation and temperatures. Boreal chorus frogs have only limited ability to regulate the loss of water through their skin and their skin must remain moist. They regulate skin moisture through the microsites they inhabit. Therefore, after dispersing from breeding sites, adult chorus frogs inhabit moist and wet habitats, likely including riparian areas, springs and seeps, moist meadows, aspen, and moist forestlands fairly close to breeding sites. Dead herbaceous vegetation, a dense woody canopy cover and a high water table are needed to help sustain higher soil-surface moisture levels and for protection from the sun. Current Status in the Project Area Boreal chorus frogs appear to be the most common and widespread amphibian species on the Forest. Numerous boreal chorus frog adults and eggs were identified throughout Pass Creek and Horse Creek, the major drainages in the project area (Patla 2000a and USFS fisheries crew survey 2010). Similar to quantifying the status of the Western boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog breeding habitats within the project area; amphibian surveys were conducted in June 2010 and in 1999 by Patla (Patla 2000a), and streambank trampling and stability information was collected during 2008 by the hydrologist throughout the project area.

Figure 3.36: Boreal Chorus Frog, Pass Creek, 2010

All potentially suitable breeding habitats for boreal chorus frogs within the project area overlaps with lands mapped as capable and suitable for cattle grazing. A majority of this habitat however, is heavily vegetated/marsh-type habitat, which cattle tend to avoid, even though it is modeled as

Chapter 3-131

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest suitable. Potential habitat was characterized as in satisfactory condition in 2009, due to the combination of riparian rangeland data collected, the hydrologist’s analysis of the wetlands and streams in the project area, and the presence of boreal chorus frogs. Approximately 2.6 acres of Pass Creek were documented as ‘functioning at risk’ due to not meeting the streambank stability rating or the ecological status necessary. However, further inspection revealed that this was a result of the site characteristics (a sandy, dry sagebrush flat (with rodent burrows), where the stream is in a narrow channel along the western edge) and not a condition ‘at risk’ due to management or other disturbance factors. This majority of the creek meets the management objectives in the Forest Plan for bank stability and ecological status and will continue to be monitored especially around breeding sites. See vegetation and hydrology specialist reports for further details.

Plant Management Indicator Species (MIS) Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Habitat The following (with exception of the project specific habitat analysis) is from Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat with Respect to Livestock Grazing Use on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USFS 2009). Aspen is a disturbance-dependent species that flourished in the west when these lands burned periodically (Bartos 2007). Fire is the most important disturbance agent associated with aspen communities; at a given severity, fire initiates the regeneration of aspen stands. Less-than satisfactory habitat conditions in aspen are primarily attributed to fire suppression. Pre-settlement fires are thought to have occurred every 40 to 80 years on the BTNF and ranged in severity from surface to stand replacing. Gruell’s research (1980) indicates most aspen stands were young and densely stocked in the late 1800s and early 1900s; this was a result of frequent fire on the landscape prior to European settlement. Aspen is a key habitat to wildlife, because it is the only upland deciduous tree species that grows extensively in Wyoming. Aspen is important to breeding birds in several ways. Aspen possess rich insect assemblages, great nesting micro-habitat for ground and shrub nesting species, and numerous opportunities for cavity nesters. The aspen community is also important to small mammals, beavers (winter food and building material), and large mammals such as moose, deer and elk use it for forage and cover. Current Status on the BTNF Currently, BTNF aspen stands consist of 25 percent that are old (100 to 120 years old), 60 percent are mature (50 to 100 years old), and the remainder (15percent) are suckers and saplings. Aspen on the BTNF are predominantly in the 5 – 10-inch diameter with the remainder split between the sapling/pole size (less than 5-inch diameter) and mature trees (more than 10-inch diameter). Stands with less than five-inch diameter trees are predominantly in the Wyoming Range and the Gros Ventre drainage. Currently a range of fuel loads exist; moderate in younger stands and high in older stands with more conifers present. Ungulate use, both domestic and wild, of suckers that are less than 10 feet tall is generally limited across the BTNF; although there are localized areas of high browsing use (i.e., near elk feedgrounds). Domestic livestock use of the forage in aspen stands varies, from high where aspen stands are limited and in relatively open landscapes to mostly low and moderate use (Youngblood and Mueggler 1981).

Chapter 3-132

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Current Status in the Project Area There are approximately 1,161 acres of aspen and 336 acres of aspen/conifer mix within the project area (Table 3.29).This data was collected during 2007, the same year as the Horse Creek fire that burned a majority of the project area. Of these 1,497 acres, approximately 37 percent was impacted by the Horse Creek fire or the Mule fire (approximately 50 of these acres were burned in the Mule fire). This allotment was rested from livestock grazing for two seasons after the Horse creek fire to allow the vegetation, including aspen clones, to regenerate without additional grazing from domestic livestock. Wild ungulate grazing however continued throughout the allotment.

Figure 3.37: Aspen Stands within the Project Area

According to stand exams collected during the summer of 2009, all aspen clones burned from the Horse Creek fire are regenerating adequately, per BTNF protocol (Figure 3.37). Additionally, acres burned in the 2002 Mule fire have also been recorded as adequately stocked (pers. com. D. Barron, District Timber Staff, 2010). Approximately 90 percent of the aspen in the project area is mapped as lands capable and suitable for cattle grazing. Domestic and wildlife grazing and browsing has been shown to alter natural disturbance regimes in aspen communities. This can reduce ladder fuels and fine fuels

Chapter 3-133

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest which can alter the historic fire regime to the point that it no longer keeps aspen communities in balance. Based on the recent wildfires within the project area, it appears the current grazing and browsing pressure from wild and domestic ungulates has not impacted the fire regime to a point where the species will cease to persist in the project area. Additionally, the aspen regeneration was monitored one year post-fire by the Interagency Fire Effects Monitoring Team and at year three by the WGFD and the Big Piney Ranger District Range Specialist. According to this 2010 report (Randall 2010a): “Aspen regeneration throughout the burned polygons is very encouraging. The average sucker height is three to six feet in most places. Densities of suckers are excellent for three years post fire. Many plants have leader lengths for the 2010 growing season that were in excess of 24 inches. It does look like expansion of aspen acres is likely as a result of this wildfire. Hollyhock (Iliamna rivularis) has been preferentially selected as browse by cattle (and elk, J. Casey notes from allotment visit 6/2010) in the Sherman Allotment. Additionally, some browse may be from elk, deer and moose, in the area although more wildlife will be moving into the area throughout fall and winter. Nearly 100 percent of hollyhock stems have been browsed throughout the allotment. Cattle distribution has indicated a strong preference for this vegetation over riparian and grass areas since cattle were turned on in early July. In places where aspen suckers and hollyhock exist side by side, aspen has been avoided and hollyhock is browsed heavily. Throughout the allotment aspen suckers have been very minimally browsed, usually in a stripping (opposed to nipping) fashion. The level of use at this point in the season is well below any thresholds of concern for regeneration of the stand.”

Table 3.29: Total Acres of Aspen within the Project Area, by Burned and Unburned Acres, Compared to the Cattle Capable and Suitable Lands

Aspen Aspen/Conifer Mix (366)

Total Burned Unburned Total Burned Unburned

Acres in the Project Area 1161 386 775 366 175 191 Acres on Capable 1023 330 693 334 167 167 Grazing Lands in the PA Acres Not Mapped As 138 56 82 22 8 24 Capable Grazing Lands

Migratory Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act mandates protection of migratory birds in the United States and on the BTNF. Executive Order 13186 signed by President Clinton in 2001 and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the USFWS to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds signed in 2008 provides the regulatory framework for conserving migratory bird populations and for assessing management action impacts. Migratory birds use a variety of habitats on all allotments during the breeding season when cattle are present. The USFWS (2008) recommends referring to the Wyoming Partners in Flight Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan which identifies priority bird species and habitats, and establishes objectives for bird populations and habitats in Wyoming. Priority species identified in

Chapter 3-134

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan (WBCP, Nicholoff 2003). Level I and Level II priority species have been considered for this analysis and are defined as follows: Level 1 priority bird species are those that clearly need conservation action. Declining population trend and/or habitat loss may be significant. This includes species of which Wyoming has a high percentage of and responsibility for the breeding population, monitoring, and the need for additional knowledge through research into basic natural history, distribution, etc. Level 1 priority birds on the BTNF are those which are analyzed under Sensitive Species. Level II: The action and focus for these species is monitoring. Declining population trends and habitat loss are not known to be significant at this point. Level II includes species of which Wyoming has a high percentage of and responsibility for the breeding population, species whose stability may be unknown, species that are peripheral for breeding in the habitat or state, or additional knowledge may be needed. (Willow flycatcher is identified as a Level II species.) Population trends for the priority species have been calculated from data from the Breeding Bird Survey. Riparian areas, wet meadows, sage/grass, and aspen forests are habitats within the project area that can be especially impacted from livestock grazing. These habitats are high priority habitats identified in the WBCP (Nicholoff 2003). Livestock grazing has the potential to impact diversity of the structure and composition of these plant communities as well as impact reproduction in willow and aspen communities. This could potentially decrease the abundance of some species of neotropical migrants. According to Nicholoff (2003), the distribution and diversity of birds is highly associated with vegetation structural diversity. Of the twenty two birds of conservation concern (BCC) listed for Bird Conservation Region 10 (BCR 10), nine are known or suspected on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Five of the nine BCC species are also BTNF Sensitive Species or management indicator species (MIS), and thus have been reviewed in previous sections above (bald eagle, peregrine falcon, yellow-billed cuckoo, flammulated owl, and Brewer’s sparrow). The remaining four BCC species suspected on the forest are the Calliope hummingbird, olive- sided flycatcher, willow flycatcher, and Cassin’s finch, which are reviewed in the table below.

Table 3.30: Screening Process and Results – Migratory Bird Species

Species present in Habitat? Habitat/Comments Species project area? Coniferous forests, mountain foothills, shrublands, riparian shrub, mountain meadows, and alpine grasslands. Common summer resident in NW WY. Calliope Due to the variety of nesting Suspected* Yes hummingbird opportunities, only minor impact potential to individuals if nesting in riparian areas that get incidentally browsed. Dismissed from further analysis.

Chapter 3-135

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Species present in Habitat? Habitat/Comments Species project area? Common summer resident of NW WY. Uses high elevation spruce/fir forest, less frequently aspen/mixed Olive-sided Suspected Yes coniferous and riparian forest. Cattle flycatcher grazing not likely to overlap with majority of forested habitat. Dismissed from further analysis. Nest and forage in riparian habitats with shrubs such as willow, hawthorn, Willow birch, and alder, foraging for insects Suspected Yes flycatcher over small gaps of open water. Minor potential for overlap of habitat use with cattle. Retained for further analysis. Common in ponderosa pine and post- fire forests, riparian cottonwoods, and less often in lodgepole pine, sagebrush and grasslands. Nest in Cassin’s finch Suspected Yes conifers; consume buds, berries, seeds. Cattle grazing not likely to interfere. Dismissed from further analysis.

*suspected based on regional avian surveys and habitat presence

Willow Flycatcher Willow flycatcher populations appear to be declining overall, nationally (Sedgwick 2000). This species is considered a Bird of Conservation Concern for BCR 10 as a non-listed subspecies of a federally listed endangered species. A distinct population segment, the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii exdimus) was listed as endangered in 1995, has been extirpated from most of its original range, and has critical habitat designated (USFWS 2012). Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat use has been well-documented in the effort to identify elements of critical habitat: they breed in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands including lakes and reservoirs. The flycatcher builds a small open cup nest, between 6 to 20 feet above ground in a fork or on a horizontal branch of a medium-sized bush or small tree with dense vegetation above and around the nest. Causes of decline of southwestern willow flycatcher distribution and numbers have been attributed to: habitat loss from removal, thinning, or destroying riparian vegetation; water diversions and groundwater pumping which alter riparian vegetation; overstocking or other mismanagement of livestock; recreational development; and cowbird parasitism (USFWS, 2012). The willow flycatcher is a common summer resident of NW Wyoming. It feeds on insects and occasionally berries (Cerovski et al. 2004). The willow flycatcher is found in riparian shrub habitats that include willow, hawthorn, water birch, and alder shrubs, where they also nest (Cerovski et al. 2004). The willow complexes in the allotment likely provide feeding and nesting habitat for willow flycatchers.

Chapter 3-136

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Environmental Consequences Methodology Requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), National Forest Management Act of 1976, Bridger-Teton Forest Plan (1990), and Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) were included in species assessments that follow. To analyze the effects of each alternative species addressed in this section, known (or probable) locations of individuals combined with the availability of suitable habitats within the project area (Affected Environment) was then compared to known or suspected impacts associated with the proposed action stemming from scientific literature. The vegetation/habitat information used in this analysis came from 2007 satellite imagery (BTNF 2007, existing vegetation layer), the Forest’s lands capable and suitable for cattle grazing model (BTNF MIS Habitat Condition Assessment 2009), plot data collected from Ecological Unit Inventory data, site specific utilization and riparian stubble height measurements for the allotments associated with Annual Operating Instructions and Multiple Indicator Monitoring data for low gradient streams collected by the hydrologist assigned to the project.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Harvest management indicator species are monitored annually at the herd unit level by the WGFD. Ecological management indicators have monitoring data that is more variable. Brewer’s sparrow data has been conducted annually at the statewide level since 2002 by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds Annual Report). Amphibian inventory and monitoring data is intermittent and has been collected at the state-wide and forest-level. Incomplete or intermittent monitoring data for ecological indicator species stems from the classification of these management indicator species in the BTNF Forest Plan (1990). Validation and effectiveness monitoring of ecological management indicator species is addressed in the Forest Plan as a “Priority 2” (BTNF 1990, p. 329). According to the Plan, “Priorities for the annual monitoring plans will be based on annual budgets and program direction and according to their classification, in descending order, from “Priority 1” to “Priority 3”. Priority 2 monitoring (ecological indicator species) is important but optional (BTNF 1990, p. 326).

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis In order to adequately describe the impacts of the alternatives on the wildlife species and their habitats previously identified in the Affected Environment, a few different analysis areas were used. Unless stated otherwise, the 17,370-acre project area (Sherman Allotment) was used to analyze effects of the alternatives on each species and associated habitats. Analysis areas used to evaluate cumulative effects varies by species and will be identified in the associated cumulative effects analysis section.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Past, present, and future actions that have occurred or are likely to occur within the analysis area were reviewed to identify potential cumulative effects when combined with the actions of the alternatives. Past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis include: cattle and sheep grazing; past wildfires (including the Horse Creek and Mule Creek fires); past timber harvests; fuel wood cutting and removal; road building and maintenance; fence installation and other minor range improvements; invasive plant species control; oil and gas leasing/development in the vicinity, recreational activities including camping, fishing, big

Chapter 3-137

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest game hunting, trapping, horseback riding, recreational vehicle use (snowmobiling and all-terrain vehicle use); and supplemental feeding of native elk herds (adjacent to the allotment).

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing)

Grizzly Bear – Threatened Species Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, following a Record of Decision, livestock grazing would no longer be permitted, and all livestock would be removed from the allotment within two years. After livestock are removed, there would be no potential for livestock/grizzly bear conflicts and no direct or indirect impacts to individual bears, secure habitat, denning habitat or whitebark pine associated with commercial livestock grazing in the Sherman Allotment. Bears on the allotment would no longer be at risk of removal due to livestock conflicts.

Cumulative Effects As mentioned in the Affected Environment, one human-caused grizzly bear mortality has been recorded within the Sherman Allotment in the recent past. The mortality occurred in 2010 and was attributed to a self-defense killing stemming from a surprise encounter with a grizzly bear feeding on the remains of a hunter-killed elk carcass. As the grizzly bear population continues to expand within the Greater Yellowstone Area, the potential for conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities related to ongoing hunting activities, other recreational activities identified in the previous section, and fuel wood cutting/removal will likely increase in the project area. Conflicts with grizzlies associated with livestock grazing have occurred in the past within Forest Service allotments and private pastures adjacent to the Sherman Allotment (see Affected Environment), and conflicts within those allotments would be expected to continue into the future if/when livestock are present within those Forest Service allotments and private pastures. A grizzly bear conflict occurred at the Maki Creek Elk Feedground south of the Sherman Allotment during the spring of 2012 and such conflicts are possible in the future. Existing oil and gas leases do occur within and immediately adjacent to the Sherman Allotment, but these leases are currently “held in suspension” and inactive. Potential conflicts with bears could occur if/when lease suspensions are lifted and if/when new oil and gas developments are initiated. All of the activities described above have potential to result in conflicts, and potentially, grizzly bear mortalities. However, the above analysis determined that Alternative 1 (no grazing) would not result in any adverse direct or indirect effects to grizzlies or their habitat, and thus, Alternative 1 would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or future adverse effects already known or suspected. Therefore, after livestock are removed from the allotment, this alternative would have no impact on individual bears secure habitat, denning habitat or whitebark pine.

Chapter 3-138

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Canada Lynx and Canada Lynx Critical Habitat – Threatened Species Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative livestock grazing would be suspended within the Sherman Allotment, and there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Canada lynx individuals, lynx habitat or lynx critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact lynx and/or lynx habitat include past wildfires (Horse Creek and Mule Creek wildfires), recreational trapping and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions contribute to cumulative effects on lynx and lynx habitat; because the above analysis on lynx determined that implementation of Alternative 1 (no grazing) would not result in any adverse direct or indirect effects on lynx or their habitat, Alternative 1 would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or future adverse effects already known or suspected

Therefore, after livestock are removed from the allotment, T\this alternative would have no effect on lynx individuals or critical habitat.

North American Wolverine – Proposed Threatened Species Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would suspend livestock grazing within the Sherman Allotment, and associated disturbance impacts on any wolverine that may pass through the project area would not occur.

Cumulative Effects Climate change would continue to threaten the species’ persistence in the Wyoming Range. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that may impact wolverine individuals and/or habitat use include incidental losses associated with recreational trapping, hunting and oil/gas development. These actions will continue under this alternative and may impact wolverine individuals. Because the Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis above concluded that implementation of Alternative 1 would result in reduced human caused disturbance impacts, this alternative would result in beneficial impacts on the wolverine over existing conditions, and would not result in additive cumulative effects to those already known or suspected.

Therefore, after livestock are removed from the allotment, his alternative would have no effect on wolverines, secure habitat, or denning habitat.

Greater Sage Grouse – Sensitive Species and Candidate Species Direct and Indirect Effects In the absence of cattle grazing, more grasses and forbs would be available to sage grouse using the project area than currently exists during all times of the year. As was discussed in the Affected Environment, the project area likely provides broad-rearing habitat and, although not documented, some nesting habitat. In Wyoming, approximately 75 percent of nesting hens nest

Chapter 3-139

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest within four miles of the lek they were bred at, and 66 percent nest within three miles (Connelly et al. 2011). Because the closest lek to the project area is approximately four miles to the southeast of the project area, it is likely that only a small number of hens that attend these leks would nest in the project area. Due to these factors, this alternative may have minor beneficial impacts to sage grouse over existing conditions.

Cumulative Effects As was discussed in the Cumulative Effects Analysis section, past wildfires (Horse Creek and Mule Creek fires) have burned significant portions of the project area, but these fires were restricted to areas within conifer forests; little to no sage-brush and sage grouse habitat burned. With the exception of past livestock grazing and recreation hunting, no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that have or would affect sage grouse or habitat are known within the project area. Because the Direct and Indirect Effects section for Alternative 1 (above) determined that there would be some minor beneficial effects to sage-grouse over existing conditions, the No Action Alternative would not result in any additional negative cumulative effects beyond those already known or suspected.

Determination: After livestock are removed from the allotment, this alternative would have Beneficial Impacts on sage grouse individuals, and sage grouse habitat.

Western Gray Wolf – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would suspend livestock grazing within the Sherman Allotment, and thus, the potential for livestock depredations by wolves within the allotment and lethal wolf control actions as a result would not occur.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact wolves include recreational trapping, shooting (wolves are considered predators when located within the Sherman Allotment), hunting of wolf prey (deer, elk and moose), and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions will continue under this alternative and will impact wolf populations within the project area. Because the Direct and Indirect Effects section above concluded that implementation of Alternative 1 would result in reduced livestock depredations and no wolf control actions as a result, this alternative would have beneficial impacts on the wolf over existing conditions, and would not result in additive negative cumulative effects beyond those already known or suspected.

Determination: After livestock are removed from the allotment, this alternative would have minor Beneficial Impacts on gray wolf individuals.

Columbia Spotted Frog and Western Boreal Toad – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be suspended within the Sherman Allotment, and no impacts to Columbia spotted frog and western boreal toad breeding sites and upland terrestrial

Chapter 3-140

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest habitats would occur. In the absence of cattle grazing, frog and toad individuals (both adults and metamorphs) would not be exposed to trampling by livestock. In addition, water quality and quantity would not be impacted within amphibian breeding sites as a result of cattle drinking or feces contamination.

Determination: After livestock are removed from the allotment, this alternative would have Beneficial Impacts on Columbia spotted frogs and boreal toad individuals, and their habitats.

Pink Agoseris – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect The elimination of cattle grazing under this alternative would have minor beneficial impacts to pink agoseris because cattle would not graze the plants or disturb this species’ habitat.

Whitebark Pine – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects In the absence of cattle grazing, habitat for this species would not see any disturbance from cattle.

Elk, Mule Deer, Moose and Pronghorn - Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects After the elimination of cattle grazing, there would be no overlap of livestock grazing with available spring, summer, and fall, winter, or parturition habitats for elk, mule deer, moose or pronghorn. These species would continue to use the project area and likely maintain populations at or above herd objectives. Management of elk at suitable herd levels has not been shown to be limited by cattle use (WGFD 2009a), however with additional forage in the project area; more preferred vegetation would be available to elk throughout the year. Mule deer, moose and pronghorn would continue to use the project area benefiting from an increased amount of forage in the project area; and more preferred vegetation would be available to all species throughout the year.

Brewer’s Sparrow - Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects In the absence of cattle grazing, more grasses and forbs would be available to Brewer’s sparrows inhabiting the project area during nesting season. This would also have beneficial effects to sparrows due to the lack of cattle trampling habitat or disturbing nests in the allotments.

Chapter 3-141

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Boreal Chorus Frog - Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, there would be minor beneficial impacts to boreal chorus frogs after livestock are removed from the allotment. In the absence of cattle grazing, potential frog breeding habitats in riparian areas would not be impacted by trampling and overuse of vegetation growing in sensitive wetland areas. Also, water would not be depleted due to cattle use of riparian habitats for drinking, nor would water be contaminated from feces.

Aspen - Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects Cattle often browse young aspen sprouts and prevent young trees from reaching maturity. As a result, some aspen groves have very few young trees and can be invaded by conifers, which are not typically browsed. This alternative would have beneficial effects on aspen stands due to saplings no longer being browsed by cattle.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Species (not including Soft Aster) and All Management Indicator Species Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact big game, amphibian, bird, and plant Sensitive Species and MIS include recreational activities, fuelwood cutting, hunting, wildfire events (Horse Creek and Mule Creek fires) and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions and any associated impacts would be expected to continue under this alternative. The above direct and indirect effects analysis for Sensitive and MIS mammals, amphibians, birds and plants determined that Alternative 1 (no grazing) may result in minor beneficial effects over existing conditions, and thus, would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or future adverse effects already known or suspected.

Soft Aster – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative the ground disturbance associated with cattle grazing would be eliminated. This could possibly impact the habitat of soft aster which is generally described as semi- disturbed and free of competing vegetation. There are no known occurrences of this species within several hundred miles and it is unlikely that any individuals are present. However, the habitat of this species is present and would be negatively impacted by this action.

Cumulative Effects When impacts of past, present and foreseeable future actions are added to the potential negative impacts of Alternative 1 (the lack of disturbance due to the removal of cattle), this alternative could result in very minor negative impacts to soft aster individuals or habitat. As such, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but is unlikely to cause a trend to federal listing.

Chapter 3-142

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Willow Flycatcher – Migratory Birds Direct and Indirect Effects

In the absence of livestock grazing, there would be no reduction or disturbance of riparian shrub habitats attributed to cattle, leaving intact more dense cover for willow flycatcher nesting and foraging. Flycatchers forage using short flights over small gaps of open water or wetlands, which may persist longer in the absence of grazing. Cowbird nest parasitism would also be less likely to occur in areas with more cover and less disturbance. There would be minor beneficial impacts to riparian habitat for willow flycatchers under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact migratory birds that depend on riparian plant communities include recreational activities, and wildfire events. These actions and any associated impacts would be expected to continue under this alternative. The above direct and indirect effects analysis for the willow flycatcher determined that Alternative 1 (no grazing) may result in minor beneficial effects over existing conditions, and thus, would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or future adverse effects already known or suspected.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative

Grizzly Bear – Threatened Species Direct and Indirect Effects No direct impacts are expected to grizzly bear secure habitat, denning habitat or whitebark pine due to continued livestock grazing because grazing (reduction of herbaceous forage and presence of livestock) typically does not impact these habitats. Livestock presence within the Sherman Allotment and within adjacent Forest Service allotments and private pastures would increase the potential for grizzly bears to come in contact with domestic livestock; as was discussed in the Affected Environment section, conflicts and livestock depredations by grizzly bears have occurred within this and adjacent allotments in the recent past. Under Alternative 2, livestock/grizzly bear conflicts are likely to continue in the Sherman Allotment, and conflicts may result in the relocation of individual bears or result in direct mortality of individuals. Existing Security Habitat for grizzly bears was defined and discussed in the Affected Environment of this document; as was previously discussed in that section, the existing number of motorized roads and trails within the allotment limits the availability of secure habitat available to bears within the allotment. Guidance for managing security habitat is defined by the Secure Habitat Standard in the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (USFWS 2007a), and applies to grizzly habitat within the Recovery Zone. Since this project does not occur within the Recovery Zone, existing secure habitat within the allotment area was not measured for this project. However, because this project would not result in an increase in motorized routes, existing security area within the allotment would not be directly or indirectly affected if this alternative were selected and implemented.

Chapter 3-143

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

As was discussed in the Affected Environment, the Forest implemented Conservation Measures for grazing operations within the Sherman Allotment in 2011 to reduce the potential for livestock/grizzly bear conflicts. As a result of comments received during the DEIS comment period, internal scoping, and consultation with the USFWS, the 2011 Conservation Measures were reviewed, expanded and modified to provide clarity. The resulting list of modified Conservation Measures is incorporated into the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) and is listed in Chapter II of this document. If Alternative 2 is selected, the modified list of Conservation Measures would further reduce the potential for livestock grazing conflicts with grizzly bears. However, although reduced, the potential for conflicts would remain, and this alternative could result in the lethal removal and/or relocation of grizzlies as a result of implementing the Interagency Nuisance Bear Guidelines (IGBC 1986).

Cumulative Effects As was summarized in the Affected Environment, one human-caused grizzly bear mortality has been recorded within the Sherman Allotment boundary in the recent past. The mortality occurred in 2010 and was attributed to a self-defense killing stemming from a surprise encounter with a grizzly bear feeding on the remains of a hunter-killed elk carcass. As the grizzly bear population continues to expand within the Greater Yellowstone Area, the potential for conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities related to ongoing outfitted and public hunting activities, other recreational activities identified in the previous section, and fuel wood cutting/removal will likely increase in the project area. Conflicts associated with livestock grazing have occurred in the past within Forest Service allotments and private pastures adjacent to the Sherman Allotment (see Affected Environment), and conflicts within those allotments would be expected to continue into the future if/when livestock are present within those allotments and private pastures. A grizzly bear conflict occurred at the Maki Creek Elk Feedground south of the Sherman Allotment during the spring of 2012 and such conflicts are possible in the future. Existing oil and gas leases do occur within and immediately adjacent to the Sherman Allotment, but these leases are currently “held in suspension” and inactive. Potential conflicts with bears could occur if/when lease suspensions are lifted and if/when new oil and gas developments are initiated. The expected effects of climate change on vegetation conditions on the Forest and within the project area are summarized in Appendix F. Climate change effects on whitebark pine, an important food resource for grizzly bears in the GYE, were also discussed in the Affected Environment section of this document. However, how the anticipated changes in whitebark pine forest types as a result of climate change in the GYE (and project area) may impact grizzly bears or the potential for conflicts with livestock is yet undermined. The IGBST is currently researching this issue, and a draft report of their findings may be available before the end of 2013. The cumulative effects analysis area for assessing population effects is the distinct population segment area for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population. Within the GYE, there are numerous activities that impact grizzly bears. The most notably impacts are associated with recreation activities. These activities are detailed in the “Environmental Baseline and the Status” of the grizzly bear section of the original BA (dated June 29, 2010).

Chapter 3-144

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Measurable impacts to grizzly bears (direct mortality, conflicts, relocations, etc.) are monitored by the USFWS and the WGFD per the Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2007a). All grizzly bear mortalities are incorporated into the allowable mortality threshold for the Yellowstone grizzly population (USFWS 2007a). These mortalities are monitored and calculated by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team and maintaining these thresholds should allow a stable-to-increasing population 95 percent of the time and not hinder the recovery of the species. Exceeding the allowable mortality (for independent females in any two consecutive years and independent males or dependent young within any three consecutive year periods) will trigger a Biology and Monitoring Review by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. According to the direction in the Conservation Strategy, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee responds to the Biology and Monitoring Review with actions to address deviations from population or habitat standards. All of the activities described above could possibly result in conflicts, and potentially, grizzly bear mortalities. And, as was described in Direct and Indirect Effects above, Alternative 2 could result in grizzly-livestock conflicts that could lead to relocations of and/or direct removal of individual bears. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 could result in additive, adverse cumulative effects to individual grizzly bears beyond those already known or suspected. However, based on the implementation of the Conservation Strategy, implementation of the modified Conservation Measures summarized in Chapter II, and the distance of the project from the Recovery Zone (47 miles), the effect of Alternative II would not be likely to impact the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Therefore, Alternative 2 may adversely impact individual grizzly bears, but would not be likely to impact the overall recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population.

Canada Lynx and Canada Lynx Critical Habitat – Threatened Species Direct and Indirect Effects The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USFS 2007a) for grazing activities in Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) indicates that grazing should be compatible with improving or maintaining lynx habitat, contribute to maintaining conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes and in aspen stands, contribute to the long-term health and stability of aspen. Utilization, stubble height, and stocking rates in this project are intended to maintain or improve upland range and riparian habitat. Approximately 40 percent of the project area is not used by livestock due to distance from water, steep slopes, inaccessibility and/or insufficient amounts of forage for cattle. These areas correspond with the optimal lynx habitat within the project area because they are more heavily forested with down debris, areas typically avoided by cattle. Continued grazing would not alter overall structure or composition of native plant communities including shrub-steppe, riparian, and aspen habitats or impact lynx habitat, in compliance with the NRLMD. Additionally, the presence of cattle and riders in this potential lynx habitat would not be expected to impact lynx movement or use if present within the project area (pers. com., John Squires 2010). No potential denning habitat in LAUs within the project area will be altered by livestock grazing because cattle tend to avoid dense forests with a large amount of deadfall and horizontal cover. Specific regulatory direction in the NRLMD for Livestock Management projects includes the following objective and guidelines:

Chapter 3-145

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Objective30 GRAZ O1 Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining26 lynx habitat23.

