“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.”

Disclaimer: The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data it has available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, have represented features not in accurate geographic locations, etc. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this geospatial information based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary in conjunction with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as required by policy or regulation. Previous recipients of the products may not be notified unless required by policy or regulation. For more information, contact the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office (2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070, 307-745-2300).

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

for the

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments

for National Forest System Lands Administered by the

Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

May 2012 Final AMS

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION...... …...1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE FOREST SERVICE PLANNING PROCESS...... 1-5

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION ...... 1-6

CHAPTER 2—AREA PROFILE AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT ...... 2-1

2.1 AIR QUALITY ...... 2-1

2.1.1 Overview ...... 2-1

2.1.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-1

2.1.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-3

2.1.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-4

2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 2-6

2.2.1 Overview ...... 2-6

2.2.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-6

2.2.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-8

2.2.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-8

2.3 FORESTRY ...... 2-10

2.3.1 Overview ...... 2-10

2.3.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-10

2.3.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-11

2.3.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-11

2.4 LANDS, REALTY, AND SPECIAL USES ...... 2-12

2.4.1 Overview ...... 2-12

2.4.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-12

2.4.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-14

2.4.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-16

2.5 MINERAL RESOURCES/RENEWABLE ENERGY ...... 2-19

2.5.1 Overview ...... 2-19

2.5.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-21

2.5.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-24

2.5.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-27

2.6 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT/LIVESTOCK GRAZING ...... 2-43

2.6.1 Overview ...... 2-43

2.6.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-43

2.6.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-47

2.6.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-49

2.7 RECREATION ...... 2-53

2.7.1 Overview ...... 2-53

2.7.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-54

2.7.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-56

2.7.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-59

2.8 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...... 2-64

2.8.1 Overview ...... 2-64

2.8.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-64

2.8.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-67

2.8.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-69

2.9 SOILS ...... 2-72

2.9.1 Overview ...... 2-72

2.9.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-72

2.9.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-73

2.9.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-77

2.10 SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS ...... 2-78

2.10.1 Overview ...... 2-78

2.10.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-79

2.10.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-82

2.10.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-87

2.11 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (TES and MIS)) ...... 2-92

2.11.1 Overview ...... 2-92

2.11.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-94

2.11.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-105

2.11.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-120

2.12 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS ...... 2-138

2.12.1 Overview ...... 2-138

2.12.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-139

2.12.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-141

2.12.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-142

2.13 VEGETATION ...... 2-147

2.13.1 Overview ...... 2-147

2.13.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-147

2.13.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-150

2.13.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-152

2.14 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT...... 2-160

2.14.1 Overview ...... 2-160

2.14.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-161

iii

2.14.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-162

2.14.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-164

2.15 WATER RESOURCES ...... 2-165

2.15.1 Overview ...... 2-165

2.15.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-165

2.15.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-167

2.15.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-171

2.16 WILD HORSES ...... 2-173

2.16.1 Overview ...... 2-173

2.17 WILDLAND FIRE...... 2-174

2.17.1 Overview ...... 2-174

2.17.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-174

2.17.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-175

2.17.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-179

2.18 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ...... 2-182

2.18.1 Overview ...... 2-182

2.18.2 Medicine Bow National Forest ...... 2-183

2.18.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 2-189

2.18.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland ...... 2-196

CHAPTER 3—RELEVANTS STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES ...... 3-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ...... 3-1

3.2 LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ...... 3-1

3.3 AIR QUALITY ...... 3-5

3.4 WATER QUALITY ...... 3-6

3.5 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS (EO 11990) ...... 3-6

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 3-6

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 3-8

3.8 WILDLIFE ...... 3-9

LIST OF ACRONYMS ......

LIST OF PREPARERS ......

LITERATURE CITED ......

List of Maps, Tables, and Figures

List of Maps Map 1: Medicine Bow National Forest GSG Habitat ...... 1-2 Map 2: Bridger-Teton National Forest GSG Habitat ...... 1-3 Map 3: Thunder Basin National Grassland GSG Habitat ...... 1-4

List of Tables Table 1: Landownership and Acres - MBNF ...... 2-12 Table 2: Use Type Permits - BTNF ...... 2-16 Table 3: Land Adjustments by Year - TBNG ...... 2-17 Table 4: Current Locatable Mineral Withdrawals - MBNF ...... 2-23 Table 5: Current Oil and Gas Administration - BTNF ...... 2-25 Table 6: Percent Possible Technology Mix Under a CO2 Reduction Scenario - TBNG ...... 2-38 Table 7: Historic Grazing Use - TBNF ...... 2-50 Table 8: Current and Future Jobs and Income Related to Tourism on NFS Lands - TBNG ...... 2-16 Table 9: Spatial Extent of Soil and Stability Classes - BTNF ...... 2-74 Table 10: Top 10 Watersheds with Unstable Soils - BTNF ...... 2-74 Table 11: 6th Field HUCs with Class II Condition Ratings - BTNF ...... 2-75 Table 12: Inventoried Roadless Areas - BTNF ...... 2-84 Table 13: Summary of designated river miles by classification - BTNF ...... 2-86 Table 14: SIA Acreage by Core and General Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG ...... 2-88 Table 15: IRA Acreage by Core and General Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG ...... 2-90 Table 16a: Geographic Units and Core Sage-grouse Habitat - MBNF ...... 2-94 Table 16b: Geographic Units and Core Sage-grouse Habitat - MBNF...... 2-95 Table 17: Endangered Species Act Species within Region 2 of the Forest Service - MBNF ...... 2-95 Table 18: Table 18: Terrestrial Wildlife Species - MBNF ...... 2-97 Table 19: Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species - MBNF ...... 2-102 Table 20: Management Indicator Species - MBNF ...... 2-104 Table 21: Mapped Greater sage-grouse Habitat Acres by Category - BTNF ...... 2-106 Table 22: Threatened, Endangered, Experimental, and Candidate Species - BTNF ...... 2-107 Table 23: Affected Environment and Relevancy Table for Sensitive Species - BTNF ...... 2-108 Table 24: Affected Environment and Relevancy Table for MIS - BTNF ...... 2-114 Table 25: NFS Acreage and Designated GSG Core Habitat Acres - TBNG ...... 2-120 Table 26: Primary Geographic Units and Greater Sage-grouse Core Habitat - TBNG ...... 2-121 Table 27: ESA Species – Relevance to Sage and Sagesteppe Conservation - TBNG ...... 2-121 Table 28: Region 2 Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species - TBNG ...... 2-123 Table 29: Major Road Connections - TBNG ...... 2-143 Table 30: Arterial and Collector Roads - TBNG ...... 2-143 Table 31: High Value Roads by User Type - TBNG ...... 2-144 Table 32: Dominant Vegetation Communities and Acres - TBNG ...... 2-153 Table 33: Percent of Rangeland Vegetation Structure (as of 2008) - TBNG ...... 2-157 Table 34: Percent of Rangeland Vegetation Seral Stages (as of 2008) - TBNG ...... 2-158 Table 35: Percent Structure and Composition by Sage-grouse Habitat Type - TBNG ...... 2-158 Table 36: Scenic Integrity Objective inside Sage-grouse Core Area - MBNF ...... 2-162 Table 37: Scenic Integrity Objective inside Core Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG ...... 2-164 Table 38: Forest Water Quality Impairments for Colorado and Wyoming - MBNF ...... 2-166 Table 39: Water quality monitoring results - BTNF ...... 2-168 Table 40: Miles of Road per Square Mile of Riparian Area - BTNF ...... 2-170 Table 41: Fire Regimes by vegetation communities (Bradley 1992) - BTNF ...... 2-176

Table 42: NFS Acreage and Greater Sage-grouse Core and General Habitat - MBNF ...... 2-184 Table 43: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Laramie Peak GA - MBNF ...... 2-185 Table 44: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Snowy Range GA - MBNF ...... 2-186 Table 45: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Sierra Madre GA - MBNF ...... 2-186 Table 46: Summary of 2002 Vegetation Transect Data - MBNF ...... 2-188 Table 47: NFS Acreage and Mapped GSG Habitat Acres by Category - BTNF ...... 2-190 Table 48: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Jackson GA - BTNF ...... 2-192 Table 49: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Hoback GA - BTNF ...... 2-193 Table 50: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Piney GA - BTNF ...... 2-194 Table 51: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Upper Green GA - BTNF ...... 2-195 Table 52: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Pinedale GA - BTNF ...... 2-195 Table 53: Raptor Nest Monitoring - TBNG ...... 2-197 Table 54: Elk Population – TBNG ...... 2-198 Table 55: Highlight Herd Population – TBNG ...... 2-199 Table 56: N Black Hills Population – TBNG ...... 2-199 Table 57: Gillette Herd Population – TBNG ...... 2-200 Table 58: Cheyenne River Population – TBNG ...... 2-200 Table 59: N Converse Population – TBNG ...... 2-201 Table 60: Powder River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-203 Table 61: Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-204 Table 62: Black Hills Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-205 Table 63: N Converse Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-206

List of Figures Figure 1: Distribution of stability ratings forestwide - BTNF ...... 2-75 Figure 2: Index Map of Wild and Scenip Rivers - BTNF ...... 2-86 Figure 3: General location of Designated Greater Sage-grouse Core Habitats - TBNG ...... 2-122 Figure 4: Average Number of Displaying Male Sage-grouse per Lek (1996-2011) – TBNG ...... 2-128 Figure 5: Minimum Estimated Sage-grouse Population (1998-2011) - TBNG ...... 2-129 Figure 6: Prairie Dog Acres - TBNG ...... 2-130 Figure 7: Displaying Male Sharp-tailed Grouse Observed Annually (2003-2011) - TBNG ...... 2-131 Figure 8: Sage-grouse Core Areas and MA 3.63 - TBNG ...... 2-137 Figure 9: Fires by Year - TBNG ...... 2-180 Figure 10: Distribution of Acres Burned by Year - TBNG ...... 2-180 Figure 11: Distribution of Fire Cause (2001 – 2011) - TBNG ...... 2-181 Figure 12: Graph: Per Cent Active Nests - TBNG ...... 2-197 Figure 13: Elk Population - TBNG ...... 2-198 Figure 14: Antelope Herd Units - TBNG ...... 2-198 Figure 15: Highlight Herd Population - TBNG ...... 2-199 Figure 16: N Black Hills Population – TBNG ...... 2-199 Figure 17: Gillette Herd Population – TBNG ...... 2-200 Figure 18: Cheyenne River Population – TBNG ...... 2-200 Figure 19: N Converse Population – TBNG ...... 2-201 Figure 20: Mule Deer Herds – TBNG ...... 2-202 Figure 21: Powder River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-203 Figure 22: Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-204 Figure 23: Black Hills Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-205 Figure 24: N Converse Mule Deer Herd - TBNG ...... 2-206

vii

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION The Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), have initiated a planning effort to prepare Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments with an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) for the MBNF, BTNF, and TBNG LRMPs. The purpose of the LRMP amendments is to address needed changes in the management and conservation of Greater sage-grouse (GSG) habitats within National Forest System (NFS) lands to support sage-grouse population management objectives for the State of Wyoming. Amending the existing LRMPs will provide consistency in managing sage-grouse habitat on NFS lands in Wyoming.

The need for the LRMP amendments is to address the recent “warranted, but precluded” Endangered Species Act listing decision from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (75 FR 13909). The listing decision specifically discussed habitat loss and fragmentation concerns that have, along with other factors, caused continued decline in GSG populations throughout their range. In accordance with Forest Service Sensitive Species Manual 6840 and responsibilities under Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service is mandated to utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of the Endangered Species Act.

The planning area for the Wyoming Sage-grouse LRMP amendments comprises portions of the MBNF in Natrona, Albany and Carbon counties; portions of the BTNF in Teton, Sublette and Lincoln counties; and the entire TBNG located in Campbell, Converse, Weston, Niobrara. The planning area also includes the Wyoming BLM Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, including all public lands and federal mineral estate managed by the BLM within these six field offices. The planning area encompasses approximately 11 million acres of public land administered by BLM and 600,000 acres of NFS lands and 20 million acres of Federal mineral estate in Albany, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Weston counties in Wyoming. Of the 20 million acres of federal mineral estate, approximately six million acres are split estate (BLM-administered minerals that underlie nonfederal lands). Sage-grouse habitat areas included on the Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton National Forests are depicted on Maps 1 and 2, respectively, on the following pages. Map 3 depicts sage-grouse habitat on the TBNG. Depicted areas include core habitat, general habitat and, in the case of the BTNF, occupied habitat not included within general habitat designations. Only sagebrush vegetation types within all three habitat designations are considered habitat for sage-grouse.

Sage-grouse data collection and research efforts across Wyoming began to increase in the early 1990s due to growing concerns for sage-grouse populations and their habitats (Heath et al. 1996, 1997). Monitoring results suggest sage-grouse populations in Wyoming were at their lowest recorded levels in the mid-1990s. Between 1997 and 1999, sage-grouse numbers increased with some individual leks increasing three-fold in the number of males counted. This increase was synchronous with increased spring precipitation. Drought conditions returned in the early 2000’s, which may have led to decreases in chick production and survival, and therefore population declines. However, the population did not decline to mid-1990s levels. Improved habitat conditions, as a result of timely precipitation in 2004, are believed to have led to high chick production and survival; resulting in 2006 counts and surveys recording the highest average males per lek since 1978. A return to dry spring and summer conditions in 2006 and 2007 reduced recruitment, and the average males per lek declined in 2007 and 2008 (Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD] 2008 JCR).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-1

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

Map 1: Medicine Bow National Forest GSG Habitat

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-2

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

Map 2: Bridger-Teton National Forest GSG Habitat

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-3

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

Map 3: Thunder Basin National Grassland GSG Habitat

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-4

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE FOREST SERVICE PLANNING PROCESS To ensure the best balance of use and resource protections for America’s NFS lands, the Forest Service (FS) undertakes extensive land use planning through a collaborative approach with local, state, and tribal governments, the public, and stakeholder groups. The result is a set of land use plans – called Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) – that provide the framework to guide decisions for every action and approved use on NFS lands. As required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), these plans ensure that NFS lands are managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

Land and Resource Management Plans establish desired future conditions (DFC), goals and objectives for resource management, and the Standards and Guidelines needed to achieve these DFCs, goals, and objectives. They are the basis for every on-the-ground action the FS takes. Where changing conditions (such as the federal listing of wildlife species as threatened or endangered) require updates to the information or analysis contained in the LRMP, the FS may amend the LRMP to bring it into conformance with these changed conditions.

Actions approved by the FS under the LRMP are conducted only after the appropriate level of environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For projects that have the potential for significant effects, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. The distinction between the planning and the environmental analysis is important. Planning (producing the LRMP) selects the plan components and identifies the management actions needed to achieve them. Environmental analysis (producing the EIS or other NEPA document) identifies the consequences of achieving those components.

The specific steps in the development of an LRMP amendment include:

1) Issue a Notice of Intent to Prepare the LRMP or LRMP amendment when doing an EIS. 2) Conduct scoping, which is a public process to assist in the identification of planning issues and concerns. 3) Develop Alternatives to address planning issues and concerns. Considering a reasonable range of alternatives helps the BLM and its partners understand the various ways and different scenarios for management of the resources and uses in the planning area. 4) Analyze the effects of the alternatives. The analysis should provide adequate information for evaluating the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of each proposed planning alternative. The analysis should include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects considered in both short- and long-term perspectives, at various geographic scales. 5) Select a preferred alternative. 6) Prepare a draft plan amendment/draft EIS. 7) Provide a 90-day public comment period upon publication of the draft plan amendment/draft EIS. 8) Prepare a proposed plan amendment/final EIS based on comments received. The FS is required to respond to substantive comments that reveal new information, missing information, or flawed analysis that could substantially change the conclusions. 9) Approve the plan amendment through a record of decision (ROD). When the ROD is signed, the plan amendment has been completed. 10) Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan decisions. A monitoring strategy, developed as part of the land use plan, identifies indicators of change, acceptable thresholds, methods, protocols, and timeframes that will be used to evaluate and determine whether or not DFCs, goals and objectives are being achieved. The FS intends to work closely tribal, federal, state, and local entities to develop monitoring strategies and address the effectiveness of plan implementation.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-5

Final AMS Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION As part of the LRMP amendment process, the Forest Service prepares an Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) to analyze available inventory data and other information to characterize a particular resource, portray its existing management situation, and identify management opportunities to respond to identified issues. The primary function of the AMS is to provide baseline information and data for all resource values and uses when developing management alternatives and other chapters of the LRMP Amendment/EIS document. The AMS is part of the LRMP planning process as described in the 1982 Planning Rule - 36 CFR 219.12(e). The LRMPs for the affected units were prepared under the 1982 Planning Rule; therefore, direction from that Rule applies to the LRMP amendment process.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 1-6

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

CHAPTER 2—AREA PROFILE AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT

2.1 AIR QUALITY 2.1.1 Overview

Regional air quality is influenced by the interaction of meteorology, climate, the magnitude and spatial distribution of local and regional air pollutant sources, and the chemical properties of emitted air pollutants. This interaction can affect air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs), including visibility. Air quality, climate and impacts to AQRVs are the key components of air resources which are analyzed to review proposed applications, activities, and management of the air resource. The Forest Service must consider and analyze the potential effects of Forest Service-authorized activities on air resources as part of the planning and decision making process. Surface disturbing activities will be managed to prevent violation of air quality regulations. The Forest Service must also take into account the potential impacts of proposed projects on adjacent lands and work to minimize or mitigate any impacts on Forest Service lands.

The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States (U.S.) is mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments and the 1999 Regional Haze Regulations. The CAA addresses criteria air pollutants, state and national ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants, and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The Regional Haze Regulations specifically address the responsibility of Federal Land Managers in the protection of AQRVs including visibility in Class I national parks and wilderness areas.

The Wilderness Act of 1964, states that “Wilderness areas....shall be administered....in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness...”. In other words Federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect all wilderness areas regardless of PSD classification.

The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are legally enforceable standards that set the absolute upper limits for criteria air pollutant concentrations. Concentrations above the WAAQS and NAAQS represent a risk to human health or welfare. State standards must be equally as strict as, or stricter than federal standards. WAAQS/NAAQS have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), PB (lead); and sulfur dioxide (SO2). PSD increments for Class I areas (wilderness areas with protected air quality status due to their pristine condition) and Class II areas (wilderness areas with protected air quality status due to their sensitive condition) have also been established. All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis.

Air quality regulation in Wyoming is under the direct administration of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8. Therefore, the Forest Service will continue to coordinate with these agencies regarding air quality data and air quality pollution analysis within the state of Wyoming. The WDEQ- AQD determines background air quality levels. WDEQ-AQD has a series of ambient air quality monitors across the state, many of these monitors sample specifically for NOx, PM and O3. Across the state, monitoring sites show that most areas are within attainment of the NAAQS or WAAQS. However, readings from monitoring stations in the Upper Green River Basin from

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-1

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2008, have shown areas that are in nonattainment of the 8-hour O3 standard. The State has recommended a designation of nonattainment to the EPA, with a final designation of nonattainment for O3 due in May, 2012. The area of the proposed nonattainment designation will include Sublette County and parts of Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties. 2.1.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

All of the air-quality monitoring (wet deposition = rain and snow, dry deposition = air, and visibility = sight distance affected by suspended particulate matter) conducted in the MBNF is and has been associated with the Glacier Lakes Ecosystem Experiments Site (GLEES). The GLEES experimental site is located in the Snowy Range portion of the Medicine Bow Mountains and seeks to determine the effects – in a high-elevation, wilderness-like setting – of atmospheric change and climate change on alpine and subalpine aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Long-term monitoring of air-quality related values (AQRV) is an essential component, among others, of the suite of experimental activities that occur at GLEES. Three National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trend Network (NADP/NTN) sites located in the Snowy Range have been established collect air-quality monitoring data: Brooklyn Lake (WY95); Nash Fork (WY96); and Snowy Range (WY00). Current Management Practices

Brooklyn Lake (WY95) – The Brooklyn Lake monitoring site became operational on January 22, 1992 and continues to operate to collect wet-and dry-depositional data, ozone data, and air-visibility data. This site is located near Brooklyn Lake (Snowy Range) at an elevation of 3,181 meters (10,434 feet). Air-quality data (wet deposition) collected at this site includes: precipitation concentrations of sulfates, nitrates, chlorine, phosphates, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium, and hydrogen. Air-quality data (dry deposition) collected at this site includes: concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, and continuous-ambient ozone levels; the dry deposition monitoring at this site (CNT169) is associated with the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). In addition each wet-deposition sample is analyzed to determine pH and conductivity. Finally, WY95 is equipped with an Inter-agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) device (filters) that measures changes in air visibility based on changes in atmospheric particulate-matter concentrations; IMPROVE (BRLA1) monitoring was discontinued at this site in December 31, 2004. Nash Fork (WY96) - The Nash Fork monitoring site became operational on November 18, 1986 and operation ceased on September 17, 1992. During its six years of operation, wet-depositional data were collected at WY96. This site is located near the Nash Fork of Libby Creek (Snowy Range) at an elevation of 2,856 meters (9, 368 feet). Air-quality data (wet deposition) collected at this site included: precipitation concentrations of sulfates, nitrates, chlorine, phosphates, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium, and hydrogen. In addition each wet-deposition sample was analyzed to determine pH and conductivity. No dry-deposition data or air-visibility data were collected or monitored at WY96 during its six years of operation. Snowy Range (WY00) – The Snowy Range monitoring site became operational on April 22, 1986 and is still operational. This site is located near the Glacier Lakes (Snowy Range) at an elevation of 3,269 meters (10,722 feet). Air-quality data (wet deposition) collected at this site includes: precipitation concentrations of sulfates, nitrates, chlorine, phosphates, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium, and hydrogen. In addition each (52 samples/year) wet-deposition sample is analyzed to determine pH and conductivity. No dry-deposition data or air-visibility data are collected or monitored at WY00.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-2

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns

The principle management issues being investigated using data collected at the three NADP sites in the Snowy Range are: how changes in certain ionic concentrations (e.g. sulfates) in wet deposition and air affect acidity and conductivity in alpine and subalpine aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the MBNF. In addition, data have been collected at WY95 to determine how changes in airborne-particulate matter concentrations and distributions affect the visual quality of the Snowy Range Airshed. Inferences constructed from the air quality monitoring data may provide important insights pertinent to understanding alpine and subalpine ecosystem processes such as nitrogen cycling, acidification, and chemical sources and sinks that affect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems therein. Data collected at these sites and insights derived from those data may inform better resource management decisions in lower- elevation ecosystems in addition to those in the alpine and subalpine ecosystems.

Actions to conserve, enhance, or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict activities that diminish air quality. Restrictions could be placed on off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could improve air quality through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, and fuels management to reduce wildfire threats. Similar actions on adjacent lands protecting and restoring sagebrush ecosystems may also have a positive benefit to air quality on the forest due to decreased scale of developments and decreased surface disturbance. 2.1.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Air quality is monitored and evaluated forest-wide with regard to potential impact to human health and air quality related values. Both on-forest and off-forest activities and sources are monitored as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wilderness Act (WA). On-forest activities that may affect air quality include prescribed fires, road construction, oil and gas exploration (drilling wells) and oil and gas production. Examples of off-forest activities that may impact air quality may include dust from large storms around the world, emissions from large metropolitan areas, emissions from power plants, mines and large scale oil and gas developments.

Good air quality is an integral part of a properly functioning forest and the enjoyment of the forest by visitors. Clear vistas are expected by forest users. Deposition of nitrogen and sulfur from emissions of large sources (nearby and distant) can contribute to eutrophication and eventual acidification of high elevation lakes. This may lead to unwanted changes, and the unraveling of natural processes within the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Air quality related impacts from road construction, drilling exploratory gas wells, or prescribed burning are usually short duration, low magnitude impacts which have little impact on the overall air quality on the forest. Oil and gas production is a more significant long-term (20 to 30 years) impact, which may have larger potential consequences. Most of the air quality related issues on the BTNF are related to regional activities and developments, such as large power plants, coal and trona mines, oil and gas developments (exploration, development and production) and regional transport of emissions from large metropolitan areas. Of greatest concern to the BTNF are the adjacent Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas developments, as well as the proposed NPL and LaBarge Platform projects. This concern

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-3

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

is due to their close proximity to the BTNF and the PSD Class I Bridger and PSD Class II Gros Ventre Wilderness areas.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I and Class II Wilderness areas do occur on the BTNF and potential air quality impacts are of concern. Federal land managers have an affirmative duty to protect these areas from deterioration of air quality from human-caused sources.

Current Management Practices

Local air quality monitoring on the forest focuses on visibility, deposition (nitrogen and sulfur) and, chemistry and biological changes in high elevation lakes. Good baseline data has been collected, and Forest Service staff is continuing to monitor to detect changes that may occur from that baseline which may impact air quality related values (including visibility).

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) has installed an extensive ambient air quality monitoring system in southwest Wyoming adjacent to the BTNF to monitor the effects of ongoing energy development. There are sites located at Daniel South, Jonah, Boulder, South Pass, Pinedale, Wyoming Range, Juel Spring, Big Piney, Moxa Arch and Murphy Ridge. Real-time data is available for these sites at www.wyovisnet.com for NO2 and Ozone. Historical data is available from WY DEQ. Local monitoring has shown high wintertime ozone levels in the area, and O3 nonattainment of NAAQS and WAAQS will be designated in May 2012 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Forest Service is actively involved in stakeholder groups with the EPA, BLM, National Park Service (NPS) and WYDEQ-AQD in conducting NEPA analysis and prescribing mitigation for projected impacts to air quality within Wilderness areas on the BTNF.

The Forest Service uses guidance provided by the Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Draft Phase I Report-REVISED (FLAG, 2010) and other Regional and Forest thresholds and levels of concern to determine significance of air quality impacts.

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided above for the MBNF.