Guideline15 GRAZ G1 In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. Guideline GRAZ G2 In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen. Guideline GRAZ G3 In riparian areas41 and willow carrs3, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Guideline GRAZ G4 In shrub-steppe habitats43, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs21, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Alternative 2 effects assessments in the Vegetation and Aspen sections of this document indicate that riparian and aspen communities within the allotment would not be adversely impacted by livestock grazing as proposed, and that livestock grazing would not adversely impact shrub development and conifer regeneration within areas burned by the Mule Creek and Horse Creek wildfires. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 would meet objectives and guidelines specified in the NRLMD for managing grazing projects.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact lynx and/or lynx habitat include past wildfires (Horse Creek and Mule Creek wildfires), recreational trapping and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions contribute to cumulative effects on lynx and lynx habitat and will continue to exist under this alternative. Because this the above assessment indicated no direct or indirect effects to lynx or lynx habitat as a result of implementing Alternative 2, this alternative would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future adverse effects already known or suspected. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not likely impact Canada lynx or lynx critical habitat.

North American Wolverine - Sensitive Species and Proposed Threatened Species Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Effects to wolverines from land management actions such as grazing are largely unknown (USFWS 2010d). Wolverines are not thought to be dependent on specific vegetation or habitat features that might be altered by grazing activities. Therefore, the USFWS concluded in its 12- month finding of the status of the wolverine that land management activities (such as grazing, timber harvest and prescribed fire) do not constitute a threat to the wolverine distinct population segment.

Chapter 3-146

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Although human presence associated with Alternative 2 could result in disturbance/displacement responses of wolverine individuals, such actions would likely have only minor impacts on the species. Disturbance impacts are not considered a risk factor impacting wolverine persistence on the landscape; the primary factor thought to be threatening the species is climate change (USFWS 2010d).

Cumulative Effects Climate change would continue to threaten the species’ persistence in the Wyoming Range. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that may impact wolverine individuals and/or habitat use include incidental losses associated with recreational trapping, hunting and activities associated with oil/gas development. These actions will continue under this alternative and may impact wolverine individuals. Because the Direct and Indirect Effects section above concluded that implementation of Alternative 2 may result in only minor human caused disturbance impacts, this alternative would not be likely to result in additive cumulative effects, and would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future adverse effects already known or suspected. Therefore, this alternative may have minor disturbance impacts on wolverine individuals, but would not be expected to adversely impact the wolverine populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Western Gray Wolf – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 could result in livestock depredations by wolves and lethal wolf control actions as a result could occur. However, such actions have not been recorded as a result of past grazing within the allotment. Since pack social structure is very adaptable and resilient, breeding members can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack. Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human- caused mortality or disease.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact wolves include recreational trapping, shooting (wolves are considered predators when located within the Sherman Allotment), hunting of wolf prey (deer, elk and moose), and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions are expected to continue under this alternative and will continue to impact wolf populations within the project area. Because implementation of Alternative 2 could result in control actions and lethal removal of individuals and/or entire packs, this alternative could result in direct and indirect adverse effects that would be additive to cumulative impacts known or suspected. However, the Sherman Allotment is located in the Wyoming Range, an area the WGFD manages as a Predator Zone. Their Wolf Management plan objectives are to maintain a minimum of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in the state, which they predict will maintain a sustainable and viable breeding population. Determination: May impact individuals but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Chapter 3-147

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Greater Sage-Grouse – Sensitive Species and Candidate Species for Threatened and Endangered List Direct and Indirect Effects As was discussed in the Affected Environment, the Forest Service Washington Office provided Interim Conservation Recommendations for Sage-Grouse in USFS Regions 1, 2, and 4 in October of 2012. These interim recommendations provide direction for conserving occupied sage-grouse habitats on planning units and direction for mapping occupied habitat on the BTNF. Mapped sage grouse habitat within the Sherman Allotment is displayed in Figure 3.32. No sage-grouse leks (breeding sites) are known to occur within the Sherman Allotment; the nearest known leks occur within the Ryegrass Lek complex approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the Sherman Allotment. Because approx. 75 percent of nesting hens in Wyoming nest within four miles of the lek where they were bred, and 66 percent nest within three miles (Connelly et al. 2011), private and BLM lands provide the majority of nesting habitat associated with birds attending the Ryegrass Lek complex. However, the Sherman Allotment does provide known sage-grouse late-brood rearing habitat (WYNDD 2009), and could provide some limited amounts of nesting and early brood-rearing habitats as well. While grazing management has limited effects on sagebrush, grazing does affect the height and density of herbaceous material available for hiding cover and food for sage-grouse using suitable habitats within the project area (WGFD 2009c). Grazing, under this alternative, may reduce herbaceous vegetation understory of the sagebrush community (ibid). According to “Grazing Influence, Management and Objective Development” in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (WGFD 2009c), moderate utilization will maintain sites in preferred sage-grouse plant communities and maintain cover for sage-grouse in nesting and early brood-rearing habitat. Stiver et al. (2010) and Connelly et al. (2000) provide guidelines for maintaining suitable vegetation for brood-rearing and nesting sage-grouse. See Tables 3.31, 3.32 and 3.33 below.

Table 3.31. Desired Habitat Conditions for Sage Grouse during Nesting and Early Brood Rearing (Breeding) Seasons (March 1 to June 30th)

Acceptable (Desired) Habitat Conditions (conditions met Life Requisite Attribute on >80% of habitat within the area) Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (mean) 15 to 25% Cover Sagebrush height (mean) 40 to 80cm Cover Predominant sagebrush shape Spreading Perennial grass and forb height Cover >18cm (mean) Perennial grass canopy cover Cover >15% (mean) Cover and food Perennial forb canopy cover (mean) >10% Preferred forbs are common with Food Preferred forb availability several (>5) species present

Chapter 3-148

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.32. Desired Habitat Conditions for Sage Grouse during the Late Brood Rearing (Upland Summer Habitat) Seasons (July 1 to September 30)

Acceptable (Desired) Habitat Conditions (conditions met Life Requisite Attribute on >60% of habitat within the area) Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (mean) 10 to 25% Cover Sagebrush height (mean) 40 to 80cm Perennial forb and grass canopy Cover and food >15% cover (mean) Preferred forbs are common with Food Preferred forbs availability several (>5) species present

Table 3.33. Desired Habitat Conditions for Sage Grouse in Riparian Habitats during Summer Use Period Habitat (July 1 to September 30)

Acceptable (Desired) Habitat Conditions (conditions met Life Requisite Attribute on >60% of habitat within the area) Majority of areas are in a late seral Cover and food Riparian and wet meadow stability ecological status Preferred forbs are common with Food Preferred Forb Availability several (>5) species present Proximity of sagebrush cover Sagebrush cover is adjacent Cover (mean) (<90meters) to brood rearing areas

As was discussed above, the Sherman Allotment is known to provide sage-grouse late-brood rearing habitat (WYNDD 2009); nesting habitat for a limited number of hens is suspected, but not documented. The proposed action (Alternative 2) described in Chapter 2, prescribes a maximum livestock allowable vegetation use standard of 50 percent within upland communities and 50 percent within riparian communities. When these standards are met, desired vegetation conditions within late brood rearing summer habitat recommended in Table 3.32 and desired vegetation conditions within riparian summer habitat recommended in Table 3.33 should be met. However, vegetation monitoring within sage grouse brood rearing habitats and within sage grouse riparian habitats should be conducted annually after the summer grazing season has ended to ensure sufficient vegetation is being provided for successful brood rearing. During most years, the Alternative 2 livestock allowable vegetation use standard of 50 percent within upland communities would be less likely to provide cover of perennial grasses and forbs with a mean height exceeding 18 centimeters (cover necessary for adequate nesting habitat recommended in Table 3.31 above). Thus, Alterative 2 may have minor impacts on sage grouse nesting habitat and nesting success if hens attempted to nest within the Sherman Allotment. If Alternative 2 is selected, surveys should be conducted to determine if hens are present within the allotment during the nesting season.

Chapter 3-149

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for sage grouse is MZ II (the Wyoming Basin Management Zone) described in the Affected Environment, which includes sage grouse habitat within the Sherman Allotment. The eastern portion of the Sherman Allotment is within mapped, general sage-grouse habitat (see Figure 3.32), but just outside of mapped core sage-grouse habitat on private and BLM lands located approximately one mile east of the Sherman Allotment boundary. Both habitat designations were mapped per guidelines in the Wyoming Executive Order (WGFD 2012). Currently within the state, and within MZ II, there are numerous cumulative actions that are contributing to the decline of the greater sage grouse (Connelly et al. 2000); the most notable past and present actions include loss of sage brush cover due to conversion to croplands and oil and gas development. These actions mainly stem from impacts to ‘core’ sage grouse habitats within MZ II off the Forest and outside the Sherman Allotment. As was discussed in the Cumulative Effects Analysis section, within the Sherman Allotment, wildfires (Horse Creek and Mule Creek fires) have burned significant portions of the project area, but these fires were restricted to areas within conifer forests; little to no sage-brush and sage grouse habitat burned. With the exception of past livestock grazing and recreation hunting, no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that have or would affect sage grouse or habitat are known within the project area. The Direct and Indirect Effects section for Alternative 2 (above) determined that only minor impacts on sage grouse nesting habitat within the Sherman Allotment would be suspected. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant additional cumulative effects to sage grouse or their habitats within the Wyoming Basin Management Zone (MZ-II) beyond those already known or suspected. Determination: Alternative 2 may impact sage grouse individuals, but would not cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Western Boreal Toad and the Columbia Spotted Frog – Sensitive Species Direct and Indirect Effects Grazing can adversely affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats important to boreal toads and spotted frogs through a large variety of impacts: removal or reduction of herbaceous and shrub cover, stream bank collapse, soil compaction, reduction of beaver and burrowing rodent populations, and water contamination and eutrophication can all result in adverse impacts. Riparian areas provide critical breeding, foraging, and over wintering habitats for boreal toads and spotted frogs. Riparian zones are used as dispersal corridors for metamorphs (juveniles). Given access to water and typically richer vegetation in riparian areas, these habitats are also preferred areas for livestock grazing. Livestock grazing in wetlands is likely to result in direct impacts such as mortality of toads from trampling. Bartelt (1998 and 2000) observed the demise of many hundreds of boreal toad metamorphs at a breeding site on the Targhee National Forest when a band of sheep was driven through the area. Toad mortality resulted from trampling during the event and from desiccation later. Bartelt noted that because toad reproduction was already greatly constrained by years of drought conditions, this event in 1995 (a rare wet year) probably destroyed half the toad reproduction for the past decade at the breeding area (Bartelt 1998; Bartelt 2000).

Chapter 3-150

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Livestock grazing can also impact herbaceous vegetation retention immediately surrounding breeding sites and within upland terrestrial habitats where adult toads and frogs migrate during summer in search of insects. Herbaceous vegetation composition is important in at least three settings for spotted frogs and boreal toads: (1) within and at the edges of pools and ponds (e.g., sedge dominated sites used for breeding and summer-long habitat); (2) in wet meadow, moist meadow, silver sagebrush, and open willow communities for migration habitat and summer-long habitat for some species; and (3) in upslope rangeland, aspen, and open forestland communities to limit sedimentation in basin wetlands and streams (i.e., effects on water quality), as well as providing habitat for migrating individuals. Herbaceous plant species composition provides: hiding and escape cover for tadpoles, metamorphs, and adults; retains moisture and humidity at ground level, including dead plant material that contributes to ground-level humidity; provides shading; moderates temperatures at ground level; provides tadpole forage and substrate for tadpole forage, including provision of dead plant material for subsequent years; provides invertebrate-prey habitat; and is important for maintaining low sedimentation rates in wetlands. Alternative 2 provides for a maximum 50 percent utilization (key forage species) standard within riparian habitats and a maximum 50 percent utilization (key forage species) standard within terrestrial upland habitats (see Chapter 2 on page 2-5). In addition, this alternative provides an allowable streambank alteration standard of no more than 20 percent of the total streambank length within any given stream reach on fish bearing streams (see Chapter 2 on page 2-4). These standards would reduce the potential for grazing impacts at boreal toad and spotted frog breeding sites and within surrounding upland terrestrial habitats for adult toads and frogs. Implementation of these measures could prevent changes in the structure of plant communities with high ground cover requirements and prevent impacts to the structure of the streambed with implementation of the streambank stability guideline. If utilization of key forage species reaches or exceeds the 50 percent maximum in riparian areas suitable for Columbia spotted frogs and boreal toads, as allowed in this alternative, stubble height measurements may reach near two inches (Clary and Webster 1989), increasing the potential for streambank alteration, reducing ground cover and potential altering the water table (Clary and Leininger 2000). These impacts to riparian areas would potentially have negative impacts to amphibians and their breeding, foraging and overwintering habitats. It is possible, due to variation of the streambanks and cattle use, that some areas may see greater impacts from grazing then other areas within the project. Under this alternative, stubble heights and bank alteration could reach a level in some areas that could potentially alter long-term bank stability and streambank vegetation, negatively impacting amphibian breeding habitat and impacting the toad and frog populations within the project area. However, there are measures in place that prevent the allotment from being grazed to a point that could alter the structure and composition of streambank vegetation. Buffer zones can be an important method for protecting breeding habitat for boreal toads and spotted frogs (Keinath and McGee 2005; Patla and Keinath 2005; Goates et al. 2007), within which management activities can be monitored and/or controlled to avoid adverse impacts. Delong (BTNF, 2013) suggests that retaining 70 to 100 percent of all herbaceous vegetation (not restricted to retention of key forage species) within 1/3 mile of known boreal toad and spotted frog breeding sites would provide sufficient cover for as much as 66 percent of adult toads and frogs that migrate upland after breeding, and 100 percent of metamorphs. If Alternative 2 is selected, a monitoring plan will be developed to determine if sufficient vegetation is being

Chapter 3-151

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest retained surrounding known breeding sites in the project area (see Figure 3.34), at the end of each grazing season. If monitoring indicates that sufficient amounts of herbaceous vegetation is not being maintained, utilization standard adjustments and/or other measures, such as fencing, should be considered, developed and implemented by the Project Interdisciplinary Team.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact spotted frogs and western boreal toads include recreation activities, and oil/gas leasing and development. These actions and any associated impacts would be expected to continue under this alternative. The above direct and indirect effects analysis determined that Alternative 2 may have some adverse impacts on spotted frog and boreal toad individuals due to trampling impacts, and could impact habitats (especially during drought years). Thus, Alternative 2 could result in additive cumulative effects that could contribute cumulatively to past, present or future adverse effects already known or suspected. Determination: May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Pink Agoseris – Sensitive Species Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Impacts to pink agoseris from this alternative include trampling and minor browsing of individuals, as this species is considered to have low palatability to cattle. Plants located in the project area were minimally browsed by native ungulates during the survey but the population was noted as healthy and widespread locally. Other activities that may impact this species within the project area (the cumulative effects analysis) are presence of invasive species (Canada thistle), human recreation (off-highway vehicle) use, fire and native ungulate browsing. Threats for this species are not identified and impacts from these activities are not well known. However, it can be considered that the species had adapted with fire based on its presence in a fire- dominated system and therefore fire would not be a threat to the species on the landscape. Additionally, this species is not considered a species of concern for the state of Wyoming or even a species of potential concern. Based on this information, the direct and indirect impacts from this alternative when added to the impacts of other actions that may affect this species in the project area would result in only minor cumulative effects at most. This is due to the healthy persistence of the species in the project area through time and low palatability to cattle. Therefore, this alternative may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards listing or a loss of viability. Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

Whitebark Pine – Sensitive Species Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects While no direct herbivory on whitebark pine would be expected from this alternative there is the possibility that seedlings could be trampled. While cattle capable habitat in the project area and whitebark pine habitat do not overlap to any degree (Figure 3.38), there are whitebark pine areas

Chapter 3-152

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest that may function as corridors between grazing areas. Additionally the individual whitebark pines that are of greatest significance to the recovery of the species are cone-bearing adult trees which are unlikely to be impacted by hoof-action trampling. Still, there is the possibility that young blister rust resistant species could be damaged. As such this alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing. Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

Figure 3.38: The Location of the Sherman Project Area, Modeled Cattle Capable Habitat and the Locations of Pure and Mixed Stands of Whitebark Pine

Soft Aster – Sensitive Species Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This species is unlikely to be directly impacted by herbivory since it is commonly found in areas that are within active grazing allotments (on the Bighorn National Forest) and according to Fertig (1999), low levels of herbivory do not appear to have negative impact. There is the possibility that hoof action on individuals, if present, could damage individual plants. If individuals are present they would constitute a small portion of the total population of the species and their loss would not move the species toward federal listing. The potential hoof action in this species’ habitat could however, create or enhance that habitat. Determination: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

Chapter 3-153

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Table 3.34: Sensitive Species Determination Summary

Species Status Determination May impact individuals, but is not Sensitive; likely to cause a (De-listed in WY 10/12; trend to federal Western Gray Wolf USFWS and WGFD will listing or loss of monitor status for 5 years) species viability (MIIH)

Experimental/reintroduced

Sensitive Bighorn Sheep No Impact

Ecological MIS: High mtn. meadow Greater Sage-grouse Candidate MIIH Sensitive

Columbia Spotted Frog Sensitive MIIH

Sensitive, MIS Boreal Toad MIIH

Candidate Whitebark pine MIIH Sensitive

Pink Agoseris Sensitive MIIH

Soft Aster Sensitive MIIH

Elk – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects The impacts to elk from current grazing management stem from the impacts on available forage and the presence of cattle in the allotments. Literature shows that grazing systems and grazing intensities influence herbage production on western rangelands (Poollen and Lacey 1979). This alternative, allows the vegetation a period to recover from past cattle grazing and in each pasture rested, this allows seed to mature. Grazing in the beginning of the growing season has been shown to improve elk forage, having beneficial impacts to elk. Properly timed grazing has been shown to increase nutrients in the aboveground parts of the plant, improving fall and winter forage for elk (Vavra 2005). Research has also shown that grazed pastures provide high quality regrowth in fall and winter and greater access to new green growth in the spring, although the quantity is reduced. Rested pastures provide more current-year forage, but the additional growth lacked nutritional quality equal to the grazed pastures (Sheehy and Vavra 1996). In addition to impacts from the selected management system, the amount of utilization and number of stock in the allotment has been shown to have a greater effect on herbage production than the type of grazing system (Poolen and Lacey 1979).

Chapter 3-154

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Removing vegetation by grazing reduces the amount of forage available to elk. Utilization, stubble heights and the streambank stability standard prescribed in this alternative are designed to maintain the appropriate ground cover percentage to ensure proper functioning condition of the range type and the functionality of the streambank vegetation. Ground cover measurements within each pasture have been documented at 98 percent and 95 percent with a stable trend. Even though there is considerable forage overlap between cattle and elk, it varies during different times of the summer, limiting the impact on elk forage. During early summer, cattle diets consist of mostly grasses, while elk diets consist of a mix of grasses, shrubs and forbs. Because of this difference, some habitats available to elk in the project area will not be impacted by cattle grazing (i.e. vegetation on steeper slopes). Cook (2002) found that in winter and spring, elk preferably elected feeding sites where cattle had grazed moderately during the previous summer, but in the fall, elk selected sites where cattle use in the summer had been light. The permitted utilization is defined as high use, but low stocking rate has also been shown to positively impact elk use within the allotment when grazed throughout the season. Slovlin et al. (1968) reported that under light cattle use, elk use was greatest on allotments with season-long grazing, because of the higher availability of ungrazed plants. Skovlin et al. (1968) reported in northeastern Oregon that elk use in pastures where cattle were excluded was significantly higher than on pastures where both big game and cattle were allowed to graze. Mackie (1970) noted that elk selected areas which had not been grazed by cattle during the same forage year. Steep terrain and forested areas were used in favor of open ridges and canyon bottoms where cattle normally grazed. This research would point to displacement of elk by cattle as a result of the proposed action. However, on the Medicine Bow National Forest, elk and cattle were concluded as being ‘socially compatible’ based on numerous instances where cattle and elk were observed foraging in close proximity of each other (Ward et al. 1973). Due to the small number of elk within these herd units using native winter ranges, the presence of high quality forage produced by grazing, and the availability of forage for elk not accessed by cattle, the impacts of this alternative to the elk herd units in the project area is minimal. Additionally the herd unit inhabiting the project area is 51 percent above objective numbers, showing that management under this alternative is not negatively contributing to the elk population within the project area or on the BTNF.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the associated herd unit boundaries that overlap the project area. There are multiple past, present and future foreseeable actions within these analysis areas that would impact foraging, wintering and parturition habitat for these species, similar to this alternative. These actions are federal and private vegetation treatments (timber sales, prescribed fires), and natural activities (wildfires, beetle kill, drought). Other activities that would impact this species include impacts from recreation, such as roads, hunting pressure, and off-highway vehicle use. This impacts of this alternative, when added to the impacts of these past, present and future activities that affect forested vegetation or cause disturbance/displacement due to human presence may result in minor cumulative effects on this herd unit, but would not further impact the population of the species. These effects are assumed to be minor, because this herd is above management objective designated by the WGFD. Also, impacts to winter range are often identified as the limiting factor for this species, but this impact is mitigated by elk feedgrounds managed by the state. Feeding elk in the winter results in a

Chapter 3-155

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest higher population objective than can be naturally supported by the available winter range. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest or herd unit level.

Mule Deer – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect impacts to mule deer stem from the impacts on available forage and the presence of cattle in the allotments; generally similar to the impacts on elk. The main differences between impacts to mule deer and impacts to elk are 1) mule deer use slightly different habitats than elk and 2) the presence of cattle is less of an impact on the presence of mule deer within an area. As described previously, cattle diets typically have more grasses while mule deer diets have more shrubs and forbs, which minimize the potential for competition (Kie et. al. 2005, Mackie 1970). According to Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer in the Intermountain West (WAFWA 2008), heavy grazing, characterized by more than 50 percent utilization should be avoided and land managers should aim for utilization rates of 30-40 percent in mountain sagebrush habitat types, similar to the project area. According to those guidelines, grazing is considered sustainable in the ecoregion (in relationship to mule deer) if stocking rates/utilization rates are at these suggested levels. The utilization in this alternative is higher than recommended for mule deer, so negative impacts to mule deer from the reduction in forage is possible with this alternative. It is important to note that research has shown (Skovlin et al. 1968), there was no significant difference in mule deer use between pastures which were lightly stocked, moderately stocked or heavily stocked. Also, under a rest-rotation system, mule deer selectively used pastures where cattle had grazed previously that season (Yeo et al. 1993). This is similar to the impacts to vegetation reported in the elk analysis above; grazed pastures provide high quality regrowth in fall and winter and greater access to new green growth in the spring, although the quantity of the forage is reduced (Vavra 2005). The presence of cattle in the project area has been shown to impact mule deer distribution. Skovlin et al. (1968) reported deer habitat selection was different in pastures where cattle were present versus pastures where cattle were absent, showing displacement effects on mule deer. This research indicates that even if mule deer use in the pastures has not changed due to presence of cattle, how they use the habitat does change. This may negatively impact mule deer by reducing high quality forage otherwise available to them. The impacts of this alternative on the Sublette mule deer herd are minimal due to: the presence of high quality forage produced by livestock grazing; the availability of forage found on higher slopes not accessed by cattle; shrubs and forbs not selected by cattle; and the small percentage of mule deer habitat in the project area.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for mule deer is the associated herd unit boundaries for the herds that overlap the project area. There are multiple past, present and future foreseeable actions within these analysis areas that impact foraging, wintering and parturition habitat. These actions are federal and private vegetation treatments (timber sales, prescribed fires) and natural activities

Chapter 3-156

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

(wildfires, beetle kill, drought). Other activities that would impact deer include impacts from recreation, such as roads, hunting pressure, and off-highway vehicle use. The impacts of this alternative added to the impacts of past, present and future activities that affect forested vegetation or cause disturbance/displacement due to human presence would result in minor cumulative effects on this herd unit but would not further impact the population of the species. These effects are assumed to be minor, because impacts to winter range is often identified as the limiting factor for this species, and this alternative does not substantially impact winter range. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest or herd unit level.

Moose – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect impacts to moose from current grazing management stem from the impacts on availability and quality of summer and winter forage. The moose herd unit that overlaps the project area is currently below objective and has been for a number of years (WGFD 2009a). Research was initiated in spring 2011 to try to understand why the Sublette moose herd unit is well below objective and that research is currently ongoing. According to research conducted on the Jackson moose herd, it is unclear what is currently limiting the Jackson moose herd population (Becker 2008). Becker hypothesized that a combination of low quality forage, moderate physical condition and environmental conditions (harsh winters) near the third trimester of pregnancy combined with the deficiencies in several nutrients create physiological imbalances that compromised reproductive performance. Since a variety of habitats and high forage quality are important to wintering moose populations, the direct and indirect impacts from cattle grazing can vary. Riparian vegetation, like early season upland grasses have larger amounts of protein available early in the growing season. As protein levels decrease, cattle increase the amount of forbs and browse in their diets and move to the riparian zone (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991). This shifts the cattle use from grasses and forbs to willow communities, a preferred food source for moose. At the utilization rates proposed in this alternative, cattle begin using the current annual growth on willows in mid-to-late grazing season (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991), which could reduce the amount of willow growth available to wintering moose. This impact is reduced if there is adequate herbaceous forage available to cattle during the grazing season (Kauffman et al. 1983). Willow browse has not been documented as a limiting factor in the structure or function of the willow communities in the project area. In the research conducted by Becker, summer and winter ranges may be equally important components of moose habitat. Moose selected summer habitats that were moderate in elevation, close to cover and avoided lodgepole, mixed conifers and aspen. Summer habitats appeared to be associated with habitat and landscape features that may reduce the effects of thermal stress rather than a preferred vegetation type. Summer provides moose with many forage choices, resulting in a high level of individual variation in habitat selection patterns across the summer range. It is possible that moose use habitat patches within different vegetation classes to take advantage of changes in quality of forage throughout the summer, similar to other ungulates. Grazed pastures have been shown to provide high quality regrowth in fall and winter and greater access to new green growth in the spring, although the quantity of that forage is reduced. Since it appears

Chapter 3-157

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest habitat selection is more associated with cover that reduces the effects of thermal stress than a type of vegetation, forage reduction from grazing in this alternative is an impact but is not likely contributing to below objective herd population.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for these species is the associated herd unit boundary for the herd that overlaps the project area. There are multiple past, present and future foreseeable actions within these analysis areas that impact foraging, wintering and parturition habitat for moose. These actions are federal and private vegetation treatments (timber sales, prescribed fires) and natural activities (wildfires, beetle kill, drought). Other activities that would impact this species include impacts from recreation, such as roads, hunting pressure, and off-highway vehicle use. The impacts of this alternative, when added to the impacts of past, present and future activities that affect forested vegetation or cause disturbance/displacement due to human presence may result in minor cumulative effects on this herd unit but would not further impact the population of the species. These effects are assumed to be minor, because impacts to winter range is often identified as the limiting factor for this species, and this alternative does not substantially impact winter range.

Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest or herd unit level.

Pronghorn – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect impacts of this alternative on pronghorn are similar to that of other ungulates addressed in this document: impacts associated with the removal of forage quantity; and impacts to the quality of forage (see elk and mule deer analyses). However, there is even less pronghorn habitat overlap with cattle grazing in the allotments. Pronghorn prefer forbs when succulent, nutritious forbs are available and only shift to a greater diet of shrubs when forb availability declines (Yoakum et al. 1996; Yoakum and O’Gara 2000). Grasses are least preferred. In shrub steppe environments throughout their range, shrubs comprise an estimated average of about 63 percent of the pronghorn diet; forbs comprise an estimated average of about 29 percent; and grasses compromise an estimated 7 percent. Since grasses are the primary component of cattle diets during the majority of the grazing season, forbs make up a relatively small portion of this regimen. Since livestock typically do not make more than light use of shrubs, utilization of shrubs by livestock currently is not diminishing habitat suitability for pronghorn. Pronghorn, like mule deer, forage on mainly forbs and shrubs, so impacts to these species are similar. However, the spring, summer and fall habitat for pronghorn that overlap with lands suitable and capable for cattle grazing encompass 0.0004 percent of the spring, summer and fall habitat of this large herd unit. There are no crucial winter habitat or parturition areas within the project area. Limiting factors contributing to population fluctuations have been identified from impacts to winter habitat and drought. The Sublette pronghorn herd unit is well above population objective, despite the recent drought, and has continued to rise (WGFD 2008). Barriers to pronghorn migration due to development and fencing have also been addressed as limiting factors. Existing fences will be maintained. There are no additional fences proposed in this alternative. Chapter 3-158

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Due to the presence of high quality forage produced by grazing, the minimal overlap between cattle and pronghorn diet and the small percentage of habitat for the herd unit in the project area, the impacts of this alternative to the Sublette Pronghorn herd is minimal.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the associated herd unit boundary that overlaps the project area. There are multiple past, present and future foreseeable actions within this analysis area that would impact foraging, wintering and parturition habitat for pronghorn. These actions are federal and private vegetation treatments (timber sales, prescribed fires) and natural activities (wildfires, beetle kill, drought). The impacts of this alternative, when added to the impacts of past, present and future activities that affect forested vegetation or cause disturbance/displacement due to human presence may result in minor cumulative effects on this herd. These effects are assumed to be minor, because this herd is above management objective designated by the WGFD and impacts to winter range is often identified as the limiting factor for these species. This project does not contain winter range so this action will not add to the negative cumulative effects to pronghorn in winter habitat. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest or herd unit level.

Brewer’s Sparrow – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect impacts to Brewer’s sparrows from this alternative stem from the impacts on availability of nesting habitat and cover, impacts to preferred food sources (i.e. insects and seeds), impacts from trampling, and impacts from brown-headed cowbird parasitism. According to O’Brien et al. 2003, the minimum ground cover for proper functioning sustainable watersheds for mountain big sagebrush is 85 percent. No pasture within the allotment has been below this threshold and all pastures have maintained a stable trend. This threshold was developed to represent a point at which the site would lose basic functionality defined by increased soil erosion and loss of site sustainability, which would have indirect impacts to Brewer’s sparrows by impacting habitat within the allotment. The soil base needs adequate ground cover for protection from erosion, rain and use (O’Brien et al. 2003). Under high utilization rates as proposed, ground cover could be less; impacts to the understory could be greater, thus negatively impacting foraging Brewer’s sparrows by reducing seeds and insects. With increased pressure from grazing on the understory vegetation, the balance of species in the area could be tipped toward less palatable species such as sagebrush, creating dense sagebrush stands (Holmes and Johnson 2005). It’s not clear that this situation would be detrimental to sage- dependent species (ibid). Another impact to Brewer’s sparrows would be direct impacts from trampling. Livestock trample and disturb nests, resulting in nest failure and the presence of livestock can increase the abundance of brown-headed cowbirds, potentially impacting Brewer’s sparrows’ productivity (Holmes and Johnson 2005). In summary, there may be some negative impacts to Brewer’s sparrows under this alternative, however, Brewer’s sparrows’ population trends in Northwest Wyoming have been increasing and the impacts associated with this alternative are not the limiting factors identified as Chapter 3-159

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest detrimental to Brewer’s sparrow populations throughout the state (habitat loss). Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for Brewer’s sparrows is the state of Wyoming; the unit that the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory monitors for state populations of birds. Currently within the state there are numerous cumulative actions that are contributing to the decline of Brewer’s sparrows. These mainly stem from the reduction of sagebrush habitats due to agriculture. The impacts to this species associated with this alternative may add minor cumulative effects to but would not further impact the population viability of the species. Summary: This alternative would not further impact the population viability of the species.

Boreal Chorus Frog – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts to boreal chorus frogs would be similar to the effects to the Columbia spotted frog (see Columbia spotted frog analysis). However, the boreal chorus frog is more widespread throughout the project area and the watersheds within the project area, lessening the overall impacts of this alternative on the population at the Forest level.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the associated watersheds within the project area. Currently, within these watersheds there are multiple documented breeding locations. The breeding habitat in the project area has been discussed as properly functioning; however there are other issues that may be negatively impacting the watershed and could be adding cumulative effects to this species in the project area. With the required streambank stability standard in place, preventing the change of vegetation composition of the streambed, the impacts to this species associated with this alternative may add minor cumulative effects, when added to past, present and future actions within the watershed; but would not further impact the population viability of the species. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level.

Aspen – Management Indicator Species Direct and Indirect Effects Grazing under this alternative could affect individual aspen trees, suckers/saplings, and small parts of stands from direct browsing from livestock. An indirect effect would be that grazing and trampling in aspen stands could reduce fine fuels and ladder fuels, reducing the potential for the stand to regenerate with fire. However, based on regeneration exams of aspen within the Horse Creek and Mule fires, aspen was not selected for by ungulates, and clones have successfully reestablished to heights that are on average, out of reach of livestock.

Chapter 3-160

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for aspen is the associated watersheds within the project area. Insufficient frequency and extent of fire is the most influential factor that has diminished ecological conditions in aspen. Historic livestock grazing in the associated watersheds has contributed to the increased fire-return interval on rangelands by reducing the biomass of herbaceous vegetation (fine fuels) annually produced on rangelands and in aspen stands. Other past, present and future actions that may impact aspen include invasive plant species, unauthorized motor vehicle use, elevated browsing rates by elk due to sustained high population levels and climate change. Trends in climate change indicate that future precipitation levels will be lower than the current long-term average. Drier conditions would inhibit aspen stand health and regeneration. Drier conditions due to climate change could also benefit some aspen stands in that drier forest conditions would increase the potential for greater fire spread. Drier conditions would also increase susceptibility of conifer trees to insect outbreaks, which would also benefit aspen. The damage to individual trees and the inhibitions to aspen regeneration created by livestock grazing is a very minor contribution to the health or decline of aspen stands, particularly in the project area (see existing condition). When considered in relation to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect aspen within the cumulative effects area and those that offset those effects, no cumulative effects are expected as the result of livestock grazing in aspen stands as described in this alternative. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level.

Table 3.35: MIS Species Determination Summary – Proposed Action

Species Status Determination May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Elk Harvest MIS populations at the forest or herd unit level May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Moose Harvest MIS populations at the forest or herd unit level May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Mule deer Harvest MIS populations at the forest or herd unit level May impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact Pronghorn Harvest MIS populations at the forest or herd unit level Ecological May impact individuals but is not MIS Brewer’s sparrow likely to negatively impact Sagebrush populations at the forest level ecosystems

Chapter 3-161

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Species Status Determination May impact individuals but is not Boreal chorus frog MIS wetlands likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level May impact individuals but is not Aspen MIS likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level Sensitive spp. May impact individuals but is not Boreal toad MIS - likely to negatively impact wetlands populations at the forest level

Willow Flycatcher - Migratory Birds Direct and Indirect Effects Studies show that where grazing simplifies vegetation structure or maintains vegetation in early seral condition, bird diversity and abundance generally decreases, particularly in the sub-canopy. This result may benefit some species that use more open and simplified habitats such as mountain bluebird, robin, and brown-headed cowbird, although generally species responding positively to livestock grazing effects are not high priority species and their viability is not of concern. In the case of the brown-headed cowbird, its range expansion and increase in population over the last century has negatively affected other species of songbirds through its practice of nest parasitism. Species requiring heavy shrub or herbaceous ground cover in riparian areas for nesting and/or foraging include willow flycatchers, yellow warbler and MacGillivray’s. Species such as Wilson’s warbler, common yellowthroat, savannah sparrow, and Lincoln's sparrow also require heavy shrub or herbaceous ground cover in riparian areas and show negative responses to livestock grazing. Applying the riparian and streambank stability guidelines should reduce time cattle spend in such areas, and thus impacts to nesting or feeding habitat for the willow flycatcher are expected to be minor to negligible.

Cumulative Effects Because direct and indirect impacts to species would be minor to negligible, there would be no significant, additive cumulative effects beyond those already known to occur. Nor are any additional, future private or federal actions in the project area known that might result in additive cumulative effects. Summary: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to negatively impact populations at the forest level.

Chapter 3-162

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Socio-Economic Resources______The following discussions and analyses on socio-economic resources were written by Range Specialist Dave Booth. Applicable direction is also contained in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan (pp. 123-127). Statistics and other economic information taken from the Economic Profile System – Human Dimension Toolkit EPS-HDT May 16, 2013. A Profile of Sublette County, Wyoming. Available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt. Overview of Issues Addressed Issue: Social and Economic Impacts on Local Communities Scoping for this project highlighted social and economic concern related to potential disturbance of historic range use, and the potential effects on local economies and lifestyles due to changes in livestock grazing practices. Issue Indicators . Employment and income information at the county level . Loss of revenue for local communities . Benefits to natural resources due to changes in livestock practices

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Agriculture has been an important industry in Sublette County and in the state of Wyoming for over a hundred years. Domestic livestock grazing within and adjacent to the project area has played a role in maintaining the vitality of Pinedale, Big Piney, and the surrounding communities since the early 1900s when the first significant numbers of non-native people in the county were associated with the cattle and sheep industry. (Taylor 2003) Today, approximately 5.14 percent of total employment in Sublette County is related to the agriculture industry, which includes farming and raising livestock (EPS-HDT 2013). A segment of the local beef industry is dependent on the use of the National Forest for summer livestock forage, while private property is used to produce hay for the cattle during the winter. In addition, local businesses derive a portion of their income by providing goods and services to support the livestock industry. Cattle ranches also provide open space and wildlife habitat as well as aesthetic values associated with these relatively undeveloped areas. In past decades, agriculture has contributed a relatively secure source of economic stability to the county. Although it currently makes up a relatively small percentage of jobs in Sublette County, it is the 6th largest sector of employment. The county is lacking in terms of manufacturing, management service, finance and insurance, and wholesale sector employment. Thus, Sublette County has a low level of economic diversity (Taylor and Foulke, 2008). However, in recent years, the mining industry (primarily oil and gas) has become increasingly important and now provides far and away the largest proportion of jobs (26.1 percent) and the largest amount of revenue to local communities (SBCC 2013). As drilling expands on public and private lands, changes in the local economy and culture have begun to accelerate as workers leave other employment and non-residents move into the county to take advantage of the high- paying mining jobs. Sublette County has experienced increased population growth for the last decade; the population has increased 64 percent from 2000 to 2011 (5,920 versus 9,758). This

Chapter 3-163

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest increase in residents has been largely driven by the oil and gas industry. (EPS-HDT 2013). In Sublette County, approximately 82 percent of all land is under federal and state ownership while about 18 percent is under private ownership. The high proportion of federal ownership and the rural nature of the area reduce the opportunity for many industries. Nevertheless, these public lands provide for clean water, clean air, extensive wildlife habitat, beautiful scenery, and outstanding outdoor opportunities that make the Sublette County area one of the most desirable parts of the country to live in and visit. Furthermore, these public lands may serve an economic role by creating a setting that attracts and retains people and businesses. The Forest also provides products and services that contribute to the well-being of the local community in a variety of ways that cannot always be measured economically. In addition to forage for the livestock industry, the forest provides timber, watershed protection, firewood, fish and wildlife for recreationists and outfitters, recreational opportunities for hiking, biking, off-road vehicle riding, and solitude and other aesthetic values. (EPS-HDT 2013) While permittees benefit from use of the forage on National Forest System lands, they have a responsibility to protect and maintain the resources that they use. Examples of some efforts that are required of permittees include such things as maintaining range improvements, moving livestock from natural congregation areas to reduce impacts in those areas, monitoring vegetation to ensure compliance with forage use standards, moving livestock from one pasture to another, observing pastures that are scheduled for rest to ensure that livestock do not use them, placing salt strategically in order to draw livestock away from congregating areas, and removing dead livestock from popular use areas in order to reduce conflicts between predators and recreationists.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Livestock Grazing) Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the No Action Alternative would phase-out livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Agriculture related employment and spending, in the local community may be expected to decrease by a minor amount as a result of discontinuing livestock grazing in the project area, together with oil and gas drilling becoming an even more dominant and lucrative industry in Sublette County. If another livestock grazing allotment on National Forest System lands is closed the local custom and culture of domestic livestock grazing may be expected to continue to shift from that of a cowboy culture to that of an oil and gas and tourism service industrial culture. Local communities, agriculture, and local customs would continue to be influenced by a number of dynamic factors, including high wages in the oil and gas drilling industries and demand for recreational/tourist accommodations/activities. These changes may alter many of the current conditions that are outlined in the Affected Environment section. The effects of implementing this alternative could potentially influence the permittees to reduce their cow herds to a level that would cause the ranches to no longer be sustainable. It is impossible to know or analyze whether the permittees would find grazing elsewhere, either on other federal allotments or on private land. If the ranches of the Sherman permittees were to stop raising cattle, effects on the local community would be minimal since only two permittees graze cattle on the Sherman Allotment.

Chapter 3-164

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

While the net cash income that permittees receive is affected by reductions in their permitted use, it is possible that they could obtain profitable employment in another industry.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and future reasonably foreseeable activities and associated effects include the oil and gas boom in Sublette County and the effects of climate change such as might increase the incidence of drought and thereby limit the amount of time cattle could spend on the range. Under this scenario it is more likely that the local ranches that depend on their permitted grazing use in the Sherman Allotment would go out of the cattle business. Cumulative effects to individual ranchers and local communities would be somewhat greater under this alternative than under the proposed action which authorizes livestock grazing. However, the effect on local communities would be minimal because only two permittees graze the Sherman Allotment.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest Plan direction that is relevant to the socio-economic effects of each alternative is limited. The Forest Plan articulates a goal for community prosperity with one objective of providing forage Forest-wide for approximately 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing annually. Because Alternative 1 does not authorize any domestic livestock grazing, this alternative does not contribute to that goal and objective. Because it is a Forest-wide goal and objective, however, it is possible that the goal and objective would still be met on other allotments, however unlikely.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Agriculture related employment, spending, and other impacts to the local community would not be expected to change as a result of continuing to authorize livestock grazing with additional standards as described under this alternative (see Chapter 2, Alternative 2 description). Changes in the local custom and culture of domestic livestock grazing would not be expected, as livestock grazing would still be authorized on National Forest System lands. Agriculture’s influence on the local communities would not be expected to change as a result of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative. Additional livestock grazing-use restrictions under this alternative may increase the amount of effort and costs that permittees would have to bear in order to continue to graze their livestock, however, no change in the permitted numbers of livestock or duration of grazing as currently authorized would be expected. Impacts to individual permittees may be compared by considering the number of livestock that can be grazed, and the duration of time that the livestock may use and occupy the grazing allotments. Since livestock removal may be required at any time prior to the permitted “off date” in order to comply with grazing use requirements, the duration of time that livestock can stay on the allotment depends largely on the permittees’ effectiveness in managing the livestock to comply with those grazing requirements. Permittee effectiveness can be highly variable as a result of differing financial resources, personal commitment, and available labor pools. Therefore a more accurate measurement of impacts to individual permittees is the relative amount of resources, including both personal labor and financial investment that they must expend to keep their livestock on the allotment for the full grazing season.

Chapter 3-165

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Under Alternative 2, permittees would need to monitor the vegetation and move cattle away from natural congregation areas more frequently. They may be required to pay for additional structural range improvements necessary to meet desired conditions. Implementation of this alternative would be expected to increase the level of effort that is required of permittees in order to meet the additional grazing use and occupancy requirements and mitigation measures as outlined in Chapter 2. As a result of the implementation of additional standards required by Alternative 2 (50 percent forage utilization on riparian and upland habitats and no more than 20 percent streambank alteration) habitat for amphibians would be improved and maintained, watershed condition would be improved and protected, conflicts with grizzly bears would be reduced, and there would be more forage left for a variety of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Cumulative Effects Local communities, agriculture, and local customs will continue to be influenced by a number of dynamic factors such as climate change, fuel costs, labor costs, feed costs, and cattle prices. These changes may alter many of the current conditions that are outlined in the Affected Environment section. Additional livestock grazing-use restrictions may increase the amount of effort and costs that permittees would have to bear in order to continue to graze their livestock. However, the impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative’s grazing-use restrictions added to the effects of past, present or future actions are not expected to substantially change agriculture’s influence on local communities. Permittees would continue to conduct domestic livestock grazing and associated activities on the National Forest. Future changes in livestock grazing may come about as a result of compliance with laws that affect activities on National Forest System lands such as the Endangered Species Act, disease transmission (brucellosis), and increasing large predator populations. These changes would be expected regardless of whether Alternative 2 is implemented. Implementation of this alternative would not be expected to cause a substantial change to the current situation as it affects local permittees. The financial success of businesses such as ranching operations is affected by a multitude of factors, many beyond the control of ranchers and agencies. Those ranches that are in danger of financial failure would be expected to be most affected by the increased level of effort that would be necessary to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in this alternative. It would be difficult, if not impossible to determine whether this is the case for any of the permittees that graze their livestock on the allotments considered in this analysis. It is assumed that there is a small possibility that these additional requirements, when added to the other financial challenges inherent in small business operation, may contribute to the failure of an individual ranch. The likelihood of individual ranch failures may be slightly greater under Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 because while Alternative 2 requires financial and personal efforts to stay in compliance with management requirements, Alternative 1 does not allow any livestock grazing. Effects to local communities and agriculture would be limited because of the limited numbers of ranchers directly affected by these alternatives. However the level of risk to communities would be slightly greater under Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 since ranch failure has a greater potential under Alternative 1 than Alternative 2.

Chapter 3-166

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest Plan direction that is relevant to the socio-economic effects of each alternative is limited. The Forest Plan articulates a goal for community prosperity with one objective of providing forage Forest-wide for approximately 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing annually. Because Alternative 2 authorizes the currently permitted use of approximately 46,000 AUMs, (this alternative is consistent with, and contributes to that goal and objective.

Other Required Analyses______

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the resource or its use is lost for a period of time. There would be no irretrievable loss of resources for the resources analyzed in this document. An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species or disturbance to protected cultural resources). Irreversible commitments would only apply to rangelands if they became non-functional and this would not occur under these alternatives. While isolated areas may remain in less than desired condition under Alternative 2, there are no irreversible or irretrievable effects. Relationship between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity The indicators of rangeland function directly describe the effects to long-term productivity. In other words, when rangeland function is at risk, long-term productivity is at risk. Rangeland function is not at risk under these alternatives. The short-term use of livestock grazing as described under Alternative 2 would not affect long- term productivity as design features and monitoring are set up to address functionality. No long term effects would result due to short term commitments. Other Required Disclosures National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with…other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

National Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 requirements (36 CFR Part 800) are most effectively met when the process is initiated early in project planning. For this grazing analysis the Forest Service notified the State Historic Preservation Officer as well as three Tribes to determine their interest, assess existing information, and identify known sensitive areas. A Class I Overview was completed for this EIS analysis and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer for review (Schoen 2011).

Environmental Justice: As stated in Executive Order 12898, it is required that all Federal actions consider the potential of disproportionate effects on minority and low-income

Chapter 3-167

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest populations in the local region. The principals of Environmental Justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness implications associated with Federal land management actions. The Council on Environmental Quality (1997) provides the following definitions in order to provide guidance with the compliance of Environmental Justice requirements:  “Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”  “Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low- income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” According to the U.S. Census data (2011), 96.1 percent of the population in the study area is Caucasian. Thus, it is suggested that Sublette County does not have a minority population that meets the Environmental Justice criterion. There likely would not be a disproportionate adverse effect of management decisions on minority populations. Table 3.36 reports the poverty rates for Sublette County and Wyoming in 2011 and 2000. Relative to the state and national averages, the affected analysis area has a low poverty rate. The poverty rate decreased from 2000 to 2011 in Sublette County while rising in much of the rest of the country. The poverty rate does not appear to meet the Environmental Justice criterion as defined by the Council of Environmental Quality (1997). There does not appear to be a low income community in Sublette County that experiences a greater exposure to environmental affects relative to low income populations in the broader geographic setting in which the study area for this analysis exists. Thus, there likely would not be a disproportionate adverse effect of management decisions on low income populations.

Table 0.36: Poverty Status by State and County

2011 2000 Sublette County 5,5 % 8.7 % Wyoming 10.1% 10.4 % United States 15.0 % 11.3 %

The alternatives developed have been considered with respect to the Environmental Justice requirements of NEPA analysis. According to the Environmental Justice criterion defined in the Council on Environmental Quality (1997) and the racial distribution and poverty levels reported for Sublette County, there likely would not be any disproportionate adverse effects on minority and low income populations. Thus, for the purpose of this FEIS, neither of the management alternatives would result in a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority or low income populations.

Chapter 3-168

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Preparers and Contributors ______The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement:

ID TEAM MEMBERS: Hoelscher, Robert, District Forest Ranger-Big Piney Ranger District Hayward, Chad, USFS, Project Leader and Vegetation Resource Specialist Delong, Anita, USFS NEPA Coordinator Behrens, Joanna, USFS Writer-Editor Anderson, Matt, USFS South Zone Fish Biologist Booth, David, USFS Natural Resource Specialist Johnson, Tyler USFS Botanist Brown, Mary, USFS Recreation Officer Roberts, Ann, USFS Wildlife Biologist Casey, Jenna, USFS Wildlife Biologist Hanvey, Gary, USFS Forest Biologist Schoen, Jamie USFS Forest Archaeologist Simon, Ronna, USFS Forest Hydrologist Winthers, Eric, USFS Soils Scientist

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Federal Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest (Lead Agency) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

County Sublette County Commissioners

Tribes Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Fort Washakie, Wyoming

Chapter 4-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Distribution of the DEIS ______This FEIS will be posted electronically at the Bridger-Teton National Forest website, http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/btnf/landmanagement/projects, and distributed to individuals who specifically request a copy of the document. A notice of availability of this Final EIS will be sent to those who submitted comments during the scoping period and to the Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, state and local governments, and organizations listed above.

Appendices______Appendix A – Food Storage Order Appendix B – Allotment Management Plan Appendix C – Response to Comments Appendix D – Monitoring Plan Appendix E – Memorandum of Understanding between the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the U. S. Forest Service Appendix F – Climate Change

Chapter 4-2

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Chapter 4-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management DEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Glossary of Range Terms______Browse: Leaves, small twigs, and shoots of shrubs, seedling and sapling trees available for forage for livestock and wildlife.

Browsing: The feeding on the above-ground parts of trees and shrubs (buds, shoots and leaves) by livestock or wild animals

Decreaser plant species: Plant species of the original vegetation that will decrease in relative amount with continued over use. Often termed decreasers

Desirable plant species: Species of moderate to high palatability preferred by animals. Also, species that are beneficial with respect to soil and water conservation.

Increaser plant species: Plant species of the original vegetation that increase in relative amount, at least for a time, under over use. Commonly termed increasers

Invader plant species: Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original vegetation and will invade under disturbance or continued overuse. Commonly termed invaders

Overgrazing: Continued over use creating an over grazed range.

Palatability: The relish that an animal shows for a particular species, plant or plant part.

Perennial: A plant that does not die after flowering but lives from year to year.

Proper grazing: The act of continuously obtaining proper use.

Proper stocking: Placing a number of animals on a given area that will result in proper use at the end of the planned grazing period. Continued proper stocking will lead to proper grazing.

Range: Relatively extensive areas of land suitable for grazing but not for cultivation, especially in arid, semi-arid or forested regions.

Rangeland: Land suitable for grazing by domestic livestock. The vegetation consists mostly of native grasses, grass like plants, forbs and shrubs.

Range condition: The state and health of the range based on what that range is naturally capable of producing.

Range condition trend: The direction of change in range condition and soil. Syn., range trend, in range condition and trend.

Range management: The art and science of planning and directing range use to obtain sustained maximum animal production, consistent with perpetuation of the natural resources.

Seral: Refers to species or communities that are eventually replaced by other species or communities within a sere.

G-1

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management DEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Seral Community: The relatively transitory communities that develop under plant succession.

Seral Stages: The relatively transitory communities that develop under plant succession.

Sere: The whole series of communities that develop in a given situation during plant succession.

Shrub: A plant that has persistent, woody stems and a relatively low growing habit, and that generally produces several basal shoots. Generally up to 6 feet tall.

Species composition: The relative proportions of various plant species in the total cover in a given area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc.

Vegetation: Vascular plants in general, or a particular aggregation of vascular plants, especially in relation to the communities they form, but never solely taxonomically as in floristic.

G-2

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Literature Cited

16 USC 1536. 2009. United States Code Title 16: Conservation, Chapter 35: Endangered Species, Section 1536: Interagency Cooperation. Government Printing Office United States Code Online. [Online] 2009. http://www.gpoaccess.gov. 2210 Files. Big Piney Ranger District Rangeland Analysis and Plans Files. Abendroth, Diane. 2012. HC Aspen Report year 5. Unpublished. Fire Effects Module, Grand Teton National Park.

Agouridis, C.T., S.R. Workman, R.C. Warner, and G.D. Jennings. 2005. Livestock Grazing Management Impacts on Stream Water Quality: A Review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41(3):591-606. American Farmland Trust (AFT). 2002. Strategic Ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West: Mapping the Threats to Prime Ranchland in Seven Western States. www.farmland.org. Anderson, Matthew. January 7th, 2013. Sherman C and H Grazing Fisheries Report. Prepared by Fisheries Biologist, Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Bakke, P. 2009. Physical Science and Climate Change: A Guide for Biologists (and Others). Stream Notes, Rocky Mountain Research Station. April 2009. Bartelt, P.E., and E.R. Peterson. 1997. Idaho Species Account: Western Toad. Idaho Herp News (December) 9 (6): 8-10. Bartelt, P.E. 2000. A Biophysical Analysis of Habitat Selection in Western Toads (Bufo boreas) in Southeastern Idaho. PhD dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho. 3 pages. Bear, E.A., T.E. McMahon, A.V. Zale. 2007. Comparative Thermal Requirements of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout: Implications for Species Interactions and Development of Thermal Protection Standards. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136:4, 1113-1121. Beck, J.L., J.W. Connelly, and K.P. Reese. 2009. Recovery of Greater-sage Grouse Habitat Features in Wyoming Big Sagebrush Following Prescribed Fire. Restoration Ecology 17:315-327 Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. 275 pages American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 6. Binns, A. 1977. Present Status of Indigenous Populations of Cutthroat Trout, Salmo clarki in Southwestern Wyoming. Fish. Tech. Bull. No. 2. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 58 pages. Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biological Conservation 58 (1991)41-67. Booth, David. March 28, 2013. Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Project, Socio-

Lit-1

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

economics Resource Report. Prepared by Natural Resource Specialist, Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Brooks, M.L. C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J. Grace, J. J. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes. BioScience 54:677-688. Brown, Mary, May 2013. Sherman C&H Grazing Recreation Report. Prepared by Recreation Officer, Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Burton, Timothy A., Steven J. Smith, and Ervin R. Cowley. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation—Multiple Indicators Version 5.0 – 2008. Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management and Intermountain Region, U.S. Forest Service. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150. Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, D.E. Pearson, J.R. Squires, and K.S. McKelvey. 1999. Comparative Ecology of Lynx in North America. Chapter 14 in Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Casey, Jenna. May 2011. Livestock Grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Biological Evaluation and MIS Report and Biological Assessment. Prepared by Jenna Casey, Wildlife Biologist and updated by Ann Roberts, February, 2013, Wildlife Biologist. Plant Resources by Tyler Johnson, Botanist. Big Piney and Pinedale Ranger Districts Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development of Criteria for Fine Sediment in the Northern Rockies Ecoregion. EPA 910/9-87-162. Seattle, Washington, 278 pages. Clark, P.E. 1994. Livestock - Big Game Interactions: A Selected Review with Emphasis on Literature from the Interior Pacific Northwest. 109 pages. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Unpublished. Clary, W. P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing or Riparian Areas in Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. May 1989. General Technical Report INT-263. Ogden, UT. Clary, W. P. and W. C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble Height as a Tool for Management of Riparian Areas. Journal of Range Management. 53(6): 562-573. Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream Channel and Vegetation Responses to Late Spring Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management 52: 218-227. Cole, G. F. 1972. Grizzly bear – elk relationsips in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 36(2)556-561. Coleman, M.A. and K.D. Fausch. 2007. Cold Summer Temperature Limits Recruitment of Age-0 Cutthroat Trout in High-Elevation Colorado Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1231–1244. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of

Lit-2

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. Characteristics and dynamics of greater sage grouse populations. Pages 53‐67 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly. Greater Sage‐Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitat. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California, Press, Berkeley, California. Cook, J. G. 2002. Chapter 5: Nutrition and Food. Pages 259-349 in Toweill, D. E. and J. W. Thomas (eds.). North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 962 pages.

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of Summer-autumn Nutrition and Parturition Date on Reproduction and Survival of Elk. Wildlife Monographs 155:1-61. Cowley E. R. 2002. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration. Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office. 12 pages. Unpublished. Cowley, E.R. and T.A. Burton. 2005. Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation— Multiple Indicators. Tech. Bull. No. 2005-2. Boise, ID: USDI Bureau of Land Management. 33 pages plus appendices. CRCT Conservation Team. 2006. Conservation Agreement for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchusclarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 24 pages. Davies, Kirk W., Jonathan D. Bates, Tony J Svejcar, and Chad S. Boyd. 2010. Effects of Long-Term Livestock Grazing on Fuel Characteristics in Rangelands: An Example from the Sagebrush Steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 63 (6):662-669. Debano, L.F., Neary, D.G., Ffolliott, P.F. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 333 pages. Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 pages. Dobkin, D. S., and J. D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe Landscapes in Jeopardy. Distributions, Abundances, and the Uncertain Future of Birds and Small Mammals in the Intermountain West. High Desert Ecological Research Institute, Bend, Oregon. Eckert, R.E., Jr. and J.S. Spencer, 1986. Vegetation Response on Allotments Grazed under Rest-Rotation Management. Journal of Range Management. 39(2): 166-174. [843] Eckert, R.E., Jr. and J.S. Spencer. 1987. Growth and Reproduction of Grasses Heavily Grazed under Rest-Rotation Management. Journal of Range Management, 40(2):156-

Lit-3

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

159. Elliot, W. J., D. Page-Dumroese and P.R. Robichaud. 1996. The Effects of Forest Management on Erosion and Soil Productivity. Symposium on Soil Quality and Erosion Interaction, July 7,1996. Soil and Water Conservation Society of America. Keystone, Colorado. 19 pages. Ellison, L. 1954. Subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau, Utah. Ecological Monographs. 24: 89-184. [861] Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Sole Source Aquifer Program information, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/SSA. French, S.P., M.G. French, and R.R. Knight. 1994. Grizzly bear use of army cutworm moths in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Int. Conf. Bear. Res. and Manage. 9(1):389- 399. Furniss, M.J., B.P. Staab, S. Hazelhurst, C.F. Clifton, K.B. Roby, B.L. Ilhardt, E.B. Larry, A.H. Todd, L.M. Reid, S.J. Hines, K.A. Bennett, C.H. Luce, and P.J. Edwards. 2010. Water, Climate Change, and Forests: Watershed Stewardship for a Changing Climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-812. Portland, Oregon: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 75 pages. Gomez, D. 1994. Conservation Assessment for the Spotted Frog in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 30 pages. Green, I.G., D.J. Mattson, and J.M. Peek. 1997. Spring feeding on ungulate carcasses by grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4)1040-1055. Gregory, J.S., and Gamett. 2009. Cattle Trampling of Simulated Bull Trout Redds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:361-366. Grogan, R. and F. Lindzey. 2007. Pronghorn Survival in Wyoming Final Report. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. October 2007. Laramie, Wyoming. Unpublished. Gunther, K.A. and R.A. Renkin. 1990. Grizzly bear predation on elk calves and other fauna of Yellowstone National Park. International Assoc. of Bear Research and Management 8:329-334. Hack, M.A. and K. Menzel. 2002. Pronghorn State and Province Status Report: 2001. In Proceedings of the 20th Biennial Pronghorn Antelope Workshop. Hall, F.C. and L. Bryant. 1995. Herbaceous Stubble Height as a Warning of Impending Cattle Grazing Damage to Riparian Areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-362. Portland, Oregon: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 9 pages. Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change. Restoration Ecology, 14(2):170-176.