2.1.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The WYDEQ-AQD is the primary entity responsible for protecting, maintaining, and improving air- quality standards within the State of Wyoming. The ADQ Monitoring Section is responsible for collecting and reporting all of the pertinent air-quality data (ambient-air quality and visibility metrics) required by both the state and the federal agency (EPA) responsible for determining whether Wyoming is in compliance with state and federal air-quality standards (e.g. National Ambient Air Quality Standards), or not. To that end, the AQD Monitoring Section operates and maintains two air-quality monitoring sites that can be used to monitor and assess the state of ambient-air quality conditions and the quality of air visibility in the vicinity of the TBNG: Thunder Basin and Campbell County. Current Management Practices

Thunder Basin: This monitoring site is located north, northeast of the town of Gillette, WY at elevation 1,177 meters (5,829 feet) and is used to monitor ambient-air quality and air-visibility metrics. The Thunder Basin site collects the following ambient-air quality data: carbon monoxide (1-hour);

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-4

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

carbon monoxide (8-hour); nitrogen dioxide; ozone (1-hour); ozone (8-hour); sulfur dioxide; particulate matter (2.5 microns); particulate matter (10.0 microns). Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-5

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES

2.2.1 Overview

In 1966 Congress declared it to be national policy that the federal government “administers federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations.” This legally mandated the FS to identify, evaluate, and manage cultural resources as part of its multiple-use management practices. Cultural resources are an object of definite location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. They include prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or architectural sites, structures, places, or objects and traditional cultural properties considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for traditional, religious, scientific, or other purposes. Cultural resources include archeological resources, historic architectural and engineering resources, and traditional resources. Archeological resources are areas where prehistoric or historic activity measurably altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains have been discovered. Architectural and engineering resources include standing buildings, districts, bridges, dams, and other structures of historic or aesthetic significance. Traditional resources can include archeological resources, structures, topographic features, habitats, plants, wildlife, and minerals that Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional culture.

Native American traditional resources include traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sites of cultural concern that may or may not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). They are identified as significant by Native American groups and are also protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). In general, Native American traditional resources can include archeological sites; stone alignments; petroglyphs and pictographs; plant, wildlife, and lithic resource collection areas; spiritual sites; and locations that may have spiritual or cultural meanings to Native Americans. The FS communicates with Native American tribes associated with planning efforts and consults with potentially affected tribes to identify sites of cultural concern found on FS administered land. To protect traditional resources, the locations of such are confidential and not released to the public.

2.2.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The Medicine Bow Mountains are a northern extension of the Rocky Mountain Front Range. The range is characterized by a Precambrian, granitic core with mafic intrusive basalts and andesites, rhyolite flows, volcanic tuff, and sedimentary greywackes and shales, that were all intensively deformed and recrystallized. The rocks were subsequently intruded by plutons of gabbro, quartz monzonite, and quartz diorite. Erosion has resulted in the deposition of residual grey-brown silty clays on the forested ridge tops, and yellow-brown sandy loam along drainage margins. The drainage bottoms contain a black, organic-rich loam. Topography in the Medicine Bow Mountains is characterized by steep slopes intersected with small intermittent drainages, deep canyons, with some open upland expanses. Vegetation is a mosaic of forested land and meadows, with plants including mixed grasses, shrub juniper, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Douglas fir. Spruce-fir forest is typically limited to ravines and valley bottoms while slopes and ridge tops are covered by an almost continuous blanket of lodgepole pine forest. Elevation ranges from 8,000 to 10,600 feet above sea level.

Both prehistoric and historic sites have been recorded within the MBNF. Previous research shows the majority of sites (close to 70%) are historic; with the remaining being prehistoric. The Cultural

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-6

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Resource Overview of the MBNF (Grasso et al. 1981) describes the typical prehistoric site in the MBNF as a small lithic scatter of non-local materials, often containing several tools. Temporally diagnostic projectile points found by local collectors and archaeologists indicate the presence of prehistoric peoples in the Medicine Bow Mountains 10,000 to 200 years before the present. Sites are frequently located on fairly level stream terraces and in open montane parks. Sites have been found less frequently in timbered areas, on slopes, and ridge tops. The identification of prehistoric sites within the forest is hindered by poor surface visibility.

Approximately 20 percent of NFS lands have been inventoried for cultural resources, and 3,437 sites have been recorded. Most heritage sites have been found during surveys conducted prior to ground- disturbing activities. Areas without ground-disturbing activities have not been surveyed, but heritage sites likely do occur in these areas. The MBNF has nine (9) sites listed on the NRHP, all of which are associated with the historic period (post 1900).

Current Management Practices

It is Forest Service policy to develop and implement a program and schedule to complete an appropriate level of cultural resources inventory on all NFS lands for all agency and agency-permitted projects following regional and state guidelines or protocols and standards in programmatic agreements. Inventory is completed at a level commensurate with the nature of the proposed undertaking and its likely effects on cultural resources.

For sites located during these inventories, it is policy to complete National Register eligibility evaluations in conjunction with inventory. When identifying, evaluating, and recommending management of cultural resources, the Forest Service objectives are to identify and document cultural resources that are historically important and that represent the history and cultural diversity of the United States. Cultural resources are evaluated to determine their scientific, historical and/or cultural values as well as for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register and potential for National Historic Landmark status or other special designations. These measures provide for the allocation of cultural resources to management categories that preserve and protect those attributes that make them archaeologically, historically, or culturally significant and that maximize their agency and public benefit.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict activities that potentially disturb cultural resources. Restrictions could be placed on off road vehicle use, new road construction, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could also potentially affect cultural resources including: native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, buried power lines, fencing for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, fuels management to reduce of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-7

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.2.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Approximately 97,709 acres of cultural resource inventory has been conducted on the BTNF. This represents only 2.9 percent of the total number of acres encompassed by the Forest. A total of 1,018 sites have been identified on the Forest giving an overall site density of one site for every 96 acres of survey. Of the 1,018 sites recorded on the Forest, 664 (65.2%) are classified as prehistoric sites, 300 (30.2%) are historic, and 39 (3.9%) have both a prehistoric and historic component. A majority of the recorded prehistoric sites (73.4%) are classified as lithic scatters indicative of temporary campsites while 14.8 percent are comprised of lithic scatters with evidence of fire blackened rock or fire pit features. These site types are generally indicative of more intense prehistoric occupation and plant/animal processing. Another 6 percent of the recorded prehistoric sites are listed as stone circle sites or sites with rock cairns or alignments.

A variety of historic site types have been recorded on the Forest and include Forest Service Administrative sites (guard stations, patrol cabins, fire lookouts), tie hack cabins, isolated trapper or range rider cabins, historic homesteads, and linear trail such as the Lander Cut-off of the Oregon Trail and the Teton Pass Wagon Road.

Historic and prehistoric sites tend to be located in close proximity to permanent water (within ¼ mile), on slopes of less than 15 percent, and in close proximity to a major change in vegetation type (i.e., at the interface between forested areas and open sagebrush meadows).

Only about 235 acres within core GSG habitat has been intensely inventoried for cultural resources with only two prehistoric sites being identified within these areas. Given the limited amount of acreage of core sage-grouse territory on the BTNF, it is anticipated that the potential number of prehistoric and/or historic sites within these core areas will be low.

Current Management Practices

There are no current cultural resource management concerns or practices that will be amended as part of the Sage-grouse Forest Plan amendment planning effort.

Management Issues and Concerns

Class III cultural resource surveys are required prior to authorizing and proposed surface disturbing activities. At this time there are no reasonably foreseeable undertakings within the core sage-grouse areas that would require cultural resource surveys. If cultural resource surveys are required for these areas in the future, the timing of that survey can be delayed so as to avoid sensitive timeframes for the sage-grouse. 2.2.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Topography across the TBNG varies greatly, ranging from steeply eroded upland ridges and dissected intermittent drainage valleys to gently rolling short-grass prairie and relatively broad alluvial plains. The USFS administered lands are scattered throughout. Elevations within the TBNG vary from 4,550 feet above sea level (ASL) to roughly 5,300 feet ASL. This Northern Plains setting receives an average precipitation of 10 to 14 inches per year.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-8

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Both prehistoric and historic sites have been recorded within the Grassland. Previous research shows the majority of sites (close to 65%) are prehistoric; with the remaining being historic. Among the predominating prehistoric sites, lithic scatter localities account for approximately 60 percent of all prehistoric sites recorded. Open camp sites account for another 20 percent. Stone circle sites comprise another 10 percent of the total number of prehistoric sites on record. The remaining prehistoric site types include hearths, bone beds, prehistoric cairn sites, and a prehistoric lithic source/quarries. The historic sites are predominately associated with mining or ranching, with debris scatters, roads and trails also present.

Approximately 20 percent of National Grasslands lands have been inventoried for cultural resources, and approximately 2,400 sites have been recorded. Most heritage sites have been found during surveys conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities. Areas without ground-disturbing activities have not been surveyed, but heritage sites likely do occur in these areas. The TBNG does not have any sites listed on the NRHP.

Current Management Practices

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-9

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.3 FORESTRY 2.3.1 Overview

National Forests in Wyoming provide a wide variety of forest habitat types from high elevation whitebark pine forest to low elevation ponderosa pine and juniper habitats. Forest habitat types are a reflection of elevation, aspect, soils, latitude and climate. Forest habitats are also influenced by management strategies, insects, disease, wildlife, atmospheric phenomenon and fire. Forest habitats naturally change over time.

2.3.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The MBNF supports many forest types. The most common include lodgepole pine dominated, spruce- fir, aspen, cottonwood, limber pine/ juniper, and ponderosa pine/Douglas- fir forest types. These conifer and hardwood forest types are intermixed with wet meadows and sagebrush/grass dry meadows.

The absences of natural forest fires over an approximate 100 year period has allowed many of the forest types to become mature and overstocked. Drought has also added stress to all forest types. Since 2004, naturally occurring bark beetle populations have been at epidemic levels in all conifer types resulting in near total mortality of mature stands. Sudden aspen decline has been found in many mature aspen stands. The introduction of white pine blister rust has also resulted in increased mortality in limber pine. The majority of forest types on the MBNF have been experiencing a rapid transformation from a mature forest to a younger regenerating forest.

Current Management Practices

All forest types are managed under a variety of management objectives, from multiple uses to Wilderness area management. Commercial timber species are actively managed for forest products. This includes a wide range of silvicultural prescriptions and management activities in site-specific project areas. Woodland encroachment is treated in grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative communities where it is determined to be detrimental to other resource values such as wildlife. Woodland encroachment is typically treated using prescribed burning.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could affect or restrict timber management activities. Activities restricted include: anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, timing restrictions on vehicle use on NFS route roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-10

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.3.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The condition of forest stands varies by location within the GSG habitat areas. Commercial timber species on the BTNF are lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce. Lodgepole pine and Douglas fir would coexist in some instances with GSG habitat; however, subalpine fire and Engelmann spruce would generally not coexist due to elevation and moisture requirements. Woodland species include limber pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, and quaking aspen and exist in some locations on the fringe of GSG habitat areas. Woodland species are occasionally used for firewood and decorative or hobby applications, but are not important commercially.

Current Management Practices

All pine species on the forest are in decline due to dwarf mistletoe, mountain pine beetle infestations, and diseases such as white pine blister rust. Along with conifer encroachment, disease and insect damage are also playing a major role in the increasing mortality rate of older mature aspen clones. Woodland species have encroached into sagebrush habitat in some locations which can be most directly related to fire exclusion for the past century.

Commercial timber species are actively managed on the BTNF for forest products. This includes a wide range of silvicultural prescriptions and management activities in these project areas. Woodland encroachment is treated in grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative communities where it is determined to be detrimental to other resource values such as wildlife.

Management Issues and Concerns

Pease see the Management Issues and Concerns information provided above for the MBNF.

2.3.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Ponderosa pine and juniper are the most common forest types on the TBNG and have been encroaching on sagebrush and grass-dominate prairie. On the grassland, increases in insect populations have also caused an increase in tree mortality.

Current Management Practices

The National Grassland is managed under a variety of management objectives from cattle grazing to mineral extraction.

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-11

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.4 LANDS, REALTY, AND SPECIAL USES 2.4.1 Overview

The Forest Service Lands, Realty, and Special Uses Programs include corridor management, rights- of-way (ROW), land acquisition and disposal, easement acquisition, and special use authorizations. Corridor and ROW management includes a broad range of projects, such as pipelines, utilities, and roads. The land acquisition and disposal activities primarily include exchanges, purchases, and sales. Finally, special use program is used to authorize permits for occupancy and use of NFS lands by federal, state, and local agencies and private industry and individuals and to authorize summer home groups and isolated cabin tracts The Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 authorize the majority of the uses. 2.4.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

This section addresses those aspects of FS management relating to land ownership, special uses (e.g., electronic sites, utility corridors), and ROWs on the MBNF.

Current Management Practices

Land Ownership and Exchanges

Most of the opportunities for land ownership adjustments are located on the Douglas Ranger District of the Forest, primarily due to the fragmented ownership patterns. Most of the mineral and homesteading inholdings located on the Laramie and Brush Creek/Hayden Districts have been subdivided, which limits the exchange opportunities. Over the past 10 years, the Forest has used purchases, tripartite and fee exchanges, donations, and Small Tract Act sales to improve land ownership patterns.

Table 1: Landownership and Acres - MBNF Land Ownership Acres National Forest System (NFS) 1,096,885 Other non-NFS 307,007 Total 1,403,892

Land Exchanges

Land exchanges are either initiated in direct response to public demand or by the Forest Service to improve management of the public lands; a suitability analysis needs to be completed before land exchanges may occur. Land adjustments are based on a willing seller concept. The landowner must be willing to exchange lands at the appraised values. The Forest has identified parcels that meet the criteria to be exchanged out of Federal ownership. Other parcels not presently identified will be evaluated under the merits of each proposal. Nonfederal lands are considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable public land, on a case-by-case basis, where the exchange is in the public interest and where acquisition of the nonfederal lands will contain higher resource values than the public lands being exchanged. In all land exchanges, keeping the surface and mineral estate intact on both the disposed and acquired lands would benefit the future owners and their use of the land.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-12

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Acquisition

Acquisition of lands can be pursued to facilitate various resource management objectives. Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange, land and water conservation funds (LWCF) purchases, donations, Small Tracts Act, or receipts from the Federal Land Transaction Facilitations Act sales or exchanges. Lands considered for acquisition would be those lands that meet specific land management goals identified in the LRMP. Most funding for purchases comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a competitive national fund and is not a reliable source of funding for land purchases on the Forest. In the future, most adjustments will be done with land exchanges.

Special Uses

Special use permits are used to authorize occupancy and use of NFS lands by federal, state, and local agencies and private industry and individuals. Several different public laws regulate activities under special use authorizations. The Organic Act of 1897 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 authorize the majority of the uses. The Ditch Bill, an amendment to FLPMA, is also used to provide permanent easements for agricultural water systems in use before 1976. Water users had 10 years from passage of the bill to apply for existing structures located on NFS lands. Currently, 48 easements have been issued under this law with an estimated 10 additional applications being processed.

Special land use applications continue to increase as more people make use of NFS lands. As of April 2012, the MBNF had permitted 631 different activities under special use permits. The more popular permit types include road use permits (116), recreation residences (104), oil and gas pipeline permits (33), and outfitter and guide permits (77). In addition to those just listed, the Forest had also authorized numerous other permit types including, but not limited to, ditches, dams and reservoirs, resorts, and research/education. While no permitted activities are known to occur in core GSG habitat, some outfitter and guide permit activity may occur within general GSG habitat.

Recreation Residence Permits

There are nine summer home groups with a total of 104 cabins located on the Forest. In many areas, this use has existed since 1925. None of these groups are located in core or general GSG habitat.

Permits for the recreation residences are issued for 20 years. The purpose was to encourage use of the National Forests by allowing individuals to build cabins and occupy them for a portion of the year. The program was successful, and several thousand permits were issued nationwide. The current national policy is not to issue any additional permits, but continue to acknowledge the recreational values associated with the existing Recreation Residences and to reissue those correctly issued existing permits when the current permit tenure expires. It is the intent of the MBNF to conduct the proper environmental analysis and reissue those correctly issued Recreation Residence permits when the current permit tenure expires.

Rights-of-Way

Corridors established to contain ROWs are preferred routes for transportation and transmission facilities. Rights-of-ways within the Forest are for pipelines, roads, and electrical and telephone lines. To the extent possible, linear ROWs, such as roads and pipelines, are routed where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking into account the point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the project. Although established corridors exist, this does not preclude the location of transportation and transmission facilities in other areas if environmental analysis indicates that the facilities are compatible with other resource values and objectives. Further identification of corridors may not necessarily mandate that transportation and transmission facilities be located within

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-13

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

these areas if they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the corridors or if the corridors are saturated. ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigating measures. Restrictions and mitigating measures may be modified on a case-by-case basis, depending on impacts on resources. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having a no surface occupancy (NSO) restriction, or otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are generally avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs.

Wind energy developments have not been proposed as of this time on the Forest. Met towers have been permitted, but they have been turned back to the Forest. The potential in the Forest for wind energy development is high in many locations, but the terrain and lack of accessibility to the grid makes it generally unsuitable for development. None of these permitted areas have been located in core or general GSG habitat.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance, or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could affect lands special use permit issuance by restricting activities that include anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, high speed traffic, utility or transportation corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, noise, and industrial campsites. Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could also affect lands special use permits by requiring reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, reduction of predator perches, burial of power lines, prevention/treatment of invasive species, pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile virus. Federal acquisition of core or general sage-grouse habitat could benefit sage-grouse by reducing the threat of private land development and habitat fragmentation. Disposition of NFS land that is core or general sage-grouse habitat could be detrimental to GSG. 2.4.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

2.4.1 Overview

The Lands Program secures and protects the rights, title, value, and interests of the National Forest, and may authorize certain uses on those public lands.

The BTNF was combined as an administrative unit and is comprised of two national forests, the Bridger and the Teton Forests. The combined acreage of the two Forests within the Proclamation Boundary is 3,439,236 acres. The ownership pattern is quite solid, with only a few remaining in- holding opportunities to secure additional lands for inclusion in the Forest through land adjustments (purchase, exchange, donation).

Land Use Authorizations, also known as Special Use Permits, is a substantial Forest program, with 811 authorized uses distributed across the Forest. The permits include 31 different use type categories, with multiple subdivisions within a permit type. Included in this overview are both recreation and non- recreation permits.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-14

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Boundary and Title Management

The BTNF contracts with the Regional Office for survey and maintenance of land line boundaries. The Boundary & Title Group maintains records of national forest land areas, land transactions, land status, and encroachments. The Forest resolves landownership cases related to title claims, trespass, and unauthorized uses to protect public access and achieve effective management of NFS lands. The trend is an increase in the number of encroachment cases due to the increased amount of private land development.

Land Ownership Adjustments

The Forest is working with several landowners who are willing sellers and who have a desire to move their lands into public ownership to be managed as a part of the Forest. The Forest has received several donations of land, but has no active cases at this time. Exchange of land parcels is another land adjustment tool which has been used by the Forest, but at this time we have no active exchange proposals. Most purchases of land are contingent upon receipt of Land & water Conservation Funding (LWCF). The Forest competes with 12 other forests in Region 4 for funding. We have not received LWCF in the last 10 years, however, are expecting to receive funding in 2013.

The desired land purchases include: Poison Creek 37 acres (2013 funding to complete purchase of this parcel) Gilcrease Foundation 176 acres (2013 funding to begin purchase of these parcels) Hatchet Meadows 28 acres Trails End Ranch 160 acres Jorgensen 40 acres Snake River Ranch 144 acres

Rights- of –Way

The BTNF works to improve legal public use of NFS lands by securing rights-of-way for roads and trails. In doing so, the Forest also assures that market value is obtained for lands or interests in lands to protect the public and private property owner’s interest. The Forest also coordinates with other public road agencies, such as County or State, to gain legal public access. The legal interest need not be limited to Forest Service ownership, as long as the public is guaranteed access.

Land Use Authorization (Special Use Permits)

The BTNF authorizes and administers use of NFS lands by individuals, private companies, organized groups, other Federal agencies, and State or local governments. The proponent’s application is reviewed, accepted or rejected, disclosed in NEPA, permitted with terms and conditions, and billed for use of the land. Land Use Authorities are issued for 20 years or less. Some permits have been issued as easements or leases, such as access roads or water ditches or communication sites. Permits are administered in the field by forest personnel, and depending on the type of use, some are inspected annually.

Permits may be reissued at expiration if the permittee shows a need, and only after a review in NEPA. Permittees not interested in renewing their permit are required to remove any improvements. Recreation Summer Homes, 20-year permit term, are renewed at permit expiration.

The majority of requests for land use occur in the Jackson, Pinedale or Afton areas of the Forest. Fewer numbers are requested in the Big Piney, Black Rock and Kemmerer areas. Following is a listing of

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-15

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

some of the Use/Type categories of Land Use Authorizations (aka Special Use Permits) both recreation and non-recreation permitted by the BTNF. An example of other types of use/permits not included in the table would be three ski areas, two pipelines, 13 power lines, among others. The list is current as of 04/23/2012 [source: SUDS database].

Table 2: Use Type Permits - BTNF USE TYPE PERMITS # Noncommercial, Privately-Owned Improvements Authorized To Individuals 135 (Isolated cabin, Recreation residence) Concessions Involving Government-Owned Improvements (Concession Campground And 211 Outfitting/Guide) Roads (Roads, easements, etc.) 59 Water (Ditches, easements, pipelines, dams, springs, wells, etc.) 181 Communications Use (2-way, TV, Radio, passive reflector, cell/telephone, etc.) 82

Management Issues and Concerns

The area denoted as GSG habitat on the Forest is limited (see BTNF map dated 4/2012 in Introduction). The map identifies three type of habitat: Core, General, and BT Occupied Outside of General. Core habitat on the Forest is very limited but is connected to larger areas adjacent to the Forest. Without searching the records in greater depth, most likely access routes would be permitted uses in the Core habitat areas. There are no planned land adjustments within Core habitat. General Sage-grouse habitat likely includes many permitted uses. Several land adjustments are planned within areas of GSG habitat. The BTNF Occupied habitat would include some permitted land uses. There are no planned land adjustments within areas of BTNF Occupied habitat.

The 1990 Forest Plan does not speak to the sage-grouse specifically. However, because the sage-grouse has been identified as a concern by the State of Wyoming (Governor Dave Freudenthal), any proposed actions would consider effects to the sage-grouse habitat. 2.4.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The TBNG is mixed between USFS-administered public land, state lands, and private surface. The majority of the mineral estate within the planning area is federal estate. On those portions of leasable minerals, the BLM is the lead agency on mineral administration. The public lands are used for a wide variety of purposes, and conflicts among competing uses are common.

The planning area includes those lands within Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties that are administered by the Douglas Ranger District. References in this section to the “planning area” refer to the entire TBNG, NFS lands. The planning area contains approximately 553,300 acres of federal surface intermingled with state and private. The federal mineral estate within the planning area is 1,158,760 acres. Approximately 76 percent of the surface ownership in the planning area is private land while 9 percent is State of Wyoming land. Federal land comprises 14 percent of the assessment area.

Current Management Practices

Several aspects of public land management must be considered in the LRMP amendment process, including land tenure adjustments (e.g., disposals, acquisitions, and withdrawals), ROWs, and permits. Issues relating to access are discussed under the Transportation and Access section.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-16

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Land Ownership

Broad authority for the Forest Service to purchase, exchange, and dispose of lands and interest in lands granted by the various congressional acts is found in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, section 2.60 (7 CFR 2.60). Additional direction on land transactions can be found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5400 and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) 5409.12, 5409.13, and 5409.17.

The objectives of Forest Service landownership adjustments are to achieve an optimum landownership pattern for resource uses to meet the needs of the people now and in the future and to settle land title claims equitably and promptly (FSM 5402). The overall Forest Service concept for land exchanges and land purchases is to consolidate federal land ownership into more manageable, larger-sized blocks, and to concurrently reduce the number of scattered, isolated tracts of federal land. Isolated tracts of land are difficult to manage effectively as federal lands for a variety of reasons such as lack of public access. Most transactions are conducted on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. However, the federal government is endowed with the power of eminent domain. The Constitution of the United States contains limitations upon this power and requires that the owner whose property is taken receive just compensation. In addition, any taking of private property must be pursuant to and in accordance with legislative authority (FSM 5480.1). In fact, the Forest Service seldom exercises the right of eminent domain and then only when there is a great or significant need for the land and informed negotiations with the landowner have been unproductive. The more recent lands transaction history on the TBNG is described in the following table:

Table 3: Land Adjustments by Year - TBNG Federal Private Landline Private Isolated Year Acres Acres Corners Eliminated Inholdings Parcels ROWs Accomplished Exchanged Acquired Elim. Miles Eliminated Eliminated Acquired 1998 4,380 2,964 55 112.0 10 13 1999 3,304 3,134 35 46.0 1 1 2000 640 640 1 3.0 2004 4,478 4,318 24 4.25 2 4 2011 720 600 15 7 2 1 TOTAL 13,522 11,656 130 172.25 1 15 18 Source: TBNG Grassland Plan 2001 and updated from Dull Center LEX & Cow Creek LEX

Withdrawals

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public health and safety. They segregate a portion of public lands and suspend certain operations of the public land laws, such as mining claims. Currently, the planning unit does not have any withdrawals.

It is now federal policy to restrict all withdrawals to the minimum time required to serve the public interest, maximize the use of withdrawn lands consistent with their primary purpose, and eliminate all withdrawals that are no longer needed.

Rights-of-Way and Easements

Corridors established to contain ROWs are preferred routes for transportation and transmission facilities. ROWs in the planning area are for railroads, pipelines (large and small oil, gas, and water), roads, electrical, fiber-optic, and telephone lines. To the extent possible, linear ROWs, such as roads and pipelines, are routed where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-17

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

into account the point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the project. Although established corridors exist, this does not preclude the location of transportation and transmission facilities in other areas if environmental analysis indicates that the facilities are compatible with other resource values and objectives. Further identification of corridors may not necessarily mandate that transportation and transmission facilities be located within these areas if they are not compatible with other resource uses, values, and objectives in and near the corridors or if the corridors are saturated. ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigating measures. Restrictions and mitigating measures may be modified on a case-by-case basis, depending on impacts on resources. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having a no surface occupancy (NSO) restriction, or otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are generally avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. Most ROWs are issued through the Special Use Permit program described below, which sets forth use requirements and conditions of approval. These SUP’s are not exclusive use permits. Other permanent uses can be issued as an easement. This formal easement is usually only used for certain cases that are considered permanent such as highway easements.