Lit-4

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Harvey, A., 1987. Decaying organic materials and soil quality in the Inland Northwest: a management opportunity. U. S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Hayward, Chad. April 28, 2013. Sherman Allotment EIS Range Resource Report Prepared by Vegetation Natural Resource Specialist Big Piney/Kemmerer Ranger Districts, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Herrick et al. 2009. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosytems (Volumes I and II). Jeffrey E. Herrick, Justin W. Van Zee, Kris M. Havstad, Laura M. Burkett and Walter G. Whitford with contributions from Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Ericha M. Courtright, Alicia Melgoza C., Mike Pellant, David A. Pyke, Marta D. Remmenga, Patrick L. Shaver, Amrita G. de Soyza, Arlene J. Tugel and Robert S. Unnasch, USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 3JER, NMSU, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8003, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003- 8003, available online at: http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu Hironaka, M. 1985. Frequency Approaches to Monitor Rangeland Vegetation. Symposium on Use of Frequency for Rangeland Monitoring. William C. Krueger, Chairman. Proc., 38th Annual Meeting, Soc. For Range Management Feb. 1985. Salt Lake City, Utah. Society for Range Management 84-86. Hirsch, C.L., S.E. Albeke, and T.P. Nesler. 2006. Range-wide Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy Team Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Haroldson, M. A., C. C. Schwartz, S. Cherry, and D. S. Moody. 2004. Possible effects of elk harvest on fall distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1)129-137. Holland, K. A., W.C. Leininger and M. J. Trlica. 2005. Grazing History Affects Willow Communities in a Montane Riparian Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(2):148-154. Holmes, J. A. and M. J. Johnson. 2005. Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella brewerii): a Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. 57 pages. (on file at the Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming) Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1986. Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines. Missoula, Montana. 108 pages. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2000-2009. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team - Annual Reports. USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center. [Online] 2000- 2009. http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/products/IGBST. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2010. 2009 Whitebark Pine Cone Production Report. USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center. [Online]. http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/IGBST/2009_WBP_Report. Irving, J.S. and T.C. Bjornn. 1984. Effects of Substrate Size Composition on Survival of Kokanee Salmon and Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout Embryos. Report to Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Moscow,

Lit-5

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Idaho. Jimenez, M. D., D. W. Smith, D.R. Stahler, E. Albers, and R. F. Krischke. 2010. Wyoming Wolf Recovery 2009 Annual Report. Ecological Services. Helena : USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Pages WY-1 to WY-28. Jimenez, M.D., D.W. Smith, S.P. Woodruff, D.R. Stahler, E. Albers, and R.F. Krischke. 2009. Wyoming Wolf Recovery 2008 Annual Report. Pages WY-1 to WY-46 in Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2008 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena. Johnston, H.C. and F.J. Rahel. 2003. Assessing Temperature Tolerance of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Based on Constant and Cycling Thermal Regimes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 92-99. Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts. Kauffman, J.B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. Effects of Late Season Cattle Grazing on Riparian Plant Communities. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 36, No. 6 (Nov., 1983), pages 685-691. Keinath, D., and J. Bennett. 2000. Distribution and Status of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 22 pages. Available at: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wynddiWYNDDlReports.htm. Kendall, K.C. 1983. Use of pine nuts by grizzly and black bears in the Yellowstone area. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 5:166-173. Kie, J. G. and B. Czech. 2000. Chapter 30: Mule and Black-tailed Deer. Pages 629-657 in Demarais, S. and P. R. Krausman (ed.). Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 778 pages. Kie, J. G., A. A. Ager, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson, P. K. Coe, M. M. Rowland, M. J. Wisdom, and M. Vavra. 2005. The Starkey Database: Spatial-environmental Relations of North American elk, Mule Deer, and Cattle on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in NE Oregon. March 20, 2004. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 69 pages. Kleinschmidt, K, 2007. Soils Specialist Report – Horse Creek Fire BAER. Unpublished. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. On file in the Big piney District and Forest Supervisors office. Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and Habitat Characteristics of Lynx and Snowshoe Hares in North Central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845-851. Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Britell. 1990. Managing Spruce-fir Habitat for Lynx and Snowshoe Hares. Journal of Forestry 88:10-14. Leffert, R.L. 2005. Caribou National Forest Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide Version 1-2. USDA Forest Service. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 94 pages.

Lit-6

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Matthews, J.R., and C.J. Moseley (editors). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1- 560 + 33 pages, appendix + 6 pages, glossary + 16 pages, index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Mattson, D.J., B.M. Blanchard, R.R. Knight. 1991. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977-1987. Can. J. Zool. 69: 1619-1629. Mattson, D.J. 1997. Changes in Mortality of Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears. Ursus 10:129- 138. Mattson, D.J., B.M. Blanchard, R.R. Knight. 1992. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Mortality, Human Habituation, and Whitebark Pine Seed Crops. J. Wildl. Manag. 56(3): 432- 442. Mattson, D.J. and D.P. Reinhart. 1997. Excavation of red squirrel middens by grizzly bears in the whitebark pine zone. J. Applied Ecology 34(4)926-940. Mosely, J.C., S.C. Bunting, and M. Hironaka. 1991. Determining Range Condition from Frequency Data in Mountain Meadows of Central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 39(6):561-565. Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. pp 1-15. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 19. Moseley, J.C., S.C. Bunting, and M. Hironaka. 1991. Determining Range Condition from Frequency Data in Mountain Meadows of Central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 39(6):561-565. Moseley, R.K. 1996. Report on the Conservation Status of Lesquerella paysonii in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Natural Resource Policy Bureau. November 1996. Boise, Idaho. Unpublished. Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis, and J. O’Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best Management Practices Policy. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report No. 15. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. 67 pages. Available at http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/pag/. Mowat, G., K.G. Poole, and M. O‘Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of Lynx in Northern Canada and Alaska. Chapter 9 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvely, and J.R. Squires. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-30. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Nader, G., K.W. Tate, R. Atwill, and J. Bushnell. 1998. Water Quality Effect of Rangeland Beef Cattle Excrement. Rangelands 20(5):19-25. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Soil Quality Indicators: Organic Matter. Soil Quality Information Sheet Series. NRCS National Soil Survey Center in Cooperation with the NRCS Soil Quality Institute, and the ARS National Soil Tilth Lab. Online at http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/sqiinfo.html. (verified 15 Jan. 2003).

Lit-7

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

1998. National Forestry Manual, September 1998. Available on-line at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/nfmanual/ 2001. Soil Quality Information Sheet. Rangeland Soil Quality Compaction. Prepared by the Soil Quality Institute, Grazing Lands Technology Institute, and National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA; the Jornada Experimental Range, Agricultural Research Service, USDA; and Bureau of Land Management, USDI). Available online at: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/RSQIS4.pdf 2003. Soil Quality Institute. Soil Compaction: Detection, Prevention, and Alleviation. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available on-line at http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/ 2003a. Technical Note No. 5. Managing Soil Organic Matter, The Key to Air and Water Quality. NRCS National Soil Survey Center in cooperation with the NRCS Soil Quality Institute. Available online with updates at http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_matter/files/sq_tn_5.pdf 2013. United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Rangeland Health. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014 218. Website: accessed April 30, 2013. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Graphical Precipitation and Snow Water Equivalent Data, by Water Year, for Blind Bull Summit SNOTEL site, Available at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/wygraph-multi- 1page.pl?stationidname=10g02s&state=WY Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accumulated Precipitation Data for Blind Bull Summit SNOTEL site. Available at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/snotel/snotelday2.pl?site=353&station=10g02s &state=wy&report=precip_accum_hist Nicholoff, S.H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. Noble, Edward L. and Lundeen, Lloyd. 1971. Analysis of Rehabilitation Treatment Alternatives for Sediment Control. In Symposium on Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment, October 19-21, 1971, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, School of Forestry and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Continuing Education Publications: pages 86-96. O'Brien, R. A.; Johnson, C. M.; Wilson, A. M.; Elsbernd, V. C. 2003. Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 13 pages. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr104.html Orr, Howard K. 1970. Runoff and Erosion Control by Seeded and Native Vegetation on a Forest Burn: Black Hills, South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-60. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Lit-8

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Experiment Station. 12 pages. Page-Dumroese, D.S., M. Jurgensen, W. Elliot, T. Rice, J. Nesser, T. Collins, and R. Meurisse. 2000. Soil quality guidelines for forest sustainability in the Northwestern North America. Forest Ecology and Management 138:445-462. Patla, D.A. 2000. Amphibians of the Bridger-Teton National Forest: Species Distributions and Status. Report prepared for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Feb. 22, 2000. 24 pages plus appendices. Patla, D.A. 2000a. Amphibians of the National Elk Refuge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Part 2. A Report Based on Surveys in 2000. Project report for USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative and National Elk Refuge. 12 pages + tables and figures. Patla, D.A. 2001. Conservation Assessment for the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming. Report prepared for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. March 17, 2001. 18 pages plus appendices. Idaho State University Herpetology Laboratory. Boise, Idaho. Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. pretiosa): a Technical Conservation Assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf Peek, J. M. and P. R. Krausman. 1996. Chapter 11: Grazing and Mule Deer. Pages 183- 192 in Krausman, P. R. (ed.). Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. 440 pages. Peterson, R. L. 1955. North American Moose. University of Toronto Press, London, Ontario, Canada. Platts, W. S. 1984. Compatibility of Livestock Grazing Strategies with Fisheries. Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Intermountain Research Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Boise, Idaho 83702. Platts, W. S. 1986. Riparian-Stream Management. In: National Range Conference Proceedings; 1985 November 6-8; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 70-74. Platts, W.S. 1991. “Livestock Grazing.” Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Ed. W.R. Meehan. pp 389-423. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 19. Bethesda, Maryland. Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental Management. 27: 787-802. 2001. Poollen, W.V. and John R. Lacey. 1979. Herbage Response to Grazing Systems and Stocking Intensities. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Jul., 1979), pages. 250-253. Randall, J. and P. Archual. 2010. Horse Creek wildfire reconnaissance Fall 2010. Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. 3 pages.

Lit-9

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Rehm-Lorber, J. A., J. A. Blakesley, D. C. Pavlacky Jr. and D. J. Hanni. 2010. Monitoring the Birds of Wyoming: 2009 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MWB- 09-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado, 64 pages. Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-141. 118 pages. Ripple, Beschta, Fortin, and Robbins. 2013. Trophic cascades from wolves to grizzly bears in Yellowstone. Accepted for publication, doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12123. Roberts, A. 2013. Livestock Grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment, Biological Evaluation and MIS Report. U.S. Forest Service. Unpublished. See Big Piney District Files. Robichaud, P.R., J.L. Beyers, and D.G. Neary 2000. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 85 pages. Available online at: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/library/Robichaud/Robichaud2000n/2000n.pdf. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 380 pages. Rowe, M., D, Essig, and B. Jessup. 2003. Guide to Selection of Sediment Targets for use in Idaho TMDLs. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise. Rubey, William W. 1973. Geologic Map of the Afton Quadrangle and Part of the Big Piney Quadrangle, Lincoln and Sublette Counties, Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations map I-686. Rubey W., S. Oriel, and J. Tracey, Jr. 1980. Geologic Map and Structure Sections of the Cokeville 30-Minute Quadrangle, Lincoln and Sublette Counties, Wyoming. Miscellaneaous Investigations Series, U.S. Geological Survey. Ruediger, B., J. Claar. S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service, Missoula, Montana. Sawyer, H. and F. Lindzey. 2000. Jackson Hole Pronghorn Study. Final Report. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 41 pages. Sawyer, H., F. Lindzey and D. McWhirter. 2005. Mule Deer and Pronghorn Migration in Western Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(4): 1266-1273. Schoen, James. January 27, 2012. Sherman Cattle Allotment Cultural Resource Report Prepared by Forest Archeologist, Supervisor’s Office, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., and Broderson, W.D. (editors) 2002. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resources

Lit-10

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Conservation Service, USDA, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Schwartz, C.C. and L.A. Renecker. 1997. Chapter 14: Nutrition and Energetics. Pgs. 441- 478 in Franzmann, A. W. and C. C. Schwartz. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson and G.C. White. 2010. Hazards Affecting Grizzly Bear Survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(4):654-667. Sharazi, M.A., and W.A. Selm. 1979. A Stream Systems Evaluation: An Emphasis on Spawning Habitat for Salmonids. EPA-600/3-79-109. Corvallis, Oregon. 36 pages. Shiflet, T.N. 1994. Rangeland Cover Types of the United States. Society for Range Management, 1839 York Street, Denver, Colorado. Simon, R. 2008. Streambank Alteration Measurement and Implementation, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Final. November 5, 2008. 19 pages. Simon, R. 2009. Pass Creek Road Review—June 19, 2009. BTNF file report. June 30, 2009. 4 pages. Simon, Ronna. May 3, 2013. Sherman C&H Allotment Hydrology Report. Prepared by Forest Hydrologist, Supervisor’s Office, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Skovlin, J. M., P. Zager, and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Elk Habitat Selection and Evaluation. pages 531-555 in Toweill, D. E. and J. W. Thomas (eds.). North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Sloat M.R, Shepard B.B., White R.G, Carson S. 2005. Influence of Stream Temperature on the Spatial Distribution of Westslope Cutthroat Trout Growth Potential within the Madison River Basin, Montana. N. A. Journal of Fish Management 25(1):225–237. Smith, B.L. 2001. Winter Feeding of Elk in Western North America. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65:173-190. Sneva, F.A., L.R. Rittenhouse, and P.T. Tueller. 1980. Forty Years – Inside and Out. Pages 10-12 in Research in Range Management 1980 Progress Report, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center and Rangeland Resources Program, Special Report 586, June 1980. Sovell, L.A., B. Vondracek, J.A. Frost, and K.G. Mumford. 2000. Impacts of Rotational Grazing and Riparian Buffers on Physicochemical and Biological Characteristics of Southeastern Minnesota, USA, Streams. Environmental Management, 26(6):629-641. Squires, J.R., N.J. DeCesare, S. Tomson, L.F. Ruggiero and B. Oakleaf. 2003. Distribution of lynx and other forest carnivores in the Wyoming Range, Southcentral Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 47 pages. Squires, J.R. and T.R. Laurion. 2000. Lynx Home Range and Movements in Montana and Wyoming: Preliminary Results. Chapter 11 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvely, and J.R. Squires. Ecology and

Lit-11

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30.

Staso, J. and F.J. Rahel. 1994. Influence of Water Temperature on Interactions between Juvenile Colorado Cutthroat Trout and Brook Trout in a Laboratory Stream. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 123 (3): 289-297. Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. Sublette Conservation District. 2009. GR6 Horse Creek Field and Chemical Data. Available upon request from Sublette Conservation District; Pinedale, Wyoming. Taylor, D.T. 2003. The Role of Agriculture in Maintaining Open Spaces in Wyoming. September 2003 issue of Wyoming Open Spaces. www.uwyo.edu/openspaces. Taylor, D.T. and Foulke, Thomas. 2008. Sublette County Wyoming: A Socio-Economic Profile. Bridger-Teton Region, County Profile Series. University of Wyoming Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 40 pages. Ternent, M., and M. Haroldson. 2000. Grizzly bear use of insect aggregation sites documented from aerial telemetry and observations. Pages 36-39 in C. C. Schwartz and M. A. Haroldson, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 1999. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana. Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent -- a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233-253. Tyus, H.M., and C.A. Karp. 1989. Habitat Use and Streamflow Needs of Rare and Endangered Fishes, Yampa River, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89(14). 27 pages. (USFWS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, Montana. 181 pages. 1999. Biological Opinion of the Proposed Continuance of Permitted Livestock Grazing on the Northern Portions of the Pinedale Ranger District. Cheyenne, WY USA. Unpublished. 2000. Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. March 24, 2000. Federal Register 65(58): 16052-16086. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. July 3, 2003. Federal Register 68(128): 40076-40101. 2007. Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. Missoula, Montana. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment

Lit-12

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. April 2, 2009 Federal Register 74 15123-15188. 2011c. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: Biological Opinion for the 2010 Amendment to the Biological Assessment for the Continuance of Livestock Grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment, Big Piney Ranger District. Brider-Teton National Forest, Big Piney, Wyoming. 28 pages. 2013. Fed. Reg. Vol 78, No. 23, Monday, Feb. 4, 2013 Proposed Rule to establish a nonessential experimental population area for the North American wolverine in the Southern Rocky Mountains. of Colorado, northern New Mexico, and southern Wyoming. (USFS) U. S. Forest Service. 1990. Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan. Jackson, WY : USDA Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest, 1990. 1993. Soil Survey of the Bridger National Forest, Western Part. Available through the Forest Supervisors Office, Jackson, Wyoming. 1996. Properly Functioning Condition Process. Report on file at Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 76 pages. 1998. Region 4 Rangeland Capability and Suitability Determinations for Forest Plan Revisions. Unpublished white paper, Forest Service Handbook Intermountain Region (Region 4), Ogden, Utah. 1999. Amendment to the 1997 Biological Assessment for Livestock Grazing on the Northern Portions of the Pinedale Ranger District Bridger-Teton National Forest. Unpublished. 2001. Region 4 Forest Service Soil Quality Monitoring Methods. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Unpublished. 2001a. Soil Quality Information Sheet. Rangeland Soil Quality Compaction. Prepared by the Soil Quality Institute, Grazing Lands Technology Institute, and National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA; the Jornada Experimental Range, Agricultural Research Service, USDA; and Bureau of Land Management, USDI). Avalable online at: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/RSQIS4.pdf 2003. FSH 2509.18-2002-1. Soil Management Handbook, Chapter 2 Soil Quality Monitoring, Forest Service Handbook Intermountain Region (Region 4), Ogden, Utah. Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgibin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.18!r4_ALL. 2004. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region - Shoshone National Forest and Intermountain Region - Bridger-Teton National Forest Order 04-00-104. Bridger- Teton National Forest Food Storage Order. [Online] 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/btnf/news/food_storage.shtml. 2005. Grizzly Bear Final Biological Assessment for the Forest Plan Amendments for Grizzly Bear Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests.

Lit-13

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Unpublished. 2006. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2006. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Volume 1 and 2. National Forests in Montana and parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. March 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, Montana. 2008. Bridger-Teton Grazing Capability GIS layer. USDA Forest Service-Bridger- Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 2010. Intermountain Region Soil Criteria and Management Interpretation Guide USDA Forest Service-Intermountain Region, Odgen Utah. 2011. FSM 2500. Watershed and Air Management: Chapter 2550 – Soil Management. R4 Supplement Number 2500-2011-1. Forest Service Manual Intermountain Region (Region 4), Ogden, Utah. 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species: Known/ suspected distribution by Forest. Retrieved August 8, 2013 from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r4/plants-animals. 2013a. Management objectives and conservation actions as they apply to the spectrum of resource management projects and natural disturbance events on the BTNF that could potentially affect Boreal Toads or Columbia spotted frogs and their habitats. Unpublished Draft, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. U. S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. U. S. Forest Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Best Management Practices Outlined in Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Intermountain Region. Unpublished. University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team. 2004. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Moscow, Idaho. 26 pages. U. S. Geological Survey. National Water Information System: Web Interface. Water Quality Samples for the Nation. Data from well (USGS 425633110142401 34-112-05cbd01) are available online at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/qwdata/ Varva, M. 2005. Livestock Grazing and Wildlife: Developing Compatibilities. Journal of Rangeland Ecology and Management. 58(2): 128-134. Wasniewski, L., T. Clark, and R. Simon. 2007. Horse Creek Fire BAER Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation. Hydrology specialist report. 10 pages. Waugh, W. J. 1990. Stagnaton and Decadence of Cercocarpus montanus in Southeastern Wyoming Big Game Exclosure. Pages 89-95. In K. L. Johnson (editor) Proceeding of the fifth Utah Shrub Ecology Workshop. Utah State University. Logan, Utah.

Lit-14

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2008. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Winthers, Eric. September 12, 2013. Sherman Allotment Soil Specialist Report Prepared by Forest Soil Scientist, Supervisor’s Office, Bridger-Teton National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Winward, Alma H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 pages. Wisdom, M. J. and J. W. Thomas. 1996. Chapter 10: Elk. Pages 157-182 in Krausman, P. R. (ed.). Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. 440 pages. Wisdom, M. J. and J. G. Cook. 2000. North American Elk. Pages 694-735 in Demarais, S. and P. R. Krausman (eds.). Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 778 pages. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 501 pages. Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-wetland Areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST- 06/002+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. 105 pages. (WDEQ) Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Grazing Best Management Practices (final). Wyoming Nonpoint Source Mangement Plan. 49 pages. 2001. Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs), Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Pinedale Fish Management, Sub-Basin Management Plans. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Pinedale, Wyoming. 2005. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Chapter 8. Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters. 21 pages. 2007. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Chapter 1. Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards. 27 pages plus appendices. (WGFD) Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2001. Pinedale Fish Management, Basin Management Plans. Pinedale, Wyoming. Basin: Horse Creek Drainage (7HO). Green River, Wyoming. 7 pages. 2003. Final Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. June 24, 2003. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2004. Elk Feedgrounds in Wyoming. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming. 5400 Bishop

Lit-15

Sherman Cattle & Horse Allotment Grazing and Management EA Bridger-Teton National Forest

Blvd. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82006. 2008. Big Game 2007 Job Completion Reports. Accessed through WGFD website November 2009. http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/biggamejcr2007/index.asp. 2009a. Pinedale 2008 Job Completion Reports. Accessed online at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/biggamejcr2008/index.asp. 2009b. Grazing Influence, Management and Objective Development in Wyoming’s Greater Sage Grouse Habitat. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 2009c. WHAM database available at Wyoming Game and Fish Regional Offices. 2010. Horse Creek Wildfire Reconnaissance 2010. Unpublished data. Pinedale Wyoming. 2010a. Ryegrass Complex Lek Observation History. Unpublished data. Pinedale, Wyoming Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2009. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. October 2009 update. Wyoming, State of. 2008. Executive Order 2008-2: Greater-Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Office of the Governor, State Capitol. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Yeo, J.T., J.M. Peek, W. T. Wittinger, and C. T. Kvale. 1993. Influence of Rest-Rotation Cattle Grazing on Mule Deer and Elk Habitat Use in East-Central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 46(3): 245-250. Yoakum, J.D. and B.W. O’Gara. 2000. Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. pg. 559 – 575. Young, M. K. (tech. ed.). 1995. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report RM-GTR-256, 16-23.

Lit-16

Appendices

Appendix A United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region—Shoshone National Forest Intermountain Region—Bridger-Teton National Forest

OCCUPANCY AND USE RESTRICTIONS

For the purpose of minimizing adverse interactions between bears and humans and pursuant to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 261.50 (a) and (b), the following uses are restricted in those areas of the Shoshone National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest as shown on the attached map (Exhibit B) and hereby made part of this Order. Also attached, and hereby made part of this Order, are Definitions (Exhibit A) of terms used in support of the restrictions. This Order is effective March 1 through December 1, annually, until rescinded.

1. Possessing or storing any food or refuse, as specified in the Order (36 CFR 261.58 (cc). 2. Possessing, storing, or transporting any bird, fish, or other animal, or parts thereof, as specified in the Order (36 CFR 261.58 (s). 3. Camping as specified in the Order (36 CFR 261.58 (e).

UNDER THIS ORDER IT IS REQUIRED THAT

1. All food and refuse must be acceptably stored or acceptably possessed during daytime hours. 2. All food and refuse must be acceptably stored during nighttime hours, unless it is being prepared for eating, being eaten, being transported, or being prepared for acceptable storage. 3. Any harvested animal carcass must be acceptably stored, unless the carcass is being field dressed, transported, being prepared for eating, or being prepared for acceptable storage. 4. Camping or sleeping areas must be established at least ½ mile from a known animal carcass or at least 100 yards from an acceptably stored animal carcass.

EXEMPTIONS

Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (e) the following persons are exempt from this Order: 1. Persons with a permit issued by the Forest Supervisor specifically exempting them from the effect of this Order. 2. Persons in the act of placing black bear baits for the lawful purpose of hunting black bears under state law and regulation. 3. Any Federal or State officer placing baits to capture animals for research or management purposes as part of their official duties.

These restrictions are in addition to the general prohibitions in 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A. This Order supersedes any previous Order prohibiting or restricting the same, or similar, acts in the above-described areas.

Done this day 12 of December, 2004.

/s/ Rick Cables /s/ Jack Troyer RICK CABLES JACK TROYER Regional Forester Regional Forester Rocky Mountain Region Intermountain Region

Any violation of these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 for an individual or $10,000.00 for an organization, and/or imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both (Title 16 USC 551, Title 18 USC 3571 (b)(6), Title 18 USC 3581 (b)(7)).

Exhibit A Occupancy and Use Order No. 04-00-104 Special Order—Food Storage and Sanitation Definitions 1. “Food and Refuse” means any substance, solid or liquid (excluding water, baled hay, or hay cubes without additives) or refuse, which is or may be eaten or otherwise taken into the body to sustain health or life, provide energy, or promote growth of any person or animal. Also includes items such as soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, canned foods, pet foods, processed livestock feed and grains, personal hygiene products, and empty food and beverage containers. 2. “Animal carcass” means the dead body or parts thereof, of any harvested mammal, bird, or fish, including the head or skull plate with antlers or horns and hide or cape of big game animals and any domestic livestock that may be found in the restricted area. Packaged or prepared animal carcass products transported into the restricted area for consumption, game birds, small mammals, or fish harvested for consumption in the restricted area are considered food under the previous definition. 3. “Acceptably stored” means: a. Stored in bear-resistant container certified through the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Courtesy Inspection Program. A container may be certified by the local district ranger or their designated representative(s) if it meets the IGBC criteria, or b. Stored in a closed vehicle where the storage compartment is constructed of solid, non- pliable material that, when secured, will have no openings, hinges, lids, or coverings that would allow a bear to gain entry by breaking, bending, tearing, biting, or pulling with its claws (any windows in the vehicle must be closed), or c. Suspended at least 10 feet clear of the ground at all points and four feet horizontally from any supporting tree or pole, or d. Stored within a hard-sided residence, building, or storage container subject to the terms and conditions of a special-use authorization or operating plan, or e. Stored by other methods approved in a permit issued by the forest supervisor responsible for the area where the method is proposed for use. f. For animal carcasses: stored as per 3. a-e when located from 100 yards to ½ mile of a camping or sleeping area or within 200 yards of a National Forest System Trail. Animal carcasses are not considered acceptably stored when within 100 yards of a camping or sleeping area or National Forest System Trail. Animal carcasses more than ½ mile from a camping area or sleeping area and more than 200 yards from a National Forest System Trail may be left on the ground. g. Animal carcasses killed or harvested (and parts thereof) within ½ mile of any established camping area or sleeping area must be acceptably stored, possessed, or moved to a distance beyond ½ mile from any such camp or sleeping area by the party(-ies) responsible for killing or harvesting such mammal.

4. “Acceptably possessed” means: a. Possessed or attended during daytime by a person(s) that is physically present within 100 feet and direct sight of the accessible food, or b. Possessed or attended by such a person(s) for the purpose of field dressing lawfully taken animal carcasses, transporting any food or animal carcass, preparing any animal carcass or food for eating, or eating any food. 5. “Camping/sleeping area” means National Forest System Lands temporarily used for the purpose of overnight occupancy without a permanently fixed structure or lands temporarily occupied by unattended camping equipment. 6. “Daytime” means ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset, Mountain Time. 7. “Night time” means ½ hour after sunset to ½ hour before sunrise, Mountain Time. 8. “National Forest System Trail” means a trail wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving a part of the National Forest System and which has been included in a forest recreation map.

Exhibit B Occupancy and Use Order No. 04-00-104 Special Order—Food Storage and Sanitation Area of Application

WESTERN BOUNDARY: North from Alpine along divide of Snake River Range from Dry Gulch to Ferry Peak summit, along top of divide to Deadhorse Peak and north along Targhee-Bridger-Teton Forest boundary.

SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: The expanded food storage boundary on the Bridger-Teton National Forest begins on the southwest at the south side of the confluence of the Snake and Greys Rivers. It then runs east and north along the Snake River corridor, including that area ½ mile south and east of the river itself, to the junction with the Hoback River. At Hoback Junction the area covered by the food storage order runs east along the Hoback River corridor, also including that area up to ½ mile south of the river, to where the Hoback River leaves U.S. 189/191. From there the food storage order applies north of the U.S.189/191 corridor, also including that area up to ½ mile south of the highway and running east to the Forest boundary in T37N, R111W, Section 32 (The Rim). From there the boundary runs northeast along the Forest boundary to the Green River, then southeast along the Forest boundary to Boulder Creek, then east and north along the south side of Boulder Creek to Pipestone Creek, then north along the south side of Pipestone Creek to Lake Prue, then northeast along the south side of Europe Canyon to the Continental Divide.

Appendix B:

Draft Allotment Management Plan Sherman C&H Allotment Bridger-Teton National Forest Big Piney Ranger District

This Allotment Management Plan is made a part of your Term Grazing Permit in accordance with Part Item of that permit, approved on by , (Title).* *__* Leave out of NEPA Appendix write-up – Add back in when this becomes the actual AMP Part 3 of the Grazing Permit*

Sherman Cattle Allotment Management Objective(s): Livestock grazing will be authorized in a manner that will meet or move toward the following resource objective(s) and desired conditions in a timely manner:

DESIRED CONDITIONS: Desired conditions are described as follows, and progress toward meeting those desired conditions measured on the following benchmark areas:

Benchmark Area Name/Location Desired Condition Description

Unit I (North Horse Creek) Maintain species composition on stable or upward Study Number D2-23 trend. Maintain a minimum of 85% groundcover. Noxious weeds are not present on benchmark areas but are known to exist on the allotment and will continue to be treated in accordance with the Bridger- Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides.

Unit II (Horse Pasture Draw) Maintain species composition on stable or upward Study Number D2-24 trend. Maintain a minimum of 85% groundcover. Noxious weeds are not present on benchmark areas but are known to exist on the allotment and will continue to be treated in accordance with the Bridger- Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides.

Appendix B-1

MANAGEMENT:  Authorized Use will be approximately 855 cow/calf pairs for a use period of approximately two and one half months. Total livestock forage allocation will not exceed 2,867 AUM (animal unit months).  Seasons of use will typically occur between July 6 and September 20  Typical rotation schedule is a deferred rotation consisting of two pastures. The early use pasture is deferred to late use the following year.  No more than 20% of the total stream-bank length, within any given stream reach on fish bearing streams will be allowed to show stream-bank alteration as defined by Burton, Cowley, and Smith (2007) caused by the hoof action of large herbivores during the current livestock grazing season.  Utilization Standard - Vegetation utilization limits are set at 50% for all riparian and upland communities.  Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures- As grizzly bears expand into the Wyoming Range, there is a potential for livestock/bear interactions and human/bear interactions due to bears feeding on livestock carcasses. The Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures are included in the proposed action for the purposes of (1) minimizing grizzly bear/livestock conflicts and associated management actions, and (2) minimizing food or other types of habituation and bear/human conflicts. 1. The Forest will request re-initiation of consultation in the event of any significant changes in grazing operations. 2. All livestock depredation will be reported to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S Forest Service (USFS), and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Agency contact representatives and contact information will be identified annually prior to each grazing season. The notification protocol for reporting depredation incidents will be as follows:  Initial suspected depredations -- Permittee and/or their employees (Rider)  WGFD Bear Specialist  USFS District Rep (designated by the District Ranger)  Confirmed livestock depredation and initiation of trapping sessions -- WGFD Bear Specialist  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  Bear capture events -- WGFD Bear Specialist  USFWS Rep + Permittee + USFS District Rep Supervisor’s Office (SO) Forest Biologist  Bear Removal events -- WGFD Bear Specialist + USFWS Rep  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  USFWS Consultation Biologist  Bear Relocation events -- WGFD Bear Specialist + USFWS Rep  Permittee + USFS District Rep  SO Forest Biologist  USFWS Consultation Biologist + SO Forest Biologist on Forest to which bear was relocated 3. Annual meetings with representatives of the USFWS, BTNF, WGFD, and permittees to discuss the conservation measures and notification protocol summarized in #2 above will be held prior to each grazing season.