Special Use Permits

Section 302 of FLPMA states that public lands may be authorized to state and local governments and private citizens to use, occupy, or develop. Uses that may be authorized include agricultural development, residential (under certain conditions), commercial, advertising, and National Guard. Permits are varying in the length of the authorizations from short-term (1-3 years) to long term uses 10- 20 years. The unit does deal with leases that are sold to interested parties for mineral development and those are long-term authorizations that usually require a significant economic investment in the land. These leases are covered in length in the minerals section below in 2.7. Temporary use permits are considered for areas to be used only during construction or for other short-term needs.

Wind energy development projects are administered and permitted through the Special Use program. The potential in the planning area for wind energy development is low. The TBNG has also been identified as having potential for wind energy development. The general area is classified as a low potential area for wind energy in the document Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. Currently, there only has been one wind energy development project application submitted but the application has not yet been formally accepted due to the fact of critical missing pieces on the application. No further action has been taken on that application to date.

As of April 2012, the TBNG had 121 active special use permits. The more popular permit types include oil and gas pipelines (22), REA Powerlines (20), DOT Easements (34), and FLPMA Easements. In addition to those just listed, the TBNG had also authorized numerous other permit types including, but not limited to, stock pile sites; water quality monitoring; FRTA Easements, and railroad ROWs.

Management Issues and Concerns

Management Issues and Concerns are similar to those described above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-18

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.5 MINERAL RESOURCES/RENEWABLE ENERGY 2.5.1 Overview

Mineral resources include the individual resources of leasable, locatable, and salable (common variety) minerals.

Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals include energy and non-energy minerals regulated under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Such minerals include, but are not limited to, oil and gas, coal, oil shale, phosphate, and sodium brine. Leasable minerals are available through a system of competitive and non-competitive leases.

Oil and Gas: Wyoming is the number one producer of federal onshore oil and the number two producer of federal onshore gas in the United States. The oil and gas program can be broadly categorized into the following four functional areas: (1) lease operations, (2) inspection and enforcement of lease operations, (3) planning and policy related to oil and gas actions, and (4) geophysical exploration.

Coal: The BLM manages coal leasing and other administrative duties related to coal production on federal coal lands throughout the U.S. Wyoming has the largest federal coal program within the BLM, and is also the nation’s largest producer of coal, producing about 34 percent of the nation’s coal. The majority of Wyoming coal is used for steam generation in the electrical utility industry. Coal production in Wyoming has increased dramatically since the early 1970s. The BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal lands under the MLA as amended by FCLAA and is also responsible for preparation of this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing a coal lease. The Forest Service is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If any Forest Service administered lands are included in a tract that is proposed for leasing, Forest Service must consent to leasing the federal coal before BLM can make a decision to hold a federal coal lease sale.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). Examples include iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The public has statutory right to explore for, claim, and mine mineral deposits found on federally owned lands subject to U.S. mining laws. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM, the Forest Service administers most aspects of operation under the U.S. mining law on NFS lands.

Salable (Common Variety) Minerals

Disposal of common variety minerals is discretionary and is addressed under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended by the Acts of 1955 and 1962. These acts authorized that certain mineral materials be disposed of either through a contract of sale or a free use permit (FUP) (for state and local governments or eligible nonprofit organizations). Salable minerals include common variety materials such as sand, gravel, stone (e.g., decorative stone, limestone, and gypsum), clay (e.g., shale and bentonite), limestone aggregate, borrow material, clinker (scoria), leonardite (weathered coal), and petrified wood. These materials are typically used in various construction, agriculture, and decorative building or landscaping applications. The FS does not dispose of salable minerals at less than fair market value.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-19

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is generally defined as energy derived from sources continuously replenished by natural processes. These sources include wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Wind energy refers to the kinetic energy generated from wind produced by power-generating turbines. Solar energy is the use of the sun’s energy to produce electricity, often through the use of photovoltaic panels that convert sunlight directly into electricity using semiconductor materials. Biomass (also called bioenergy) is the process of converting forestry and agricultural crops, crop-processing wastes and residues, animal manures, and landfill methane gas into electricity. These waste products are either burned directly or converted into fuels that can be burned to produce energy. Geothermal energy is heat in the form of hot water, steam, or rocks near the surface of the Earth’s crust used for direct heating and cooling, or for the generation of electricity (Energy Atlas 2004).

Wyoming represents one of the strongest potential wind resources in the country and presently is an exporter of wind power to several surrounding states. The state also has some potential for solar, biomass, and geothermal energy; however, the demand for these renewable energy sources is not as strong as demand for wind energy. Currently, the installed renewable energy capacity in Wyoming is 284.65 megawatts (MW) of wind energy, 0.05 MW of solar energy, and 0 MW of biomass and geothermal energy (Energy Atlas 2004).

Laws, Policy, and Direction

Policies regarding mineral activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands is guided by statutes, and expressed in statements by the President of the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Interior.

General Mining Law of 1872 – This act allows exploration, development, and production of minerals from mining claims located on public domain lands. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 – This act authorizes the Secretary of Interior to issue leases for the disposal of certain minerals (currently applies to coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, gilsonite, and gas). The act applies to National Forest lands reserved from the public domain, including lands received in exchange for timber or other public domain lands and lands with minerals reserved under special authority. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 193- This act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to develop energy resources on lands acquired by the act. Common Varieties of Mineral Materials Act of 1947- This act provides for the disposal of mineral materials on the public lands through bidding, negotiated contracts, or free use. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 - This act states that all deposits of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, sodium, potassium, and sulfur that are owned or may be acquired by the United States and that are within lands acquired by the United States may be leased by the Secretary of Interior under the same conditions as contained in the leasing provisions of the mineral leasing laws. No mineral deposits shall be leased without the consent of the head of the executive department having jurisdiction over the lands containing the deposit and subject to such conditions as that official may prescribe. Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 – This act allows the sale of mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, and provides direction for use of surface resources of mining claims. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 - This act states that the Federal government is to foster and encourage private enterprise in developing economically sound and stable domestic mining and minerals industries and domestic mineral resources. Energy Security Act of 1980 - This act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to process applications for leases and permits to explore, drill, and develop resources on NFS lands, notwithstanding the current status of any management plan being prepared.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-20

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 - This act expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and gas resources on NFS lands. Without Forest Service approval, Bureau of Land Management cannot issue leases for oil and gas on NFS lands. The Forest Service must approve all surface- disturbing activities on NFS lands before operations commence. Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001. This Order directed the federal agencies to expedite their review of permits for energy-related projects while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.

2.5.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 expanded the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture for oil and gas leasing and authorized the Secretary to develop procedures and regulations governing leasing and development of oil and gas resources in the National Forest System (NFS). The regulations, completed on April 20, 1990, set forth procedures for making leasing decisions, and required a schedule for analyzing lands that have not already been analyzed for leasing. The leasing analysis for the MBNF was completed for the 2003 Revised Forest Plan. After the Forest Service completes required National Environmental Policy Act analysis and oil and gas decisions, the BLM can offer the leases for sale consistent with the decisions.

Mineral resource use on the MBNF has historically been widespread but sporadic. Mineral activity is presently concentrated in a few scattered areas. Activity has fluctuated with demand, and current low prices for many minerals make exploration and development uneconomical. The Forest Service manages mineral-related activities consistent with multiple-use management principles. The agency integrates the exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources with the use, conservation, and protection of other resources.

Current Management Practices

Oil and Gas The MBNF leasing decision is based on and closely tied to the Forest Plan. The completed oil and gas analysis for the 2003 Revised Forest Plan applied to about 272,524 acres of federal minerals (270,981 acres federal surface estate). These are in the areas of moderate and low oil and gas occurrence potential. The remaining 1,115,252 acres of the planning area were not included in the oil and gas leasing analysis for the following reasons: 1) The federal government has no authority over privately held minerals regardless of surface ownership (193,994 acres) and 2) Most of the Forest is located on uplifts of crystalline rocks, lacks sedimentary rocks, and has no known oil and gas occurrence potential (921,258 acres). The Sierra Madre and Snowy Range portions of the MBNF have experienced activity associated with exploration for oil and gas resources. Eleven exploratory wells, all plugged and abandoned, were drilled on the Forest between 1954 and 1983. Between 1919 and 1987, 32 exploratory wells were drilled adjacent to the Forest in the western Sierra Madre area and northern and eastern Snowy Range area. These wells also are all plugged and abandoned. Production has been established in fields within 5 miles of the western Sierra Madre and eastern Snowy Range areas of the Forest. However, the reservoirs which produce in these fields do not extend onto the Forest, are too shallow on the Forest to have significant potential for production or have been removed by erosion.

In 1995 the MBNF had 12 active oil and gas leases all of which expired without drilling activity by the year 2000. There are presently no oil and gas leases on the MBNF or any requests for leases on the Forest. The Forest has experienced limited seismic exploration.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-21

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

For the areas not covered by the leasing analysis, site specific analysis would be required. It would be quite simple, at that time, to incorporate any stipulations or mitigations deemed necessary by the resource specialists. For the areas covered by the MBNF Leasing Analysis, enough time has lapsed that so that at a minimum a Supplemental Information Report would be necessary to update information. If enough new information has surfaced, a new leasing analysis may be required.

Locatable Minerals

The Forest has some areas with high-to-moderate potential for locatable minerals (Hausel and Sutherland 1999). The potential commercial production of these minerals is concentrated in a few areas. Much of the surface within the MBNF was prospected during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many areas show an almost continuous coverage by historic prospects and mines. Most mines and prospects were not developed to any great extent, a few yielded attractive base and/or precious metal assays and were developed into commercial ventures. Mine operations ceased at most of these mines due to a variety of circumstances including declining metal prices, ore complexity, outbreak of war, and other political or human-related factors.

Several areas have the potential for building stone and decorative stone. The Forest Service has received several requests for information concerning these areas, but no formal proposals to quarry or produce the materials. This may change with future price fluctuations.

Most of the current mining activity on the Forest has been considered “recreational” in nature. Although the Forest Service does not acknowledge “recreational” mining, many State and Federal agencies do. This includes panning, and suction dredging with a suction diameter of 3 inches or less for short durations in specified timeframes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the use of a 3- inch or smaller suction dredge “recreational” and does not require a 404 permit for this activity. Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, issued Letters of Authorization for these activities in the past. The Forest now requests that the individuals send the required information to them. The Forest Service then assumes responsibility for inspecting the mining operation and making sure it complies with spacing and other requirements of the Guideline. The State’s guidelines are some of the most stringent in the nation. There are between 1 and 3 bonded small mining operations on the Forest annually. They are seasonal, covered by a Plan of Operations, and usually utilize a small backhoe to dig exploratory trenches.

There are exploratory core drilling operations on the Forest about every third year, but after the exploratory drilling is done, there has been no further interest shown. Exploration, development, and production of locatable minerals will continue to depend on market prices and commodity supply and demand. As technological advances are made, the MBNF should expect an increase in exploration demands due to the conclusion of some geologists that this may be one of the more highly mineralized forests in the United States. The significant mineral potential should be considered and weighed in any and all future planning processes.

The Forest Service may request withdrawal of areas from mineral activity if the activity might conflict with other management objectives. The following table displays the reasons for withdrawals.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-22

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 4: Current Locatable Mineral Withdrawals - MBNF Type of Withdrawal Acres Special designated areas (Wilderness RNAs, SIAs, etc.) 107,829 Roadside zones (Scenic Byways) 1,031 Power/coal 15,460 Dams/reservoirs 1,960 Ski areas 980 Recreation areas 25,569 Administrative sites 1,554 Campground/picnic areas 2,841 Total 157,244

The areas with moderate to high geologic potential for discovery of locatable minerals include the Eagle Rock-Happy Jack area for Kimberlitic indicator minerals, and the Mullen Creek, Lake Owen, and Puzzler Hill geologic complexes for platinum-palladium mineralization indicators. There have been exploratory core drilling operations in each of these complexes, but there has been no further interest shown. Market prices, commodity supply and demand, and technological advances will influence future interest in exploration, development and production. None of these areas are located in core or general sage-grouse habitat.

36 CFR 228 requires the mining claimant to file an operating plan or notice of intent for proposed mining activities. The plan must include the name and address of operators, a sketch or map of the location, descriptions of operations, access timing, operating period, and environmental protection measures. The Forest would work with the claimant to assure that standards and guidelines in the forest plan are met. The operation plan requires an environmental analysis and decision before the plan is approved.

Renewable Energy

While there has been some exploration of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal resources, these activities have predominantly occurred in the Pole Mountain area of the Forest. There is no core or general sage-grouse habitat in this area.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict mineral resource and renewable energy management. Restrictions could be placed on off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.). Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could result in additional requirements for mineral resource and renewable development projects, including additional reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, application of dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, use of native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, reduction of predator perches, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-23

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.5.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Gas

A small percentage of NFS lands are subject to present oil and gas operations or future oil and gas leasing, subject to valid existing rights. There are a limited number of oil and gas leases in a variety of dispositions and few areas available to future oil and gas leasing. The following table summarizes current oil and gas administration on the forest.

Table 5: Current Oil and Gas Administration - BTNF DISPOSITION NUMBER OF ACREAGE LEASES Leases Held by Production 54 Leases in Suspension 114 Leases in Suspension/Pending (447) Pending Further Analysis Leases in Suspension Pending Further Analysis Areas Available for Future Leasing Leases Terminated 1 30

Leases held by production have authorized and ongoing activities. Numerous lease operations are currently held in suspension at the request of the lease holder and approval by the BLM. There are numerous leases and parcels that are either held in suspension or the lease issuance is pending by the BLM pending further analysis by the FS; i.e., the 447 Leasing SEIS and leases in the Gros Ventre Wilderness. If after the additional analysis the FS determines that the suspended leases and/or parcels with pending lease issuance should not be leased, these parcels will be permanently close to future leasing per Congressional mineral withdrawal (Wyoming Range Legacy Act and the Gros Ventre Wilderness Designation).

Of the remaining areas available to future leasing on the forest, most areas are in the far eastern portion of the forest and on the front range of the Wind River Range outside the Wind River Wilderness. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act allows a very limited area of future leasing adjacent to existing leases held by production.

Since the passage of the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, one oil and gas lease has been terminated by the BLM. Per the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, this parcel may never be leased again and is therefore permanently closed to further mineral leasing. The BLM’s decision is currently being appealed by the lease operator.

The FS and BLM are currently analyzing a Master Development Plan on suspended leases in the Noble Basin. If the identified hydrocarbon is found during the exploration phase, the current development scenario may include up to 17 well pads containing approximately 137 producing wells. A Record of Decision is anticipated in late 2012.

There are currently eight wells producing natural gas on separate pads in the forest in the southern portion of the Wyoming Range. There are no known lease compliance issues on any lease in the forest.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-24

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Interest in access oil and gas resources beneath the forest has increased during the past decade with the increase of natural gas prices. Natural gas demands and consequently supplies are expected to increase in the next decade due to the use of natural gas as a transition fuel from crude oil to greener energy technologies.

Coal

There are numerous areas throughout the entire forest that have experienced coal exploration in the past. There is no active coal lease or expressed interest on the forest in the near future. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act withdrew additional areas from coal leasing, subject to valid existing rights. There are a few reported coal seams and/or past mines that may require mitigation and/or reclamation in the future.

Locatable Minerals

There were two placer mines in operation on the forest in the recent past. There are no current placer operations on the forest. These two mines may resume production in the near future given sustained high gold prices. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act withdrew additional areas to location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights.

Salable (Common Variety) Minerals

Locatable minerals in the forest are limited to gravel and sand sales. Gravel and sand mines are limited in number and located in the vicinity of areas needing such materials, such as local communities and Federal government (NPS and FS) operations. Local counties manage the majority of the gravel and sand mines. Sites used for federal government operations are managed by the authorized agency. Free Use Permits are occasionally issued for the occasional use of rock, fill, gravel, and/or sand. Given the limited resource access in local communities, it is anticipated that future needs will increase. However, the Wyoming Range Legacy Act withdrew all forms of appropriation or disposal under the public land laws, subject to valid existing rights.

Renewable Energy

There are numerous past geothermal exploration sites on the forest. There are no renewable energy projects on the forest, nor any foreseeable interest. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act withdrew additional areas from geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights.

Current Management Practices

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Gas

All leasing and lease operations are conducted in accordance to applicable laws, FS policies, the current Forest Plan, and attached lease stipulations. Per the current Forest Plan, all leases issued within the old Teton National Forest boundary are attached with lease stipulations that are commonly referred to as the “Jackson Hole Stipulations.” These stipulations address many issues, but the following address wildlife and wildlife related:

(3) To keep to an absolute minimum the number of access, tote roads, and other travelways necessary to conduct the lessee’s operations, the location of which shall be designated by the Supervisor prior to the time of their construction. Access to existing public highways shall be determined by the Supervisor at such points on the highways with due regard to sight distance restrictions, safety, or scenic considerations. The location, alignment and cross section of all roads constructed for the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-25

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

convenience of lessee’s operations, shall be such that after discontinuance of use, they can be obliterated and the area over which they traverse can be restored to its original condition. All types of roads constructed for operations uses shall, at the termination of these uses, be obliterated where required and the area over which they traversed restored in such a manner that revegetation will be encouraged. All roads constructed for operational purposes are to be considered as private roads and the creation of signs, locked gates, or other devices that may be required, at the discretion of the Supervisor, to discourage or prevent their use by the public shall be constructed and maintained by the lessee.

(5) To conduct operations in a manner that will offer the least possible disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land, to exercise no methods of control or interference with such wildlife without authority first obtained from the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Interior and/or the State Game and Fish Commission, to make no claim against the federal government or the State on account of damage by such wildlife to improvements placed on the leased land.

Leases in the old Bridger National Forest boundary were not issued with the above lease stipulations as the Bridger National Forest was not subject to the “Jackson Hole Stipulations.” All leases in the Bridger National Forest are subject to the numerous Forest Plan stipulations, guidelines, and procedures, and the Sensitive Species Notice that ultimately requires the lessee/operator to take such measures as may be required by the authorized officer, Forest Service, to protect such species.

Locatable Minerals

All locatable mineral project applications are subject to the Forest Plan’s stipulations, guidelines, and procedures.

Salable (Common Variety) Minerals

All locatable mineral authorizations are subject to the Forest Plan’s stipulations, guidelines, and procedures per each Management Area and Desired Future Condition (DFC) within the guidelines of 36 CFR 228.

Management Issues and Concerns

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Gas

It is anticipated that existing or future oil and gas lease operations on the forest will minimally compound the impact associated with the threats from oil and gas development given the small percentage of occupied sage-grouse habitat intersecting oil and gas leases and existing management efforts; there is an extremely small area of core sage-grouse habitat that intersects a potentially leased parcel. It is anticipated that implementation of conservation efforts for sage-grouse to alleviate the threats identified for oil and gas development may impact oil and gas leasing operations unless conservation efforts are applied in a manner consistent with scale, habitat, and affects. Of the eight wells producing natural gas on the forest, seven are located in occupied sage-grouse habitat.

Locatable Minerals

It is anticipated that any future locatable mine will not compound the impact associated with the threats of development, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species introduction because locatable mines are typically located in rivers and streams.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-26

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Salable (Common Variety) Minerals

It is anticipated that existing or future mineral sales on the forest will minimally compound the impact associated with the threats from development, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species due to the small percentage of mine sites. It is anticipated that implementation of conservation efforts for sage- grouse to alleviate the threats identified from development activities may impact mining operations unless conservation efforts are applied in a manner consistent with scale, habitat, and affects. 2.5.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

This section describes the laws, policy, and direction regarding mineral development along with the general geologic environment and related mineral development within the planning area. Mineral availability and development is varies dramatically over the planning area.

References in this section to the “planning area” refer to the entire TBNG, NFS lands. The planning area contains approximately 553,300 acres of federal surface intermingled with state and private. The federal mineral estate within the planning area is 1,158,760 acres.

Geology

The TBNG lies within the Powder River Geologic Basin, a 12,000 square-mile basin which contains large reserves of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas, and coal, all of which are currently being produced. In addition, uranium, bentonite, and clinker (scoria) are mined in the Powder River Basin (WSGS 2003).

The majority (at least 90%) of the planning area is estimated to have high to moderate potential for leasable minerals (coal, oil, and gas). Other minerals, including locatable and salable minerals can also be found on the TBNG.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated means of undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana, as of December 2006, are 215 million barrels of oil, 1.16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 105 million barrels of natural gas liquids (USGS 2006). Depths to conventional gas and oil-bearing strata generally range from 4,000 to 13,500 feet.

The Powder River structural basin is one of the richest petroleum provinces in the Rocky Mountain area. Conventional oil and gas resources in the eastern PRB occur in reservoirs ranging from Pennsylvanian to Late (Upper) Cretaceous age rocks, in both structural and stratigraphic traps. Oil was first produced from the PRB in 1887 from the Lower Cretaceous Newcastle Sandstone on the east flank of the basin near Moorcroft, Wyoming. In the 1960s and 1970s, drilling moved into deeper parts of the basin that resulted in the discovery of prolific oil fields in stratigraphic traps in Upper and Lower Cretaceous age rocks. The discovery of oil from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy Sandstone on the Montana side of the basin set off a flurry of exploration that resulted in a number of discoveries in Wyoming in the Muddy Sandstone. Through 2005, there had been a 15-year period of very little conventional oil and gas development activity in the PRB (BLM 2005a).

Continuous hydrocarbon accumulations form a geologically diverse group that includes coal bed natural gas (CBNG), tight-sand gas, shale gas, basin-center gas, gas hydrates, and shallow biogenic gas. These various petroleum deposits are linked together as continuous accumulations by two key geologic characteristics: 1) they consist of large volumes of rock pervasively charged with oil or gas, and 2) they do not depend upon the buoyancy of oil or gas in water for their existence (Schmoker 2005).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-27

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The USGS estimated means of undiscovered continuous oil and natural gas resources in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana, as of December 2006, are 424 million barrels of oil, 15.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 26 million barrels of natural gas liquids (USGS 2006). Continuous oil and gas resources in the PRB occur in reservoirs ranging from Pennsylvanian to Late (Upper) Cretaceous age rocks, Natural gas from hydrocarbon rich shale formations, known as shale gas is one of the most rapidly expanding trends in onshore domestic oil and gas exploration and production today (OFE 2009). Analysts have estimated that by 2011 most new reserves growth in the U.S. will come from continuous natural gas accumulations in highly organic shale and tight sands (OFE 2009). In their 2009 analysis of modern shale gas development in the United States, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (OFE 2009) identified the locations of the nation’s current producing gas shale and prospective shale, of which the PRB was not included.

The USGS (2006) reported that the potential for undiscovered continuous oil and gas resources in the PRB of Wyoming and Montana are most likely to occur in the Early (Lower) Cretaceous Mowry Continuous Oil Assessment Unit, the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Continuous Oil Assessment Unit, the Lower Fort Union Lance Formation CBNG Assessment Unit, the Upper Fort Union Formation CBNG Assessment Unit, the Wasatch Formation CBNG Assessment Unit, and an unnamed “Shallow Continuous Biogenic” Gas Assessment Unit. Shale gas investigations by the Wyoming State Geological Survey are currently focused on the Lower Cretaceous Mowry Shale, which is one of the major source rocks in the northern Rocky Mountain region. The Mowry Shale is extensively distributed throughout Wyoming’s Laramide basins and has considerable potential for shale gas production (WSGS 2010).

The U.S. Geological Survey (Flores et al. 1999) refers to the thick mineable coals in the Gillette coal field as the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The nomenclature of the mineable coal seams in the Tongue River Member varies from mine operator to mine Canyon, Roland and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak.

The mineable coal seams in the PRB are part of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The nomenclature of the mineable coal seams in the Tongue River Member varies from mine operator to mine operator in the eastern PRB and are locally referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Roland and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak. Operators of the mines in the general Wright analysis area refer to the mineable coal zone as either the Wyodak (Upper Wyodak, Middle Wyodak and Lower Wyodak) or the Wyodak- Anderson. The number of coal seams varies from tract to tract. The combined average thicknesses of the mineable coal seams range between 61 feet within the North Hilight Field LBA Tract to 104 feet within the West Jacobs Ranch LBA Tract. Interburden thickness between the coal seams varies from 0 (West Jacobs Ranch) to around 94 feet (South Hilight Field), and average overburden thickness on each tract ranges from around 246 feet (North Hilight Field) to around 480 feet (West Jacobs Ranch).

Layers of bentonite (decomposed volcanic ash) of varying thickness are present throughout the PRB. Some of the thicker layers are mined where they are near the surface, mostly around the edges of the basin. Bentonite has a large capacity to absorb water, and because of this characteristic it is used in a number of processes and products, including drilling mud. A smaller portion of the planning area near Upton/Osage is also known to have moderate potential for locatable mineral development (bentonite). Where the mineral estate has been acquired these “locatable” minerals are leased. “Common variety” salable minerals occur throughout the planning area and are used primarily for road surfacing and construction. The most common type of salable mineral within the planning area is clinker.

Clinker (also referred to as burn or scoria) is sedimentary rocks that were baked, fused or melted in place when an underlying coal seam burned in-situ. Clinker is often exposed on the surface as predominantly red-colored, resistant rock outcrops. The occurrence of clinker is site-specific, typically occurring in areas where coal seams crop out at the surface.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-28

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Scoria is a local term for reddish layers of baked and fused clay, shale, and sandstone that occur where seams of lignite have burned and baked adjacent sediments to a form of natural brick (McCoy- Brown, 1997). Scoria is commonly used for road surfacing, although it is a poor road surfacing material because it breaks down within a year or two of use. Mineral resources on the TBNG include scoria scattered through the center of the unit in a north-south direction and shale and sandstone on the eastern portion of the unit (Raymond et. al., 1997).