Appendix B-2

4. Livestock depredations will be investigated and managed by WGFD or its authorized agent following Interagency Nuisance Bear Guidelines (pp. 51-70 in Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines; USFWS 1986). 5. Bear Sanitation Guidelines will be followed for all livestock operations as described and defined in Food Storage Order 04-00-104. 6. Riders are required to watch all livestock closely for sick, injured, or stray animals. 7. Forest Service employees designated by the District Ranger will monitor allotments on a regular basis. 8. All carcasses located within 1/4 mile of the Sherman Guard Station, permitted outfitter camps, or trailheads will be removed if possible or moved so that the carcass is at least ¼ mile away from the above described facilities, trailheads or roads; All carcasses in locations not described in 1 above that pose a health or safety hazard to the public or to the environment will be removed if possible or moved so that the carcass is at least ¼ mile from live streams, springs, lakes, riparian areas, system roads and trails, developed recreation areas, dispersed camping sites, and picnic sites; and all sick or injured animals will be removed or treated. In the event that compliance with this measure is not physically possible, an exception may be granted per the discretion of the District Ranger and/or his designated representative. In the event that rider safety is deemed an issue, an exception may be allowed as described in CM #9 below. 9. Exceptions to requirements for removing or moving carcasses described above may be granted by the District Ranger and/or his designated representative if human rider or herder safety is of concern. Rider or herder safety concerns include the possible presence of a grizzly bear in the immediate vicinity of carcasses, and carcasses being located in hazardous terrain such that attempting to move or remove may cause injury. In such cases, a USFS employee or the WGFD bear specialist will be notified immediately of the hazard location and need for exception. 10. Through the permitting process and at annual meetings, the USFS will make grazing permittees aware of their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in regard to laws and regulations concerning the taking of grizzly bears (Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines 1986). 11. Continue to identify and implement opportunities that reduce the potential for grizzly bear conflicts. 12. Work in cooperation with the USFWS, the WGFD, and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to identify and collect information related to the habitat use, survival, reproduction, and depredation tendencies of grizzly bears inhabiting livestock grazing allotments on the Forest.

Appendix B-3

Year Stocking South Unit (Horse Pasture) North Unit (N. Horse Creek) Rate

1 855 C/c July 6 – August 10 August 11 – September 20

2 855 C/c August 11 – September 20 July 6 – August 10

Management actions for livestock grazing administration will be based on the physiological requirements of plants. Grazing on the allotment will not commence until range readiness is achieved. July 6 has been determined to be an average date of range readiness, but this date could vary from year to year depending on climatic conditions. For this allotment, range readiness will be when Stipa lettermanii (STLE) and Festuca idahoensis (FEID) have developed seed heads and other wheat and brome grasses have 6 to 8 inches of leaf growth. Movement of cattle will be based on reaching a specific utilization level on the following key species:

ALLOWABLE USE AND OTHER STANDARDS

 Monitor to determine compliance with Utilization Standards and streambank alteration.  Monitor riparian and upland range sites to determine the effectiveness of (or need for changes in) herding, distribution, and improvements.  Monitor to determine whether grazing activities are following the Best Management Practices outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Upland Sites Satisfactory condition Unsatisfactory condition % Stubble Height % Stubble Height Utilization estimate(inches) Utilization estimate(inches) Festuca 50 1.8 25 3.5 idahoensis (FEID) Poa secunda 50 2.2 25 4.5 (POSE) Agropyron 50 4.6 25 9.0 trachycaulum (AGTR) Stipa 50 3.5 25 6.5 lettermanii (STLE)

Appendix B-4

Riparian Sites Satisfactory condition Unsatisfactory condition % Utilization Stubble % Utilization Stubble Height Height estimate estimate (inches) (inches) Deschampsia 50 2.2 25 4.5 caespitosa (DECA) Carex 50 25 aquatilis (CAAQ2) Carex 50 25 rostrata (CARO4) Carex 50 25 nebraskensis (CANE2) Poa pratensis 50 3.5 25 8.0 (POPR)

When proper use of the indicator species is approaching (approximately August 10) gates will be opened to the deferred pastures and cattle allowed to drift into this unit. When proper use is met, and the majority of the cattle have not drifted into the deferred pasture the permittees will push remaining stock into the deferred pasture. The duration of the grazing season will be until September 20th, or when proper utilization of key species has been reached.

Stream-Bank Alteration Standard No more than 20% of the total streambank length, within any given stream reach would be allowed to show streambank alteration as defined by Burton, Cowley and Smith (2007) caused by the hoof action of large herbivores during the current livestock grazing season. Permittees will be required to remove livestock from the early use pasture to the late use pasture, or off of National Forest System Lands (when cattle are in the late use pasture) when notified that they are approaching or they have reached or exceeded the 20% standard.

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS:

IMPROVEMENT NAME IMPR- UNITS MAINTENANCE ASSIGNMENT NO Forest Boundary Fence 2001K 7.5 miles Adjacent Private Land Owners N. Horse ck. C&H/S&G ABF 2003 .76 miles Permittee’s N. Horse ck. C&H/S&G C.G. 2003A 14 ft. FS South Horse ck. ABF 2005 1.5 miles Permittee’s N. Horse ck./Horse Pasture Draw AIF 2013 1.2 Permittee’s

Appendix B-5

Sherman G.S. Water Protection Fence 2039 .2 miles FS Spring ck./Lead ck. ABF 2110 1.0 mile Permittee’s Spring ck. C.G. 2110A 14 ft. FS Spring ck. ABF 2114 1.2 miles Permittee’s Spring ck./Lead ck. ABF 2138 .5 miles Permittee’s Horse Past. Draw/Merna Butte AIF 2143 .2 miles Permittee’s Pass ck./Cole ck AIF 2146 .1 miles Permittee’s Pass ck. AIF 2151 .3 miles Permittee’s Pass ck. C.G. 2151A 14 ft. FS N. Horse/Merna AIF 2244 .3 Permittee’s Merna W/D 2155 2 troughs Permittee’s Sherman G.S. Fence 2245 FS

 Proposed Improvements: None

MONITORING & EVALUATION:  Short-Term Monitoring - Annual inspection of range readiness and periodic examinations will be conducted throughout the grazing season. Documentation of these examinations will be on R4-2200-15 and R4-2200-8 and follow procedures outlined in the Range Analysis Handbook R4 2209.21 Permittees will be encouraged to participate in the field examinations.  Long-term Monitoring - One nested frequency study, as described in the Range Analysis Handbook R4 2209.21, has been established in each unit. These studies will be re-read every ten years. The following describes the long term study schedule: Unit I (North Horse Creek) Study Number D2-23, next reading due 2021 Unit II (Horse Pasture Draw) Study Number D2-24, next reading due 2021

ANNUAL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Each year at the annual permittee meeting (or through correspondence if no meeting is held), the permittee(s) and the Forest Service will develop a set of Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) based on this Allotment Management Plan. Where feasible, multiple years AOI’s may be employed with annual written amendments as necessary. The AOI will detail the current season’s management schedule, maintenance responsibilities, rangeland development program, allowable use standards, key areas, and so forth. The AOI will become an amendment to this AMP and as such, a part of the Term Grazing Permit.

Appendix B-6

Appendix C Response to Comments Western Watersheds Project Letter #1

Comment 1: According to the clipping data, the average grass production across the allotment is 147 pounds per acre. At 50% utilization that’s 73.5 pounds. per acre or 11.3 acres per AUM. The EIS states there are 6,930 capable acres and 2,332 AUMs authorized to be removed by livestock (or 3 acres per AUM). The EIS cites these clipped plots. Did the EIS mistakenly use total production from these plots? Response: Production estimates were for forage, not just grass. Forest Service handbook direction requires 200 pounds of forage production as a minimum for capable range.

Comment 2: There is no information about actual use on the allotment over the last 10-20 years. Without this information there is no way the Forest can defensibly state that full permitted use (the action proposed) resulted in current conditions. This vitiates all the conclusions in the document. Response: District Range Management Planning files (2210 files) and nested frequency data found in the project record contain actual use that reflects the allotments ability to sustain full permitted numbers.

Comment 3: The purpose and need states that the action is to move resources "toward the desired condition within a reasonable timeframe", but no "timeframe" has been defined. Also the desired future conditions are general and have not been made site-specific and measurable. They do not deal with the issues/problems of each allotment and as such don’t meet the requirement of FSH 2209.13 93.3f. Response: Existing conditions match desired conditions on the allotment as they relate to the effects of livestock grazing on the various resources and timeframes where affected by the proposed action have been met. Please see the range resources section of the DEIS for site specific measurable desired conditions. (DEIS pages 3-8 through 3-15)

Comment 4: The sensitive species management standard has not been implemented in this process.

Appendix C-1

Response: The Forest Plan standards, including those for fish and wildlife have been taken into account in the development and analysis of this grazing plan. The Forest has undertaken the process of developing and refining Sensitive Species Quantifiable Objectives (SSQOs) on the BTNF to address the Sensitive Species Management Standard in the Forest Plan (see draft and approved Sensitive Species Quantifiable Objectives in the project record). The SSQO process includes development of sensitive species assessments; draft assessments have been completed for amphibians and sage grouse, and were used in the analyses of those species for this project. The SSQO assessments include reviews of the best available science, and identify risk factors and conservation measures that will assist us in meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives for conserving sensitive species.

Comment 5: The document fails to define significance or provide thresholds for significance. Response: Determinations of the “significance” of environmental effects as defined by the Council On Environmental Quality (CEQ), (40 CFR 1508.27) are made within the context of a “Finding of No Significant Impact” which would preclude the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), (40 CFR 1500.4(q.) and 1500.5(l). Because an EIS has been prepared for this proposed action, such a determination of significance is not necessary. The EIS discloses the effects of the proposal as required for an EIS by CEQ (40 CFR 1502.16).

Comment 6: Issue 4 fails to acknowledge in its "indicators" that livestock renders habitat toxic for most TES species. This is especially true for grizzly bears and wolves. On page 3-139 the DEIS states that "no direct impacts are expected to grizzly bear secure habitat, denning habitat or white bark pine due to continued livestock grazing (production of herbaceous forage and presence of livestock typically does not impact these habitats)". This is patently false. As is well documented throughout the Bridger Teton National Forest, the authorization of domestic livestock renders grizzly bear habitat toxic. Grizzly bear habitat with the "presence of livestock" is no longer "secure habitat". Response: The Forest Plan requires that the land be managed in a way that provides habitat adequate to meet the needs of dependent fish and wildlife populations (including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species) which includes providing thermal and hiding cover, and areas for foraging and raising young. The project area is not located within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, and not located within the Biologically Suitable habitat boundary as currently defined by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) - see Response to Comment #39 for more detail. It is located within Occupied Habitat boundaries as defined by the WGFD, and grizzlies are known to occur there.

Appendix C-2

The value and importance of providing habitat security for grizzly bears is discussed and defined in the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area and correlates with providing space for bears free of human activities and reducing human-bear contacts. Security habitat as described in the Conservation Strategy is specifically defined as areas more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line, greater than or equal to 10 acres in size. Guidelines for managing security habitat are defined by the Secure Habitat Standard in the Conservation Strategy, but only apply to grizzly habitat within the Recovery Zone. Because the Sherman Allotment is located outside the Recovery Zone, no grizzly security analysis was completed for this project. However; the amount of existing “secure habitat,” within the Sherman Allotment would not change with the proposed action because no new roads are being created, and the physical presence of livestock does not alter security habitat as defined by the Conservation Strategy

Comment 7: The document does not provide the BO [Biological Opinion] or ITS [Incidental Take Statement] which is a critical component needing to be reviewed for informed public comment. We have shown that the BO and ITS are nearly identical to the recently released one for the Upper Green. This has, over the last 14 years, proven to be a failure. Response: As is noted on pages 1-3 and 3-88 of the DEIS, initial analyses for this project began in 2010 and initial assessments occurred in a draft environmental assessment; informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was initiated at that time and a biological assessment (BA) was submitted to the Service in June of 2010. As a result of an increase in grizzly bear activities within the Sherman Allotment during the summer grazing season in 2010, the Forest re-initiated consultation with the Service and submitted an amended BA in December of 2010. The Service responded with a biological opinion (BO) in May of 2011 that included an incidental take statement (ITS) for 3 grizzly bears over a ten year period. Copies of the 2010 BA, 2010 Amended BA, and 2011 BO are in the project record. Although the 2011 BO written for livestock grazing in the Sherman Allotment may have similarities with the recently released 2013 Upper Green BO, both biological opinions are specific to the allotment management plans for which they were prepared. (Also see the response to Comment 18). The potential effects of action and no action alternatives on Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species (including the grizzly bear) were analyzed and disclosed in the DEIS, and were made available for public comment during the comment period. Per the ESA, consultation with the Service is required prior to signing new decision documents. Thus, the Forest has re-initiated consultation with the USFWS on this project (Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management Project), and a Supplemental BA based on the likely selected action has been submitted to the USFWS for their review. The Service will respond with a biological opinion, in which incidental take statements for listed species will be included if appropriate. Because the BA is based on the selected action, it is not submitted to the Service prior to the DEIS. And,

Appendix C-3

because the BO is received from the Service just prior to the development of the Record of Decision, neither document was available for review during the DEIS public comment period.

Comment 8: We see that the Forest Service plans to continue using the "landscape appearance method" as the monitoring method for utilization. We have found that the agency rarely or never conducts the calibration process required by this method and as such the results are extremely inaccurate. We request at least an annual paired plot clipping calibration be done with one or more cages on the allotment. Response: We do plan to continue to use the landscape appearance method to measure utilization. We find this technique of measuring utilization both effective and efficient. If utilization levels begin to approach the maximum allowable levels, other forms of measuring utilization may be necessary and are used.

Comment 9: The document predicts "tributary streams are expected to maintain good to fair riparian condition" but the document fails to compare this with the Forest Plan requirement that "habitat below its potential, should be improved and maintained to at least 90 percent of its natural potential". "Fair" condition is certainly not 90 percent of its potential. Response: The comment refers to the Fish Habitat Management Guideline in the Forest Plan, but we do not agree with the interpretation of the information. The guideline states that, “for fish habitat providing a fishery at or near its potential, fish populations should be maintained at existing levels. For habitat below its potential, habitat should be improved and maintained to at least 90 percent of its natural potential.” Our analysis indicates that the fishery is currently at or near its potential (DEIS page 3-69 and 3-85). In the existing condition, 85 percent of tributary reaches were ‘good’ condition class and 15 percent were ‘fair’ condition class (DEIS Figure 3.29, page 3-72). Most of the tributaries are too small to provide fish habitat (DEIS 3-74/75). The only tributary reach that has an existing ‘fair’ condition class that provides fish habitat is the lower reach on Pass Creek, which was based on the criteria that bank stability was 50-75 percent. All other riparian indicators were favorable for the reach. The survey also found that the reach had abundant pools and several beaver dams. Overall, the reach is providing fish habitat at or near its natural potential.

Comment 10: On page 3-2 we see that significant areas of the allotment had been removed from the allotment over the years, yet livestock authorizations have continued the same without reflecting a significantly reduced acreage. This has not been dealt with in the document in the section regarding capable acres; we see that 200 pounds of forage per acre is the minimum to be considered capable. Most of the plot clipping data provided shows less than 200 pounds per acre of cattle forage produced.

Appendix C-4

This section says that the "lowest estimate found was for 221 pounds per acre in an area of naturally low production" but this is off of total production not cattle forage production. Suitable range is a subset of capable range and can never be more than the capable range if the document says that the entire allotment is suitable. The R4 document has not been properly implemented. Response: Forest Service handbook direction requires 200 pounds of production for determining capable acres but does not specify cattle forage production. Section title “Criteria Used to identify Livestock Capable Range” (DEIS Chapter 3-5) and section entitled “Criteria Used in Identifying Livestock Suitable Range” (DEIS Chapter 3-8) clarify that suitable range is not necessarily a subset of capable range. Range can be suitable but not capable and can be capable but not suitable. While capacity estimates were calculated in 1979-1980, current stocking rates have been firmed up based on results of monitoring short and long term indicators. See also response to Comment #1.

Comment 11: On page 3-11 the document states that the allotment "showed high frequencies of native bluegrasses… all of which are decreasers which can be reduced in frequency as a result of grazing and higher utilization levels". Most bluegrasses are increasers under heavy grazing not decreasers. Response: The native bunchgrasses referred to in summary on page 3-11 are Poa fendleriana, ampla, and canbii, which are decreasers. Kentucky bluegrass, a non-native poa (Poa pratensis) is an increaser. The Desired Future Condition scorecard reflects a desired score of less than 20 occurrences of Poa pratensis on each of the nested frequency transects. One of the nested frequencies had zero occurrences of Poa pratensis and one had four. Please see the nested frequency results in the project record for a full context of species occurrence.

Comment 12: Table 3.5 needs to be revised for the suitable acres not the entire allotment. The detrimentally disturbed soil requirement is for the use areas, where an actual use is taking place, not throughout the entire analysis area. In other words the percent to detrimentally disturbed in this table is being diluted from reality. Since the use area, capable acres, is only 38% of the total allotment area the percent of detrimentally disturbed is most likely in the 10% area. Response: The analysis area includes the entire allotment and not just the capable acres. Table 3-5 has been revised to show estimated acres of detrimental disturbance by map unit in the allotment (FEIS, page 3-17). The summary on page 3-23 has been corrected to reflect that less than one percent of the area has detrimental soil conditions. The DEIS incorrectly listed detrimental disturbance at 4% when it is actually less than one percent.

Appendix C-5

It is correct procedure to determine the percent by dividing detrimentally disturbed acres by the total acres in the allotment, rather than the suitable acres because cattle travel through and otherwise use some unsuitable acres for purposes other than grazing. It is important to note than no detrimental disturbance caused by grazing was identified. Therefore, grazing has no effect on the percent listed, regardless of the method of comparison (detrimental acres to total allotment acres or just suitable acres). Figure 3.5 shows where capable acres with high erosion potential occur within the allotment. Areas capable of grazing are discussed in detail on page 3-19 and shown in Figure 3.5.

Comment 13: The document states that Colorado River cutthroat trout populations are "maintaining to slightly decreasing" but provides no information regarding what the current population sizes are for the area or the actual Game and Fish data. Further, the analysis of whether or not the harm from the project on the species fails to discuss these critical issues. There is no way to determine honestly whether affecting individuals would lead towards a listing without this information. Without population trend data and a comparison of current population size to viable population sizes no such determination can honestly be made. Response: Colorado River cutthroat trout populations are believed to be maintaining or slightly decreasing in the Wyoming Range and in the Upper Green River Game Management Unit primarily as a result of invasion by non-native trout species. Population monitoring occurred in six years between 1989 and 2009 at three locations on North Horse Creek within the allotment. The data is displayed in the Fisheries Specialist Report (page 10) and referred to in the DEIS on pages 3-69 and 3-70. This data indicated that there was an apparent decline in density through the late 1990s; there was a gap in monitoring for much of the next decade, and fish density had rebounded by 2009, when monitoring next occurred. Although it is possible that the monitoring information parallels habitat condition, caution should be applied in that interpretation, as fish populations can fluctuate for many reasons beyond physical habitat. Overall, the data indicate that there is a relatively stable population of cutthroat trout in the stream reaches found on the allotment with moderate to high population density. Wyoming Game and Fish Department is currently (2013 season) conducting a basin-wide survey of fish populations in North Horse Creek, preliminary results indicate that high densities of cutthroat are common throughout the basin (Rhea, personal communication July 17, 2013). Given the limited impact to fish and fish habitat from the proposed action, the apparent stability of the cutthroat population, and the fact that habitat conditions are improving in North Horse Creek, the determination that the action would not contribute to a trend toward listing is honest and substantiated.

Comment 14: Similar to the discussion on grizzly bears in the Upper Green, the Forest Service states that "secure habitats" are "areas free of motorized access" while this may be true in Appendix C-6

the area that it was developed, in northern Montana and Idaho where livestock grazing does not take place, here in Wyoming, for a meaningful site-specific analysis the primary issue facing grizzly bears is not road impacts; it is domestic livestock grazing. The failure to directly address this fundamental issue vitiates the analysis. Response: Regulatory guidance for managing grizzly bears and habitat is provided by the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The Conservation Strategy definition of “secure habitat” was addressed previously in response to Comment #6. Roads are an indirect threat to grizzly bears because they provide access to humans and increase the potential for human/bear conflicts that could result in losses of individual grizzly bears. Livestock grazing has not resulted in any grizzly bear removals in the Sherman Allotment to date, which may be attributed to the conservation measures in place, and the relatively low density of grizzly bears in the area. However, the potential for bear removals in future years as a result of continued livestock grazing in the allotment is acknowledged and discussed in the DEIS.

Comment 15: Further defining this grizzly bear "secure habitat" we see on page 3-91 that it is "defined as areas more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line, greater than or equal to 10 acres in size". The failure to define "secure habitat" for the current location is a fundamental flaw. It is undeniable that domestic livestock grazing within grizzly bear habitat renders that habitat toxic for grizzly bears. Response: (See page 3-91 of the DEIS). This comment is also discussed in response to Comments # 6 and #14 above.

Comment 16: Nowhere in the document is there a relationship between the 50 percent utilization rates and amphibian habitat. The key question is whether the 50 percent utilization requirement authorized under the proposed action provides for the habitat needs of sensitive species. This question is not answered by the EIS. Actually the question is sort of answered on page 3-146 where the document clearly states that 50 percent forage utilization does not provide for the habitat needs of sensitive species such as amphibians. The actions discussed in this section have not been implemented and as such the proposed action does not comply with the Forest Plan or other Forest Service regulations. Response: The effects analysis for boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog in the DEIS (pages 3-145 to 3-147) summarizes the potential impacts of grazing within riparian habitats. Specifically, the analysis in the DEIS indicates that utilization of key forage species in excess of 50 percent in riparian areas increases the potential for impacts to riparian components, and that such impacts would potentially have negative impacts on suitable Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad habitats. The literature search completed by the BTNF (2013) found that: 1) buffer zones can be an important method for protecting breeding habitat for boreal toads and spotted

Appendix C-7

frogs (Keinath and McGee 2005; Patla and Keinath 2005; Goates et al. 2007), within which management activities can be monitored and/or controlled to avoid adverse impacts; and 2) that retaining 70 to 100 percent of all herbaceous vegetation in mesic community types (not restricted to retention of key forage species) within 1/3 mile of known boreal toad and spotted frog breeding sites would provide sufficient cover for these species. The proposed action in the DEIS limits utilization of key forage species to 50 percent of current year growth annually in both riparian and upland ranges. The range manager believes that implementing the 50 percent key forage utilization limit would retain no less than 70 percent of all herbaceous vegetation in mesic community types within 1/3 mile of known breeding sites, and that sufficient amounts cover for these amphibians would be maintained. If an action alternative is selected, the Record of Decision (ROD) and FEIS will include a monitoring plan for the Sherman Allotment to ensure the minimum 70 percent total herbaceous retention recommendation is met. If the 50 percent utilization threshold is determined to be inadequate to meet the total herbaceous retention recommendation, utilization limit adjustments will be made in subsequent annual operating plans, and additional monitoring will be conducted. The amphibian effects section in the DEIS (pages 3-145 to 3-147) will be edited in the FEIS to include a more robust summary of effects as discussed above. This section in the FEIS will also discuss development of the Conservation Assessment for Amphibians on the BTNF, as was described in response to Comment #4.

Comment 17: The document states that "all MIS habitat was considered in satisfactory condition" but provides no information regarding the specific habitat requirements for each species and therefore the Forest Service cannot rationally conclude that these habitats are in "satisfactory condition. Response: This statement has been removed from the FEIS.

Comment 18: The Forest Service states that "as part of the proposed action, the Forest Service will implement conservation measures to reduce the likelihood of any adverse effects to grizzly bears", but it appears that the so-called conservation measures are nearly identical to the utterly failed conservation measures in place within the Upper Green. The document fails to provide any information regarding the effectiveness of these actions that actually "reduc[e] the likelihood of any adverse effects". Response: Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures are listed on page 2-5 of the DEIS, and were originally developed, disclosed and implemented as a result of the 2010 Biological Assessment (BA) Amendment and 2011 Biological Opinion (BO) discussed in the grizzly bear consultation history section of the DEIS (page 3-88) and further described in response to Comment #7. The 2011 BO also includes “reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions” that require annual reviews and reporting of conservation measure effectiveness; these measures are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action (Biological Opinion, USFWS 5/24/11)). The conservation measures have been implemented and reviewed regularly with U.S. Fish and

Appendix C-8

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the permittees, and have been determined effective in reducing situations that could result in the death of a bear, or death or injury to humans (as described in the BO, and 2012 Annual Report). The range manager and permittees also review these measures during the annual operating meetings. Conservation measures include food storage requirements that are mandatory for permittees. Recreationists are also contacted and provided information to avoid bear conflicts that might end in the injury or death of a person or bear. There are resident bears present on Sherman, and to this date, no grizzlies have had to be removed/killed for livestock conflicts (Terms and Conditions 2012 Annual Report, in the project record). As is discussed in response to Comment #7, the BTNF has re-initiated consultation with the USFWS (Service) for this project, and a Biological Assessment Supplement has been prepared and submitted to the Service that includes a new and modified list of Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures from that disclosed in the DEIS. The new list adds clarity to previous measures that have been in effect since 2011; the new list is included in the FEIS (Chapter 2 pages 2-4 to 2-6).

Comment 19: All the Forest Service Sensitive Species are determined that there will be "may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability" but there is no information at all regarding population trends, current population size, or even what a viable population is. As such there is no rational basis for the current determinations.

Response: Sensitive wildlife species known or suspected to occur on the Bridger-Teton National Forest were reviewed for their relevancy to the proposed action in the sensitive species relevance table (Table 3.22 and Table 3.23 on page 3-95 of the DEIS). Relevancy was determined if there is evidence of species occurrence and/or capable/suitable habitat present that could potentially be impacted by the proposed actions. Further analysis was not conducted for those species that: 1) are not known to occur within the influence zone of the proposal; 2) have no suitable habitat within the project area; or, 3) would not be impacted by the proposal as described in the table. The determination for those species dismissed from further review is “No Impact”. Species known or suspected to occur because of suitable habitat or observations nearby were further addressed in the DEIS and included the gray wolf, sage grouse, Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad. Population status and trends for these species were discussed in the DEIS and in the biological evaluation (BE) prepared for this project

Comment 20: Regarding the proposed AMP, the "desired conditions” are neither measurable nor do they have timelines associated with them. Response: The AMP (Allotment Management Plan) provided is only a DRAFT and will be finalized should the decision maker select the proposed action alternative. The Desired Conditions for the Vegetation Resource are very measureable and are calculated using a desired condition scorecard that was developed in a joint effort by the National Resources Conservation

Appendix C-9

Service and the Forest Service Rangeland Management Specialists for the Sherman Allotment. (Personal Conversation with Stephan Harmon)

Comment 21: The AMP lays out utilization and streambank alterations standards but fails to implement any permit repercussions that would be implemented based on failure to comply with these requirements. Response: The AMP [Allotment Management Plan] is not the tool to implement permit action. Please see discussion in Chapter 1-11 of the DEIS entitled “permit Administration Documents”.

Comment 22: FSH 2209.13 91.1 requires that the Forest Service verify the validity of assumptions from previous NEPA processes. The predictions made in previous NEPA processes need to be disclosed and analyzed because if the accuracy was not there, most likely you are making the same predictions in the current process and as such the process again will be vitiated. Response: Implementation of the 1987 NEPA decision has led to a stable trend in vegetation species composition and ground cover on the Sherman Allotment (see effects disclosure in Chapter 3, pages 3-8 through 3-11). This indicates that assumptions made in previous NEPA processes / decisions maintained resource conditions on the allotment. Existing condition, the result of previous decisions, was considered in developing the proposed action for this analysis. The previous FONSI and Decision Notice for the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment is available for review at the Big Piney Range District office. (District 2210 Files).

Comment 23: FSH 2209.13 91.1 requires that the Forest Service review the adequacy of the Forest Service's implementation of current AMPs [allotment management plans], AOIs [annual operating instructions] and Forest Plan standards. This is essential to a valid NEPA process. For instance, if in previous processes, the Forest Service said they were going to do a certain monitoring plan or implement a certain type of management or require certain impact limits, but if these were never effectively implemented, that is incredibly important for the reader and the decision maker to know. If there have been problems with Forest Service implementation in the past, it is not logical to assume that implementation will now all of a sudden be appropriate. Response: No issues were identified involving permit compliance during this analysis. There are no documented occurrences of permittee non-compliance. Nor is there any need to take decisive permit action. The permittees on the Sherman Allotment are responsive to and communicative with the Forest Service. The permittees on the Sherman Allotment continue to be extremely compliant. See also response to Comment #23. The proposed action does not include an adaptive management strategy.

Appendix C-10

Comment 24: Another critical component is permittee compliance. If the permittee has failed to properly comply with their permit terms and conditions and AMP and AOI requirements, including utilization requirements, rotation requirements and fence maintenance, then it is absolutely critical to discuss this in the document and its effects on the proposed action. Permittee failure to comply with permit terms and conditions and other requirements shows two things, firstly that the permittee has failed to implement even the minimal standards that are currently in place and secondly, it shows that the Forest Service has failed to take decisive permit action to ensure compliance. Both of these are very important aspects that must be discussed for a valid NEPA process, most especially when the Forest Service as here is relying on adaptive management promises. Response: There are no documented occurrences of permittee non-compliance. Nor is there any need to take decisive permit action. The permittees on the Sherman Allotment are responsive to and communicative with the Forest Service. The permittees on the Sherman Allotment continue to be extremely compliant. See also response to Comment #23.