Gold and silver have been reported in coal near the eastern boundary of the TBNG (Raymond et. al., 1997). Uranium is found in the Eocene Wasatch Formation and the Paleocene Fort Union formation in part of the Powder River Basin (PRB).

Current Management Practices

Oil and Gas

Oil and gas resources are often found in the pore spaces of sedimentary rocks, such as sandstone and limestone, having migrated there from source rocks rich in organic material, such as marine shale. When rocks containing this organic material are subjected to heat and pressure, the organic compounds break down over time, resulting in oil and natural gas. As the oil and gas are generated, they migrate through the pore spaces of the rock or along fractures until they encounter a structural or stratigraphic trap with an impermeable seal. CBNG occurs in areas where the gas has been trapped in the coal bed where it was generated during the coalification process.

Oil: Wyoming ranks seventh in the United States in the production of oil. Collectively in Wyoming, more than 38,000 wells produced 52.9 million barrels of oil in 2006. In the three counties found within the BFO planning area, approximately 9.8 million barrels of oil were produced in 2007.

Natural Gas: Wyoming ranks second in the United States in the production of natural gas. Collectively in Wyoming, more than 38,000 wells produced 2.11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2006. In the three counties found within the BFO planning area, approximately 13,000 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) were produced in 2007.

Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG): The PRB CBNG field ranks eleventh in proved gas reserves in the United States (DOE 2008b). Proven reserves are (1) the portion of an oil and/or gas reservoir delineated by drilling and defined by oil/water, gas/oil/water, and/or gas/water contacts, if any; and (2) the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive based on available geologic and engineering data. The Powder River Basin CBNG covers portions of Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties. Collectively in the three counties found within the BFO planning area, approximately 429 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of CBNG were produced in 2007.

Oil and Gas Exploration

Geophysical activities may be conducted prior to or after leasing by the lessee or someone other than the lessee. Conducting exploration drilling operations, however, is an exclusive right granted to a lessee on his/her lease. After a lease is issued, the lessee or lessee’s assignee can conduct exploration drilling operations, in compliance with lease terms and other conditions.

Geophysical methods of exploration include gravitational and magnetic surveys that are completed on the ground. Seismic surveys are the most common form of geophysical exploration for oil and gas resources. Seismic surveys analyze acoustical properties of rocks deep beneath the surface and provide geophysicists and geologists a “picture” of rock characteristics and relationships (variation in rock types, the nature of rock layers, structural characteristics such as faults and folds, and sometimes the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-29

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

nature of fluids or gas filling pore spaces in the rock). The “picture” of these subsurface rock relationships depends on characteristics of artificially generated shock waves directed into the earth after they bounce off of rock layers and return to listening devices on the surface.

Generally, these surveys are conducted on foot and in trucks over large areas. In rough terrain, people on foot, supported by helicopter, may conduct such a survey. Sound sources include thumper trucks and dynamite. Thumper trucks have large metal plates that are mechanically dropped on the surface to force sound waves into the earth. Dynamite can be placed on sticks on the surface or in holes drilled in the ground. In either case, rock layers in the earth “bounce” the sound waves back to the surface where they are picked up by sound receivers. Sound receivers consist of a large number of small devices placed on the ground surface. The devices are evenly spaced along a wire connected to a truck that contains sophisticated computer equipment. The computer equipment collects and analyzes the subsurface sound data.

The two basic types of seismic surveys—conventional or single-line seismic and 3D or three- dimensional seismic—obtain data from the subsurface in much the same way. The arrangement of and relationship between sound sources and receivers, however, differs between the two types of surveys. The design of the survey depends on the objectives of the company seeking information about the subsurface. Surveys may cover a very large area (a grid over 10s of square miles, as in some 3D surveys) or may be limited in extent (one line over a mile or two, as in some conventional surveys).

Regardless of the size of the area surveyed, if any federally owned surface is affected, the geophysical company must obtain a permit from the agency with jurisdiction for the surface. In the case of the grasslands, where the Forest Surface administers any federally owned surface, the company must obtain a permit from the Forest Service. The special use permit authorizing such use includes conditional provisions for conducting seismic surveys, which by their very nature include some level of ground disturbance (generally minimal). The Forest Service imposes a fee with geophysical special use permits, except when the acquisition company or a client of the geophysical company is a leaseholder. Neither the geophysical company nor any of its clients must be a leaseholder in order to conduct a seismic survey. However, when one or more of the companies acquires data from a survey conducted on its lease, a fee is not imposed for that part of the survey on the lease.

Prior to approval or authorization, the Forest Service examines all proposals for geophysical operations on National Forest System lands, either on or off an oil and gas lease. The authorizing officer must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508 and with Forest Service policy and procedures. Based on review of the environmental consequences, the proposed seismic survey may be modified to be consistent with the current approved land and resource management plan. The authorizing officer may approve the proposed survey as submitted, approve the proposed survey subject to specific conditions, or not approve the proposed survey for specific reasons.

Over the last three years the Douglas Ranger District office has processed 1-2 large geophysical projects per year. This is anticipated to increase, at least for the next 3 to 5 years as the technology and the demand is up. This is then expected to decline as more companies move forward into lease nominations, lease acquisitions, and then development.

Processing Oil and Gas Leases

Federal oil and gas resources administered by BLM are categorized into one of four groups: lands available for leasing with standard stipulations; lands available for leasing with minor restrictions, such as seasonal stipulations or Controlled Surface Use (CSU); lands available for leasing with major restrictions, such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO); and lands not available for leasing. Surface use restrictions (including NSO, CSU, and no leasing) cannot be retroactively applied to existing valid oil

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-30

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

and gas leases or other existing valid use authorizations. Site-specific post lease actions (e.g., applications for permit to drill [APD] and ROWs) in areas with existing valid rights would be allowed, subject to surface use restrictions on a case-by-case basis, as supported through project-specific NEPA analysis. Currently, and since the LRMP 2001 was completed, new leases that are processed in sage- grouse habitat will have a NSO and/or Timing Limitation (TL) placed on them.

The current analysis applies to all federal minerals within the grasslands. Based on this analysis, the Forest Service will issue leasing decisions for National Forest System lands, and the BLM will issue decisions for leasing both the federal mineral estate under National Forest System surface and federal mineral estate under non-federal surface (split estate lands) within Forest Service units, as appropriate. With management responsibility and authority for the federal mineral estate, the BLM also plays a role in management of oil and gas resources underlying NFS lands. The BLM is a cooperating agency in this analysis in accordance with the 1991 Interagency Agreement for Oil and Gas Leasing between the Forest Service and BLM. This oil and gas analysis addresses all federal minerals including those under non-federal surface (split estate) lands within the boundaries of the NFS units to which this analysis applies. Based on this oil and gas analysis the Forest Service will issue leasing decisions pursuant to 36 CFR 228.102, and the BLM will issue decisions for leasing federal mineral estate under Forest Service administered surface and under non-federal surface (split estate lands) within Forest Service units, as appropriate. The public can nominate any federal lands with unleased federal minerals and/or any split-estate lands underlain with unleased federal minerals to be included in one of the six competitive lease auctions held yearly by the BLM Wyoming State Office. For nominations where the surface is management by the USFS it is passed on to the USFS for any other surface stipulations that will need to be attached to the nominated parcel. Once completed, the USFS returns the nomination with attached stipulations and the BLM attaches additional stipulations if necessary and proceeds with the auction. Currently, there are approximately 352 pending lease nominations for 206,839.49 acres. Existing federal oil and gas leases in the planning area cover approximately 135,752 acres, of which 45,360 acres are within GSG core areas. While there are no areas within the planning area that are currently designated as withdrawal or that no oil and gas leasing can occur there, are Special Interest Areas (SIA) that will have various stipulations from TL/CSU/NSO depending on the location and the management direction for those areas.

Subsequent to obtaining a lease, a lessee or his/her appointed operator may drill on the lease to explore for and/or develop any hydrocarbon resources that might be present in the subsurface. Such drilling can occur only under the terms of the lease, including any special stipulations that may be attached to the lease. In addition, such drilling can occur only after additional permission is granted by the Forest Service and/or Bureau of Land Management. No drilling or surface occupancy associated with drilling may occur in areas covered by a No Surface Occupancy stipulation that may be attached to a lease, except under conditions as described in the stipulation.

Prior to obtaining a lease and performing exploration drilling or other surface disturbance, a lessee/operator must file and receive approval for an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). The APD includes a Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) itemizing certain conditions under which a well may be drilled. Such Conditions of Approval link to lease terms and special stipulations, standards and guidelines in the applicable LRMP, and other applicable laws and regulations. Included in requirements to conduct drilling operations for exploration or development, the lessee/operator and the federal permitting agency(ies) must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations before surface-disturbing activities are permitted.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-31

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The BLM administers all APDs for all federal minerals, regardless of surface ownership. In the case of federal minerals under Forest Service surface jurisdiction, the Forest Service works with the lessee/operator on developing the SUPO. The Forest Service must approve the SUPO before any surface-disturbing activities can occur. The BLM incorporates the approved Forest Service SUPO in the APD before granting final approval to drill a well. In the case of federal minerals under private surface ownership, the BLM alone administers the APD, and the lessee/operator must work with the private landowner on provisions for surface access. Oil and Gas Existing Leases The TBNG has experienced relatively steady, moderate conventional oil and gas development activity over the past 10 years. Conventional oil and gas development refers to development of discrete deposit(s) from which oil, gas, or natural gas liquids can be extracted using traditional development practices. For the next ten years, there is still high potential of development of conventional oil and gas wells, based on geologic potential, historical drilling trends, and favorable economic and technological conditions. A small part of TBNG west of the coal outcrop near Highway 59 has high potential for coal bed methane resources (natural gas). This part of the grassland has experienced relatively high levels of development of coal bed methane resources on existing leases in the past 5 years. This part of the grassland is a small portion of a much larger area of the Powder River Basin that has high potential for coal bed methane resources. Qualitative assessments of petroleum occurrence are based on the following BLM handbook definitions: • High Potential: Demonstrated presence of a mature source bed, suitable reservoir strata (with satisfactory porosity and permeability), and traps into which petroleum has migrated. • Moderate Potential: Inferred presence of a mature source bed, suitable reservoir strata, migration pathways, and traps with a hydrocarbon charge. • Low Potential: Inference that a mature source bed, suitable reservoir strata, migration pathways, or charged traps may not be present.

Average production from wells on Forest Service surface/federal minerals in TBNG is 4.6 barrels per day. Consequently, most oil wells on the grassland are "stripper" or marginally economic wells (wells that produce less than 15 barrels of oil per day). On a national basis, stripper wells produce 32 percent of the oil that comes from federal lands. This is an important component of national oil production and is significant to both local and national economies. As of April 11, 2012, there have been a total of 1,251 processed APD (Application for Permit to Drill) for wells on the TBNG. This total includes all oil and gas wells (conventional and coal-bed natural gas). As of April 11, 2012, there were 315 active, producing conventional oil, natural gas, and coal-bed natural gas wells and battery sites. In addition, there were approximately 168 wells that were in various stages of production from initial permitting to “shut in.” The “shut-in” wells could vary from pending work-over maintenance to pending permanent plug and abandonment. There are many oil and gas leases with only one producing well and several other wells that are temporarily abandoned (shut- in). Some wells have been shut-in for as long as 10 years without being put back into production or being plugged and abandoned. The longer wells are shut-in, the greater the risk no one will take responsibility for plugging them and reclaiming the sites. This management concern is currently being addressed through inspection, enforcement, and bonding policies.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-32

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Each of these wells (active, shut-in, or other status) is associated with, on average, 0.5 miles of road that is solely used for accessing those wells for daily operation and maintenance activities. Assuming that each well and its 0.5 mile of access road represent an average disturbed area of 2.5 acres (some well sites are smaller such as CBNG wells to larger disturbance pads for deep oil wells), the total area currently disturbed by and allocated for the use of oil and gas operations on TBNG is approximately 1,208 acres. Higher oil prices experienced recently have helped prevent the abandonment of low-producing wells and could potentially increase conventional oil and gas exploration as well as secondary recovery in the PRB. Since 1990, most reserve additions in the U.S.-89 percent of oil reserve additions and 92 percent of gas reserve additions-have come from finding new reserves in old fields (OFE 1999). Most recent reserve additions in the PRB have come from old fields (BLM 2005g). Secondary recovery uses methods like gas reinjection and water flooding to boost primary production and displace hydrocarbons not produced in the primary recovery phase. Enhanced oil recovery involves the injection of liquids or gases (such as carbon dioxide) to stimulate hydrocarbon flow bypassed in earlier recovery phases (BLM 2005g). Sources of fresh or treatable water is needed for water flooding and accessibility to cheap natural gas is needed for gas injection projects; however, sources of abundant fresh water and cheap natural gas are not currently available in the general Wright analysis area. Enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding also has the potential to increase oil recovery in the general analysis area, but the infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines, etc.) is not currently in place (BLM 2005a). Existing oil and gas leases in the planning area do not differentiate between hydrocarbon products, such as oil, natural gas, natural gas from coal, natural gas separated for hydrogen sulfide, or other combinations of oil or gas. They simply authorize the leaseholder to explore for, develop, and produce whatever fluid mineral component may be contained within the formations within their lease. Because oil and gas leases do not differentiate between products and because of the basic similarities between developing the different fluid mineral products, unless stated otherwise, the term oil and gas or fluid minerals in this document will collectively apply to all fluid mineral products occurring within the planning area.

Coal bed natural gas has been commercially produced in the PRB since 1989 when production began at the Rawhide Butte Field located northwest of the Gillette, Wyoming (De Bruin and Lyman 1999). Extensive CBNG development has occurred on lands immediately west of the surface coal mines. The predominant CBNG production to date in this area has occurred from the upper Fort Union Formation Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, which are the same coal beds (or equivalent to the coal beds) being mined by the surface coal mines. The Wyodak-Anderson zone appears to be gas-bearing throughout the PRB and the methane in the coal beds has been determined to be biogenic in origin. Coal bed natural gas is also being produced from other, deeper coal seams locally throughout the PRB. In order for CBNG to be produced, the hydrostatic pressure in the coal must be reduced to a level that can vary from coal to coal, which allows the gas to desorb from the coal. This is accomplished by removing water from the coal bed. CBNG reservoirs can be affected by any nearby activities, including coal mining, that reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the coal bed. The Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG) has recently prepared a variety of detailed analyses of CBNG resources in the lands near (meaning those townships within and adjacent to) the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB for coal leasing and other actions. The WSORMG completed a report in 2006 that describes the existing/affected environment of the coal mining areas and adjacent lands, with respect to CBNG resources, and documents the observed and inferred resource depletion that has and will continue to occur (WSO-RMG 2006). WSO-RMG and the USGS have collected coal gas content data from coal cores near the mines and in other areas of the PRB. Measured gas content was minimal in all of the Wyodak- Anderson coal cores

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-33

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

collected in 2000 at locations near the surface coal mines, indicating that the coal seams were already substantially depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the mines at that time. Average total gas content from the core desorption analyses was approximately 6.8 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton) near the coal mines in 2000, compared with an average measured gas content of 37.6 scf/ton from coal cores taken outside the mining areas. Analyses by WSO-RMG, USGS, CBNG operators, and others have shown that dewatering of the coal beds, by both CBNG production and mine dewatering, reduces the hydrostatic pressure in the coals and allows the CBNG to desorb and escape from the coal. These effects have been ongoing and it is likely that desorption has continued since 2000; as a result, coal gas content and the gas-in-place adjacent to the existing mines would currently be expected to be less than in 2000. WOGCC well data from the areas adjacent to the PRB surface coal mines generally show that operator interest peaked prior to 2000 and declined following 2001. By 2005, drilling activity in the areas adjacent to the coal mines had declined significantly, with only 128 applications to drill CBNG wells filed in all of the townships including and bordering the coal mines in 2005 (WSO-RMG 2006). CBNG wells were initially drilled on 40-acre spacing in the Wyoming PRB. Production/reservoir analyses that have been submitted to the WOGCC in various public hearings have indicated that CBNG wells in the PRB will produce reserves from larger areas than 40 acres. As a result, the WOGCC established an 80-acre spacing pattern as the default spacing for CBNG wells completed in the PRB within the Fort Union and Wasatch Formations. Most CBNG wells on and near the general mine area were drilled on an 80-acre pattern, although some were drilled on a 40-acre pattern because they were drilled before the spacing was changed to 80 acres. Certain townships in the PRB are exempt from the 80-acre spacing pattern rule; however, those townships are north of the general mine area (WOGCC 2008b). Although CBNG has been produced in this area for about 10 years, there are still some undrilled 80- acre spacing units in and around the general mine area. However, there has been little recent interest in drilling additional wells for completion in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in this area. CBNG is also being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB (e.g., Cook, Wall, and Pawnee coal seams of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation), although no wells have been completed in the deeper seams on and immediately west of the mines (WOGCC 2008a). According to the WOGCC database as of May 2008, a total of 287 wells have been drilled for CBNG production within the mines on the TBNG as applied for and the lands added by the respective BLM study areas included in this analysis. Approximately 155 of those wells were on TBNG. Currently, due to the decrease in production only 34 remain listed as procedures/active while 91 are now shut-in or in some other status and 27 have been completely plugged and abandoned. Trends Completed Wells – Well completions remained steadily at under 100 completions per year through the early and mid-1990’s. Beginning in 1998, completions increased sharply on state and fee minerals with CBNG development. The number of completions on federal minerals began increasing in 2000 with CBNG development. Well completions dropped off irrespective of mineral owner in 2003. This follows the decline of approved APDs in 2002. Federal well completion increased in 2004 after the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Final EIS ROD was signed in 2003 (BLM 2003a). Increases in well completions from 2003 to 2005 follow the trend of approved APDs between 2002 and 2004. The decline in well completion per year starting in 2005 correlates with a change in well completions techniques. Prior to 2004/2005 each CBNG well was typically drilled to and completed in a single coal seam. In areas where three or four coal seams existed, three or four wells would be drilled and completed. Beginning in 2004/2005, CBNG operators began using subsurface commingling. With

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-34

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

subsurface commingling a single well can be drilled through and completed in multiple coal seams. Areas that previously required three, four or five wells, now only require one or two wells. The downward trend of well completions per year between 2005 and 2008 correlates with the increased use of the subsurface commingling technique.

Well Plugging – Over the last 15 years, Buffalo Field Office-wide, oil and gas wells in the planning area have been plugged at an average rate of 230 wells per year with a minimum of 135 wells plugged in 1994 and a maximum of 315 wells plugged in 2005 (Buffalo RMP AMS 2009).

Forecasts

Completed Wells – Well completions in the Powder River Basin will continue to be overwhelmingly associated with CBNG development. Between 1,000 and 1,500 well completions can be expected per year through 2013 – 2015. While not all APDs become drilled and completed wells, the correlation between them is expected to remain. Therefore, a decline in well completions is expected after 2015.

Oil and gas production – The United States consumed, on average, 20.65 million barrels of liquid fuels (5.10 million barrels were from domestic crude oil production) and 59.34 Bcf of gas each day in 2006 (DOE 2008b). Based on the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, total energy consumption in the United States is projected to increase over the next 25 years. Total consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil liquids and biofuels, is projected to grow from 20.7 million barrels per day in 2006 to 22.8 million barrels per day in 2030. Natural gas consumption is projected to increase from 21.7 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 23.8 trillion cubic feet in 2016, then decline to 22.7 trillion cubic feet in 2030 (DOE 2008b).

An increase in the demand for oil and gas resources is also expected in the planning area based on the projected increases in prices for oil and gas and the rising national demand for energy. The National Energy Policy of 2005 has influenced the demand on federal oil and gas leases in the planning area. The use of CO2 to enhance oil recovery in mature fields is also expected to occur in the planning area in the immediate future.

Applications for Permits to Drill (APD) – The BLM expects approximately 2,500 to 3,000 APDs per year to be submitted until 2013. After 2013, the number of APDs submitted is expected to decline in tandem with the number of available CBNG spacing units. One unknown in this forecast is the number of mineral estate acres in coal bearing areas of the Powder River Basin that could be available for leasing upon completion of the BFO RMP (i.e. authorized leases in coal bearing areas could expire and would not be released until an RMP was approved).

Well Plugging – The CBNG wells in the planning area have an anticipated production life of between 7 and 10 years. The upsurge of APDs due to CBNG began 10 years ago in 1999. A corresponding upsurge in well plugging is expected to start in 2009 and follow the drilling trend with a 10-year lag.

Key Features

Until 2004 all federal minerals in the planning area were open to leasing, with the exceptions of incorporated towns and cities and three Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). A 2004 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Pennaco Energy v. DOI, 377 F.3d 1147) ruling prohibited the leasing of federal minerals in coal bearing areas until a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is completed.

Coal

Coal development potential for the planning area is very high and is located within the 8.4 Management Area, Hilight Bill Geographic Area. There are four coal mines on the TBNG, either in production or some phase of planning or construction. The Black Thunder Mine is located near Wright, Wyoming.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-35

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The mines that operate on and near the planning area are Black Thunder Mine (consolidated with Jacobs Ranch Mine in 2009), North Antelope Rochelle Mine, School Creek Mine, and Antelope Mine. The four mines have a collective footprint of over 120,000 acres within the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is on NFS lands and produce around 300 million tons of coal per year (current from 2010 data).

Coal products are transported off-site by railroad. Roads within the mine permit boundaries are permitted under each mine’s Special Use Authorization; significant road modifications associated with the mining operations may be administered by way of permit amendments, temporary 1-year construction permits, or project-specific Special Use Authorizations. At any given time, the existing road network is sufficient to support current operations, although proposed road changes may be in various stages of development to support on-going changes in mine physical configuration or mine production capacity, or both. The progression of mining is generally from east to west, following the westerly dipping mined coal seams. Consequently, roads situated west of the actively mined areas are periodically vacated and relocated to accommodate the progression of mining. Relocations of vacated roads may be constructed either further west in advance of the mining, or east “behind” the mined-out areas. Because road relocation in the vicinity of the mines is an on-going process, published road maps are frequently out-of-date and inaccurate in the immediate areas of the mines.

The existing life of mining within the planning area will be dependent upon new leasing opportunities in the future. With the existing leases in place the life of mining is between 10 to 15 years and could be extended with additional leases. There are currently five leases pending sale in the planning area.

The SMCRA and regulations at 43CFR Subpart 3461 establish that federal lands be reviewed for “unsuitability” for surface coal mining. A coal suitability analysis has been done for the TBNG. The Thunder Basin areas considered unsuitable for mining include buffers for State Highway 450, railroads, the utility line paralleling the railroad, 160 acres used by University of Wyoming for scientific study, and 400 acres of alluvial valley floors significant to farming. Areas with deferred suitability decisions include state highways, county roads, occupied dwellings, 480 acres of the University of Wyoming scientific site, areas of bald or golden eagle nests (these sites have buffer zones drawn around them), prairie falcon nest sites, habitat for migratory bird species, grouse leks, and the remaining alluvial floors not listed above (Coal Screening Process, 1997). For further information on the suitability report, see Federal Coal Management Program Coal Screening Process, December 1997.

The planning area has approximately 18,000 acres of NFS lands remain uncommitted federal coal within the development potential. The suitability of these lands was covered in the land and recourse planning effort for the TBNG in 2001.

In the Powder River Basin (PRB), maintenance tracts are nominated for leasing by companies operating adjacent existing mines. To process an LBA, the BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery (MER), and fair market value (FMV) of the federal coal. The BLM must also evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of leasing and mining the federal coal in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). BLM typically leads the preparation of the analysis to evaluate and disclose potential impacts of leasing the federal coal in coal tracts.

The development of federal coal reserves is integral to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as well as the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA). BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal lands under the MLA as amended by FCLAA and is also responsible for preparation of this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing a coal lease. The USFS is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. If any USFS administered lands are

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-36

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

included in a tract that is proposed for leasing, USFS must consent to leasing the federal coal before BLM can make a decision to hold a federal coal lease sale.

Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, a federal coal lease holder in Wyoming must submit a permit application package to OSM and WDEQ/LQD for any proposed coal mining and reclamation operations on federal lands in the state. WDEQ/LQD reviews the permit application package to insure the permit application complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. OSM, BLM, USFS and other federal agencies review the permit application package to insure it complies with the terms of the coal lease, the MLA, NEPA, and other federal laws and their attendant regulations. If the permit application package complies, WDEQ issues the applicant a permit to conduct coal mining operations. OSM recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the MLA mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, the BLM must concur with this recommendation.

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to revise its coal mining permit prior to mining the coal, following the processes outlined above. As a part of that process, a detailed new plan would be developed showing how the newly-leased lands would be mined and reclaimed.

The area of mining disturbance would be larger than the newly-leased area to allow for activities such as overstripping, matching reclaimed topography to undisturbed topography, constructing flood control and sediment control facilities, and related activities. Specific impacts that would occur during the mining and reclamation of the LBA tract would be addressed in the mining and reclamation plan, and specific mitigation measures for anticipated impacts would be described in detail at that time. WDEQ enforces the performance standards and permit requirements for reclamation during a mine’s operation and has primary authority in environmental emergencies. OSM retains oversight responsibility for this enforcement. Where federal surface or coal resources are involved, BLM, and USFS for USFS- administered lands, have authority in emergency situations if WDEQ or OSM cannot act before environmental harm and damage occurs.

Trends

Coal from Wyoming’s PRB is shipped nationwide. When the Powder River Basin Federal Coal Production Region was decertified, U.S. coal production increased 11 percent from 1,029.1 million tons in 1990 to 1,145.6 million tons in 2007. Wyoming coal production increased from 184 million tons in 1990 to 453.6 million tons in 2007, an increase of 247 percent (DOE 2008a).