Comment 25: Another critical component is an examination of the effectiveness of the actions taken in previous decisions. A classic example of this is fences and water developments. Often, new fences and water developments are proposed to solve riparian issues in spite of the fact that these have been used for many decades without correcting riparian issues. Doing more of the same that has not led to good results is not an effective strategy for public lands management. Response: There are no new improvements proposed, nor are there any unresolved riparian or upland conflicts associated with domestic livestock grazing on the Sherman Allotment. See the Range Resources section of the DEIS Chapter 3-1 through 3-15.

Comment 26: FSH 2209.13 93.3a requires: “The team, using an interdisciplinary approach, should identify the desired rangeland conditions within the analysis area. Desired conditions should be specific, quantifiable, and focused on rangeland resources.” The EIS does not comply with this requirement. The so-called Desired Conditions are general Forest Plan desired conditions and have not been made site-specific for the area in question and the issues in question. Response: The Desired Conditions for the Vegetation Resource are site-specific, more specific than the Forest Plan Desired Conditions and are very measureable. They are calculated using a desired condition scorecard that was developed in a joint effort by the Natural Conservation Resources Service and the Forest Service Rangeland Management Specialists for the Sherman Allotment. (Personal Conversation with Stephan Harmon). An interdisciplinary

Appendix C-11

team was formed (see Chapter 4, page 4-1) to facilitate an interdisciplinary approach, and site specific desired conditions / thresholds were developed (see Chapter 2, pages 2-3 through 2-5).

Comment 27: FSH 2209.13 93.3c requires: “Identification of resource management needs is simply the comparison of desired conditions with existing conditions to determine the extent and rate at which current management is meeting or moving toward those desired conditions.” The EIS failed to meet this requirement. To say conditions are “moving toward” is meaningless without this information. For instance, everyone admits these lands were basically unmanaged until about the 1950s. Given how severely degraded these lands were up through that time, it would not be surprising that things look better than 1950, but is that “moving towards” sufficient? Response: Desired conditions for watershed resources, including stream channels, wetlands, and riparian areas are identified in the Hydrology Specialist Report. Major elements of the desired conditions for alluvial stream channels (i.e., those not formed in bedrock) are based on riparian vegetation, channel form, substrate, and streambank stability which reflect proper channel function. Stream channel surveys and observations made in the Sherman Allotment, and described and analyzed in the DEIS (pp.3-32 to 3-42), identify how well resource conditions are meeting desired conditions. Desired condition for water quality is also described in the specialist report, and consists of meeting state water quality standards. By summarizing water quality data (pages 3-28 to 3-32; 3-44 to 3-45), the DEIS identifies how closely the existing conditions approximate the desired conditions. Aside from high temperatures on North Horse Creek, water quality standards are being met. As stated in the DEIS (page 3-32), high temperatures were recorded near Sherman Guard Station. “The highest temperatures at the lowest site may be due to a combination of factors, including vegetative and topographic shading (the valley opens up considerably between the middle and lowest sites), but there are no apparent management-related reasons for the elevated temperatures at the lowest site.”

Comment 28: FSH 2209.13 93.3f requires: “There is a two-part decision to be made for authorizing livestock grazing. The first part is whether livestock grazing should be authorized on all, part, or none of the project area.” This issue was not addressed in the EIS. Response: With regard to the “all” portion, the proposed action addresses this. With regard to the “none” portion, the no action addresses this. As there are not any unresolved conflicts after the initial scoping, the “part” was not necessary as the “all” and “none” options addressed the need for alternatives.

Comment 29: The Forest Service’s GTR-INT-263 specifically states "a 6 step planning process for grazing riparian zones has been suggested (in part from Dwyer and others 1984): 1) Appendix C-12

determine what factor, such as bank instability or loss of woody plants, is the primary concern, 2) determine site potential in capability, 3) determine the suitability of the affected sites for livestock grazing, 4) determine the kind in class of livestock in duration and intensity of livestock grazing best suited to the area, 5) determine the best grazing strategy, and 6) apply the proper grazing intensity in keeping with animal distribution patterns". This was not done. Response: The project Fisheries Specialists considered and used some of the concepts described in Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-INT-26 and cited this publication in their analysis reports. The 6-step process is suggested and is not required.

Comment 30: The same reference states "special situations such as critical fisheries habitats or easily eroded stream banks may require stubble heights of greater than 6 inches". It further goes on to state "degraded riparian areas may require complete rest to initiate the recovery process. In systems requiring long-term rest, the rest will be highly variable depending on the situation. It may be as short as one year or it may be 15 years or longer. Recovery of degraded stream banks usually will require more time than the recovery of plant community composition, in some cases much more time, particularly if the channel has become incised and confined." It continues "however, no rotation system will allow recovery or maintenance of the riparian system unless all livestock are removed after the use period. In any event, rest rotation or any other conventional grazing system should not be considered the sole answer to riparian grazing needs." Response: Bank stability was found to be high in the small tributary systems and riparian vegetation condition was found to be intact and highly functional in both tributary systems and the larger North Horse Creek. North Horse Creek did have low bank stability ratings, which is a potential cause for concern. However, the primary cause of the reduced bank stability was determined to be watershed conditions and past management impacts that occurred upstream of the allotment that have resulted in an excess of stream material which has led to channel instability and avulsions. Cattle grazing within the allotment was found to have a very limited impact on bank stability. Because of this finding, removing livestock from this allotment would have little to no effect on the recovery trajectory for the stream. The current, intact and functioning riparian willow communities would continue to provide the needed bank strength, but only over time will the excess bed material be moved downstream and into the floodplain and the stream will again reach equilibrium with a more natural rate of erosion in the watershed.

Comment 31: BLM researcher Lewis H. Myers conducted a review of grazing systems and their success in improving riparian conditions stated that [the agencies must] "insist upon strict grazing system compliance. A few cattle remaining in a pasture after the prescribed use can negate the benefit of a good system. Stray animals invariably spend the bulk of their time in stream bottoms. 90 percent compliance with a grazing system is not adequate."

Appendix C-13

Response: The project resource specialists agree with the literature. The Forest Service monitors implementation of grazing decisions to ensure adequate compliance with approved grazing systems.

Comment 32: Forest Service researcher William S. Platts in Compatibility of Livestock Grazing Strategies with Fisheries (1989) found that deferred-rotation to be only “fair” at restoring degraded riparian conditions. It also found this system rated as 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. Response: The allotment does not contain degraded riparian conditions that are a result of livestock grazing on the Sherman Allotment. We are familiar with this literature and took that information into account. However, after evaluating the stream habitat conditions and the fish populations, we determined that the system, as it has been implemented in the past on North Horse Creek, and with limitations on utilization (50%) and bank alteration (20%) would result in a continued functioning fishery.

Comment 33: In the recently issued BLM/FS publication TR 1737-20, Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian and Wetland Areas, which states "He (Myers 1989a) found that successful treatments averaged only 12.5 days whereas unsuccessful treatments averaged 33.4 days" discussing the duration of hot season grazing used within riparian areas. This document also goes into detail regarding the development of riparian objectives and monitoring programs which have been ignored in the current process. Response: There are no unresolved riparian vegetation issues caused by domestic livestock grazing on the Sherman Allotment. See DEIS page 3-41.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition Comment Letter # 2

Comment 34: The remnant populations of CRCT [Colorado River cutthroat trout] in the Upper Green River Basin and Wyoming Range streams are "maintaining to slightly decreasing in population" (DEIS:3-69), the 2009 survey by the USFS in the project area indicated an increasing population of CRCT in the project area (Ibid). However, according to this EIS, different agencies did the monitoring over twenty-two years, using different protocol. The more intensive and extensive surveys by the WGFD from 1987 to 1996 indicated a decline in CRCT populations in the project area, while a smaller sampling effort in 2009 by the USFS indicated a "rebounded" population. (DEIS: 3-70) To reconcile the discrepancies in the data, the BTNF and WGFD should begin regular monitoring using the same protocol in the future so the population status for this rare USFS Sensitive Species is known with confidence, and trends tracked and appropriate management of permitted activities and habitats are instituted. Response: Across the Wyoming Range streams, CRCT are believed to be stable or in slight decline. The primary cause for the decline is invasion of non-native trout, particularly brook trout

Appendix C-14

(Hirsch 2006). In the Fisheries Resources section of the DEIS, we stated, “although cutthroat trout densities dropped modestly at most stations during the period from 1987 to 1996, the more recent monitoring effort in 2009 indicated that the population has rebounded.” Monitoring fish populations is important, however, trout populations in the Rocky Mountain Region will naturally fluctuate widely (Platts and Nelson 1988); so short-term changes in population numbers should be interpreted cautiously when analyzing the effects of management activities. In this case, we felt that the data indicated that the cutthroat trout population was stable or slightly increasing within the project area. Although the protocols were not identical between the WGFD sampling and the USFS sampling, the analysis that calculated the fish per mile normalized the data to account for the differences in the length of the sampling reach. The USFS and the WGFD have and will continue to coordinate efforts for monitoring cutthroat trout populations in the Upper Green Game Management Unit including in the North Horse Creek watershed. At this point, the monitoring protocols used by the two agencies are consistent. Hirsch, C. L., S. E. Albeke, and T. P. Nesler. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado River cutthroat trout Conservation Team Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. Platts, William S., and Rodger L. Nelson. 1988. Fluctuations in trout populations and their implications for land-use evaluation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8(3): 333-345.

Comment 35: Eliminating sheep grazing has produced positive results in North Horse Creek, but cattle grazing is still causing North Horse Creek to not meet Forest Plan standards. When cattle are grazed in riparian areas including walking in the streams themselves, "there is a risk of trampling (trout spawning) redds and reducing egg survival " (DEIS: 3-77) Given that the effects of domestic sheep have been removed in the headwaters, and that adverse effects of livestock grazing in riparian areas persist, we recommend that if the proposed Alternative 2 is selected the BTNF fence (using wildlife friendly fences) the riparian areas to mitigate adverse effects from livestock use and to facilitate recovery of riparian and stream ecosystems and the conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout. GYC is willing to assist in such fencing projects. Response: The proposed action would have impacts on streams, riparian areas, and cutthroat trout and their habitat, and those impacts are disclosed in the Fisheries Resources section of the DEIS (3-77 to 3-79). However, our analysis indicates that cattle grazing is not causing North Horse Creek to fail to meet Forest Plan standards as suggested in the comment (see 3-85 and 3- 86). Although there are riparian impacts from grazing cattle in the riparian area, as described in the DEIS (3-77 to 3-78), the proposed action is not expected to substantially modify the recovery trajectory of the stream processes in North Horse Creek. In some cases, riparian fencing may be an appropriate way to alleviate management impacts, however, on North Horse Creek there is very little evidence of cattle impacts to the stream and cutthroat populations are stable. The additional workload of fencing maintenance as well as the trade-offs for wildlife movement must also be considered before adding additional fence lines, particularly around riparian corridors. As a result, we do not consider riparian fencing a favorable management tool in this circumstance.

Appendix C-15

Comment 36: Illegal off-road vehicle use has resulted in silting of streams, as has the use of inadequately engineered open roads and routes during wet conditions. (DEIS: 3-14, 22, 40 and elsewhere) The BTNF should more effectively close routes and roads that contribute silt to streams, (which negatively affect fish and amphibians) and enforce those closures. Some closures may only be necessary seasonally. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the current project. The BTNF does, however, agree that there is a need to close and rehabilitate illegal ATV trails and to address roads that are not up to Forest standards and that are contributing sediment to streams. The Forest is addressing these concerns as funds and resources become available.

Comment 37: Virtually the entire Wyoming Range should be considered potential occupied grizzly bear habitat, and this species is recognized as threatened under the ESA. Grizzly bears have been documented as far south as the Middle Piney drainage and are increasingly common in northern areas of the Wyoming Range (http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/RegionalNews/dh- %20Big%20Piney%20bear.pdf). The USFS must consider the potential for conflicts leading to injury, harm, or direct or indirect mortality of grizzly bears in analysis of permitted allotments per ESA Section 7 review. Response: Potential for conflicts leading to injury, harm, or direct or indirect mortality of grizzly bears within the Wyoming Range was taken into consideration. Consultation was conducted on potential effects to the grizzly bear. See pages 3-90, 3-134, and 3-139 in the DEIS and the Biological Opinion (in the project record).

Comment 38: Because this allotment may have previously experienced grizzly depredation on livestock and future depredations may result in lethal removal of bears, it is unlikely that the proposed action is insignificant for the future conservation of grizzly bears and may result in an adverse effect. Response: The comment is accurate, and the issue is discussed on page 3-90 and 3-139 of the DEIS, and it is further discussed in Response to Comments #7 and #18, formal consultation with the USFWS was initiated for this project and a Supplemental BA has been submitted to the Service with a determination that the project “is likely to adversely affect” the grizzly bear, The Service will respond with a BO prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision for the selected action.

Comment 39: This Horse Creek area lies within biologically suitable habitat. Much of the area supports a high probability (≥95 percent) of supporting a female grizzly bear. In addition, the best science available modeling grizzly bear survival defines the study area as source habitat, or areas where a female grizzly bear survival was ≥0.91. All agencies must use the "best scientific and commercial data available" in complying with their obligations under * 7. 16 U.S.C. * 1536(a)(2). Within the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation the Forest Service has outlined guidelines for grizzly protections outside the Primary Conservation Area “in areas identified in state management plans as biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, livestock allotments or portions of allotments Appendix C-16

with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved through modification of grazing practices may be retired as opportunities arise with willing permittees” (Page A-4). Response: The original Suitable Habitat boundary was defined by the USFWS when the grizzly was first proposed for listing in 2005 – the original boundary does not include the Sherman Allotment. In 2012 the boundary was modified by IGBST and approved by the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee members – the 2012 Biologically Suitable boundary does not include the Sherman Allotment. However, the grizzly bear Occupied Distribution boundary defined by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in 2012 does include the Sherman Allotment. Region 4 Regional Office Direction for managing grizzly bears and habitat within Region 4 Forests includes use of standards and guidelines in forest plans, USFWS Biological Opinions and any associated Terms and Conditions, Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, and any other documents that provide “best science” (eg. Grizzly Bear Amendment, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team reports, etc.). Data sources used in the grizzly bear analysis for this project are cited in the document and referenced in the DEIS.

Comment 40: An additional consideration to the proposed Grizzly Bear Conservation Measure #3, “permanent Forest Service employees would monitor allotments on a regular basis,” is an enforceable remedial process taken to reduce conflicts. In 2009, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team released a report on mortality of grizzly bears in the GYE and mitigation recommendations to reduce conflicts. The interagency recommendations included; 1) exploring the possibility of extending the non-use period on allotments with recurring conflicts with grizzly bears; 2) considering alternative grazing strategies to minimize conflicts; 3) changes in USFWS allotment management guidelines/standards; 4) education for livestock producers about bear- livestock conflicts and compensation programs; 5) and possibly use allotment buyout programs. In addition, the report recognizes- and the BTNF must consider- that “cow/calf operations in grizzly habitat are much more vulnerable than yearling operations.” Supplementary enforceable mitigation measures that should be considered in this analysis could include off-site mitigation of moving livestock to other areas in addition to the above measures. Response: The existing Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures for livestock grazing in the Sherman Allotment were initially identified and implemented as a result of the Forest’s 2010 BA Amendment and USFWS’s 2011 BO. Those existing Conservation Measures as well as other potential measures that include those mentioned in the comment were reviewed for effectiveness for this project. As a result of that review and a review of comments received during the comment period, an amended list of Conservation Measures were developed for this project and included in the 2013 Supplemental BA submitted to the USFWS for consultation. These measures add to and clarify the initial list previously implemented in 2011, and the new list will be included in any decision documents that implements action alternatives for this project, along with any required Terms and Conditions provided by the USFWS in their BO. Any potential measures not selected for implementation are tools/choices that remain available if/when conflicts increase to unacceptable levels such that additional measures may be warranted. To date, no grizzly bears have been removed from the Sherman Allotment for livestock predations and the level of conflict has remained relatively low; if/when conflicts increase, additional conservation measures can and will be considered. Appendix C-17

Comment 41: Grizzly bear researchers have demonstrated a relationship between loss of food sources and increased grizzly bear conflicts. We recommend NEPA analysis of the future impacts of climate change and associated impacts to key food sources of whitebark pine, Colorado River cutthroat trout, army cutworm moths, and ungulates and cumulative impacts of potential conflicts with livestock grazing on this allotment. Response: Climate change and its effects on grizzly bears will be more fully addressed in the FEIS. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 42: Because of the known benefits to grizzly bear survival and human safety, Greater Yellowstone Coalition supports the implementation of Interagency Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures including mandatory food storage requirements on the Sherman Allotment. In past decisions, the BTNF has adjusted the boundaries for mandatory food storage to match the extent of occupied grizzly bear habitat. Recent observations and conflicts in the vicinity of the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment suggest the BTNF should reconsider the boundaries of mandatory food storage requirements. Response: As is stated in the DEIS (pages 2-5, 3-139 and Appendix B) Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures include mandatory food storage requirements for permittees during livestock management operations within the permit area. While expanding the Forest’s mandatory Food Storage Order (which applies to all users of National Forest System lands on the BTNF) to include areas outside the current defined Food Storage boundary may reduce potential conflicts between bears and forest users is worthy of consideration, such considerations are outside the scope of this project.

Comment 43: The USFS must analyze the cumulative impacts of all ongoing and potential activities on the Canada lynx. Gas and oil wells and associated facilities, roads, traffic, crews, and other related activities are collectively impacting the wildlife and habitat resources of this area and more industrialization may occur in coming years than exists now. Consequently, the [Biological Assessment] BA and consultation must be defined to consider the full impacts on Canada lynx occurring due to these various actions. The USFS must ensure full compliance with the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. This includes considering the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) and the Lynx Science Report, as required by the Conservation Agreement." (GYC scoping comments: 10-11) Response: Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that do or may impact lynx and/or lynx habitat include past wildfires (Horse Creek and Mule Creek wildfires), recreational trapping and oil/gas leasing and development (DEIS, page 3-141). These actions contribute to cumulative effects on lynx and lynx habitat and will continue to exist under either alternative. Because the effects assessment in the DEIS identified no direct or indirect effects to lynx or lynx habitat, Alternative 2 would not contribute cumulatively to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future adverse effects already known or suspected. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) was appended to the BTNF Forest Plan in 2007 and provides direction for managing lynx and lynx habitat on the Forest. As

Appendix C-18

is summarized in the NRLMD Record of Decision (page 1-2), management direction in the NRLMD is based upon the science and recommendations in the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement, Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, and numerous other research publications cited in the NRLMD FEIS.

Comment 44: Given the rarity of most native amphibian species, the known declines of some toad and frog populations, and the effects to populations of amphibians from a warmer and drier climate, the BTNF must manage permitted actions so as to minimize or eliminate impacts to amphibians. If Alternative 2 is selected we recommend that livestock be herded away from riparian systems and wetlands and that exclusionary fencing be used as necessary to protect amphibian habitats. Response: See response to Comment #16. As is discussed in that response, monitoring of amphibian habitats will be conducted. Fencing is an obvious amphibian conservation action, and can/will be considered if monitoring indicates the need. However, fencing can also have adverse effects on other species, and thus, is not the most preferred option.

Comment 45: Part 1) Given the occurrence in the project area of several BTNF MIS, USFS Region 4 Sensitive Species, and species protected by the Endangered Species Act, and the additional stress placed on some and possibly all of these species by a warming and drying climate, the BTNF must implement actions that ensure, as best as possible, the health of habitat critical to enabling these species to thrive in the future. Part 2) Implementing herding practices or fencing stream reaches to exclude livestock and protect cold water and wetland habitats are some successful methods for protecting critical habitats. Response: Part 1) During TES and MIS effects analyses, unacceptable adverse impacts were identified and measures to avoid/mitigate adverse impacts were proposed and included in project design. Specific measures to mitigate impacts to grizzly bears, fish, and amphibians were addressed in the DEIS and/or FEIS; monitoring plans to evaluate mitigation effectiveness were developed and will be included in the FEIS. Part 2) Use of fencing to mitigate stream and riparian impacts was addressed in response to Comments #16 and #35 above. Other management tools not currently proposed for this project, including herding, are always available to the range manager and permittee if/when conditions warrant such use.

Comment 46: The BTNF should also convert pasture fences on the Sherman Allotment to wildlife friendly standards if not already compliant in order to facilitate safe wildlife movements throughout the area which can help wildlife populations utilize all available habitats. Response: All pasture and drift fences are already wildlife friendly. All new or reconstructed fences proposed for this project will include wildlife friendly fence designs.

Appendix C-19

Comment 47: We encourage the BTNF to complete a new Forest Plan as soon as possible because many elements of the 1990 Forest Plan are likely outdated. For example, the Community Prosperity Goal 1.1 to "Provide forage for approximately 260,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually" (DEIS: 1-10) uses late 1980s information. Economic circumstances in western Wyoming have undoubtedly changed during the past quarter century and the Forest Plan goals, standards and guidelines should be based on information that is as up to date as possible. Response: The Forest does not disagree with the commenter’s suggestion to update the 1990 Forest Plan. Our 1990 Forest Plan is based on the 1979 Rule, as amended with the 1982 Rule. Some of the language and concepts and direction considered important at that time period have likely changed, and some important issues today were not considered in the 1982 Planning Rule. The Courts, however, have advised the Forest Service that Forests may continue forest management under an existing Plan even though the planning period is intended to be revisited every 10-15 years. While elements of our Plan may be outdated, the Forest has completed several amendments to maintain currency. The Forest Service implemented the 2000 Rule, amended or clarified in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. The BTNF began revision of our Forest Plan under the 2005 Rule, intended to replace the 2000 Rule. The 2005 Rule was later enjoined and held invalid, thus reinstating the 2000 Rule. In response, the Forest Service proposed a new 2008 Rule, also invalidated by the Court. The Forest Service returned to the 2000 Rule, which included a transition provision to use the 1982 Rule until a new Rule was published in 2012. We will assume that the commenter participated in the Forest’s revision process under the 2005 Planning Rule, eventually enjoined by the Court and held as invalid, and then the 2008 Rule. The Forest ceased our revision effort in 2008 at the direction of the Regional Forester, prior to the Court’s rule invalidating the 2008 Rule. In 2012 a new Planning Rule went into effect. It is the Washington Office’s intent that the BTNF will revisit our 1990 Forest Plan in or around 2017. Planning efforts and various Rules aside, the Forest is guided by the 1990 Forest Plan, which is the planning basis for this document. The DEIS states that this planning effort is guided by the 1990 Forest Plan (Chapter 1, page 1-1). One of the Goals is to provide for community prosperity including livestock forage production; this is clearly stated in the Purpose and Need ((Chapter 1, page 1-3). While we would update grazing numbers in a revised Plan, it is not likely that reducing grazing to zero AUMs would be of interest to the general public. During our initial stages of the Forest Plan revision process 2005 to 2008, the Forest engaged Tex Taylor of the University of Wyoming and Jessica Clement, Social Scientist, University of Colorado, to explore data regarding economic and social aspects of the Forest. None of the data they were able to collect suggested reduced grazing AUMs. Today, total current demand forest-wide, all allotments, is approximately 121,009 AUMs, way below the Forest Plan objective of 260,000 AUMs. This reduction is driven by the market and not any action taken by the Forest. The Court ruled that the Forest Service was lagging in renewal of the grazing NEPA, and established a schedule under the 1995 Rescission Act, as amended (page iii). The grazing permittees have requested renewal of their grazing permits (previous NEPA 1987), the Forest is being responsive, and is evaluating the effects of this action through this EIS.

Appendix C-20

The Proposed Action permits the current maximum livestock forage allocation of 2,332 AUMs (page iii) and the DEIS refers to the BTNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (Chapter 1, page 1-1). This DEIS is based upon background information about the allotment including current and past surveys and monitoring data, the desired future condition of resources on the allotment derived from direction and guidelines in the Forest Plan as well as from Resource Specialists’ knowledge of the allotment. Finally the section on Forest Plan Goals and Objectives states: The Proposed Action is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan goals and objectives. Pertinent Forest Plan goals and objectives are listed in the following text box. Additional information can be found on pages 112-121 in Chapter 4 of the 1990 Forest Plan.

Community Prosperity Goal 1.1 – Communities continue or gain greater prosperity. Objective: 1.1(h) – Provide forage for approximately 260,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually. (Chapter 1, page 1-10)

Certainly, 2332 AUM is well within, and contributes toward the objective of 260,000 AUMs. Certainly, 2332 AUM is well within, and contributes toward the objective of 260,000 AUMs.

Comment 48: “It has been brought to our attention this past year that the BTNF feels that they may not have adequate staff to monitor grazing allotments to protect the natural resources and ensure compliance with permit requirements, laws and regulations." (GYC scoping comments: 16) We support the statement in this DEIS that, "Permanent Forest Service employees will monitor allotments on a regular basis" if the proposed Alternative is selected. (DEIS: 2-6) Regardless if Alternative 2 is selected the BTNF must continuously exhibit the ability and effectiveness to monitor the status and condition of the natural resources it is charged by Congress to protect, and must offer the public assurance that it will enforce terms of permits, laws and regulations. Response: Comments concerning agency staffing, or the ability of the agency to enforce permit terms, laws, or regulation fall outside the scope of this analysis.

Comment 49: We support the implementation of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures including Food Storage Order 04-00-104 in the North and South Horse Creek areas. We recommend that since grizzly bears have been known to occur in the Wyoming Range and the expectation is that grizzlies will occur in this area again (DEIS: 3-90), the BTNF erect signs at entry points and camping areas explaining this, and also undertake other public education/information outreach along with agencies and stakeholders to promote bear awareness and safe coexistence regardless of the alternative selected. One component of such outreach is to

Appendix C-21

explain that the use of pepper spray during close encounters between people and grizzly bears can diffuse some encounters and improve safety for both bears and people (Smith et al. 2008). Response: : As was discussed in Response to Comment #42 above, permittees are informed and required to follow the Conservation Measures and Food Storage Order. An outreach effort is also made to contact recreational users regarding the presence of bears and the recommendation to carry/use pepper spray if necessary to avoid and reduce conflicts and negative outcomes (Sherman Terms and Conditions 2012 Annual Report submitted to USFWS, in the project record). Although erecting signs at entry points and camping areas as suggested in the comment is a good idea, implementing such actions are outside the scope of this project.

Comment 50: We encourage the BTNF to consider working with non-profit groups, such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, to assist with restoration and road closures as it has in the past. Response: While this comment is beyond the scope of the current proposal, the BTNF agrees in principle and will continue to consider all tools and partnerships to address restoration efforts.

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Letter #3

Comment 51: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation supports the continued authorizing of livestock grazing on the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Our members support and encourage livestock grazing on federally managed lands in Wyoming as well as the maintenance of forest health which creates opportunities for agricultural use, recreational use, wildlife habitat, and the many other uses of our federally managed forest lands. Livestock grazing has been analyzed and is approved as a forage management tool in the Forest Management Plan. Managed livestock grazing has proven effective in managing for desirable forage species utilized by domestic livestock as well as wildlife. We do not support the No Livestock Grazing Alternative, nor do we feel the alternative complies with existing law. Response: Thank you for your comment. Analysis of the no action / no grazing alternative is required by law.

Comment 52: A more detailed discussion regarding existing improvements and their maintenance, as well as the reasoning behind decisions to have no new improvements put in place in the allotment would be welcome in the final EIS. Upland facilities remove pressure from riparian area use by all classes of livestock and wildlife. Improving distribution with this method may also save the permittee some time and money in labor costs. Upland improvements will also create more grazing options and reduce the occurrence of heavily grazed areas. It seems that range improvements to distribute livestock and wildlife across the landscape would help to

Appendix C-22

achieve the stated goal of ensuring that long-term range and riparian conditions are maintained across the allotment. Response: The Sherman Allotment has adequate water distribution across the allotment. The fences currently in place are adequate to control livestock movement and combined with frequent riding and salting are achieving vegetation management objectives. No new improvements are being proposed.

Sublette Co. Conservation District Letter # 4

Comment 53: It is odd to implement two Allowable Use Standards for Riparian Areas. Both standards are intended to accomplish the same purpose. The document acknowledges that riparian health is generally good. That accomplishment has been achieved under the vegetation utilization standard. The imposition of a streambank alteration standard of some non-calibrated “cookbook” value does not acknowledge the achievements attained through the forage utilization standard. Rather than imposing the streambank alteration as a standard, it makes more sense to use this as an opportunity to refine the calibration of streambank alteration and learn how it may be employed, rather than imposing an arbitrarily assigned standard of use. Response: Implementation of Forest Plan standards is not optional. Both the Vegetation Utilization Standard and the Streambank Alteration Standard must be met by the management described in the selected alternative. Streambank alteration affects riparian and stream channel function. As stated in Simon, 2008, “[i]mpacts may include channel widening (and loss of ability of flood flows to access floodplains), loss of riparian vegetation (which then makes banks more vulnerable to further erosion), localized lowering of water tables in riparian areas (and loss of water storage in floodplains and stream channels), and changes in sediment transport capacity of stream channels.” Simon further states that, “[r]esearchers have also reported that channel degradation from alteration may occur before utilization or stubble height requirements are met” and “[c]hannel recovery is often slower than vegetative recovery”, which further emphasizes the importance of assessing streambank alteration in addition to stubble height or other vegetative indicators. The values chosen for allowable streambank alteration are based on an extensive search of the literature, a large body of field data from the Intermountain West and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and conversations with experienced field practitioners. When implementing the selected grazing system, the District Range Program Manager will monitor both vegetation utilization and streambank alteration to ensure that both standards are met.

Comment 54: The document makes extensive reference to GTR-104, Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West. We would caution that the way that information derived from that reference is being used is outside the intent of the reference. The GTR is the summation of a pilot study, employing subjective benchmarks, and freely admits that additional work is required. It should not be treated as the definitive reference, nor should it replace informed judgment of knowledgeable and long-time observers. The GTR, and the Forest

Appendix C-23

Inventory Study upon which it is based may be more properly used to inform refinement of much more precise and scientifically appropriate ecological site descriptions. Response: GTR-104 was the tool we chose to explain the condition of the rangeland resource without having developed ecological site descriptions. The Forest will continue to work with our collaborators and partners to define and develop ecological site descriptions for use in our area.

Comment 55: It would seem appropriate to include a discussion regarding the impact to rangeland resources of recent wildfire and recovery. Recovering burned areas certainly increase the number of acres suitable for grazing, increases the total mass of forage resources, and may affect the availability and abundance of off-stream water; all of which provide strong support for reauthorization of the grazing program. In fact, a case could be made that there is now an abundance of unallocated AUMs of suitable forage as result of the fire recovery. Response: There are indeed un-allocated AUMs as a result of the fires in the area. As the areas burned were primarily timber and will over time continue to transition back into a timbered vegetation type the decision maker chose not to further analyze the burned area as available for livestock grazing. The burnt timber will continue to fall and render most areas unusable to domestic livestock grazing.

Comment 56: We would urge great caution in initiating any management changes for the benefit of amphibians because of the unknowns regarding their habitat needs and the population interaction with grazing. There simply is not any consensus in the research indicating positive or negative interaction, particularly for the species of concern. Concurrent with that is the lack of any substantial knowledge regarding distribution or population. What we do know is that there are some populations of amphibians and that those populations co-exist with grazing. It is unknown how altering that relationship will affect amphibian populations. Response: See Response to Comment #4 and #16. The Bridger-Teton National Forest has two Sensitive amphibian species and the Forest is required to manage these species so as to ensure that our actions do not cause (or accelerate) a trend toward listing. Known population status of these species in the project area is addressed on pages 3-103-3-107.

Comment 57: Page 6: Streambank Alteration Standard - Livestock impacts are mentioned however nothing is mentioned as to wildlife impacts. Response: The Streambank Alteration Standard refers to “large herbivores”. Impacts by wild ungulates (elk, deer, moose, etc.) are included in the streambank alteration percentages. It is also shown as part of the issue indicator (p. 3-27, DEIS). The descriptions of the existing conditions of sites in the Hydrology Resources section (e.g., Spring Creek—page 3-35, DEIS) note where impacts may be due to wildlife.

Appendix C-24

Comment 58: Page 7 Fishery Resources – What is the contribution of natural sources of fine sediment? Response: .We have not conducted sediment source studies within the watershed to be able to determine the proportion of sediment generated from natural sources as compared to management and forest use activities. We have thoroughly evaluated the cattle grazing impacts within the project area and have determined that the contribution of fine sediment to streams from current or proposed cattle grazing within this allotment is not a significant impact to the stream or fisheries condition. Cumulative effects of past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions on streams, water quality, and fisheries are discussed in detail in the DEIS (pages 3-51, 3-52, and 3-80 to 3-83).

Comment 59: Page 27: Mention of livestock grazing used to maintain or improve water quality (support for continuing to graze livestock in this area). Response: This comment refers to a statement on Chapter 2, page 2-2 of the DEIS, which states, in relation to authorizing livestock grazing, that “[t]he grazing intensity would be employed to maintain and/or improve rangeland vegetation, water quality and long-term soil productivity on the allotment.” This comment provides support for the idea that water quality can meet standards where livestock grazing takes place. The Forest Service is in agreement.

Comment 60: Page: 29 Fish bearing streams - Is there data to show what streams actually have fish populations and if so what species? Response: Sampling by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Forest Service contributed to the following discussion of species present in Horse Creek: “The Horse Creek drainage has Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), all of which are native to the drainage, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and Bonneville redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus hydrophlox), which are not native to the drainage. Our data indicates that these fish populations exist through North and South Horse Creeks. Spring Creek, Pass Creek, Cole Creek, and Mill Creek have fish in the lowest segment of the streams; and Elk Creek is believed not to have any fisheries.

Comment 61: Page 34: SCCD annually monitors water quality – The district actually collects water quality samples 4x’s per year and aquatic insects once per year Response: On page 3-30, the DEIS states that “The Sublette Conservation District has collected miscellaneous water quality data on North Horse Creek at the forest boundary (T34N, R113W, sec. 6 NE1/4) from April 2001 through November 2008.” The FEIS will be reworded to read “The Sublette Conservation District has collected water quality data on North Horse Creek at the forest boundary (T34N, R113W, sec. 6 NE1/4) since April 2001. Samples are generally taken four times per year and data through November 2008 are used for this document”.

Appendix C-25

Comment 62: Page 64: Pebble count (fine sediments contributions) – What is the contribution of livestock grazing vs. the natural contribution from the upper watershed above the allotment(s)? I would hope that the USFS would consider the contribution of sediment from the upper watershed which has no grazing of any kind and has not since the sheep allotments were retired some years ago. Response: We have not conducted the sediment source studies within the watershed to be able to determine the exact proportion of sediment generated from natural sources as compared to the many management activities. However, as presented in both the Fisheries Resources section (page 3-72) and the Hydrology Resources section (pages 3-36 and 3-37), there is excess sediment in North Horse Creek that is coming from a combination of natural sources and watershed conditions based on past management (including past sheep grazing in the headwaters) that are located upstream of the project area. Cumulative effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities are described in the DEIS (pages 3-51, 3-52, and 3-80 to 3- 83). We have thoroughly evaluated the cattle grazing impacts within the project area and have determined that the contribution of fine sediment to streams from current or proposed cattle grazing within this allotment is not a significant impact to the stream or fisheries condition.

Comment 63: There seems to be sufficient data/information contained in numerous places within the EIS to support continued grazing in the Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment. Response: Thank you for your comment.

Department of Interior Letter # 5 No comments.

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Letter # 6

Comment 64: The Sherman Allotment is located in a Colorado cutthroat trout core conservation population area and should be given high priority and protection in developing this proposed action. Response: The Forest Service is aware of the conservation designation of cutthroat trout within the project area and focused substantial analysis on the potential effects to cutthroat trout. Our analysis has indicated that most of the impacts to the fisheries are related to watershed conditions upstream of the project area; however, there would be some effect to cutthroat trout and their habitats by implementing the project. Overall, we feel that the proposed action would not result in a decline of the cutthroat trout population, contribute to a trend toward listing, or impact the ability to maintain a recreational fishery in the project area.

Comment 65: Although this project only covers grazing issues within the allotment we recommend expanding the project so that a watershed restoration approach is incorporated into the EIS. Generally successful management of riparian areas requires management considerations Appendix C-26

encompassing the entire watershed. Enhancement and management strategies should center on the concept that healthy riparian areas are a product of sound upland as well as riparian vegetation management, which together provide a functional basin-wide ecosystem. This watershed approach will provide habitat for a high diversity of fish and wildlife, while enhancing production and nutritional quality of forage for wildlife and domestic livestock. Response: We look forward to continuing to work with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other partners to consider and implement approved and funded watershed restoration projects in this area in the future. Such projects are beyond the scope of this grazing analysis.

Comment 66: Watershed improvements would decrease sediment loading, decrease water temperatures, and increase bank stability. Some management actions that could be incorporated include improving stream crossings, replacement of undersized culverts or poorly placed culverts, complete removal of some culverts, decommissioning of roads and upgrading roads, and stabilization of upland habitats. These improvements would decrease the recovery time of this watershed and return improved habitat conditions for livestock, wildlife and aquatic species. Response: We look forward to continuing to work with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other partners to consider and implement approved and funded watershed restoration projects in this area in the future. Such projects are beyond the scope of this grazing analysis. Please see page 3-53 under the Watershed Restoration Standard for a description of planned improvements.

Wyoming Department of Agriculture Letter #7

Comment 67: Summary, page iii: The Purpose and Need of the proposed action states “to maintain or improve rangeland affected by domestic livestock grazing”. We suggest changing “affected” to “utilized”. Response: Current text will be retained as the suggested change would potentially preclude the proposed action from addressing indirect effects of domestic livestock grazing.

Comment 68: First bullet, page iv: No more than 20% of the total streambank length, within any given stream reach would be allowed to show stream bank alteration as defined by Burton et al. (2008). WDA is concerned this will refer to both perennial and ephemeral stream channels. It is inappropriate for the standard to apply to dry stream channels. We ask BTNF to remove the statement or to only apply the standard to perennial stream channels and banks. Response: See DEIS Chapter 2-4 for application of Streambank Stability Guideline. The document by Burton, Cowley and Smith (2008) refers to perennial stream systems only.

Appendix C-27

Comment 69: Last paragraph, page iv: “The existing permits would be cancelled and all improvements removed.” This conflicts with statements on page 2-2 where it is stated that some structural improvements would remain. The DEIS should be consistent throughout. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Information on page iv will be clarified in the FEIS. Pasture Boundary fences will be removed while fences that serve as allotment boundaries will remain.

Comment 70: History of Livestock Management, page 1-3: The DEIS neglects to go into much detail about the past livestock use regarding type of livestock grazed in the area. Page 3-72 mentions past sheep grazing in the headwaters…Please clarify. Response: Page 1-3 provides a historical summary. The discussion in 3-72 refers to grazing outside of the project area, but still causing effects within the allotment.

Comment 71: Purpose and Need, page 1-3: Fourth bullet states “Implement changes made to the Forest Plan since the last grazing authorization.” Clarify what the changes are and which Forest Plan is referenced. Response: The Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan was signed in 1990 after the 1987 NEPA decision authorizing grazing on the Sherman Allotment. Specifically the decision will implement the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. (DEIS Chapter 1-9)

Comment 72: Proposed Action, page 1-5: We request the BTNF include an adaptive management system in the proposed action. We ask that the BTNF reference the Final Environmental Assessment for Livestock Grazing Permit Issuance on the Shoshone National Forest (2010). An adaptive management process through data collection will assist the BTNF to make appropriate decisions and changes throughout the life of the grazing permit. Response: The proposed action addresses issues in the analysis without the need for adaptive management. Your request is noted.

Comment 73: Proposed Action, page 1-5: We are unclear by what the BTNF means by “Construct a fence.” Response: The bullet statement will be removed.

Comment 74: Livestock numbers, page 2-3: BTNF inconsistently uses Animal Unit Months (AUMs) and Head Months (HMs). We ask BTNF to utilize one form of measurement throughout. Appendix C-28

Response: iii 2,332 AUM will be changed to 2,172 HMs in the FEIS to address this issue.

Comment 75: Allowable use standard, page 2-5: The second paragraph states …interactions and human/bear interactions due to bears feeding on livestock carcasses.” We recommend removing “due to bears feeding on livestock carcasses”. Grizzly bears are expanding their territory and conflicts are likely to occur regardless of the presence of livestock carcasses, but rather due to the increases in the bears range and increases in the number of people using the areas. Response: The comment addresses a paragraph in the DEIS under Grizzly Bear Conservation Measures on page 2-5, as opposed to Allowable Use Standards on the same page. The comment is correct in that grizzly bears are expanding their range and an increase in human/bear interactions in the project area is likely regardless of livestock grazing. However, the Forest also believes that bears feeding on livestock carcasses add an additional human/bear conflict risk under Alternative 2, and adds cumulatively to the over-all potential for conflicts with Forest users. Grizzly Bear Conservation Measure #7 in the DEIS attempts to mitigate conflicts with bears feeding on carcasses near campgrounds, roads and trails where human uses are most likely to occur. Regardless, the statement in the DEIS referenced in the comment will be revised for clarity in the FEIS.

Comment 76: Allowable use standard, page 2-5: The second paragraph states “(1) allow plant health and rangeland functionality to maintain a stable or upward trend, including litter buildup and increase organic content in soils.” WDA recommends removing “increase” since increasing organic matter is not possible in each location. Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 77: Validation monitoring, page 2-8: “Validation monitoring should occur prior to the implementation of new standards and guidelines in a project specific planning document.” WDA supports this concept and we request the validation monitoring occur specifically on the Columbia spotted frog and western boreal toad. Response: This project scope does not cover validation monitoring for sensitive species. However, as directed by the Forest Plan, the Forest biologists do monitor population trends and track trends in riparian and range habitat health and diversity. Toward this end, the Forest Service, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, and the Wyoming Natural Heritage program have been working cooperatively for several years to identify and monitor breeding populations of amphibians including the Columbia spotted frog and the western boreal toad, and to identify risks and conservation measures to preclude the need for listing. As these are verified, appropriate conservation measures will be implemented and monitored for effectiveness. Appendix C-29

Comment 78: Criteria use, page 3-8: WDA asks BTNF to ensure the 17,370 total acres of the Sherman Allotment are also the same as the 17,370 suitable acres in the Sherman Allotment. Response: This is correct. This was validated using the criteria on page 3-8.

Comment 79: Table 3-5, page 3-17: The table shows detrimental disturbance levels being 1 percent for soil map units 203, 403, 332, and 202, for a total of 4 percent soil being detrimentally disturbed. Under Detrimental Soil Disturbance (page 3-21) BTNF states “In 2008, less than 1 percent of the area or 127 acres was estimated to have detrimental soil conditions occurring in map units 202, 203, 303 and 432.” WDA recommends the table utilize <1 percent and <4 percent respectively. Response: Table 3-5 has been updated to show estimated acres of soil detrimental disturbance. The summary on page 3-23 has also been updated to reflect that less than 1 percent of the area has detrimental soil conditions.

Comment 80: Dispersed Recreation, page 3-59: The section provides information of overlap of utilization on roads and possible conflict between recreation users and livestock grazing permittees in the Sherman Allotment. We ask BTNF to convey the different hunting seasons and what dates the livestock grazing permits overlap those particular dates. As stated in the DEIS, livestock grazing permits are only issued through September 20th. Response: There is overlap of the operating season of the Sherman Allotment (July 6 to September 20th) and designated hunting seasons (August 15 to October 31). Most overlap occurs in archery season in the middle of August into September. As stated in the Recreation section (page 3-57), there have been no reported conflicts between hunters or recreationists and livestock in the past four years. However, page 3-61 of the DEIS recognizes that “It is possible that some members of the public avoid recreating in areas where cattle are allowed to graze.” As the proposed action does not modify the current concentration of livestock in the area, nor the current timeframe, it is not anticipated that conflicts between hunters and livestock will occur any more frequently than occur under current conditions, and there are currently no conflicts recorded on file.

Elk 92 – Archery Sept 1 – Sept 30

 Deer 142 – Archery Sept 1 – Sept 15; Rifle – Sept 15 – Oct 6  Antelope 88 – Archery Aug 15 – Sept 10; Rifle – Sept 10 – Oct 31  Moose 24 – Archery Sept 1 – Sept 30  Bighorn Sheep – Archery Aug 15 – Aug 31; Rifle Sept 1 – Oct 31

Appendix C-30

Comment 81: Alternative 1, page 3-47: the paragraph states “Observations made after two years of rest in the southern pasture and after one year of rest in the northern pasture, clearly indicate that without grazing, conditions would be maintained or would continue to improve along all streams and riparian areas where livestock grazing is the primary source of direct and indirect impacts.” WDA recommends removing the word “clearly” as this statement is subjective. Additionally, the BTNF is not considering how increased wildlife populations may utilize and negatively impact streams and riparian areas if livestock were removed. Response: The word “clearly” has been removed from the FEIS. The effects of stock removal were considered under the No Action Alternative. Wildlife population increases are speculative and are not part of this analysis.

Comment 82: First paragraph, page 3-71: “In addition, past sheep grazing in the headwaters has resulted in elevated erosion rates. While sheep grazing has been discontinued, erosive features are healing gradually, and the sediment is still in the process of moving through the streams.” WDA strongly recommends that BTNF remove this sentence in its entirety. Not only is the statement unnecessarily negative and biased to the sheep industry but it is lacking any scientific reference. The Sherman as we understand it is a cattle allotment, so to blame domestic sheep grazing as the reason for erosion issues, is very concerning. If sheep grazing did occur on the allotment, we recommend including this information in the “History” sections. Response: The effects of sheep grazing in the headwaters of North Horse Creek are well- documented in the Wyoming Range Allotment Complex Record of Decision (2004). Although the Sherman Allotment is a cattle grazing allotment, the analysis area for the project includes the entire watershed. This statement is not an indictment of sheep grazing in general, but a recognition of the impacts of past management to this particular watershed, impacts which ultimately led to management decisions that were designed, in part, to increase ground cover to improve watershed condition, fisheries and aquatic habitats. This statement is important in understanding the current and trending conditions of fish habitat on North Horse Creek.

Comment 83: Stream descriptions, page 3-74: “The stream and riparian area has some evidence of livestock impacts, such as trails in the riparian area and across streams and browsed willows, but those impacts are limited.” We urge BTNF to include wildlife trailing and willow utilization into this paragraph and all areas of the DEIS where livestock is not specifically determined as the causal factor.

Response: We agree with the comment and have modified to statement to read: “The stream and riparian area has some evidence of livestock and wildlife impacts, such as trails in the riparian area and across streams and browsed willows, but those impacts are limited.”

Appendix C-31

Comment 84: Historic Grazing, page 3-83: “Although sheep grazing was discontinued in the headwaters of Horse Creek approximately seven years ago, there is substantial erosion due to bare ground…” WDA reiterates our previous comments and lack of mention of sheep. Additionally this statement includes the headwaters of Horse Creek—how far are the headwaters outside of the boundary of the allotment? Overall this is a disconnect of the historic use from cattle, horse and sheep grazing in the allotment. Response: The past sheep grazing impacts are outside of the project area but are within the analysis area. The description of the grazing history is specific to the allotment.

Comment 85: Greater Sage-Grouse, page 3-97: WDA insists that BTNF use the State of Wyoming’s Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 and 2013-3.

Response: Bridger Teton National Forest acknowledges the efforts of the state to conserve greater sage-grouse and other species, and we work closely with other federal, state and local agencies to provide essential habitat for native wildlife. Greater sage grouse is a Forest Sensitive species and candidate for federal listing as threatened (found warranted but precluded by USFWS) with habitat and documented occurrence on the allotment, and as such, its life cycle and habitat needs are being taken into consideration in this assessment (page 3-101). The Forest Service is engaged in a NEPA planning process to determine whether to amend 20 Land Management Resource Plans to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures, with a target decision date of September 2014. The BTNF is included in the Wyoming 9-Unit Plan EIS currently in preparation. The goals are: to reduce risks to sage-grouse and its habitat; maintain ecosystems on which sage-grouse depends; and to conserve habitat necessary to sustain sage- grouse populations to an extent that precludes the need for its listing under the Endangered Species Act. Meanwhile, the Forest Service Washington and R4 Regional Offices have provided Interim Conservation Recommendations for Sage-Grouse in USFS Regions 1, 2, and 4 in October of 2012 that provides direction for conserving occupied sage-grouse habitats on planning units, and this project incorporates those recommendations Occupied habitat on the BTNF has been mapped; maps of occupied habitat are filed in the project record. In addition, the Forest Plan includes a Standard for developing and implementing quantifiable objectives for Sensitive Species, including the sage-grouse (see Response to Comment #4), and this project also incorporates direction that meets this Standard.

Comment 86: Columbia spotted frog and western boreal toad, page 3-103 and 3-104: WDA is very concerned with the direction the BTNF is heading with regards to the Columbia spotted frog and the western boreal toad. Livestock grazing has been a long term historic use overlapping with frog and toad habitat. BTNF admits they are uncertain why there is a decline in either population. Yet paragraph 5, page 3-105 and page 3-107, Figure 3-34 shows BTNF is developing

Appendix C-32

a standard of 1/3 mile buffer. WDA insists that BTNF gather frog and toad baseline data prior to developing standards. Response: See Response to Comments #4, 16 and 56. For clarification, this plan does not include development of a new standard. One third of a mile as shown around the breeding sites in Figure 3-34 identifies an area within which 66 percent of the breeding population can be found, and is thus the focus of management concern regarding maintaining adequate habitat (cover) for boreal toads. The Forest continues to monitor breeding populations, working cooperatively with Wyoming Game and Fish, and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database to gather data on population trends, identify any threats (whether from management or the environment) to these populations, and to inform conservation and management of these sensitive species. Boreal toads and Columbia spotted frogs are recognized by the Regional Forester as Sensitive species and they are also monitored regularly as Management Indicator Species. Forest Plan Goal 3.3 states that Sensitive species will be prevented from becoming a federally listed Threatened species in Wyoming. Objective 3.3(a) is to protect National Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Plant and Animal Species and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat to ensure that activities do not cause 1) long-term or further decline in population numbers or habitats supporting these populations, and 2) trends towards federal listing. As noted by WGFD in 2005, “boreal toad populations appear to be in a state of severe decline.” The species has since been determined “warranted for consideration” for listing by the USFWS, and thus may already be considered to be “trending toward listing.” As required, the Forest has used the best available science and information in the development of objectives and conservation measures for protection of sensitive species, including those for amphibians. D. Patla (2000), who has conducted extensive amphibian research in the Greater Yellowstone region notes that “protection of amphibian habitat is vital to maintaining amphibian species and diversity and abundance in the long term.” Research has shown that over 60 percent of breeding toads occupy habitat within 1/3 mile of the breeding site. Many toads (40 percent) gradually venture farther into the uplands for food and cover, but this minimal distance encompasses the majority of the population surrounding a wetland breeding site, during a critical time of their lifecycle. Recommended conservation measures (not to be confused with standards) include retaining adequate cover within this perimeter to provide important habitat that will protect breeding toads from threats such as predation, and provide a cool, moist environment, as well as protection from possible trampling by domestic or wild ungulates. Amphibian monitoring is being conducted to confirm breeding site activity, and collect information on disease, genetics, and population trends. Forest standards and guidelines for fish and wildlife are set in the Forest Plan. Forest Plan Goal 4.7 states that grazing use of the National Forest [will] sustain or improve overall range, soils, water, wildlife, and recreation values and experience. Goal 4.7(d) requires that suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover be retained for wildlife and fish.

Appendix C-33

Comment 87: Cumulative Effects, page 3-135: Climate change would continue to threaten the species’ persistence in the Wyoming Range. We recommend removing “would” and replace with “may”.

Response: Rapid climate change is a scientifically recognized threat to wolverine, amphibians and other wildlife populations around the world. If the proposed action is implemented, climate change would continue to be a threat.

Comment 88: Direct and Indirect Effects, page 3-145: “Grazing can adversely affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats important to boreal toads and spotted frogs through a large variety of impacts: removal or reduction of herbaceous and shrub cover, stream bank collapse, soil compaction, reduction of beaver and burrowing rodent populations…” We recommend removing references to beavers and rodents as we don’t see how grazing impacts either. Response: The statement in the DEIS referenced in the comment was made in relation to research conducted by Bartelt (1998 and 2000). Toads and frogs are known to seek rodent burrows for protection and hibernation; livestock can trample and crush rodent burrows. Livestock use can alter vegetation conditions within riparian areas that may also provide habitat for long-term beaver persistence.

Comment 89: Direct and Indirect Effects, page 3-145: “Livestock grazing in wetlands is likely to result in direct impacts such as mortality of toads from trampling. Bartelt (1998 and 2000) observed the demise of many hundreds of boreal toad metamorphs at a breeding site on the Targhee National Forest when a band of sheep was driven through the area. Toad mortality resulted from trampling during the event and from desiccation later. Bartelt noted that because toad reproduction was already greatly constrained by years of drought conditions, this event in 1995 (a rare wet year) probably destroyed half the toad reproduction for the past decade at the breeding area (Bartelt 1998; Bartelt 2000).” WDA asks the Forest Service for copies of both references. Additionally we are opposed to references with biased and subjective statements such as “observed the demised” or “probably destroyed”. Response: We will be happy to provide the commenter with copies of this research. The reference is a direct quote from Bartelt’s research article.

Comment 90: Cumulative Effects, page 1-160: the BTNF analyzes the socio-economic impacts and cumulative effects of both alternatives. WDA urges BTNF to consider the effect to the community and wildlife if the ranches were sold into subdivisions. Loss of public land grazing in BTNF has been precedent setting and an ongoing concern for WDA.

Appendix C-34

Response: The comment suggests consideration of effects associated with sale and subsequent subdivision of ranches. While the current analysis includes consideration of the potential for increased management costs associated with term permitted grazing authorized under the preferred alternative, any estimate of effects arising from the potential sale and subdivision of ranches would be speculative. Increased management costs would not necessarily result in the ranch property being sold, nor would sale of such property necessitate subdivision.

Appendix C-35

Appendix D

Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

Draft Monitoring Plan Monitoring will take place as described below to insure that the selected alternative, as described in the Record of Decision (ROD) are implemented, and to insure that the prescribed standards maintain the desired conditions described in the EIS. The ID Team identified implementation monitoring and project-specific effectiveness monitoring as important aspects of the Sherman Grazing Authorization and Management Project.

Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring will be used to determine whether the selected alternative is implemented as planned in this document. This is the short-term or annual monitoring used to determine if the goals, objectives, standards and management practices are implemented as detailed in the Record of Decision. Implementation monitoring will be conducted annually on a subset of allotments to determine whether the allotments are being managed in accordance with their AMP’s and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI’s). Allotment administrators will make field observations and document their findings in the individual permit files. These observations could include, for example, whether livestock were moved to other pastures or removed from an allotment before the maximum prescribed utilization parameters (pertaining to forage and browse utilization, stubble height, and streambank alteration) are exceeded. The field observations documented in the file will be summarized at the end of each year and a determination made whether on-the-ground management practices met the specified guidelines. Administrative action may be taken at any time (as specified in FSH 2209.13 – Grazing Permit Administration Handbook) if established parameters are exceeded.

Project-specific Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted to determine whether the assumptions made in the analysis for this project are correct. (Chapter 3 of the Sherman Grazing Authorization and Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement describes the environmental effects anticipated for each of the alternatives.) Effectiveness monitoring will identify whether the actual effects of implementing the selected alternative were consistent with the effects originally projected. This monitoring may be conducted in cooperation with the permittees in the project area and will require the continued establishment and maintenance of long-term monitoring sites. The methods used to conduct effectiveness monitoring could include establishing MIM sites, permanent riparian photo points and running greenline and nested frequency transects.

Range Vegetation Monitoring

Goal: Monitor to determine compliance with utilization standards.

Monitoring the effects of livestock grazing on the environment (including riparian areas, uplands, soils, etc.) will primarily be achieved by monitoring livestock utilization, since utilization of vegetation was identified as a common parameter that affects the desired conditions described for a multitude of resources. Annual livestock use monitoring will be the most common form of monitoring the implementation of my decision to authorize

2 livestock grazing. Utilization (use) is an annual measurement that is designed to achieve long-term resource objectives. Long term vegetation, soil, and water quality improvement will remain the primary desired outcome. Monitoring will be used to test the effectiveness of achieving long-term objectives by following annual guidelines.

Utilization is measured on key species and is defined as the percentage of use by all herbivores, on current year’s growth, by weight, at the end of the growing season. While the achievement of long-term resource objectives is the primary desired outcome of monitoring efforts, it is necessary to achieve the short-term annual objectives in order to verify the effectiveness of the annual “triggers”.

Interagency Monitoring Technical References provide the range vegetation monitoring methodologies (FSM 2206). Technical references may be supplemented by regional handbooks (FSM 2209) or Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide (2001).

Vegetative utilization monitoring will take place on key sites, as a minimum, and any other areas determined necessary to insure that long term desired conditions will be achieved. At least one long term trend study will be maintained in each pasture. Additional effectiveness monitoring studies may be established on additional key areas as determined necessary.

Long term trend studies will be re-read every 10 years on pastures. Long term trend transects can be read prior to the scheduled year if deemed necessary by the Rangeland Management Specialist. The long term trend studies for each allotment will be used to determine if the objectives are being met, however, administrative action may be taken for exceeding short term use standards, because those annual standards are designed to meet long term objectives. The objective is for ground cover or other long-term trend parameter to be meeting or trending toward the respective desired conditions by vegetation cover type. Failure to meet short term objectives may be indicated by exceeding proper use on one or more key areas. Failure to meet long-term objectives should be demonstrated by a statistically significant measured change in ground cover or other long-term trend indicator. The parameter would show a change away from desired condition, as specified in the FEIS, the latest measured value must be outside of the threshold for properly functioning or desired condition.

Evaluation of key sites and their ability to reflect overall grazing use of the pasture will continue. If a key site does not continue to represent grazing use of the pasture for which it was chosen, a new key site will be selected.

Livestock Grazing System Monitoring

Goal: Monitor riparian and upland range sites to determine the effectiveness of (or need for changes in) herding and distribution within strategies authorized by the decision.

Periodic examinations to insure all management and herding practices are being followed as outlined in the AOI. Each year prior to grazing, a set of operating instructions will be prepared for the permittee. These instructions outline the how, when, where and what

3 will be expected of the permittee and/or his riders when his livestock graze on National Forest System lands.

 Existing fence will continue to be maintained or reconstructed as needed.  Cooperative work with permittees, intended to improve livestock distribution through riding and proper salt placement (as identified in grazing permits, and AOI’s) will continue.

Watershed/Fisheries Monitoring Goal: Monitor to determine whether grazing at proper use is maintaining water quality standards that comply with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Long-term monitoring of Pass and Spring Creeks by the Hydrology department (average of approximately every five years) will ensure that physical stream parameters are being maintained and that the Streambank Alteration Standard is an appropriate tool to maintain channel conditions. Multiple Indicator Monitoring protocols as define by Burton, Cowley and Smith (2008) will be followed.

Wildlife Monitoring Goals: 1) Grizzly Bears: Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the USFWS Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement to avoid/minimize grizzly bear/livestock and grizzly bear/human conflicts.  Review/discuss Conservation Measures with the permitee(s) at least annually.  Conduct periodic patrols to ensure that the Conservation Measures are being implemented appropriately. Address any issues/take corrective actions as necessary. 2) Amphibians: Maintain adequate cover surrounding breeding sites (BTNF 2013 Conservation Measures for Sensitive Species).  Conduct validation monitoring (test the assumption that 50% utilization will retain at least 70% cover of herbaceous vegetation) within 1/3 mile of breeding sites (monitor grazed and ungrazed plots; clip and weigh forbs and grasses before and after grazing). Utilization monitoring can be used to inform management and ensure suitable amphibian habitat conditions are maintained. 3) Greater Sage-grouse: Maintain habitat for nesting and brood-rearing in riparian areas, wet meadows, and sage-steppe  Survey the allotment to determine locations and type of sage grouse use.

4  Monitor to determine whether suitable habitat conditions exist (for life stages of nesting, brood-rearing, etc. in sage-steppe and riparian communities) according to methods described by Connelly (2000) and Stiver (2010). Riparian condition may be monitored using PFCs or greenline ecological status (as outlined in BTNF Draft Conservation Measures for Sage Grouse, 2013). Adjust grazing management as necessary. 4) Fence construction: Confirm that any fence repair or reconstruction meets wildlife-friendly specifications (Paige, 2012).

Heritage Resources Monitoring

Goal: Monitor the impacts of livestock on heritage resource sites to determine whether additional management or mitigation measures are needed to protect them.

Soil Resources Monitoring

Goal: Monitor the impacts of livestock grazing on soil quality parameters to determine if additional management or mitigation measures are needed to improve soil quality.

Monitoring Plan Summary

Frequency of Resource area Measurement parameter measurement

Range vegetation Upland/Riparian utilization monitoring Annually.

Condition and trend data Range vegetation Upland condition and trend studies will be collected from key sites every 10 years. Riparian condition and trend

photo points will continue to Range vegetation Riparian condition and trend studies be taken every 10 years.

Livestock grazing system Fence maintenance, pasture integrity Random inspections

Watershed Stream/riparian stability 5-10 years.