Forecasts

Wyoming PRB coal represented 38 percent of the nation’s coal production in 2007, with total production expected to grow at an annual rate of two percent to three percent per year, which is in line with electric power demand. BLM most recently completed long range forecasts of demand for Wyoming Powder River Basin in the Coal Planning Estimates Report (BLM 2003b), as well as the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b). These forecasts have been refreshed as needed by the BLM mineral economist for each leasing action.

While all mines are expected to increase production through 2020, it is expected that there will be a relative shift of production from southern mines near Wright to northern mines near Gillette through 2020. This is because the coal in the southern part of the Powder River Basin is of better quality than in the north, and southern mines are at or approaching air quality permit limits and stripping ratios are rapidly increasing.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-37

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Lands identified as having high coal development potential were reviewed (coal screening) as part of the 2001 Buffalo RMP update. Based on forecast demand, there is no need to screen additional lands beyond those already subjected to the four coal screens. The lands that would most logically meet reserve demand into the future, and the presently available lands sufficient to meet leasing demand through 2020 and beyond have been projected. In the event there is leasing interest in lands beyond those screened, beyond the current delineated high potential development area, BLM has a mechanism for screening additional lands as needed as part of application processing under cost recovery.

Climate Change

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has attempted to identify a scenario of how the full portfolio of technologies to provide for electric energy would respond to a national policy that may require carbon dioxide (CO2) be brought down to 1990 levels (Revis 2007 and Revis 2008). No regulatory structure or CO2 emission levels or limits have been set by national policy or law. However, the EPRI scenario provides some analysis of the possible effect of regulation as well as decreased demand through energy efficiency, at the user end, in transmission and at the producer end. The table below indicates how the mix of technologies used to generate electricity might change under this scenario.

Table 6: Percent Possible Technology Mix Under a CO2 Reduction Scenario - TBNG Source 2007 2030 Coal 51 52 Nuclear 21 29 Natural Gas 18 5 Petroleum 1 0 Hydro Power 7 5 Renewables 2 9 Source: Revis 2007 and Revis 2008

Key Features

Coal underlies the entire Powder River Basin structure and varies in depth, thickness and quality. The eastern side of the structure (in Campbell and Converse Counties) contains coal of minable depth, quality and thickness, and an area of high development potential has been delineated there. This is the location of active mining in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. Along the western side of the structure there is also coal of depth, quality and thickness that has been, and could again become, attractive for development. An area of high development potential has been delineated for this area as well.

Bentonite

While bentonite can be also considered a leasable under the Minerals Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, it is considered a locatable on public domain lands and handled as such under the General Mining Law of 1872. There is a sizeable amount of bentonite material known in the Upton-Osage area of the TBNG. Several bentonite strip mines existed at one point on the Grassland in the Upton-Osage area, however after a depressed market, many operations were forced to cease. There remains potential for new development in the Upton-Osage area as prices and markets once again strengthen. Over the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-38

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

last two years, there has been a small number of inquiries about new development. The only authorization to date has been to complete baseline survey work.

Salable Minerals

Salable minerals, also known as mineral materials, include common varieties of sand, stone (e.g., decorative stone), gravel, pumice, clay, rock and petrified wood. These non‐energy related materials are typically used in everyday construction, agriculture, and decorative applications. Under the USFS minerals materials program (36 CFR 228 Subpart C) the USFS manages exploration, development, and disposal of salable minerals either by sale or free use. Recreational collecting of this material is allowed, but large volume removal requires a mineral sale. The USFS does not sell salable minerals at less than fair market value.

Salable minerals known to occur within the planning area are limited to aggregates (e.g., sand and gravel, shale, clinker/scoria). These commodities are classified as industrial minerals and have a low per-unit valuation. As long as the development potential remains limited and the unit valuation remains low, non-fluid minerals are not expected to be significant contributors to the economic minerals sector of the local economy.

A small number of mineral materials clinker mines are dispersed across the TBNG, both inside and outside of the Mineral Production and Development Management Area 8.4. The mines are small community pits; disposals are infrequent and generally small free-use quantities (less than 10 cubic yards per year). Existing pit haul roads, generally unpaved, are sufficient to support the existing traffic transporting small volumes of mineral materials. Potential future development of additional mineral materials pits may require the establishment of new pit haul roads. The mines are collectively permitted up to 2.0 million cubic yards of material but have been averaging 1.2 million cubic yards of clinker/year.

Demand Trend

Demand for salable minerals nationwide is on the increase, with an increase in construction and general growth. Matching this trend, the USFS DRD has seen an increase in the amount of salable minerals sold and in the number of contracts and request for contracts for salable minerals. Demand for salable minerals, particularly scoria, sand and gravel, is projected to increase in proportion to the increase in energy mineral exploration and development. These minerals are primarily used in the construction phase of all energy mineral exploration and development activities. Exploration and production of salable minerals is increasing. Local demand and the ongoing needs for more mineral material from the public lands for various private and public projects have resulted in a large volume mineral materials‐ related activity to be processed by the Douglas Ranger District.

Exploration and production of commercially‐available mineral materials in the planning area currently includes moderate to high levels of activity. The USFS will continue to work with the mineral materials industry and the public to insure resource viability while protecting other resources on the ground and preventing unnecessary and undue degradation. It is anticipated that demand will continue to remain about the same in the future, but will depend on oil, gas, coal, and other mineral development and population growth.

USFS administered lands in the planning area are the source of a number of important mineral material resources. While there are significant quantities of mineral material reserves are present in the planning area, it is uncertain that these lands will be able to sustain the demand for the material as a large portion of the lands are located on Bankhead Jones lands. If the minerals were not reserved to the US at the time of the initial separation, specific to mineral materials, then it is likely that the mineral materials have an “acquired minerals” status. The BHJ Farm Tenant Act clearly states, in that case, that mineral

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-39

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

materials are not available for commercial use and are only available to any public land department or agency.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Locatable minerals are referred to as hardrock minerals. Examples include deposits of iron, gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, and molybdenum. The public has the statutory right to explore for, claim, and mine mineral deposits found on federally owned lands, subject to the U.S. mining laws. The Forest Service administers most aspects of U.S. mining laws on NFS lands through a memorandum of understanding with the BLM.

Uranium: Uranium is available for location under the General Mining Laws if it occurs on public domain lands; if it is on acquired lands, it is available under the leasing laws. Most of the national grasslands have acquired minerals, so in most cases, uranium would be available only by lease; however, much of the mineral estate on TBNG is public domain. No lands within the planning area are leased for uranium mining.

Other known uranium resources exist on the western portion of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland near Edgemont, South Dakota; eastern Buffalo Gap National Grassland near Scenic, South Dakota; western TBNG, near Wright and Bill, Wyoming (Raymond et. al., 1997); the development potential for uranium within the planning area is low.

Because much of the mineral estate is public domain, a portion of the uranium resource would be considered locatable. No active uranium mining occurs on the grassland. The Bear Creek Uranium Mine and Mill once operated about 18 miles west of Bill, Wyoming on the TBNG. Bear Creek Uranium is in the final stages of reclamation and is being monitored by the Department of Energy.

Bentonite: While bentonite can be also considered a leasable under the Minerals Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, it is considered a locatable on public domain lands and handled as such under the General Mining Law of 1872. There is a sizeable amount of bentonite material known in the Upton-Osage area of the TBNG. Several bentonite strip mines existed at one point on the Grassland in the Upton-Osage area, however after a depressed market, many operations were forced to cease. There remains potential for new development in the Upton-Osage area as prices and markets once again strengthen. Over the last two years, there has been a small number of inquiries about new development. The only authorization to date has been to complete baseline survey work. American Colloid, based out of Upton, Wyoming, has bentonite claims on public domain lands within the TBNG.

Forest Plan Direction

The management practices below are from the existing TBNG Grassland Plan and apply to all Minerals. The Grassland Plan does not differentiate between leasable and other minerals. There is one separation specific to oil and gas operations that are included in the list below.

Objectives: Ensure reclamation provisions of operating plans are completed to standard. Honor all valid existing legal mineral rights. General Require operators to obtain water for mineral operations from private sources, except in the following instances: a) private sources are not available; b) water is available from National Forest System land ponds or wells; and such use would not conflict with established uses. Standard Prohibit rig stacking and storage of equipment not being used. Standard

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-40

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Obliterate and rehabilitate special use and single use roads associated with oil and gas lease development, within one year from the end of their use period, unless a documented decision is made to keep the road for other management needs. Guideline

Geophysical Operations: Where no suitable mitigation measures are possible, prohibit geophysical (seismic) operations that cause surface disturbance in Research Natural Areas, Special Interest Areas, American Indian traditional use area, and known National Register eligible sites. Standard Minimize surface and other resource disturbance from geophysical operations. Guideline Do not allow new road construction, unless alternatives have been assessed and determined to be more environmentally damaging. Guideline Allow geophysical operations within developed recreation sites; however, restrictions (types, timing, seasonal, or location restrictions) will be applied to avoid conflicts with recreationists, and to maintain the recreational setting of the developed site. Guideline Chapter 1 1-12 Grassland- wide Direction

Oil and Gas Operations: Honor valid existing legal and private property rights pertaining to the development, production, and transport of mineral resources. See Fish, Wildlife, and Rare Plants; Recreation; and Scenery Management sections for additional direction. Standard Promote the use of closed circulation systems. Discourage the use of open reserve pits for oil and gas drilling operations. In cases where the use of pits for drilling operations is justified, analyze and monitor construction and use for minimal potential for leakage and structural failure (including pit solidification). Guideline Prohibit the use of production pits. Standard Do not allow field offices unless operators demonstrate they are essential to production operations. When need is justified, facilities will be limited in size and design to serve only those purposes necessary. Guideline Provide on- and off-site information warning of the dangers of hydrogen sulfide fumes around developed oil production sites. Standard Limit noise levels from oil and gas production facilities within ¼-mile of developed recreation sites to be no more than 70 decibels, as measured by the A-weighted Sound level (dBA) system of measurements, at the edge of the developed site. This standard applies only to constant, routine, day-to-day production noises. It doesn’t apply to noise from drilling and testing of production nor temporary noises such as work-over rigs and maintenance or repair tasks. Standard

Energy and Mineral-Related Special Uses: Minimize disturbance by co-locating roads, pipelines, gathering lines, and power lines for energy resource development. Guideline Authorize commercial water disposal wells with a special use permit with appropriate fees for surface use. Standard

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-41

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict mineral resource and renewable energy management. Restrictions could be placed on anthropogenic disturbance of GSG habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.). Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could result in additional requirements for mineral resource and renewable development projects, including additional reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, application of dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, use of native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, reduction of predator perches, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile virus.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-42

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.6 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT/LIVESTOCK GRAZING 2.6.1 Overview

The Forest Service has been managing rangelands for 100 years, and has a long history of partnerships with livestock producers who rely upon NFS lands. Livestock grazing on National Forests reserved from the public domain is administered under a number of statutes, including the Granger-Thye Act of 1950, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, among others. These laws augment the authority in the Organic Act of 1897, which established the National Forests and directed the agency to regulate the use and occupancy of the forests to protect them from destruction. Livestock grazing on National Grasslands is also administered under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. This law authorized a program of land conservation and utilization to improve past land uses practices.

Today, there are grazing allotments on approximately 90 million acres of NFS lands in 34 states. The Forest Service administers approximately 8,800 allotments, with over 8500 active livestock grazing permits, and about 9.6 million animal unit months of grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Nearly all this permitted grazing is located in the Western states (99 percent), with only about one percent occurring in the Eastern forests.

Rangelands managed by the Forest Service produce an array of tangible and intangible products. Tangible products include forage for grazing and browsing animals, wildlife habitat, water, minerals, energy, recreational opportunities, some wood products, and plant and animal genes. These are important economic goods. Rangelands produce intangible products such as natural beauty and wilderness, satisfying important societal values. These are often as economically important as the more tangible commodities.

Today, the Forest Service concentrates its efforts on managing the vegetation resources across rangelands to serve a multitude of resource needs. Rangeland management specialists are working to provide such things as habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, clean water, and sustainable grazing and browsing. They inventory, classify, and monitor rangeland conditions to maintain or improve rangeland health. When they identify unhealthy rangelands, they strive to restore rangeland ecosystem functions. Forest Service rangeland management includes a whole host of partners, public and private, working together to make sure our rangelands are healthy and functioning properly.

2.6.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The Brush Creek/Hayden and Laramie Districts manage grazing allotments on the Sierra Madre, Snowy Range and Sherman mountain ranges in Albany and Carbon counties. Domestic livestock under permit include cattle, sheep, and horses. There are 57 grazing allotments on the two units. Designated GSG habitat (both general and core) is located in the foothills of the Sierra Madre and Snowy ranges and falls within 18 different allotments. On two of these allotments, Pass Creek and Hartt Creek, the habitat is located on private and state-owned land only. There are approximately 19,000 acres of habitat on

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-43

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

NFS lands on the two units, with the majority (18,830 acres) located on Brush Creek/Hayden District and only 170 acres on Laramie District. Of that, approximately 1,884 acres are considered core habitat and 17,116 acres are general habitat. There is no core habitat on Laramie District. Greater sage-grouse habitat on NFS lands is found within 16 grazing allotments and occupies 4.6 percent of the total gross acreage of those allotments. All allotments on the MBNF are managed under allotment management plans (AMPs) and/or annual operation instructions (AOIs) that implement livestock grazing standards and guidelines of the MBNF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2003).

Maximum allowable use guidelines in the Forest Plan are moderate; no more than 50 percent use of forage under a deferred rotation system and no more than 55 percent use of forage under a rest rotation system. Lower allowable use guidelines (40-45%) are applied to rangelands in unsatisfactory condition. Additional guidelines for riparian areas include leaving 4-6 inches of residual stubble in riparian areas at the end of the grazing season. The 16 allotments that include designated GSG habitat on NFS lands are discussed below. The Douglas Ranger District manages the Laramie Peak Unit of the MBNF. The majority of the NFS lands are located within Albany, Platte and Converse counties. There are approximately 440,000 acres on the Laramie Peak Unit. The Douglas Ranger District administers grazing permits on 51 allotments. Term permits of up to 10 years are issued for sheep, cattle and horses. Only two of the allotments have sheep permitted, while the rest of the allotments are cattle permits with some horses permitted as well. All allotments have current NEPA completed (post 1995) and are in process of being reviewed for NEPA sufficiency according to the MBNF Proposed Grazing NEPA schedule, as required by the 1995 Rescissions Act (as amended). The area affected by the GSG analysis includes a very small portion of the Laramie Peak unit. There are two allotments located in sage-grouse core areas (totaling 2,638 acres) and 12 allotments that contain general sage-grouse habitat (totaling 4,874 acres). For the purposes of this document, only the allotments in the core and general habitat areas are discussed. Forest Plan standards and guidelines are designed to maintain and improve rangeland conditions. Desired rangeland vegetation conditions are specified for individual allotment areas and grazing systems are designed to achieve and maintain the desired conditions. Allowable forage utilization is stipulated on a site-specific basis and is dependent on the type and condition of vegetation present, soil and water concerns, and season and intensity of grazing. When allowable utilization meets prescribed levels, livestock are moved from the pasture or grazing area or removed from the allotment for the season. Current Management Practices

All but one of the allotments on the Brush Creek/Hayden District are managed under current (post 1995) NEPA decisions. Allotment Management Plan dates range from 1998 to 2010. The exception is Boswell Allotment, which has a management plan from the 1980’s but is currently under analysis with completion of a new AMP scheduled for 2013. Of the allotments, 15 are cattle allotments and one is sheep. Three of the cattle allotments currently under permit are stocked with yearling cattle, while the others are stocked with cow/calf pairs. The sheep allotment, which includes 1,453 acres of general habitat, is vacant and has been so since 2002. One of the cattle allotments, Bow River, which includes 41 acres of general habitat on NFS lands, is also vacant, and has been vacant since 2002. Two allotments, Six Mile and Battle Mountain, contain pastures that are designated as wildlife pastures and are generally not grazed by livestock. The Battle Mountain wildlife pasture has not had permitted livestock grazing since 1985, while the Six Mile

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-44

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

wildlife pasture has been grazed by permitted livestock only twice since 1967. These wildlife pastures include 919 acres of general Greater sage-grouse habitat (Battle Mountain) and 100 acres of core habitat (Six Mile). Altogether, there are 2,513 acres of designated GSG habitat on NFS lands (100 core, 2,413 general) that have not been grazed under permit for the past ten years or longer. There are also two fenced riparian exclosures within general habitat areas. These are on Big Creek Allotment and Cow Creek Allotment and are 24 and 22 acres in size, respectively. They were established in 1996 (Cow Creek) and 2006 (Big Creek). They have received some unauthorized livestock use since establishment, but have been ungrazed most years. All of the allotments within GSG habitat are managed under deferred or rest rotational grazing systems, managed by riders or fenced pastures, or both. All but one of the allotments have grazing seasons that fall between early June and mid-October. The exception is Cottonwood Allotment (18 acres of general habitat) which utilizes a high intensity-short duration grazing system during favorable precipitation years in which cattle are moved through seven pastures from late May through late June, and then moved through those same pastures again in late July through early September.

Removal of livestock from grazing allotments is required when maximum allowable use is reached in key areas within the allotments. A key area is a portion of rangeland selected because of its location, grazing or browsing value or use. It serves as a monitoring and evaluation area where grazing use is determined and therefore guides the general management of the entire area of which it is a part. On cattle allotments on the Brush Creek/Hayden and Laramie districts key areas are generally riparian areas and wet meadows because they are preferred by cattle, of high ecological value, and most susceptible to overuse. In general, when key areas in a pasture reach maximum allowable use and cattle are removed, upland shrublands, including sagebrush habitats, are grazed well below maximum allowable use levels. In most shrubland sites on slopes greater than 15-20 percent or more than one quarter mile from water sources, forage utilization by livestock is light to very light, averaging 25 percent or less. Localized heavy use of shrublands occurs in areas where salt blocks are placed, around water developments and at some fence corners. These sites are very small in extent relative to total acreage of Greater sage-grouse habitat. There are 21 small stock water ponds, one ungrazed (and fenced) small irrigation reservoir, and four spring developments within GSG habitat. Only one pond is located within core habitat, while the rest of the water developments are within general habitat. There are another five small ponds and three spring developments near (within ¼ mile) of designated GSG habitat. Stock water ponds are not fenced and are generally less than ¼ acre in size. Spring developments consist of a fenced spring with a collection box and a pipeline to a metal or rubber tire watering tank. Water tanks are equipped with devices to allow for escape of small mammals and birds that vary in design, and not all would be considered suitable for large birds such as the Greater sage-grouse. Designated GSG habitat on the Brush Creek/Hayden District is located at the lower elevation margins of the allotments and is therefore adjacent to fences along the National Forest Boundary and also interior pasture fences. Much of the National Forest Boundary on these two districts was fenced between the late 1930’s and the 1960’s. Most of the fence is 4-strand barbed wire with wood posts, steel posts, or a mix of wood and steel. There are also some segments of wood buck & pole fence. The allotments located within GSG habitat on the Douglas District are permitted for livestock use from late spring through early fall. No late fall, winter or early spring use is permitted as forage is generally not available for livestock consumption. Generally, permittees will calve in another location and then move cattle to the mountain allotments for the summer. Of the 14 allotments discussed in this document, two have sheep permits with the remainder being cattle permits. The allotments are managed under a variety of grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational deferment, and season

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-45

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

long grazing. Grazing is managed to achieve the vegetative use guidelines as outlined in the Forest Plan. About 90-100 percent of the allotments are grazed at allowable use levels. In general, vegetation trend data is collected every 5-10 years. There are no grazing related vegetation concerns in either the core or general GSG habitat that would adversely affect sage-grouse habitat. In general, vegetation is in a stable to upward trend. Much of the area listed in core and general habitat is timbered, with small intermingled areas of sagebrush/grass meadows. Management Issues and Concerns

Conservation measures for GSG may potentially impact livestock grazing practices on the Brush Creek/Hayden District in several ways. Grazing allotment management activities performed by grazing permittees are anthropogenic disturbances that might need to be limited in some circumstances at some locations. Management involves maintenance and reconstruction of fences and water developments, placement of salt or other supplements, and travel by horse and/or motorized vehicle to check and move livestock. Limiting any of these activities could compromise effective allotment management and thereby result in negative impacts to rangelands; or to the permittee if the end result is de-stocking or reduced stocking on some pastures or parts of pastures.

Some range improvements may need to be modified to reduce negative impacts to sage-grouse. Fences can be marked for greater visibility to grouse and escape ramps suitable for grouse and other large birds can be added to stock water tanks at relatively low expense. However, alteration of water developments to reduce exposure of Greater sage-grouse to vectors of West Nile virus could involve much more costly and elaborate modifications and an added annual maintenance workload. Placement of salt and other supplements may need to be eliminated, limited or otherwise modified within sage- grouse habitat. This will have some effect on livestock distribution and effective management of rangelands.

Livestock management practices prescribed on allotments on the Brush Creek/Hayden and Laramie Districts are designed to promote and/or maintain healthy rangelands, and are largely compatible with Greater sage-grouse habitat maintenance and restoration. Rotational grazing systems ensure that no pasture is grazed throughout the entire grazing season and each pasture is rested during the critical early growing season phase for grasses (from seed stalk elongation to seed maturation) at least every other year. Most upland forbs in Forest Boundary shrubland areas have reached maturity or senescence by the time domestic livestock enter the allotments and are therefore not utilized to any great degree by cattle.

Allowable use and stubble height guidelines provide for residual plant cover for sage-grouse hiding cover and foraging. However, if current maximum allowable use levels applicable to livestock grazing do not leave enough residual herbaceous plant cover on some sites, livestock distribution, timing of use or stocking rates may need to be adjusted on some allotments. This could require more permittee investment in management or improvements or may involve reductions in permitted use. Sage-grouse habitat concerns could be a factor in the decision to re-authorize or not re-authorize grazing on allotments that are currently vacant.

The need to maintain high quality habitat for sage-grouse populations on the Douglas Ranger District may lead to minor changes to some livestock grazing operations, but in general, these changes should be very minor due to recent analysis of the rangeland vegetative structure and composition (seral stages) indicate favorable habitat for grouse.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-46

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

may require modification of current visual management considerations). There may be a need to modify specification packages for future fences. Timing limitations may be applied to these activities as well.

There may be a need to re-analyze some of the rangeland water developments, although dams, dugouts, and tank sets (many with constructed or artesian overflows) provide a wide range of multiple-use benefits, including as sources of water for sage-grouse and numerous other wildlife species. It is possible that some select tank sets within proximity of some leks might need to be relocated. The current practice of installing and maintaining bird ladders in all tank sets will need to be continued. Some older, non-functioning, or unneeded dams might need to be kept in disrepair or, in rare cases, perhaps even breached. Again, timing limitations may be applied to certain mechanical operations.

Excluding or eliminating water sources may well not be required as the most recent data would seem to indicate that it’s possible the West Nile virus has about run its course.

2.6.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The BTNF manages grazing allotments in parts of Teton, Sublette, Lincoln, Park and Fremont counties. The majority of BTNF lands are located within Teton, Sublette and Lincoln counties. Approximately 2,173,331 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands exist within 151 allotments. The BTNF administers 112 Term Grazing Permits facilitating removal of up to 183,445 Animal Unit Months (AUM) of forage annually.

Classes of livestock authorized under Term Permits on the BTNF include cattle, horses, and sheep. Among allotments currently grazed, 54 are grazed by cattle, with some horses permitted as riding stock, 1 is grazed by horses exclusively, and 50 are grazed by sheep with some horses permitted as riding stock. Acreage within active grazing allotments on the BTNF totals approximately 2,010,524.

A total of 54 active allotments are managed under current (post 1990) NEPA decisions. Another 35 allotments (19 for cattle and 16 for sheep) are in various stages of analysis for subsequent decisions affecting grazing authorization. The remaining allotments are managed in accordance with current Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards and guidelines until such time as allotment specific desired conditions and management plans can be developed.

An approximate total of 3,076 acres of core sage-grouse habitat overlaps some of the lower elevations of four active BTNF cattle allotments on the west slope of the Wind River mountain range. Approximately 175 acres of core habitat overlaps the Lower Spread Creek Forage Reserve on the Buffalo Ranger District, south of the Teton Wilderness.

Current Management Practices

The BTNF allotments are managed under a various grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational deferment, herded once-over grazing (sheep), and season-long grazing. Many BTNF allotments are managed to achieve indicator thresholds consistent with either RMRS GTR 104 “Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West”, or the “Range Inventory Standardization Committee Report (1983).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-47

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Substantive changes to grazing management on BTNF allotments are usually implemented subsequent to development of revised Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). AMP revision (and associated NEPA analysis) is completed according to the BTNF Proposed Grazing NEPA Schedule, as required by the 1995 Rescissions Act (as amended). BTNF personnel are currently developing quantifiable objectives for sensitive species including the GSG.

Where recent site or allotment specific data has been collected concerning vegetation communities, no grazing related vegetation conditions or trends have been identified which would adversely affect sage- grouse habitat. Though sagebrush populations in these areas show somewhat higher canopy cover (i.e. too much area with sagebrush canopy cover above 25%) than is thought to be desirable according to Forest-wide desired conditions, current livestock management is not thought to be a significant contributing factor. In fact, some data from these areas indicate recent decreases in sagebrush canopy cover constituting a trend toward desired condition. Data reflecting stream-bank disturbance has been used to identify grazing related issues in some areas of allotments currently under analysis. These areas, however, are small, isolated, and not thought to be representative of stream and riparian function overall. To date no site or allotment specific issues affecting sage-grouse have been identified in grazing analyses on the BTNF.

Management Issues and Concerns

Conservation measures for GSG may potentially impact livestock grazing practices in several ways. Managing for vegetation composition and structure consistent with the historic climax plant community may affect management of certain allotments where current desired conditions are tied to GTR 104 “Indicators of Rangeland Health”. GTR 104 does not stipulate climax condition as a minimum standard for rangeland health. It requires only that desired predominant species be present with at least 5 percent canopy cover.