Watershed/Fisheries Stream/riparian stability 5-10 years.

5 Frequency of Resource area Measurement parameter measurement

Recreation Livestock/recreation conflicts Ongoing

Wildlife Food storage and livestock carcass removal Random inspections

Heritage Protection of cultural sites Random inspections

Depends upon condition and

Soil Quality Parameters recovery of identified Soil erosion sites. When compacted areas are identified, they will be Soil Avoidance of Productivity Loss Standard displayed in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) and avoided.

Maximum standards are specified in the Record of Decision or mitigation measure table above.

Appendix E OMB 0596-02 17 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

FS Agreement No. _ ___::_:ll:_-M::..:.::..=U~-1:....:1:..::.0=-20:....:0....::..0-=-0-....::..0:....:18::_ . Cooperator Agreement No ------

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between The WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY And The USDA, FOREST SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION AND INTERMOUNTAIN REGION

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is hereby made and entered into by and between the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, hereinafter referred to as "WDEQ," and the USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region and Intermountain Region, hereinafter referred to as the "U.S. Forest Service."

Title: Protect Water Quality and Designated Uses in Waterbodies on National Forest System Lands in Wyoming

I. PURPOSE:

The purpose of this MOU is to document the cooperation between the parties to protect water quality and designated uses in waterbodies on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Wyoming, consistent with WDEQ requirements for water quality protection and U.S. Forest Service requirements to administer NFS lands including protecting water quality, in accordance with the following provisions.

Water quality will be protected by meeting state water quality standards, by protecting designated uses of water and by complying with any state environmental permitting requirements. This MOU is not to be construed as a contract for purposes of the federal Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 614 et seq.

This MOU defines agency responsibilities in implementing the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Program and in achieving federal compliance with Sections 313 and 319(k) ofthe Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1323 and 33 U.S.C. § 1329) on NFS lands in Wyoming. Actions taken pursuant to this MOU, unless otherwise actionable, are not considered final agency actions pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e).

II. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND INTERESTS:

The State of Wyoming is responsible under the Clean Water Act for protecting water quality. WDEQ is the agency responsible under Wyo. Stat. Ann.§ 35-11-109(a)(i) for administering the State water quality programs to carry out the purposes of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (WEQA). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-102 declares the purpose for WDEQ to be to protect, maintain and improve the quality of the State's waters in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the

Page 1 of 11 OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

State of Wyoming and to secure the cooperation of the federal government in carrying out these objectives.

In the Organic Administration Act of 1897, a principal purpose for establishment of the Forest Reserves (predecessor to the National Forest System) was to "secure favorable conditions of water flows." The U.S. Forest Service is charged by Congress with administering over 9.2 million acres ofNFS lands in the State of Wyoming under various federal laws. Land management activities and other authorized uses ofNFS lands may be the source of pollutants that can degrade water quality and impair designated uses of water. The U.S. Forest Service, under Section 313 ofthe federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1323) is subject to, and shall comply with all state requirements respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any non-governmental entity.

Protecting water quality and designated uses of water on NFS lands requires coordination and cooperation between WDEQ, the U.S. Forest Service and other interested stakeholders. There are numerous federal and state laws and local regulations pertaining to the management of land and water resources. Collaborative efforts consistent with those laws and regulations will promote the most effective management of water resources and will enhance benefits to the public. It is in the public interest to find reasonable solutions to challenging water quality issues under cooperative agreements.

In consideration of the above premises, the parties agree as follows:

III. WDEQ SHALL:

A. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) CONTROL

1. Support implementation ofthe U.S. Forest Service NPS strategy as compliance with the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Program, applicable sections of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act and the federal Clean Water Act.

2. Approve the use ofBest Management Practices (BMPs) contained in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25 R2 Amendment [Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook] for NFS lands in Region 2 and in FSH 2509.22 R1/R4 Amendment [Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook] for NFS lands in Region 4 as meeting the requirements of the BMPs in the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan.

3. Conduct periodic field reviews jointly with the U.S. Forest Service of various watersheds and activities on NFS lands to evaluate implementation and effectiveness ofBMPs on the ground. Based on these reviews, BMPs may be jointly adjusted to improve protection of water quality, or joint recommendations to adopt site-specific water quality standards or to adjust

Page 2 ofll OMB0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

use designations may be made. Recommendations to change water quality standards or use designations would be subject to WDEQ regulatory procedures.

B. PROJECT PLANNING

1. Review U.S. Forest Service projects and activities that may have an effect on water quality and provide timely comments in accordance with the established State Clearinghouse Procedures and the U.S. Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) process.

2. Review and consult or cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service on projects and activities on NFS lands proposed by public or private proponents that may have an effect on water quality. These projects generally are not included in the established State Clearinghouse Procedures. This provision meets the purposes and objectives of the WEQA under Wyo. Stat. Ann.§§ 35-11-102 & 109(a)(ii).

3. Contact the U.S. Forest Service during the planning process for any project they are involved in that may affect NFS lands and resources.

C. WYOMING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

1. Provide applicable draft water quality rules and regulations to the U.S. Forest Service for review during their development, and final rules and regulations for guidance after promulgation.

2. Promptly notify the U.S. Forest Service ifWDEQ suspects water quality standards are being exceeded or designated uses are being impaired by nonpoint sources on NFS lands. If appropriate, WDEQ and U.S. Forest Service will jointly evaluate and attempt to properly and expeditiously address the situation.

3. Cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service to determine what actions are necessary, if any, to address the issue if a situation described in clause "2" above arises, or if a water body on NFS lands is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list. These actions may include, but are not limited to, water quality monitoring, refining BMPs, changes to water quality standards or establishment of a stakeholder group to investigate the situation and recommend actions to be taken.

4. Cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service on development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and TMDL implementation plans for impaired water bodies on NFS lands.

D. WATER QUALITY RESTORATION

Page 3 ofll OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

1. Work cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service in setting priorities for watershed restoration strategies for watersheds not meeting water quality or natural resource goals.

2. Agree that Section 319 funds may be used for any project on NFS lands meeting Section 319 criteria if a non-federal entity agrees to contribute the funds or in-kind services needed for the required match (currently a minimum of 40% non-federal funds). Such a contribution and grant award would have to be authorized and documented in an appropriate written agreement, separate from this MOU. Also see paragraph V.F. below.

E. MONITORING/CREDIBLE DATA

1. Coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service on present and proposed water quality monitoring plans and activities adjacent to or within NFS boundaries using consistent scientific approaches when applicable and appropriate.

2. Cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service in the collection, analysis and processing of water quality samples when the information to be derived will be mutually beneficial to both parties.

3. Routinely make available to the U.S. Forest Service any water quality data and information.

F. RECORD KEEPING AND OWNERSHIP OF DATA

1. Keep pertinent records, data and information in good order and available to the U.S. Forest Service and the public in conformance with the Wyoming Public Records Act (Wyoming Statutes 16-4-201 through 16-4-205).

2. Agree that any information furnished to the U.S. Forest Service under this MOU is subject to the Freedom oflnformation Act (5 U.S.C. § 552).

G. GENERAL ACTIVITIES

1. Agree to provide, upon request, technical expertise and support not otherwise available to the U.S. Forest Service, to the extent that WDEQ's authority, program, priorities, budget and availability of expertise allow.

2. Agree to share training opportunities.

H. REVIEWS AND REPORTS

Page 4 of 11 OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

1. Meet periodically with the U.S. Forest Service to review the MOU' s provisions and effectiveness, explore coordination needs and identify new objectives or other needed changes to the MOU.

2. Provide minutes of any such meeting and a jointly-prepared status report on the MOU to EPA as part of their report required under Section 319(h) of the federal Clean Water Act.

IV. THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE SHALL:

A. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL

1. Recognize Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Program objectives and be responsible for implementing NPS pollution controls consistent with the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Program on NFS lands in Wyoming.

2. Apply the U.S. Forest Service NPS strategy (Forest Service Manual 2532, FSH 2509.25 R2 Amendment and FSH 2509.22 R1/R4 Amendment) to all activities on NFS land to control NPS pollution. The NPS strategy is to implement BMPs, monitor the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in protecting water quality and designated uses and adjust BMPs or mitigate actions as needed to ensure that Wyoming water quality standards are met and designated uses are protected.

3. Ensure that all new and renewed authorizations for occupancy and use ofNFS lands contain provisions for compliance with the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Program.

4. Provide draft FSH 2509.25 R2 Amendment and FSH 2509.22 R1/R4 Amendment to WDEQ for review during the updates ofthese handbooks. That the U.S. Forest Service agrees to provide these draft Amendments to WDEQ is not to be construed as designating these Amendments formal rules for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.

5. Monitor BMPs on selected activities for implementation and effectiveness and share monitoring results with WDEQ each year. These results may be used to select areas to be jointly field reviewed.

6. Conduct periodic field reviews jointly with WDEQ of various watersheds and activities on NFS lands to evaluate implementation and effectiveness ofBMPs on the ground. Based on these reviews, BMPs may be jointly adjusted to improve protection of water quality, or joint recommendations to adopt site specific water quality standards or to adjust use designations may be made. Recommendations to change water quality standards or use designations would be subject to WDEQ regulatory procedures.

Page 5 of 11 OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

B. PROJECT PLANNING

1. Provide WDEQ appropriate and timely opportunity to participate, through the applicable National Environmental Policy Act and the State Clearinghouse Procedures, in proposed project and activity plans that have potential to impact water quality.

C. WYOMING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

1. Recognize Wyoming's identified designated uses ofwater.

2. Be responsible for attaining water quality standards on NFS lands in Wyoming.

3. Coordinate and cooperate, to the extent consistent with applicable law, with WDEQ during development and revision of water quality standards.

4. Notify WDEQ if the U.S. Forest Service suspects water quality standards are being exceeded or designated uses are being impaired by nonpoint sources on NFS lands by its or other authorized user's activities, or is so notified by some other party. If appropriate, WDEQ and U.S. Forest Service will jointly evaluate and attempt to properly and expeditiously address the situation.

5. Cooperate with WDEQ to determine what actions are necessary, if any, to address the issue if a situation described in clause "4" above arises, or if a water body on NFS lands is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list. These actions may include, but are not limited to, water quality monitoring, refining BMPs, changes to water quality standards or establishment of a stakeholder group to investigate the situation and recommend actions to be taken.

6. Cooperate with WDEQ on development ofTMDLs and TMDL implementation plans for impaired water bodies on NFS lands.

D. WATER QUALITY RESTORATION

1. Work cooperatively with the WDEQ in setting priorities for watershed restoration strategies for watersheds not meeting water quality or natural resource goals.

2. Agree that lack of Section 319 funds awarded to the U.S. Forest Service does not relieve the agency from its responsibility to apply BMPs where needed.

E. MONITORING/CREDIBLE DATA

Page 6 of 11 OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

1. Coordinate with WDEQ on present and proposed water quality monitoring plans and activities adjacent to or within NFS boundaries using consistent scientific approaches when applicable and appropriate.

2. Cooperate with WDEQ in the collection, analysis and processing of water quality samples when the information to be derived will be mutually beneficial to both parties.

3. Routinely make available to WDEQ any water quality data and information.

F. RECORD KEEPING AND OWNERSHIP OF DATA

1. Keep pertinent records, data and information in good order and available to WDEQ and the public in conformance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

2. Agree that any information furnished to WDEQ under this MOU is subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act (Wyo. Stat. Ann.§ 16-4-201, et seq.).

G. GENERAL ACTIVITIES

1. Agree to provide, upon request, technical expertise and support not otherwise available to WDEQ, to the extent that the U.S. Forest Service's authority, program, priorities, budget and availability of expertise allow.

2. Agree to share training opportunities.

H. REVIEWS AND REPORTS

1. Meet periodically with WDEQ to review the MOU' s provisions and effectiveness, explore coordination needs and identify new objectives or other needed changes to the MOU.

2. Provide WDEQ with information on nonpoint source control activities as part ofthe reporting procedures established by Sections 319(a) and 319(b) ofthe federal Clean Water Act.

V. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT:

Page 7 ofll OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

A. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. Individuals listed below are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this instrument.

Principal Cooperator Contacts:

Cooperator Program Contact Cooperator Administrative Contact Name: Mark Conrad, Water Quality Name: David Waterstreet,Watershed Address: 122 West 25th Street Program Manager Herschler Building, 4th Floor West Address: 122 West 25th Street City, State, Zip: Cheyenne, WY 82002 Herschler Building, 41h Floor West Telephone: 307 777 5802 City, State, Zip: Cheyenne, WY 82002 FAX: 307 777 5973 Telephone: 307 777 7781 Email: [email protected] FAX: 307 777 5973 Email: [email protected]

Principal U.S. Forest Service Contacts:

U.S. Forest Service Program Manager U.S. Forest Service Administrative Contact Contact Name: Joan Carlson, Regional Name: Monica H. Cordova, Grants and Hydrologist, R2 Agreements Specialist Address: 740 Simms St. Address: 740 Simms St. City, State, Zip: Golden, CO 80401 City, State, Zip: Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: 303 275 5097 Telephone: 303 275 5068 FAX: 303 275 5122 FAX: 303 275 5396 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

B. NON-LIABILITY. The U.S. Forest Service does not assume liability for any third party claims for damages arising out of this instrument.

C. NOTICES. Any communications affecting the operations covered by this agreement given by the U.S. Forest Service or WDEQ is sufficient only if in writing and delivered in person, mailed, or transmitted electronically by e-mail or fax, as follows:

To the U.S. Forest Service Program Manager, at the address specified in the MOU.

To Watershed Program Manager, at WDEQ's address shown in the MOU or such other address designated within the MOU.

Notices are effective when delivered in accordance with this provision, or on the effective date of the notice, whichever is later.

Page 8 of 11 OMB 0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

D. PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTNITIES. This MOU in no way restricts the U.S. Forest Service or WDEQ from participating in similar activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.

E. ENDORSEMENT. Any ofWDEQ's contributions made under this MOU do not by direct reference or implication convey U.S. Forest Service endorsement of WDEQ's products or activities.

F. NONBINDING AGREEMENT. This MOU creates no right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity. The parties shall manage their respective resources and activities in a separate, coordinated and mutually beneficial manner to meet the purpose(s) of this MOU. Nothing in this MOU authorizes any of the parties to obligate or transfer anything of value.

Specific, prospective projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, property, and/or anything of value to a party requires the execution of separate instruments and are contingent upon numerous factors, including, as applicable, but not limited to: agency availability of appropriated funds and other resources; cooperator availability of funds and other resources; agency and cooperator administrative and legal requirements (including agency authorization by statute); etc. This MOU neither provides, nor meets these criteria. If the parties elect to enter into an obligation instrument that involves the transfer of funds, services, property, and/or anything of value to a party, then the applicable criteria must be met. Additionally, under a prospective instrument, each party operates under its own laws, regulations, and/or policies, and any Forest Service obligation is subject to the availability of appropriated funds and other resources. The negotiation, execution, and administration of these prospective instruments must comply with all applicable law

Nothing in this MOU is intended to alter, limit, or expand the agencies' statutory and regulatory authority.

G. USE OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE INSIGNIA. In order for WDEQ to use the U.S. Forest Service insignia on any published media, such as a Web page, printed publication, or audiovisual production, permission must be granted from the U.S. Forest Service's Office of Communications. A written request must be submitted and approval granted in writing by the Office of Communications (Washington Office) prior to use of the insignia.

H. MEMBERS OF U.S. CONGRESS. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 22, no U.S. member of, or U.S. delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this instrument, or benefits that may arise therefrom, either directly or indirectly.

I. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). Public access to MOU or agreement records must not be limited, except when such records must be kept

Page 9 of 11 OMB0596-0217 USDA, Forest Service FS-1500-15

J. TERMINATION. Any ofthe parties, in writing, may terminate this MOU in whole, or in part, at any time before the date of expiration.

K. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION. WDEQ shall immediately inform the U.S. Forest Service if they or any of their principals are presently excluded, debarred, or suspended from entering into covered transactions with the federal government according to the terms of2 CFR Part 180. Additionally, should WDEQ or any of their principals receive a transmittal letter or other official Federal notice of debarment or suspension, then they shall notify the U.S. Forest Service without undue delay. This applies whether the exclusion, debarment, or suspension is voluntary or involuntary.

L. MODIFICATIONS. Modifications within the scope ofthis MOU must be made by mutual consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification signed and dated by all properly authorized, signatory officials, prior to any changes being performed. Requests for modification should be made, in writing, at least 30 days prior to implementation of the requested change.

M. COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE. This MOU is executed as ofthe date of the last signature and is effective through May 31, 2016 at which time it will expire, unless extended by an executed modification, signed and dated by all properly authorized, signatory officials.

N. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. By signature below, each party certifies that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the individual parties are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this MOU. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the last date written below.

G ER, A ministra Wyom· g Department of En uonrnen er Quality Division

~!!!~U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountaina Region :f~ T~~"\S f.;c:..."nl-lC: (LE..Cl\ol-1~'-- f'orz...u.c,<'LQ.. "

HARV FORSGREN, Regional Forester Date U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region

Page 10 ofll

Appendix F: Climate Change

Ongoing climate change research has been summarized in reports produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/). These reports have confirmed that accelerated climate change is already happening, that it may accelerate more rapidly in the future, and that human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, are a main source of accelerated climate change.

While uncertainties remain, regarding the exact timing and magnitude of the regional impacts of global climate change, the significant volume of scientific evidence supports the view that continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increased global climate change.

The following changes in Western Wyoming’s climate and hydrologic systems are predicted by many members of the scientific community over the next several decades. Some changes are already apparent. (Karl et al. 2009; Harris et al. 2006; Furniss et al. 2010)

 Average air temperatures increasing. Summer temperatures projected to increase by up to 7 to 10 degrees F by 2080-2099 compared with a 1960 to 1979 baseline.  Approximately 5-10% increase in spring precipitation compared with a 1960-1979 baseline by the 2080s-2090s. The proportion of precipitation falling as snow decreasing.  More extreme events (droughts, heat waves, floods, heavy rainfall events). Longer, more severe droughts between rains.  In this snowpack-dominated runoff regime, timing of peak runoff will shift to earlier in the spring and base flows (summer low flows) will be lower.  Water quality o Higher water temperatures, especially during low-flow periods (summer). As a result, dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies will be lower. o Higher magnitude storm events lead to increased sediment production from uplands and increased channel scour, so higher sediment in runoff. Negative impacts of sediment (and associated pollutants) will be amplified by longer periods of low stream flows that are unable to transport sediments downstream. o Increased nutrient inputs to streams if wildfire frequencies increase. Higher water temperatures would increase stream productivity, further decreasing dissolved oxygen levels.  Changes in the sediment transport capability of streams would lead to a change in channel morphologies, especially in downstream “response” reaches.

Current Conditions The following summary of greenhouse gas emissions as it relates to livestock grazing is taken from Climate Change and Site-specific Range Allotment Analysis White Paper –February 27, 2010 - Bridger-Teton National Forest (found in the project record). This white paper relies heavily on information excerpted from the Executive Summary of the 2008 US-EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.

Appendix F-1

EPA – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary: The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States in 1990 - 2007 was carbon dioxide (CO2), representing approximately 85.4 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, was fossil fuel combustion. Methane (CH4) emissions, which have declined from 1990 levels, resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, decomposition of wastes in landfills, and natural gas systems. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion were the major sources of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.

According to the IPCC, CH4 is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two hundred and fifty years, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere increased by 148 percent (IPCC 2009). Anthropogenic sources of CH4 include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial processes.

Some significant trends in U.S. emissions of CH4 include the following:

 Enteric fermentation is the largest anthropogenic source of CH4 emissions in the United States.  In 2007, enteric fermentation CH4 emissions were 139.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (approximately 24 percent of total CH4 emissions), which represents a decline of 5.8 Tg CO2 Eq., or 4.3 percent, since 1990. Despite this overall decline in emissions, the last two years have shown a slight increase in emissions.

Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of greenhouse gases through a variety of processes, including the following source categories: enteric fermentation in domestic livestock, livestock manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soil management, and field burning of agricultural residues. CH4 and N2O were the primary greenhouse gases emitted by agricultural activities. CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management represented about 24 percent and 7.5 percent of total CH4 emissions from anthropogenic activities, respectively, in 2007. The vast majority of the manure management is associated with swine and dairy cow operations. Agricultural soil management activities such as fertilizer application and other cropping practices were the largest source of U.S. N2O emissions in 2007, accounting for 67 percent.

In 2007, emission sources accounted for agricultural activities (as summarized in the paragraph above) were responsible for 5.6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA – Enteric Fermentation: Methane (CH4) is produced as part of normal digestive processes in animals. During digestion, microbes resident in an animal’s digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal. This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces CH4 as a by-product, which can be exhaled or eructated by the animal. The amount of CH4 produced and emitted by an individual animal depends primarily upon the

Appendix F-2 animal's digestive system, and the amount and type of feed it consumes. Ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) are the major emitters of CH4 because of their unique digestive system. Ruminants possess a rumen, or large "fore-stomach," in which microbial fermentation breaks down the feed they consume into products that can be absorbed and metabolized. The microbial fermentation that occurs in the rumen enables them to digest coarse plant material that non-ruminant animals cannot. Ruminant animals, consequently, have the highest CH4 emissions among all animal types. In addition to the type of digestive system, an animal’s feed quality and feed intake also affects CH4 emissions. In general, lower feed quality and/or higher feed intake lead to higher CH4 emissions. Feed intake is positively correlated to animal size, growth rate, and production (e.g., milk production, wool growth, pregnancy, or work). Therefore, feed intake varies among animal types as well as among different management practices for individual animal types (e.g., animals in feedlots or grazing on pasture).

Total livestock CH4 emissions in 2006 were 126.2 Tg CO2 Eq. (6,010 Gg). Beef cattle remain the largest contributors of CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation, accounting for 72 percent in 2007. Emissions from dairy cattle in 2007 accounted for nearly 23 percent, and the remaining emissions were from horses, sheep, swine, and goats. From 1990 to 2007, emissions from enteric fermentation have increased by 4.3 percent. This trend is due to dairy and beef cow population increases during 2004-2007.

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million tons of methane annually, accounting for about 22 percent of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-120 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 6 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about 36 million metric tons of carbon.

Methane Gas Effects on Climate Change An adult cow (ruminant) emits between 80-120 kgs of methane annually. There are approximately 100 million cattle in the U.S. (2007) together which emit about 6 million metric tons of methane per year. (http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anprgbmp.html#Methane%20Production)

Given the range in individual animal methane output, the calculations that follow show both the high and low estimate of annual methane output by a cow – High -120 kg methane and Low- 80 kg methane.

As of 2007, on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, there were 39,042 head of cattle and 51,370 head of sheep permitted with term grazing permits. The grazing season varies across the Forest, depending on each allotment’s characteristics; typically it is about mid/late June through late September (three months). All together cattle grazed on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in

Appendix F-3

2007 represent 0.037% of the total number of cattle raised in the U.S. in 2007 (data from National Agricultural Statistics Service found online via: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ ).

In order to calculate the contribution of Bridger-Teton permitted cattle to the national methane output, the Forest starts with the following:

1 kilogram = 0.001 metric ton

(High) 120 kg methane emitted per cow annually x 39,042 BTNF permitted cattle = 4,685,040 kg methane emitted by BTNF cows annually

-OR-

(Low) 80 kgs methane emitted per cow annually x 39,042 BTNF permitted cattle = 3,123,360 kg methane emitted by BTNF cows annually

The next step is to convert the annual kilograms (kgs) to metric tons.

(High) 4,685,040 kg x 0.001 = 4,685 metric tons of methane are produced annually from cattle under permit on the BTNF.

-OR-

(Low) 3,123,360 kg x 0.001 = 3,123.3 metric tons of methane are produced annually from cattle under permit on the BTNF.

Given these calculations, it is estimated that the range of methane emitted annually by all livestock that are permitted to graze on the BTNF would contribute about 5,096 to 3,534 metric tons annually, which is 0.0849% to 0.0589% of the national methane output.

These figures take into account the annual methane output from permitted animals even though these livestock graze on the BTNF for only 3 to 3.5 months out of each year. Thus, one could figure slightly less than 1/3 of the above percentage as representing what is generated while these livestock are actually grazing on the BTNF. The remaining 2/3 is dependent on private business decisions, and is therefore outside of the scope of this analysis.

To put it into perspective, the contribution of methane from livestock when they are permitted to graze on the BTNF is 0.017% to 0.024% relative to the national output of cattle methane in the U.S.

The number of cattle that would be grazing in this project area would be 858 cow/calf pairs. Ryan (2007) data was based on head of cattle. In terms of net forage consumption, cow/calf pairs are equivalent to 1.32 head of cattle. Thus 858 cow/calf pairs = approximately 1,133 head of cattle in terms of methane produced assuming methane production is positively correlated with the amount of forage processed in the rumen.

Appendix F-4

1,133 permitted livestock x 120 kg of methane = 135,960 kg of methane emitted annually

135,960 x 0.001 = 135.96 metric tons emitted annually (high)

1,133 permitted livestock x 80 kg of methane = 90,640 kg of methane emitted annually

90640 kg x 0.001 metric tons = 90.64 metric tons emitted annually (low)

The livestock permitted in this project would emit between 135.96 and 90.64 metric tons of methane annually which is approximately 0.0000226 - 0.0000151% of the national annual methane output.

Again, these figures take into account the annual methane output from permitted animals even though these livestock graze in the project area for only 3 to 3.5 months out of each year. Thus, one could figure slightly less than 1/3 of the above percentage as representing what is generated while these livestock are actually grazing on the BTNF. The remaining 2/3 is dependent on private business decisions, and is therefore outside of the scope of this analysis.

The small scale of most Agency livestock grazing projects would likely limit feasibility to disclose a difference in effects to greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon cycle. Even in the case of evaluating a no grazing alternative, it is difficult to determine the actual reduction in the number of livestock grazed. If the ranch operation in question does not reduce its overall number of livestock and continues to raise the same number using other feed or private pasture sources, there would be no net change in production of methane gas. In view the above, the effects of the alternatives considered in this analysis on climate change would not likely be measurable.

Effects of Climate Change on the Project Predicted changes in Western Wyoming’s climate and hydrologic systems (see page 1 of this appendix) would be expected to have incremental effects on livestock management during the 10-15 year implementation period of this project. Relevant drivers of direct and indirect effects considered in this analysis are as follows: - Between .5 and 1.49 degrees average air temperature increase. - Between .033% and .099% increase in precipitation. - Some increase in duration and severity of drought periods. - Disappearance of surface water flow in ephemeral streams somewhat earlier in the summer. Direct and Indirect Effects: - Increased air temperature would be expected to result in earlier sprouting, maturation, and curing of range vegetation.

Appendix F-5

- The slight increase in precipitation would probably be offset by decreasing precipitation to evaporation ratios associated with increased air temperature. - Increased duration and severity of droughts would reduce the total forage available to livestock, and thereby necessitate shorter grazing seasons in order to avoid over-grazing. - Early loss of surface flow in ephemeral streams could require rescheduling some pasture grazing sequences to account for reduced livestock water availability. Similarly, early pasture moves and early removal of livestock from allotments could result.

Cumulative Effects: - Increased water temperature, stream sedimentation and nutrient input associated with climate change could incrementally exacerbate similar livestock impacts with resultant changes in stream sediment transport capability and channel morphologies.

Discussion: Given the small and incremental nature of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of climate change on livestock management, and the inherent administrative flexibility of grazing management under the Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions, e.g. variable “on” and “off” dates for pastures dependent upon seasonal climatic variations, vegetation growth, logistical constraints (such as water availability), resource monitoring results, etc. it is probable that such effects can be adequately addressed for the duration of the project implementation period. Should the rate of climate change accelerate, additional analysis and management strategies may become necessary.

Appendix F-6

Sherman Cattle and Horse Allotment Grazing and Management FEIS Bridger-Teton National Forest

Index Bank Stability ...... 3-75 Multiple Indicator Monitoring ...... 3-30 bonytail, ...... 3-70 North American Wolverine ...... 3-95 Boreal Chorus Frog ...... 3-128 North Horse Creek ...... 3-38 Brewer’s Sparrow ...... 3-125 Noxious Weeds ...... 3-13 Burned Soil ...... 3-24 Pass Creek ...... 3-40 Canada Lynx ...... 3-93 Pink Agoseris ...... 3-113, 3-139 Cole Creek ...... 3-42 Pronghorn Antelope ...... 3-123 Colorado pikeminnow ...... 3-70 Quaking Aspen ...... 3-129 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout ...... 3-70 Rainbow Trout ...... 3-72 Columbia Spotted Frog ...... 3-105 Rangeland Functionality ...... 3-9 Compaction ...... 3-24 razorback sucker ...... 3-70 Current Livestock Management ...... 3-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ... 3-60 Detrimental Soil Disturbance ...... 3-23 Riparian Condition ...... 3-73 Dispersed Recreation ...... 3-61 Riparian Vegetation ...... 3-43 Effects on Range ...... 3-17 Sensitive Species ...... 3-97 Elk ...... 3-119 Shrub Cover ...... 3-14 Elk Creek ...... 3-42 Soft aster ...... 3-115 Environmental Justice: ...... 3-164 Soil Compaction ...... 3-21 Erosion ...... 3-24 Soil Conditions ...... 3-23 Erosion Hazard ...... 3-21 Soil Types ...... 3-18 Fine Sediment ...... 3-75 Species Composition ...... 3-13 Forage Utilization Standard ...... 3-51 Spring Creek ...... 3-36 Greater Sage Grouse ...... 3-103 Stream Channel Conditions ...... 3-34 Grizzly Bear ...... 3-90 Stream Descriptions ...... 3-76 Ground Cover ...... 3-12, 3-23 Stream Temperature ...... 3-76 Groundwater ...... 3-45 Streambank Alteration Standard ..... 3-51 History ...... 3-2 Streambank Stability Guideline ...... 3-54 Horse Creek Fire ...... 3-14 Streamflow ...... 3-47 humpback chub ...... 3-70 Suitable Range ...... 3-9 Hydrologic Units ...... 3-48 Water Developments ...... 3-47 Irretrievable ...... 3-164 Water Quality ...... 3-30 Irreversible ...... 3-164 Water Quantity ...... 3-47 Livestock Capable Range ...... 3-6 Western Boreal Toad ...... 3-106 Management Indicator Species ..... 3-116 Western Gray Wolf ...... 3-101 Migratory Birds ...... 3-132 Whitebark Pine ...... 3-114 Mill Creek ...... 3-37 Willow Flycatcher ...... 3-134 Moose ( ...... 3-122 Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout ...... 3-72 Mule Deer ...... 3-121

I-1