Prioritizing completion of land health assessments based on presence of core sage-grouse habitat may require revision of the BTNF Grazing NEPA Schedule (as required by Rescissions Act). This has the potential to delay allotment management planning revisions on active allotments not containing Core or General Sage Grouse habitat. Given that 54 active grazing allotments within the BTNF encompassing approximately 957,500 acres of National Forest System (NFS) have some overlap with core or general GSG habitat, allotment management planning may be delayed on the remaining 51 active allotments encompassing approximately 1,053,024 acres of NFS.

Grazing allotment management activities performed by grazing permittees are anthropogenic disturbances that might need to be limited in some circumstances at some locations. Management involves maintenance and reconstruction of fences and water developments, placement of salt or other supplements, and travel by horse and/or motorized vehicle to check and move livestock. Limiting any of these activities could compromise effective allotment management and thereby result in negative impacts to rangelands..

Some range improvements may need to be modified to reduce negative impacts to sage-grouse. Fences can be marked for greater visibility to grouse and escape ramps suitable for grouse and other large birds can be added to stock water tanks at relatively low expense. However, alteration of water developments to reduce exposure of Greater sage-grouse to vectors of West Nile Virus could involve much more costly and elaborate modifications and an added annual maintenance workload. Placement of salt and other supplements may need to be eliminated, limited or otherwise modified within sage- grouse habitat. This will have some effect on livestock distribution and effective management of rangelands. Livestock management practices are designed to promote and/or maintain healthy rangelands, and are largely compatible with Greater sage-grouse habitat maintenance and restoration.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-48

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Allowable use and stubble height guidelines provide for residual plant cover for sage-grouse hiding cover and foraging. However, if current maximum allowable use levels applicable to livestock grazing do not leave enough residual herbaceous plant cover on some sites, livestock distribution, timing of use or stocking rates may need to be adjusted on some allotments. Sage-grouse habitat concerns could be a factor in the decision to re-authorize or not re-authorize grazing on allotments that are currently vacant. 2.6.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Livestock grazing is a permitted use on NFS lands in the TBNG. Livestock grazing permits are issued for the use of forage produced in grasslands, shrublands, riparian zones, wetlands and some forested areas. Livestock grazing is an important economic activity in the planning area. Coordinating livestock grazing with other land uses and management activities on the national grasslands is an important responsibility of the Forest Service. For example, livestock share the rangelands with wildlife that also depend on these lands for forage and cover through the year, as well as sharing the rangelands with all other uses that can occur on public lands. Domestic livestock are considered to be cattle, sheep, goats, and horses. Although some states do not recognize bison as domestic livestock, for this analysis they are included as a class of permitted livestock.

Suitable Rangeland Acres

The MBNF administer the TBNG. The MBNF LRMP was approved in 1985 and Revised in 2003. When the Revised Plan was completed, all of the TBNG, a total of 572,518 acres, was listed as suitable and open for grazing.

Capable Rangeland Acres

A rangeland capability analysis was completed in 1998 to identify areas with the physical characteristics conducive to livestock grazing. Criteria included:

Areas with slopes less than 40 percent and accessible to livestock. Areas producing at least 200 pounds of forage per acre. Areas with stable soils. Areas with natural or developed water available or capable of being developed.

For the 1998 rangeland analysis, a total of 532,100 acres of the TBNG were classified as capable acres. This is 96 percent of the 552,490 total National Grassland (total acres changed as a result of a series of small land exchanges since 1985).

Forage Production

The ability of the land to produce forage is an important component of rangeland management. It is also an important component in calculating livestock grazing levels. On the TBNG, analysis results indicated the capable acres produced just over 1,000 pounds per acre (535,725,000 pounds of forage produced on 532,100 capable acres).

Grazing Levels

The following table displays grazing use in terms of permitted and authorized animal unit months (AUMs). This data uses the NRCS definition of an AUM as “the amount of forage required by one mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds and a calf up to weaning, usually 6 months of age, or their equivalent, for a period of one month” (National Range and Pasture Handbook, NRCS).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-49

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 7: Historic Grazing Use - TBNF Grazing Levels 1985 Forest Plan 1996 Permitted 20-yr Average Authorized Projected AUMs AUMs AUMs AUMs 169,000 137,000 112,700 Stocking Levels 3.9 4.7 (ac/AUM)

Site-specific environmental analyses for livestock grazing occur during the allotment management planning process. National forest and grassland units have 15 years to update and revise allotment management plans as mandated by the Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19, section 504). Allotment management plans are developed using goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines found in the land and resource management plans. More specific grazing prescriptions can be developed during the allotment management planning process to address site-specific resource issues; that is also when decisions for stocking levels are made.

Over the past 50 years, changes in stocking levels have occurred on some units. Initial stocking rates for the land utilization projects (later to become the national grasslands) were determined by the Soil Conservation Service. On some units, these rates increased over time as more intensive grazing systems were developed and range developments were implemented.

Grazing Distribution

Under current management direction, most rangelands are grazed annually by livestock. Exceptions are mostly areas which are inaccessible or areas which are not capable. A number of forage reserve pastures are established on the TBNG, each of which is grazed on a less-frequent basis. A number of fenced exclosures also exist, many around reservoirs, which are managed for woody species, emergent vegetation, waterfowl, and wildlife hiding and nesting cover. The Grassland Plan contains a requirement that 1-10 percent of the total Grassland acres are to be rested each year.

The distribution of livestock grazing across the rangelands is largely determined by topography and the amount of fencing and water developments. The effects of fencing and water developments on livestock grazing distribution on each planning unit were evaluated using a geographic information system (GIS) model. The results are expressed in terms of the amount of primary, secondary, and inaccessible range. Primary range is level to gently sloping with nearby water sources (usually within one mile) for livestock and generally receives the most livestock use and the most uniform use. Secondary range is often characterized by steeper terrain and is usually more distant from available livestock water sources. These areas generally receive less and more sporadic use by livestock. Inaccessible range is simply those areas without livestock water or those areas that are generally too steep for livestock.

On the TBNG, 86 percent of the rangelands are classed as primary range, 14 percent as secondary, and just under 1percent as inaccessible. Much of the secondary range is almost exclusively the result of topography and not the lack of water. The amount of secondary range due to distance from water is minimal. These results suggest that most suitable rangeland is primary range that likely receives relatively uniform grazing in most years.

Grazing Systems and Season of Use

Timing of livestock grazing is an important variable influencing wildlife and wildlife habitat. The use of current grazing systems and seasons of use is a very basic component of wildlife habitat assessments for public rangelands. Rangelands can be disturbed by wildlife; however the Forest Service does not control or manage the wildlife, having responsibility only for habitat management.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-50

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Livestock grazing is a contributing factor to wildlife habitat and cover. Typically, an assessment is made of the relative amounts of disturbed (livestock present) versus undisturbed (livestock absent) habitat/cover based on key dates. While direction is not given as to what grazing systems should be used or when use should occur, it is important to understand the current situation so any changes in livestock management can be assessed.

The current grazing systems in use on the TBNG, expressed as a percentage of land in each allotment, are: 1) Continuous system (7%); 2) Deferred use (3%); and 3) Deferred rotation (90%). Although most capable acres of rangeland are grazed annually, not all acres are grazed simultaneously. Generally, no more than 40 percent of the TBNG capable acres are grazed at any one time.

Range Developments - Water

Water developments play a major role in the distribution of livestock. These developments can also help create a mosaic of vegetation conditions and patterns. At the same time, primary range (those areas within one mile of a water source) increases and secondary range decreases. While an increasing number of these developments are wells and pipelines with watering tanks providing more dependable and generally higher-quality water, the vast majority are impoundments – dams and dugouts. All these water sources provide water for livestock during the permitted use season as well as season-long or year-round water to wildlife.

The TBNG currently has just over 1,800 water developments, an average density of 2.12 water sources per section. Approximately an equal number of developments are located on the private, state, and other lands fenced into and managed as an integral part of the allotments.

Fences and Pasture Size The amount of fencing and the size of a pasture also contribute to the distribution of livestock. Pasture size influences livestock grazing distribution, and may influence scenic values, recreation use, wildlife movements, and other land uses.

The average pasture size on the TBNG is 1,640 acres. With about 554,000 National Grassland acres and 711,000 private and state acres fenced into the 180 grassland allotments, that totals nearly 5,400 miles of allotment boundary and division fences on the TBNG.

Current Management Practices

Permitted grazing use in 2011 on the TBNG was about 121,000 AUMs (on the approximate 554,000 National Grassland acres). The number authorized often varies based on annual climatic conditions – the number is nearly always less in dry and droughty years and may be slightly higher in the occasional wet and above-average precipitation years. This number is only on the capacity of the national grassland. There are about 711,000 additional private, state, and other land ownerships fenced into the 182 grazing allotments, on which an additional 160,000 AUMs are permitted. The timing of use and the percent of area grazed in each calendar year was also evaluated. For the Spring Creek unit and the Inyan Kara allotments, most grazing use occurs between May and November, with a small percentage being grazed during the late fall and winter months. On the southern and western two-thirds of the Grassland, many Association members have most of their deeded lands fenced into the allotments, and often leave only for all-private pastures to calve/lamb each spring. They will then return about the first of May to begin the next year’s season. Forage reserve pastures, fenced exclosures, and those pastures or allotments rested by grazing permittees for personal convenience nonuse, contribute to the total acres rested from grazing in any

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-51

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

given year. In the last 10 years, rested acres have varied annually from 1-6 percent of the total grassland acres. However, during the extensive drought years of 2006-2008, many ranches destocked all or portions of their herds, and overall rested acres were many times this amount – a wise, but usually difficult (economically), rangeland management practice during years of intense drought. In compliance with the established 15-year schedule for the Rescissions Act, updated allotment NEPA analysis and allotment planning were completed for all 180 allotments on the Grassland between 2004 and 2008. Approximately 90 percent of the allotments were placed under various rotation systems, about 5 percent were placed in deferred use (entry after the growing season), and another 5 percent were identified as season-long use. Portions of seven allotments are currently managed as forage reserve pastures. An in-depth discussion of rangeland vegetative structure and composition (seral stages), which relate directly to livestock grazing and desired conditions, is found in the Vegetation (Section 2.13) section of this document. Several pipeline systems have been installed on the grassland in the last five years to bring high quality and dependable water to a number of pastures. In several cases, these improvements have been specifically designed to provide water sources that will pull livestock and big game up away from riparian areas and improve woody draw habitat and grassland tree recruitment. Management Issues and Concerns

The need to maintain high quality sage-grouse habitat could result in changes to some livestock grazing operations, including changes in livestock numbers, seasons of use, stocking rates, allotment/pasture vegetation objectives, or even moving livestock operators to different pastures or allotments.

Recent analysis of the rangeland vegetative structure and composition (seral stages) within the 217,768 acres of core habitat indicate about 63 percent of the acres are in late and late-intermediate seral stages and about 84 percent of the acres contain moderate and high structure (these are for all land ownerships within the national grassland allotments). These overall favorable conditions would seem to indicate that additional needed results may be able to be achieved by smaller and site-specific adjustments rather than by large changes across big acreages.

There may be a need to re-analyze or modify rangeland fences, and perhaps even in select cases to relocate them. There may be need to attach reflective warning devices to select fences within certain distances of some leks, or to change coloration on existing steel fence posts (although such an effort may require modification of current visual management considerations). There may be a need to modify specification packages for future fences. Timing limitations may be applied to these activities as well.

There may be a need to re-analyze some of the numerous rangeland water developments, although dams, dugouts, and tank sets (many with constructed or artesian overflows) provide a wide range of multiple-use benefits, including as sources of water for sage-grouse and numerous other wildlife species. It is possible that some select tank sets within proximity of some leks might need to be relocated. The current practice of installing and maintaining bird ladders in all tank sets will need to be continued. Some older, non-functioning, or unneeded dams might need to be kept in disrepair or, in rare cases, perhaps even breached.

Again, timing limitations may be applied to certain mechanical operations. Excluding or eliminating water sources may well not be required as some of the most recent data would seem to indicate that it’s possible the West Nile virus has about run its course.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-52

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.7 RECREATION 2.7.1 Overview

Recreation

Outdoor recreation is recognized as an important land use that provides social and economic benefits on national, regional and local levels and is more frequently being considered the dominant use on many public lands. The Forest Service provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism under the concept of multiple-use management. Recreational activities on public lands are multi-faceted and are both consumptive and non-consumptive. Forest Service-administered lands provide a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities, affording visitors the freedom of recreational choice with minimal regulatory constraints. Dispersed recreation uses on Forest Service- administered lands include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, touring, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, photography, wildlife viewing, camping, OHV use, and hunting (with the latter two categories accounting for the majority of visitor days). These recreational opportunities are offered to the public on all Forest Service administered lands where legal access is available.

In addition to managing lands for general dispersed recreation activities, the Forest Service administers a number of Recreation Special Use Permits for specific nonexclusive commercial or competitive recreational activities. These permits are issued to provide a mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational use, protect natural and cultural resources, and provide a mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational uses.

It is important to note that recreation on all Forest Service lands is directly linked with its transportation systems. The Forest Service and State of Wyoming have taken steps to address the need for access while providing a safe and efficient travel management system as well as enhancing the motorized recreational opportunities. The following provides a brief description of the key management strategies affecting the units:

The Travel Management Rule

The USDA Forest Service, Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule – 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, Effective December 9, 2005.

“The final rule will prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that is not consistent with the designations.” This rule includes seasonal closures and motorized vehicle classifications. This rule applies to all forest users regardless of disability. Once travel management is completed on a unit, the legal motorized route system is available to the public on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). This map is the authority of where the public may legally drive their motorized vehicle.”

OHV Management

As of January 1, 2002, the State of Wyoming passed the Wyoming Off-Road Recreation Vehicles State Statute, which guides how ORVs may be used on public lands. The Statute regulates the recreation aspects of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) and Off Highway Motorcycles (OHM) within the state of Wyoming. The Wyoming State Off Road Vehicle Program works closely with the Forest Service and other public land management agencies to identify roads, routes, trails, and open areas to classify designations for enrollment in the State Trails Program. All Forest Service roads and motorized trails in the affected areas are enrolled in the State Trails Program. All OHV owners are required to purchase and display a decal in order to ride the enrolled routes. The Forest Service in turn provides the motorized opportunities, enforces the program, and may apply for funds from the State in order to

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-53

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

conduct maintenance and expand the motorized system. Further discussion regarding travel management and designated motorized routes may be found in the Transportation and Access section of this document.

2.7.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The MBNF lies in southeast Wyoming in the north- south oriented central Rocky Mountains. The Forest includes approximately 1.1 million acres and is the only national forest in southeast Wyoming. Approximately 80 percent of the MBNF is forested. Elevations range from 5,050 feet in the Laramie Range to 12,013 feet at Medicine Bow Peak (photo) in the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains.

The MBNF resources are being managed in such a way as to highlight the “niche” values of the Forest, and recreation is one of those values. The Forest Service provides many opportunities for visitors to appreciate the outstanding scenery and natural character of the land. Winter and summer recreation opportunities, both motorized and non-motorized, are being managed to provide experiences to meet the desires of forest visitors for scenery, solitude, setting, and continued accessibility. Recreationists continue to enjoy the scenery of both mountain forests and non-forested areas. A broad range of recreation opportunities, from primitive to developed, are available. The Forest Service provides opportunities for year round outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism under the concept of multiple-use management. Recreational activities on public lands are multi- faceted and are both consumptive and non-consumptive. Developed recreation sites on Forest Service administered lands include, campgrounds, picnic grounds, day use areas, trailheads, cabin/lookout rentals, observation points, accessible fishing platforms, scenic overlooks, and other recreation facilities that provide universal access and services to the public. Dispersed recreation uses on Forest Service administered lands include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, touring, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, photography, wildlife viewing, camping, OHV use, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and hunting. These recreational opportunities are offered to the public on most Forest Service administered lands where legal access is available. Motorized travel is allowed on designated roads and trails forest-wide. Winterized motorized travel is allocated on approximately 64 percent of the Forest. There are no developed recreation sites or trails in the core or general areas on the Laramie Peak Unit. Dispersed recreation is particularly high during hunting season with a considerable amount of use occurring in Elkhorn, Brumley Mountain, LaBonte Canyon and in the sections just east of the south Ft. Fetterman Road (CR61). Brumley Mountain and LaBonte Canyon are the sites of more frequent summer recreational OHV use on existing roads. In the Deer Creek Range, the existing road system is closed as there is no legal public access. However, during hunting season, the area may be accessed by those carrying a Wyoming State Hunter Management Area hunting tag, which allows them to cross the private land and use the existing routes for their hunting purposes.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-54

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

The Forest Service balances social, economic, and environmental factors to provide publically managed recreation opportunities. The MBNF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, December 2003, guides how the recreation resource is managed and provides for wildlife concerns. The Plan provides overarching guidance with forest wide, geographic, management, and project area direction. This guidance directs the management of all resources and proposed projects on NFS lands. No campgrounds or developed recreation sites on the MBNF are located in Greater sage-grouse core or general areas. The Six-mile campground is located east of State Highway 230 approximately 24 miles south of Encampment Wyoming on the southern end of the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District. Core sage-grouse area is located in close proximity to this campground. This campground is the access point to launch commercial and public boaters onto the North Platte River. The main thrust of the rafting/boating season occurs early in the spring (typically June) when flows are high enough for floating. No new campgrounds are planned at present on the MBNF and any improvements on existing campgrounds or developed sites would be inside existing administrative sites and would have no affect to sage-grouse core areas. The area to the west of the Six-mile campground administrative site on the Forest is located in a portion of the core area and is an area where antler shed hunting occurs frequently in the spring. No other campgrounds or developed recreation site are in or in close proximity to core or general sage-grouse areas.

Dispersed camping occurs on many areas of the Forest, but is typically concentrated during the big game hunting seasons beginning in September and running into November. The heaviest use begins with deer gun season on October 1st and starts declining after the October 15th start of elk season. Dispersed campsites are numerous with new sites being established yearly. A map with dispersed camp locations has not been completed at this time, but generally most sites are associated with forested areas with few scattered sites along the edge of the forest boundary. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) traverses the MBNF from the Colorado state line northerly along the continental divide in the Sierra Madre range and exits national forest at approximately the northwest corner. The CDNST runs through portions of core sage-grouse area in T16N, R87W, Section 34 and T15N, R87W, section 6. The CDNST that runs through the MBNF is typically not accessible until May/June with many of the higher elevation portions of the trail not traversable until after mid-July. This portion of the trail is non-motorized and connects with the trail on BLM lands to the west. No other National Forest Service Trails are located in or adjacent to sage-grouse core or general areas.

Off-road Vehicle use occurs during all non-snow seasons on most areas of the forest and is high and concentrated during big game hunting seasons. Some sage-grouse areas on the MBNF have Forest Service lower level roads that traverse core sage-grouse areas. Management Issues and Concerns

The Six-mile campground is used moderately during the year with most use occurring during hunting season. The access into the six mile campground also is used to access the North Platte River where

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-55

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

boat launching occurs most of the summer but more heavily in the spring. Neither of these have heavy enough use to be an issue or generate concerns. Antler shed hunting on the Forest in the Six-mile area in core sage-grouse areas may be heavy or continuous during the spring when accessible and potentially could be of concern. An approximate two mile stretch of the CDNST traverses through core sage-grouse areas at the northwest part of the forest. Use of the CDNST is limited to late spring and summer/fall due to typically heavy snowfall and accumulation along the stretch through the MBNF. This limited use during critical times for the sage-grouse would minimize issues and concerns.

2.7.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The BTNF is a large part of the Greater Yellowstone region, and it contains some of the most pristine areas within it. Thirty-eight percent of the forest is in classified wilderness; another forty-two percent is included in undesignated backcountry that is every bit as wild. The remaining part of the forest includes major recreation corridors, roads that give access to backcountry trailheads, scenic byways, and rivers that attract great numbers of visitors.

Resorts and outfitter services serve a national and international Forest visitor clientele, who are increasingly interested in learning about and appreciating the natural setting of the forest. The forest has numerous opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and sites of unique geologic interest. Natural amenities of the forest are vital to the economy of nearby communities.

WHAT THE BTNF IS KNOWN FOR: Outstanding scenery and opportunities for outdoor recreation Diverse and healthy wildlife populations, including top predators Diverse and healthy plant communities, especially those of interest to visitors for their recreation and scenic attributes—riparian areas, alpine zone, wildflower parks (tall forb), aspen, mixed forest and mountain shrub lands Clean water and clean air; Wild and Scenic Rivers Healthy, functioning watershed that drain into the West’s main rivers (Snake/Columbia, Green/Colorado, Yellowstone/Missouri) Large backcountry and wilderness areas that offer opportunities for multi-day trips Blue-ribbon trout fisheries and big game hunting Winter sports, both in developed areas and backcountry

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RECREATION RESOURCE: Over 3.4 million acres, most of it backcountry or wilderness. Twelve Wild and Scenic Rivers. Three alpine ski areas that offer year-round activities, eight other resorts. Fifty campgrounds on the forest, most of them small and on the primitive end of the scale. Other developed sites include boat launches, trailheads, picnic sites, and small information sites. Over 2600 miles of trail. Large backcountry areas. Two of these are designated wilderness study areas (Shoal Creek and Palisades), others are general backcountry managed for dispersed recreation and wildlife habitat. The BTNF has some of the best large backcountry areas remaining in the national forest system, and helps round out the range of recreation settings offered.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-56

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Over 200 outfitter-guide permits on the forest, the BT has by far the most in the region. Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway: this route is a spectacular scenic drive. The Gros Ventre, Bridger, and Teton Wildernesses.

In the summer and fall the BTNF offers a combination of large backcountry and roaded access to trailheads and dispersed camping. This emphasis on dispersed recreation and primitive backcountry is the core of the forest’s recreation ‘niche’ – a term used to describe the distinctive attributes of the forest and how it fits into the overall context of outdoor recreation in the region. The niche encapsulates that which the forest is most uniquely capable of providing, the particularities that contribute to the region as a whole and which make this particular national forest stand out (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

In the winter, the range of settings changes greatly. Many forest roads become groomed snow trails in winter, thus changing for the season from Roaded-Natural to Semi-primitive Motorized. Snowmobiles are used in nearly all parts of the unroaded backcountry and the winter setting is Semi-primitive Motorized for most of those areas as well. Non-motorized backcountry, plowed roads, and wilderness are similar to summer settings. In addition to recreation settings are those areas that are not managed for winter recreation, but are maintained as wildlife security areas. These correspond to those parts of the forest that are covered by existing special orders restricting public use or closing them to human entry in winter.

Over 300 outfitters, resorts, and instructional entities provide services, including: backcountry recreation, hunting and fishing, winter sports, and activities associated with the “Old West” such as day rides and wagon rides. The bulk of recreation special use permits issued by the forest are those that allow people without specialized equipment or skills to experience the vast backcountry and wilderness on the BTNF.

Recreation use has been affected by three primary trends: (1) The increasing human population in communities near the forest and the Intermountain Region; (2) an overall increase in recreation use; and (3) changes in technology, specialization and the kinds of recreation people seek.

Visitor use monitoring completed in 2003 shows that nearly 2.7 million visitors came to the BTNF that year. It can be expected that recreation use will continue to grow as the regional population grows. Most recreation use within the BTNF comes from nearby communities.

Visitor use monitoring is intended to gather statistically sound estimates of recreation use and activities. It is to be repeated every five years; the BTNF conducted its first survey in 2002-2003. Though that year provided only a snapshot to indicate use and preferred activities, the results are consistent with other information gathered about visitor use in the forest. Activities cited by visitors indicate they enjoy a broad mix of activities that require recreation settings from primitive backcountry to highly developed resorts.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-57

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Hiker enjoying the Wyoming Range backcountry

The most-frequently cited activities that visitors participated in include:

Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc. Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. Hiking or walking Downhill skiing or snowboarding Relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat

Each visitor interviewed also picked one as a primary activity for their recreation visit to the forest. The top primary activities were downhill skiing, hiking/walking, snowmobile travel, viewing natural features, and hunting.

Current Management Practices

Major recreational activities in sagebrush habitats include hiking, camping and hunting, lek viewing, and off highway vehicle (OHV) use on designated trails. Many of these activities are benign uses in sagebrush habitats. However, excessive use, such as repeated disturbance to leks for viewing that disrupts sage‐grouse breeding activities, can have negative effects. In late spring (May 1st) areas that have been closed to human entry throughout the winter for wildlife habitat protection are opened and antler hunting begins. Sagebrush habitats are scoured for antlers for several weeks at this time of year, which overlaps with sage-grouse breeding season. Off‐trail hiking can spread of invasive plant species.

Management Issues and Concerns

Recreation activity will increasingly affect the forest ecologically and socially, most significantly near fast-growing communities. Easily accessible recreation opportunities for day use will be in high demand in these areas, including the desire for hiking/walking, wildlife viewing, exercising with dogs, biking, and fishing.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-58

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

OHV use There is increasing demand for OHV use in the forest, more places where OHVs are capable of going, and more illegal/unrestricted use. This has had a negative effect on wildlife, non- motorized recreation opportunities, soil, and vegetation, and has effectively reduced the acreage in desired condition.

Much of the existing system of motorized trails was not designed for this use, and trails do not meet standards for protecting resources or visitor experience.

Dispersed roadside recreation/camping and day use Increasing number and size, and deteriorating condition of established roadside camps is resulting in loss of native vegetation and soil, streambank/lakeshore damage, and introduction of weeds.

Winter recreation Dispersed recreation in winter has been increasing, with more demand for potentially incompatible uses. Visitor conflicts have arisen where use levels have increased or snowmobiles have begun using areas that had been traditionally non-motorized, resulting in displacement of some recreationists.

Increased recreation use and development of the wildland-urban interface is creating more pressure on big game winter ranges.

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict recreation activities and recreation special use permits that include anthropogenic disturbance of the sage-grouse habitat. These actions could also restrict recreation activities, including: off trail hiking, ORV use on trails, vehicle use on NFS roads, new road construction, utility corridor permits/easements and water development for recreation residences and resorts, and riding or pack stock grazing.

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could also benefit recreation activities and recreation special use permits by restricting off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.).

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could benefit recreation activities and recreation special use permits through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus. 2.7.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The TNBG is used for recreation throughout the year, but most heavily during the big game hunting season from the beginning of September through November. There is rarely enough snow to keep people from accessing the grassland, so it is available for recreation year-round. Outside of hunting season when recreation users are there for a single purpose, the conditions are often too hot, too cold, too windy, too something to be a big recreation attraction, and therefore, use is generally sporadic; occurring typically during the day only. The exceptions to this are Weston, in the Spring Creek Geographic Area (GA), the Upton Osage GA, and Rochelle Hills, which is found in the Broken Hills

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-59

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

GA. Use in these areas is much higher, as they are the closest public lands to the residents of Gillette (Weston), Upton, Osage and Newcastle (Upton Osage), and Wright (Rochelle Hills). They are the backyard playgrounds for these communities. Specific discussions regarding these areas are addressed at the end of the Existing Condition discussion. Following is the discussion for the majority of the grassland, outside of these concentrated use areas.

Recreational activities in order of popularity are four-wheeling, hunting, driving for pleasure, wildlife and scenery viewing, camping (almost entirely during hunting season), trainspotting, mountain biking, horseback riding, and very rarely, hiking.

The MBNF and TBNG Recreation Niche, developed during the Recreation Master Site Facility Planning Process in 2005, states, “The climb from the flatlands of the Midwest to the Snowy Ranges provides a true sense of arrival to the west. “Trails and tracks” are the essence of the Forests and Grassland – present, past, and future. They represent the historic railroad and migration routes, active wildlife, snow play, and present-day access through the Forests. Visitors experience history from trails to tracks. The long winter season and pleasant summer climate attract visitors and help create year- round recreation opportunities. Available experiences range from solitude to long lift lines. Access is extensive and allows for dispersal of large numbers of users as well as opportunities for all ages and abilities.”

Developed Recreation

There are no developed recreation facilities on the main portion of the Grassland; however, there are tentative plans to develop the Dorr Place (an historic homestead) into a fee rental facility. The Dorr Place is located east of the junction of NFSR 947 and NFSR 1414.A.

There are two newly-designated OHV trail systems in this part of the grassland. Both systems were identified in the Thunder Basin National Grassland Travel Management Analysis (2009) from Level 2 National Forest System Roads to be converted into OHV trails limiting vehicle widths of 50” or less. One is located south of NFSR 942 (Steckley Road) just east of State Highway 59, The trail system is comprised of 6.8 miles of trail. The second is southeast of County Road 38 (Dull Center Road), west of Miller Hills.

This system totals 16.9 miles; 4.8 of which is closed to motorized use from December 1 through June 30 to protect sage-grouse. No trailheads have been built for either system yet, but there are plans to do so in the future. Since these systems are so new, little use occurs, but it is anticipated that use will increase over time as they are discovered.

A mountain bike trail system was designated through the TBNG Travel Management Analysis. It was converted from two-track roads in the Duck Creek Breaks portion of the Spring Creek Unit. Duck Creek Breaks is an Inventoried Roadless Area. There are no dedicated hiking trails on TBNG.

The east side of the Spring Creek GA has one developed recreation site: Soda Well picnic shelter. The shelter is on a small parcel of NFS land, isolated from the rest, but easily accessed by recreation users off of Hwy 59 and County Road 49. It consists of a single table with a stone/wood shelter built in 1936 tucked inside a small, dead stand of cottonwoods. There is a medium-sized parking area and as the name suggests, a natural spring bubbles up through a pipe adjacent to the shelter. The shelter is rarely used through the majority of the year, but is a very popular campsite during hunting season.

Dispersed Camping

There has not been a formal inventory of the dispersed camping sites on the main portion of the Grassland; however, observation by those patrolling during hunting season over many years has

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-60

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

determined that there are upwards of 400 dispersed sites within the area. These sites are consistently used by the same groups every year and are well established.

The hot spots for dispersed camping are agreed to be Cow Creek Buttes with 30-50 sites, Miller Hills, Red Hills 50+ each. These areas have established dispersed campsites along and at the end of nearly every two track. The remaining dispersed sites are scattered throughout. Again, these are used almost exclusively during hunting season, mostly during opening week (October 1) and very rarely otherwise.

Specific Area Discussion

Weston (Spring Creek Geographic Area)

Spring Creek consists of two distinct areas of NFS lands approximately 35 miles north of Gillette, Wyoming on either side of State Hwy 59. To the west is the smaller area which abuts and provides access to a significant portion of Bureau of Land Management land, hereafter known as Weston. To the east are much larger portions of NFS land which are broken up by private holdings. Recreation use on the east side of State Highway 59 is similar to that for the main portion of the grassland. For the purposes of this discussion, only the Weston portion will be explored.

Weston is made up of approximately three full sections of NFS lands, a significant portion of BLM land, and two sections of Wyoming State land, and some private deeded land around the edges. It is amongst the northernmost portion of TBNG; approximately 150 miles north of Douglas, Wyoming, where the Ranger District is located, and the 35 miles south of the Montana border.

Weston is entirely given over to recreation with motorized use being the largest user group by far. This was validated in a recreation use survey conducted in July and August of 2004, where it was found that over 41 percent of the users were there for motorized use (Weston Recreation Use Survey, October 2004). Since the time of the study, it appears that OHV use has grown, particularly during the spring and fall periods. Summer use appears to be consistent with the use found during the study. Spring and fall periods; however, have an enormous amount of use with as many as 50-200 vehicles during a weekend day.

Other recreation uses in the area include paintball and air-soft shooting (regular recreational target shooting is prohibited in the area under a special order), mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking (rarely) and camping (almost entirely during hunting season.)

Weston is semi-developed as a recreation site. In 2003, a fishing pond was built approximately one mile west of Highway 59 and north of NFSR 1246 (the main road through Weston). To compliment this future use, the BLM, in cooperation with the Forest Service, rebuilt the road and developed three parking areas. These are all located on the south side of the gravel road and are all on National Forest land. The first is at the entrance from Highway 59 and has now grown to approximately 3-4 acres. The other two up the road are progressively smaller, with the last only accommodating up to five vehicles. A CXT toilet is located at the upper parking lot across from the pond.

There are approximately 10 dispersed campsites in the area; all along the main gravel road. These campsites serve multiple purposes. They are actually rarely used for camping as the average amount of time spent by recreation users at Weston is 2.5 hours (Weston Recreation Use Survey, 2004), except during hunting season, when they are all occupied. Outside of hunting season they are used as overflow parking and partying.

There are 12 miles of OHV trails in Weston, all newly designated via the TBNG Travel Management Analysis, 2009. These were all converted from either roads or user-created trails. Several parts of the system connect to motorized trails on BLM and state land, expanding the motorized experience, making

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-61

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

this a very popular riding area for people from Gillette, who make up nearly 100 percent of the users. This demographic, although derived from the Weston Recreation Use Survey conducted in 2004, may still considered valid as per observation and law enforcement statistics gathered from the site.

Upton Osage

This area is 150 miles northeast of Douglas. It is a patchwork of NFS, state and private lands with State Highway 16 bisecting it. Upton sits at the northwest portion, with Osage holding the southeast end. Newcastle is just 17 miles southeast on State Highway 16 from Osage. Popular activities include Off- Highway Vehicle riding, fishing, hunting, recreational shooting, partying and snowmobiling when there is enough snow.

This portion of the grassland is the backyard of these communities, so is used probably more consistently than any other part of the grassland. One respondent to the most recent National Visitor Use Monitoring survey, conducted on November 9, 2007 at Turner Reservoir by the author, estimated that he had used the area 125 times in the past 12 months. He lived just seven miles from the survey location. This is probably not anomalous, as a known resident of Upton visits the area at least several times a week (as per conversation with the author).

There are no campgrounds in this area; however, there is one developed fishing pond, Turner Reservoir, which has a fishing pier, toilet, informational kiosk, and parking lot. There are two other fishing ponds (Iron Creek Reservoir and Kellogg Reservoir), but there has been no development at either. Two other ponds are found south of Upton off of State Highway 116 on Forest Service, and are used for swimming. There are perhaps 50 or more dispersed campsites in the area, which are used almost entirely during hunting season.

Perhaps the most important recreational feature in the Upton Osage area is the 42 miles of single-track designated motorized trails. These are part of a larger trail system which is used for the Inyan Kara Enduro, a one-day annual motorcycle Enduro, authorized to the Inyan Kara Riders. This group manages the trail system and the event. These trails are a popular year-long riding experience, and the Enduro is one of the most popular Enduro events on the circuit.

Rochelle Hills

This area has recently been discovered to be the playground for people from Wright, Wyoming. It is approximately 70 miles north of Douglas and lies just east of the largest coal mines on the grassland. There are no developed recreation facilities in the Rochelle Hills, but dispersed camping is a popular activity, with perhaps 20 or more dispersed campsites scattered throughout the area. Motorized use is very popular, with many two-tracks available for recreational riding. Illegal routes have also appeared, and have been signed “closed” as they are discovered. Unfortunately, the signs are persistently knocked down or simply disappear.

Other activities include camping, which is more popular here throughout the year than anywhere else on the grassland, as the dispersed campsites are placed in nicely shaded, protected groves of ponderosa. Hunting is also a big attraction; however, it appears that hunting numbers have gone down over the past several years. Only a few have been occupied in past years, when in other years, all of the available campsites have been occupied.

Recreation Special Uses

To date, there are six outfitters and guides and one recreation event permitted on TBNG. All of the outfitters operate during the big game hunting seasons from September through November and are scattered across the entire grassland. Few of the outfitters operate exclusively on National Forest

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-62

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

System Lands; using their authorizations for overflow onto public land from their private leases. All of the outfitters use existing roads and are not allowed to drive off-road for their operations.

The Inyan Kara Motorcycle Enduro is the sole recreation event permitted on the grassland at this time. As stated above, this event uses the single-track trail system in the Upton/Osage portion of the grassland. It is an annual one-day event which occurs the 3rd Sunday in June and is part of a larger circuit of Enduro races that occur in the Rocky Mountain region. The permit limits the event to no more than 300 riders.

Current Management Practices

The TBNG Plan, 2001, outlines several Standards and Guidelines limiting developed recreation and recreation special uses activities as they affect sage-grouse. For example, permitted recreation events involving large groups of people are not permitted within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1, to June 15. Noise decibels are also limited to 49 decibels from March 1 to June 15 on sage- grouse display grounds to help prevent reproductive failure. This information is contained in Chapter 1 of the Plan.

Other examples of management direction to protect sage-grouse include:

National Forest System Trail 1351, which was designated as a motorized trail in the TBNG Travel Management Analysis 2009, was closed to motorized use from December 1 through June 30 to protect sage-grouse. The dates were expanded beyond the grassland standard dates to provide some consistency with other wildlife-related road and trail closures elsewhere on the grassland.

Any proposed recreation events that would create a large disturbance or would create noise above the allowed decibels is not permitted within current known lek or brooding areas.

All proposed recreation facilities will comply with grassland standards and guidelines.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict recreation activities and recreation special use permits that include anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS roads, new road construction, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, or water development. Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could also benefit recreation activities and recreation special use permits by restricting off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.). Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could benefit recreation activities and recreation special use permits through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile virus.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-63

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.8 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 2.8.1 Overview

Socioeconomics includes the existing circumstances for social and economic conditions, health and safety, and environmental justice. Social conditions often are based on a wide range of community and demographic characteristics and involve broad topics of community interests. The rural nature of the communities in the planning area causes them to be affected by public land management decisions. Land use, resource development, community values, and economic development are closely intertwined in the planning area. Community values with respect to land and resource management are central to social issues in the study area because they are closely tied to issues of economic development, custom and culture, and quality of life. Understanding the social and economic development, culture, and history of the area provides valuable insight into how changes to the study area might impact the livelihood and quality of life of residents. Forest Service resource management decisions can impact social and economic conditions for all of the communities in the area.

Economic conditions relate to the analyses of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economic conditions describe how individuals and communities participate in the exchange of goods and services by earning a living and consuming products and services they need and want. Economic activities on National Forest System lands contribute to the fiscal well-being of local governments, as well as to state and federal governments.

National Forest System lands are limited in size and resources. There are more social demands being placed on these lands than they are capable of producing, and there are conflicting demands being placed on these lands by people with different values and interests. For example, ensuring forest resources for future use, and providing water quality and quantity are clearly important to most residents around the Forest. However, some individuals believe that setting aside more land for preservation is the way to make sure the forest is available for future use, while others believe logging and preventing catastrophic fire is the most reasonable insurance policy.

2.8.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

More than half of Wyoming’s population lives in the vicinity of the MBNF. The state capital, Cheyenne (population 50,000) is 50 miles from the Supervisor’s Office and 30 miles from the Forest boundary. Populations of other Medicine Bow area communities are: Laramie, 27,000; Casper, 50,000; and Douglas, 5,700. The state’s only four-year university, the University of Wyoming, is in Laramie, and most of the population of Colorado’s Front Range lives within a few hours of the MBNF. Interstate 80 crosses the Forest; in fact, the MBNF and its ranges of the Rockies are the first mountains encountered on I-80 by westbound travelers from population centers in the Midwest. Interstate 25 is nearby and is within sight of much of the Laramie Range. Although several urban centers are within a day’s drive of the forest, small, rural communities with Western traditions and a rich heritage characterize this part of Wyoming. The forest has provided a 'way of life' to these communities before, and since, its official decree as a National Forest. Trees have provided ties for the railroad, boards for the mills, and jobs for communities. Grazing opportunities have ensured the maintenance of a ranching lifestyle and open spaces, and past mining activities are evidenced by the number and size of private parcels spread randomly across the landscape. One of the more universal uses of the MBNF, however, is for recreation, which also plays a major role in the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-64

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

lifestyle of nearby residents. Activities such as hunting, snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, and camping all provide social activities as well as contributing to the local economies. Two areas are recognized as most affected by the Forest. The Southern MBNF is most connected to a local economy that is defined by Albany and Carbon Counties in Wyoming and Jackson County in Colorado. The Northern MBNF (Laramie Peak area) touches many Wyoming counties, but is most connected economically to Converse County. Current Management Practices Livestock Grazing Overall, the MBNF plays a minor role in the total production of cattle and sheep. There are about 16,000 cattle under permit; the average season is just over three and a half months (generally mid-June through September), with approximately 56,000 head-months (74,000 AUMs) of use . The number of permitted cattle has remained mostly steady over the last 20 years, but the number of grazing permittees (both cattle and sheep) has declined by 20 percent (down from 120 to 95). There is no expectation of significant changes in use or demand in the immediate future, although there is a “waiting list” for cattle operators wanting to graze on the Forest. Nonetheless, livestock production from NFS lands is very important to the people who hold grazing permits: local ranchers with grazing permits have an interdependent relationship with the MBNF. The public lands grazing allotments, provide a considerable portion of the permittees livestock forage for a majority of the year, with the permittee providing forage for the remainder of the year. Therefore, any increase or decrease in forage provided from public lands may cause adjustments in herd sizes or other factors related to permittees livestock operations and affect efficient grazing use of their own lands. Oil, Gas and Mineral Development Mineral resources on federally owned lands are separated into three categories— locatable, leasable, and mineral materials—by statutory and regulatory direction. Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). Examples include iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The public has statutory right to explore for, claim, and mine mineral deposits found on federally owned lands subject to U.S. mining laws. The Forest does have some areas with high-to-moderate potential for locatable minerals (Hausel and Sutherland 1999). The potential commercial production of these minerals is concentrated in a few areas. However, most of the current mining activity on the Forest has been considered “recreational” in nature. This includes panning and suction dredging with a suction diameter of 3 inches or less for short durations in specified timeframes. There are between nine (9) and 11 bonded small mining operations on the Forest annually. They are seasonal, covered by a Plan of Operations, and usually utilize a small backhoe to dig exploratory trenches. Exploration, development, and production of locatable minerals will continue to depend on market prices and commodity supply and demand. As technological advances are made, the MBNF should expect an increase in exploration demands due to the conclusion of some geologists that this may be one of the more highly mineralized forests in the United States. Mineral saleable materials are generally low-value deposits of sand, clay, and stone used for building materials and road surfacing. Extracting these materials from NFS land is at Forest Service discretion. Forest Service policy is to make mineral materials on National Forest System lands available to the public and to local, State and Federal government agencies where reasonable protection of, or mitigation of effects on, other resources is assured, and where removal is not prohibited. At this time there are off-Forest sources to meet private needs.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-65

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Most of the MBNF is on uplifts of crystalline rocks such as granites and gneisses, and consequently has no known oil and gas occurrence potential. Areas of low to medium oil and gas resource potential occur in sedimentary rocks on the flanks of these uplifts in peripheral areas of the Forest. There are no areas with high oil and gas occurrence potential in the analysis area. Recreation and Tourism One of the more universal uses of the MBNF is for recreation, which also plays a major role in the lifestyle of nearby residents. Activities such as hunting, snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, and camping all provide social activities as well as contributing to the local economies. Wildlife-related recreation is divided into 3 categories: hunting, fishing and non-consumptive use. Of the 3 types, non-consumptive, wildlife-related recreation is anticipated to see the greatest relative growth in participation over the next 50 years. Viewing wildlife is just as important to recreationists as hunting or fishing. Wyoming residents participate in wildlife viewing more than regional residents (46% vs. 37%), although both are relatively high participation rates. It is estimated that participation will grow an average one percent per year over the next twenty years. The largest contributing factor to the increased popularity of non-consumptive uses will be the aging of the population. Big game hunting is a multi-million dollar economy for Wyoming. On the MBNF, it accounts for 13.4 percent of total visits annually. Hunting is a way of life in Wyoming, and many residents depend on game meat to fill their freezer. Big game hunting participation is higher among Wyoming residents (17 percent) than the regional average (10.3%) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). While the popularity of hunting is anticipated to increase over the next 20 years, hunting will account for a lower percentage of total use. Hunting is part of a total recreation experience, which includes camping, hiking, being with friends, getting away from it all, relaxing, viewing wildlife, ORV riding, and horseback riding. Regionally, hunting days should remain stable over the next half-century in spite of the decline in participants. While there is minimal GSG habitat on the MBNF, GSG are a game bird species that have the potential to be hunted. Wood Products The MBNF contains valuable timber resources. They are important for providing habitat for plants and animals, and important to the people who use or are employed because of wood products. These products include construction lumber, fuelwood, transplants and Christmas trees, posts and poles, and wood for carving. Primary species include lodgepole pine in the lower elevations, cottonwoods found along riparian zones, mixed conifer stands and aspen stands at middle elevations, and stands of spruce and fir that dominate the higher elevations of the forest. Management Issues and Concerns There will be social tradeoffs in making any Land and Resource Management Plan amendments. People who make a living from goods and services coming from the MBNF may not be able to obtain the quantity of goods and services they were accustomed to in the past. People who desire a natural landscape untrammeled by man may only be able to find this experience in a few places. Tradeoffs may include jobs, income, wildlife diversity and abundance, public revenue, ranch profitability, accustomed lifestyles, population, land use, the abundance of amenity values, the long-term benefits of restored ecosystems, and community identity.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-66

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Livestock Grazing Given the tenuous profitability of livestock production for the small rancher, any increase or decrease in forage provided from public lands may cause adjustments in herd sizes or other factors related to permittees livestock operations; and, adversely affect efficient grazing use of their own lands. Oil, Gas and Mineral Development Energy and mineral development can be a significant risk to sage-grouse with the primary concern being the direct effects of eliminating habitat, leks, and whole populations and fragmenting some of the last remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for the species’ persistence. Continued exploration and development of traditional and nonconventional fossil fuel and mineral sources on those areas identified in the eastern portion of the Greater sage-grouse range within the MBNF are predicted to continue to increase over the next 20 years. Recreation and Tourism Recreation and tourism may represent some risk to sage-grouse habitat, as a result of increasing demand, including: habitat fragmentation associated with road relocation or construction for forest access; increased demand for – and compliance issues associated with ORV use; and/or, loss of habitat resulting from human-caused wildfires along high use, forest access routes. Local recreation-based economies may be adversely or positively affected by GSG protection. Outfitter-guides may be adversely affected by the loss of the sage-grouse as a game species, while the local service industries may benefit from increased watchable wildlife opportunities. Wood Products See Section 2.3 Forestry 2.8.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The BTNF contributes to the socioeconomic situation of three primary counties – Lincoln, Sublette and Teton County, Wyoming.

Current Management Practices

On the BTNF, there are close to 300 outfitter-guide permits, 3 ski areas, and 7 smaller resorts/lodges together accumulating over $40 million in gross revenue (source: Special Uses Data System and other Forest Service data). This provides income to business owners and employees. In turn, some of this income is spent reinvesting and supporting area businesses such as landlords, mortgage lenders, and many other providers of goods and services. In addition, customers of recreation service providers, whether visitors or residents, typically spend additional money in the area. This business/employment opportunity also contributes to economic sustainability by being one component in the diversity of economic opportunities in the area.

There are a total of 82 permitted communications, infrastructure, and other such sites on the BTNF contributing to area economic sustainability, including 33 telephone lines, 25 communications sites, nine power lines, and three hydropower sites. While no new highway corridors are planned, there will likely be continued interest in communications sites.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-67

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Non-timber forest products such as transplants, wildflower seeds, and boughs, are available on the BTNF but none of these have a substantial commercial component. There has been no commercial demand for this type of use.

Livestock grazing contributes to the overall diversity of economic activity in the area. However, grazing itself does not contribute as much to the area economy as some other economic sectors. For example, in 2006, commercial recreation on the BTNF generated $82.6 million in total economic activity; grazing generated from $16.8 million to $51.3 million depending on the estimation method. The relative contribution of grazing and other economic sectors varies by county.

There are currently 122 cattle permits and 12 sheep permits for grazing on the BTNF accounting for approximately 39,000 head of cattle and 51,000 head of sheep. Depending on estimation method, this results in $7.9 million to $24.0 million in production, 188 to 576 jobs, and 5.1 to 15.6 million in labor earnings. Over time, in the BTNF counties, the beef-cow inventory has remained relatively stable (approximately 127 thousand head in 1970 and in 2006). In contrast, the sheep inventory has dropped from nearly 200,000 head in 1970 to 44,000 head in 2006.

Non-energy mineral production, such as, sand and gravel and landscape rock production is important to two sectors of the economy: transportation (for road maintenance including winter use of sand) and construction (for concrete and landscaping). However, sand and gravel represents a very small portion of the areas mineral value which includes natural gas, oil, and coal.

Almost 1.8 million tons of sand and gravel were produced in the region in 2005. The BTNF produced 645,000 tons in federal fiscal year 2006 suggesting that the BTNF contributes a significant proportion. Energy Resources include such things as oil, gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy. Public lands are recognized as an important source of the nation’s energy resources. The Forest Service plays a role in making opportunities available on public lands for production of energy from diverse sources. Innovative and adaptive approaches should be used to increase domestic energy supplies, while addressing local concerns and protecting the environment. Diversification of our energy supply is a top priority for our nation’s economic and national security. (Chief Bosworth letter 2/28/2006)

Visitor amenities available on the BTNF include scenic views, recreation opportunities, and abundant wildlife. These amenities attract visitors who then contribute economically to area businesses. The combination of these amenities, the visitors they attract, and the businesses these visitors support contribute to economic sustainability by being one component in the diversity of economic opportunities in the area.

Resident amenities available on the BTNF include scenic views, recreation opportunities, and abundant wildlife. These amenities attract residents who then contribute economically through home rental and ownership, contributing to the local tax base, being a part of the local workforce, and being a reliable market for regional commerce. The combination of these amenities, the residents they attract, and their economic contribution supports economic sustainability by being one component in the diversity of economic opportunities in the area.

Resident population is increasing in areas near the BTNF, implying that forest amenities are successful in attracting residents. In some cases, business and employment opportunities not associated with the National Forest account for population increases (such as energy development on BLM lands). It is likely that residents will continue to be attracted to the area. What is harder to ascertain is the amount of out-migration that may be occurring as these amenities shift in any specific area. Nevertheless, residents continue to contribute to economic sustainability and residency is in many instances based on a variety of forest amenities.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-68

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see ‘Management Issues and Concerns” provided above for the MBNF. 2.8.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Although individuals and communities over a wide geographic area use grassland resources, it is the residents and businesses of counties near the national grasslands who depend most on the availability of resources. Commodity and amenity benefits from the public lands have contributed to the social systems and economic base of many neighboring communities.

Current Management Practices

Livestock Grazing

Although cattle are the most prevalent type of livestock grazed on the TBNG, there is also a large amount of sheep grazing that occurs. At the current time, only one bison ranch holds a permit on the Spring Creek unit.

Livestock production from NFS lands is very important to the people who hold grazing permits. Overall, though, the national grasslands play a minor role in the total production of cattle and sheep. Nonetheless, local ranchers with grazing permits have an interdependent relationship with the national grasslands. The public lands grazing allotments, which include a considerable portion of the permittees provide livestock forage for a majority of the year, with the permittee providing forage for the remainder of the year. Therefore, any increase or decrease in forage provided from public lands may cause adjustments in herd sizes or other factors related to permittee livestock operations. These factors may also affect efficient grazing use of private lands.

Oil, Gas and Mineral Development

Most of the TBNG lies within the Powder River Geologic Basin (PRGB), a 12,000 square mile oil, gas, and coal bearing area. The USGS estimated means of undiscovered continuous oil and natural gas resources in the PRGB of Wyoming and Montana, as of December 2006, are 424 million barrels of oil, 15.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 26 million barrels of natural gas liquids (USGS 2006). Some of the oil and gas wells in the Newcastle, Wyoming area have been producing since the 1950s. The average well on TBNG produces about 4.6 barrels of oil per day. This is an economically marginal stripper well. On a national basis, stripper wells produce 32 percent of the oil that comes from federal lands. Oil produced from stripper wells is an important group of our national oil production and significant to both local and national economy.

Total oil and gas income is large in relation to employment because of the following: The industry is not labor intensive. Oil and gas leave the county with little value added (relatively few employees needed and county revenue sharing is estimated to be 3.125 percent of gross oil and gas receipts). Profits from gas and oil businesses in the county may end up with proprietors who live outside the county.

The coal industry tends to produce more jobs than the oil and gas industry because more labor is involved in the mining and transport of coal than in drilling for and transporting oil and gas. The TBNG

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-69

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

has significant coal reserves. When the Powder River Basin Federal Coal Production Region was decertified, U.S. coal production increased 11 percent from 1,029.1 million tons in 1990 to 1,145.6 million tons in 2007. Wyoming coal production increased from 184 million tons in 1990 to 453.6 million tons in 2007, an increase of 247 percent (DOE 2008a).

Wyoming’s coal mines produced 449.1 million tons in 2007, a new annual production record, according to Wyoming State Inspector of Mines. This was an increase of more than 9 percent over the 444.9 million tons produced in 2006; itself a record. The Powder River Basin coal production (from Campbell and Converse counties, 13 active mines) was over 436.5 million tons in 2007, which represented over 97 percent of the statewide coal production (Wyoming Department of Employment 2006 and 2007). The TBNG produces significant quantities of coal. There are four coal mines on the TBNG, either in production or some phase of planning or construction. The Black Thunder Mine is located near Wright, Wyoming. The mines that operate on and near the planning area are Black Thunder Mine (consolidated with Jacobs Ranch Mine in 2009), North Antelope Rochelle Mine, School Creek Mine, and Antelope Mine. The four mines have a collective footprint of over 120,000 acres within the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is on NFS lands and produce around 300 million tons of coal per year (current from 2010 data). In 1997, 22.2 percent of all the nation’s coal came from Campbell County, Wyoming.

Recreation and Tourism

A number of questions arise as to the ability of recreation and tourism to replace livestock grazing in relation to jobs and income. At the present time, there is little data available on the dependency of each county on recreation/tourism activities linked to the national grasslands.

An economic job and income model was developed for general tourism in the TBNG economic impact areas. The response coefficients were developed for both (1) nonresident tourists and (2) resident tourists. Nonresident tourists are those that reside outside the economic impact area that is being analyzed. The analysis displayed in the table below assumed a 50/50 ratio between resident and nonresident tourists and looks at current and 5 year estimated tourism impacts assuming a 5 percent and a 20 percent compound rate of growth in tourism on National Forest System Lands. (See Table 8)

Wood Products

No commercially suitable timber lands were identified on the TBNF. Stands of ponderosa pine, at about 2 MBF (thousand board feet) per acre, are interspersed among the grasslands. No inventory volumes are available. A few areas may have ponderosa pine stands with as much as 7 MBF per acre. Personal-use firewood permits are available on the TBNG.

Table 8: Current and Future Jobs and Income Related to Tourism On NFS Lands - TBNG

Estimated Current and Current Direct Year 5 With 5% Year 5 With 20% Projected Future Tourism Jobs Indirect, and Induced Growth Rate Direct Growth Rate Direct and Income From Activities Indirect, and Induced Indirect, and

On National Forest System Induced

Lands* Jobs Earned Income Jobs Earned Income Jobs Earned Income Economic Impact 1992- 1997 Dollars 1997 Dollars 1997 Dollars 1996 Est. Area Ave. RVDs Thunder Basin 64,100 160 $2,200,000 205 $2,808,000 399 $5,474,803

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-70

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-71

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.9 SOILS

2.9.1 Overview

Soils are the products of natural processes and consist of minerals, organic matter, water, and air. Their character results from a combination of climate, organisms, landforms, the parent materials in which they develop, and time. Soils of the planning area have formed from a wide variety of geologic material, ranging from in situ geologic parent material rock (residuum) to material transported by wind (aeolian deposits), water (alluvium), gravity (colluvium), and ice (glacial till). These parent materials, along with variable climate, topography, vegetation, and management, produce soils with diverse characteristics.

Soils are classified according to the Soil Taxonomy of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture. The Soil Taxonomy provides a systematic way to classify soils by the dominate soil forming processes and resulting soil properties that are developed as these processes act on parent materials over time.

The soils in the planning area possess several limitations that reduce the potential for establishing vegetation following a disturbance. Soils with limitations include highly erodible, saline, sodic, and sandy soils. Soils are affected by a variety of surface uses that loosen topsoil and damage or remove vegetation or other ground cover, which may result in accelerated erosion. Managing soils within the planning area emphasizes maintaining soil and landscape integrity through efforts to minimize accelerated erosion, avoiding or minimizing destruction of biological soil crusts, and establishing successful site reclamation.

Forest Service Manual 2500 Chapter 20 defines watershed condition defined as: The state of a watershed based upon physical and biological characteristics and processes affecting hydrologic and soil functions. The manual direction is to evaluate watershed condition and assign one of the following three classes:

Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.

Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.

Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses. 2.9.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The soils in the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madres are dominantly Alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Mollisols. The dominant suborders are Ustepts, Ustolls, and Xerolls in valleys and on the lower mountain slopes and Cryalfs and Orthents on the upper mountain slopes and crests.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-72

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The soils discussion for the MBNF is focused on those soil types found within core sage-grouse habitat; this equates to roughly 4,560 acres scattered across the entire Forest. The dominant soil order in core sage-grouse areas, with the exception of those soils on the western side of the Sierra Madres, is Mollisols (Bowen, Rogert and Supervisor Families). Mollisols are formed from a granite parent material. They are typically found on mountain slopes and have slopes ranging from 3 to 60 percent. Mollisols also have a frigid or cryic soil temperature regime and an ustic or udic soil moisture regime. They are well drained and have 10 inches of dark surface soils that formed under grasses and shrubs generally a sagebrush/Idaho Fescue habitat. They are productive, soil quality is generally very good, ground cover is usually very good and they are used for grazing and wildlife.

Soils on the western side of the Sierra Madres formed in sedimentary rock but have the same characteristics of those soils mentioned above.

Soils in the riparian areas formed from alluvium. The dominant orders are Entisols and Mollisols. They generally have deep dark surface soils with high amounts of organic matter. These soils generally have a high water table and are also productive with very good soil quality.

Current Management Practices Grazing, recreation, and watershed are the main uses on the Forest. Local ranchers commonly graze livestock on the National Forest during the summer and then move the livestock to lower elevations in the winter. To maintain soil quality and productivity, Regional Soil Quality Soil Standards are followed: Management activities will be conducted in such a way as to not exceed the Soil Quality Standards. The emphasis is on protecting the soil resource before excessive damage occurs. No more than 15 percent of an activity area will be left in a detrimentally compacted, displaced, puddled, severely burned, and/or eroded condition.

Riparian areas support native grasses and shrubs grazed by cattle. To maintain soil quality and productivity Regional Soil Quality Soil Standards and Watershed Conservation Practices are followed. Livestock is managed through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve long-term stream health. Livestock are excluded from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting or moving towards desired condition objectives where monitoring information shows continued livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those objectives. Stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features are kept out of the 100 foot Water Influence Zone (WIZ) if practicable and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Stock driveways are kept out of the WIZ except to cross at designated points.

Management Issues and Concerns

The major soil resource concerns are erosion by wind and water and maintenance of the productivity of the soils. Minimizing the sediment that reaches watercourses also is a concern. Proper grazing use is a concern in areas of grazing land. The major resource concerns for riparian areas are soil erosion/sedimentation and compaction.

2.9.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Of the ten soil orders, the four which cover most of the BTNF are Mollisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols. Please see the Overview section in 2.9.2 for a description of these soil orders.

Slope stability is used as an indicator to assess the relative natural stability and landslide potential within watersheds. Slope stability was assessed during the course of the soil survey efforts on the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-73

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Forest. The soil surveys were conducted in three parts; the Teton Division (1985), Bridger West Division (1993), and Bridger East Division (1997). Table 9 shows the acres mapped by all three surveys across the forest in each stability class. Figure 1, below, displays the spatial extent of each stability class across the Forest.

Table 9: Spatial Extent of Soil Stability Classes - BTNF ACRES RATING DESCRIPTION 1,396,964 Stable Evidence of past landslide activity has not been discerned and the observable characteristics of the land are evidence that the probability of landslides in the future is low. 1,003,368 Marginally Evidence of past landslide activity has not been discerned but there are Stable some land characteristics that suggest a landslide potential may exist. 756,991 Marginally Evidence of past landslide activity is discernible but none are of recent Unstable origin, i.e., within the last 50 years. The assumption is that the area is gaining stability but certain disturbances at critical locations could reactivate mass movements. 184,154 Unstable Evidence of recent mass movement or fresh tension cracks are discernible. Probabilities of additional mass movements are high.

Table 10 displays the top 10 watersheds with the highest amount of unstable soils.

Table 10: Top 10 Watersheds with Unstable Soils - BTNF HUC6 HUC_NAME TOTAL UNSTABLE ACRES ACRES 170401030402 Cliff Creek 39111.33 11559.57 140401010501 Upper Horse Creek-Green River 31910.75 8668.37 170401030505 Greys River-Blind Bull Creek 29898.55 8020.71 170401050105 Salt River-Cedar Creek 23109.03 7501.53 160101020302 Salt Creek-Thomas Fork 25898.45 7487.43 170401030509 Upper Little Greys River 23234.71 7279.67 170401030302 Hoback River-Kilgore Creek 22245.68 6413.15 170401030507 Greys River-White Creek 28959.52 5446.77 170401030503 Greys River-Bear Creek 34831.48 5302.72 160101020203 Coantag Creek 30678.19 5218.45

In 2011, Forest employees rated watershed conditions based on a number of criteria; the criteria include management impacts. In the 60 6th field HUCs that overlap sage-grouse habitat, eight were rated as being in Class II condition and the rest were in Class I condition, although some that were in Class I condition were determined by the employees to truly be in poorer condition than the rating system showed. Hams Fork, Muddy Creek, and Fall Creek, in particular, were thought to be in Class II condition. Also, some of the Class II HUCs were rated as being in relatively poor condition due to conditions on adjacent (i.e., non-Forest) lands that fell within the HUC boundaries. The eight HUCs that rated, by the rating system, as being in Class II condition, are shown in the following table, with the lowest-rated HUCs shown first.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-74

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 11: 6th field HUCs with Class II Condition ratings - BTNF HUC number HUC name 140401011004 Fogarty Creek 140401010503 Lower Horse Creek-Green River 140401011003 Dry Piney Creek 140401010502 South Horse Creek 101800060102 Sweetwater River-Little Sweetwater River 140401011103 LaBarge Creek-Miller Creek 140401010303 South Beaver Creek 140401010501 Upper Horse Creek-Green River

When this assessment was conducted for the Forest Plan (1990), roughly 25 percent of HUCs were in Class III condition, 58 percent were in Class II condition, and 17 percent were in Class I condition. This demonstrates an improvement in general watershed conditions since the Forest Plan assessment.

Figure 1: Distribution of stability ratings Forestwide - BTNF

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-75

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Maintenance of organic ground cover in sage-grouse habitats is the most important means of maintaining soil productivity by protecting mineral soil from erosion, compaction, and rutting. Roads, trails (including user-made trails), fire (wildfire or prescribed fire), grazing, and other ground disturbing activities can remove ground cover, exposing soil to direct mechanical impact from human or natural (e.g., raindrop) impacts that alter soil properties. They may also alter nutrient cycling if organics are eroded from sites. This is generally of greatest concern on nutrient-poor sites. These activities occur throughout sage-grouse habitat (except that there are no roads or prescribed fires in Wilderness areas). Maintenance of ground cover also inhibits the spread of noxious weeds: native vegetation is most effective, and most desired, for maintaining soil quality.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are measures to protect water quality via maintaining soil on-site (i.e., reducing erosion), but the measures are based in part on Soil and Water Conservation Practices described in FSH 2509.22 and other guidance, and together they also protect soil productivity. They are applied on vegetation management activities (timber sales, fuels treatments), road construction and management, grazing, and other activities.

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of BMPs and other practices ensures that erosion protective measures are installed appropriately and are effective at reducing erosion and minimizing the amount of area compacted—two of the greatest sources of soil degradation. Identification of degraded sites on the Forest is also an important element in protecting site productivity so that mitigation measures can be implemented. Once sites are identified, the Forest implements restoration activities on a priority basis.

Management Issues and Concerns

Management of dispersed recreation is a growing concern on the Forest. User-created trails and dispersed recreation sites increase bare and compacted soil, inviting further off-road use.

The Forest is attempting to manage this use through travel plans, education, and by obliterating these areas, but it is difficult to address all the new sites that are created. Proposed oil and gas activities would also lead to removal of organic cover and reduction of soil productivity, especially in the Green River basin, Muddy Creek drainage, and Bare Creek. Livestock grazing occurs Forestwide. Impacts to soils are variable, with adverse impacts seen especially along sheep driveways (past and present), in select bedding areas, and in places where herders fail to move animals on a regular basis (cattle, sheep, and horses). The use of prescribed fire is improving vegetative conditions by restoring natural fire regimes. Well-planned burns leave good ground cover, but care must be taken, even during prescribed fires, to avoid hot burns which can damage soils by removing residual organic matter including root biomass and mychorrhizal fungi.

Soil degradation may occur where Forest roads and trails are poorly maintained, poorly located, or are used during wet seasons. Cut and fill slopes may fail, culverts fill or fail, and users may create alternate routes, which cause further resource damage.

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could protect soil resources by restricting anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, new road construction, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-76

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could reduce detrimental disturbance to soils through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, and reduction of wildfire threats.

2.9.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The soils in the TBNG are dominantly Entisols and Aridisols. Other notable orders are Alfisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols and some Vertisols. The dominant suborders are Ustorthents, Torriorthents, Haplustolls, and Argiustolls. Other notable suborders are Haplargids, Haplustalfs, and Haplustepts.

The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aridic soil moisture regime that borders on ustic, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They are shallow to very deep, generally well drained, and loamy or clayey. Haplargids formed in alluvium (Cambria, Forkwood, and Ulm series) and in mixtures of alluvium, eolian sediments, and residuum (Bowbac, Cushman, and Hiland series). Torriorthents formed in alluvium on alluvial fan remnants, fan piedmonts, stream terraces, hills, and plateaus (Kishona series) and in residuum or colluvium on hills (Samday, Shingle, Tassel, and Theedle series). Mollisols and Alfisols occur in areas that have an ustic soil moisture regime that borders on aridic. They are all productive, and soil quality is generally good.

See information presented under section 2.9.2 for riparian areas.

Current Management Practices The TBNG supports native grasses and shrubs grazed by cattle and sheep. To maintain soil quality and productivity Regional Soil Quality Soil Standards are followed: Management activities will be conducted in such a way as to not exceed the Soil Quality Standards. The emphasis is on protecting the soil resource before excessive damage occurs. No more than 15 percent of an activity area will be left in a detrimentally compacted, displaced, puddled, severely burned, and/or eroded condition.

See information presented under section 2.9.2 for riparian areas.

Management Issues and Concerns

The major resource concerns are soil quality. Conservation practices on rangeland generally include prescribed grazing, fencing, and water developments. The establishment of early and late season pastures supplements forage production and keeps livestock off the rangeland during critical growth periods. Conservation practices generally include those that minimize wind erosion and maximize the amount of soil moisture available for forage.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-77

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.10 SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS 2.10.1 Overview

Special designation areas discussed in this section include Special Interest Areas (SIAs), Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Special Interest Areas, RNAs, and IRAs are designated by the Forest Service in Land and Resource Management Plans and include unique and outstanding combinations of physical and biological resources and areas of special social interest. Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers are regulatory or congressionally mandated and are designed to protect or preserve certain resource qualities or uses. All of these areas are collectively referred to as ‘special areas.’

Special Interest Areas are managed to protect or enhance regions with unusual characteristics, such as scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological or others. Management emphasis is on protecting or enhancing and, where appropriate, developing and interpreting for public education and recreation, areas with unusual characteristics. Many uses are allowed in SIAs, including recreation, livestock grazing, mineral leasing, and road construction, but only if such uses do not degrade the characteristics for which these areas are designated.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) describes the responsibility of federal agencies to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. Regulations at 36 CFR 294.1 also allow for the classification of Special Interest Areas (SIAs): "Suitable areas of National Forest System land, other than Wilderness or wild areas, which should be managed principally for recreation use, may be given special classification."

Research Natural Areas are selected to provide a spectrum of relatively undisturbed areas representing a wide range of natural variability within important natural ecosystems and environments (for example: forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, and geological environments) and areas with special or unique characteristics or scientific importance. RNAs are also selected to: • Serve as reference areas for evaluating the range of natural variability and the impacts of management in similar environments; • Maintain representative and key elements of biological diversity at the genetic, species, population, community, and/or landscape levels; • Serve as areas for the study of ecosystems and ecological processes including succession. • Provide on-site and extension educational activities; and • Serve as baseline areas for measuring ecological change. The general provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 USC 551) authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate Research Natural Areas (RNAs). Inventoried Roadless Areas are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act. Inventoried Roadless Areas may contain improvements such as motorized trails, fences, outfitter camps, and evidence of historical logging activities. As required by 36 CFR 219.17, IRAs are identified during Forest Plan development or revision and are qualified for study if they meet the following criteria:

They are 5,000 acres in size or larger; They are less than 5,000 acres, but contiguous to an existing Wilderness Area;

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-78

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

There are no classified roads (A classified road was defined at the time of inventory as a road constructed or maintained for long-term highway vehicle use. Therefore, IRAs may contain motorized and non-motorized trails and user created roads.).

Wilderness and Wilderness Study areas are generally defined as natural environments that have not been significantly modified by human activity. While these areas provide opportunities for solitude and for primitive and unconfined recreational experiences, they are also important for maintenance of species diversity, protection of threatened and endangered species, protection of watersheds, scientific research, and various social values. Inside the boundary, the areas are protected from development, including development of roads, dams, or other permanent structures; from timber cutting; and from the operation of motorized vehicles and equipment. Outside the boundary, management activities continue, including logging, road building, development, and in many cases, private land development.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). This system has grown dramatically since its inception and has been built through enactments of approximately 104 Wilderness bills, typically establishing Wilderness areas in a particular state. The Wilderness Act allows additional undeveloped and unroaded lands to be added to the NWPS.

The Forest Service initially inventories Wilderness potential by identifying roadless areas 5,000 acres or larger. There are three tests applied to roadless areas before they are considered for Wilderness recommendation: capability, availability, and need. While the Forest Service may nominate areas for Wilderness designation, only Congress may formally designate Wilderness areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers are water bodies with outstanding natural, heritage, or recreational features in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of current and future generations. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a national policy for designating selected rivers or sections thereof to protect water quality and to fulfill other vital national conservation measures. The Act in Section 5(d) directs all federal agencies to give consideration to potential national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas in all planning for use and development of water and related land resources. Similar to Wilderness area designation, the Forest Service may only recommend the inclusion of a river within the National Wild and Scenic System. It is up to Congress to act upon the recommendation and to make the formal designation. 2.10.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

Special Interest Areas

Special Interest Areas on the MBNF are managed to protect their unique values, to develop areas for public education, and to provide interpretative opportunities, where appropriate. There are 13 SIAs scattered across the Forest. While none of these areas contain core sage-grouse habitat, two of the SIAs contain small acreages (310 acres, collectively) of general habitat. They are as follows:

Tramway Trail: This 1,050-acre area is located on the Sierra Madre Mountain Range on the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District. This area was designated as an SIA because of historic copper mining that took place in the late 1800s and the remnant mining features that are still present today. Roughly 20 acres of this SIA are located in general sage-grouse habitat.

White Rock Canyon: This 684-acre area is located in the northern-most portion of the Snowy Range Mountains on the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District. This area was designated as an SIA because of its geologic, scenic, and wildlife values. Vegetation in the SIA ranges from sagebrush

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-79

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

communities to mountain shrub communities to coniferous forests. Approximately 290 acres of the SIA are located in general sage-grouse habitat.

Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas on the Forest are managed to form a long-term network of ecological reserves designated for non-manipulative research and education and the maintenance of biological diversity. Although there are five RNAs scattered across the Forest, only one, the Battle Mountain RNA, contains general sage-grouse habitat; no core sage-grouse habitat is present.

Battle Mountain: This 1,319-acre area is located on the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District; its principal distinguishing feature is a volcanic butte that supports a mosaic of plant communities. Quacking aspen woodland, lodgepole pine forest, mountain big sagebrush shrubland, and bluebunch wheatgrass vegetation occur primarily on top of Battle Mountain. Subalpine fir and limber pine woodlands as well as Saskatoon serviceberry shrubland occur mainly on the sides of the mountain. Roughly 715 acres of the SIA are located within general sage-grouse habitat.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas on the MBNF were identified as having special values for semi-primitive recreation opportunities and/or biological diversity. There are 31 IRAs on the MBNF that collectively comprise roughly 320,000 acres, or roughly 29 percent of the land base. Of the 31 IRAs, four contain core sage-grouse habitat. They are as follows:

Bear Mountain: This 9,426-acre IRA is located on the Sierra Madre Mountain Range and is comprised forested land (76%), non-forested land (1%), and shrubland (23%). A large portion of the area is classified as elk winter range. Livestock grazing occurs during the summer and fall seasons and several permitted outfitters and guides provide big game hunting and scenic horseback trips during hunting seasons. Historically, mineral exploration has occurred in the area. Approximately 120 acres of the IRA are located within core sage-grouse habitat.

Soldier Creek: This 5,989-acre IRA is located on the Douglas Ranger District in Converse County, Wyoming and is comprised of forested lands (72%), non-forested lands (8%), shrublands (18%), and grasslands (2%). Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, black bear, and mountain lions are the primary big game species in the area. Livestock grazing occurs during the summer and fall seasons and incidental amounts of outfitter and guide operations occur during hunting seasons. The area has a low potential for mineral exploration and development. Approximately 216 acres of the IRA are located within core sage-grouse habitat.

Pennock Mountain: This 9,592-acre IRA is located on the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District in Carbon County, Wyoming and is comprised of forested lands (76%) and shrublands (24%). Most of area is categorized as crucial elk winter range and an elk parturition area. The area contains three grazing allotments, all currently grazed with cattle. While little to no mineral exploration has occurred in the area, leasable mineral potential is unknown. Approximately 222 acres of core sage- grouse habitat are located in the IRA.

Platte River Addition: This 7,947-acre IRA is located on the Laramie Ranger District in Albany and Carbon Counties, Wyoming and is comprised of forested lands (73%), shrublands (19%), and grasslands (8%). A significant portion of the addition areas serve as spring-summer-fall range for deer, big horn sheep, moose and elk. The area contains two grazing allotments, both of which are currently grazed with cattle. Although prospecting for hard rock minerals has historically occurred,

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-80

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

no oil and gas leases exist nor has any recent exploration been done adjacent to the area. Approximately 94 acres of the IRA are located in core sage-grouse habitat.

Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas on the MBNF area managed to protect natural conditions and to offer varying degrees of solitude where natural processes and conditions have not been significantly influenced by human use. There are four Wilderness areas on the MBNF; however, only one, the Platte River Wilderness, contains any sage-grouse habitat. There is one Wilderness Study area on the Forest; this area does not contain any core sage-grouse habitat.

Platte River Wilderness: This 22,749-acre Wilderness area is managed by three Ranger Districts in two states. A small portion (743 acres) is located in Colorado’s Routt National Forest, and the remaining 22,006 acres are located on the MBNF. This area is home to a wide variety of wildlife species including water and shore birds, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, elk, moose, and black bear. Approximately 82 acres of this Wilderness are located in core sage-grouse habitat.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There is no core or general sage-grouse habitat within any Wild and Scenic River areas.

Current Management Practices

Special Interest Areas

Oil and gas leasing is allowed with appropriate stipulations to protect the designated values of each IRA. The removal of mineral materials is prohibited. New utility corridors or additional development within existing corridors is prohibited. The construction of new special use facilities is also prohibited except if valid, existing rights exist. New roads may only be constructed if they are consistent with SIA values, such as interpretation or education. Disturbed lands are to be reclaimed to a condition suitable for the purposes for which the SIA was designated.

Research Natural Areas

Oil and gas leasing is permitted only if ground disturbance will not occur. Logging and firewood gathering are prohibited. New trails are also prohibited except where they provide necessary access for scientific or educational purposes. Special use permits may be issued only if their issuance does not conflict with RNA values. Disturbed lands are to be reclaimed to a condition suitable for the purposes for which the RNA was designated.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Motorized use is allowed for: 1) emergency purposes, such as rescue operations, 2) the suppression of wildfire when the need to suppress exceeds the estimated risks, 3) authorized administrative functions, 4) authorized maintenance of livestock developments by permittees, and 5) the recovery of threatened and endangered species when and where the needs of recovery efforts require motorized support. Livestock grazing is currently authorized and is expected to continue. Wildfire suppression and prescribed burning for specific purposes are allowed. Most IRAs on the Forest fall within moderate or low oil and gas resource potential areas. While oil and gas leasing is allowed, no surface occupancy or use is generally permitted.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-81

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas

The Platte River Wilderness area has been withdrawn from oil and gas development and mineral entry. Livestock grazing is currently authorized within the Wilderness boundary and is expected to continue in accordance with Congressional guidelines. Recreational uses may be regulated where or when they threaten recovery of any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. There is no core habitat within Wilderness Study Areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There is no core or general sage-grouse habitat within any Wild and Scenic River areas.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could protect special designation areas by restricting activities such as anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could both protect and disturb Special Designation Area resources. Wilderness and Research Natural Areas are managed to minimize anthropogenic disturbances; therefore, very little restoration is expected to occur in these areas. Within Special Interest Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas sagebrush restoration activities that would protect the natural character include: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, and reduction of wildfire threats.

2.10.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Special Interest Areas

There is one Special Interest Area on the BTNF. Two Ocean Pass National Natural Area is a designated National Natural Landmark. This Natural Area is not located within or adjacent to Greater sage-grouse habitat and would not be affected by any management actions concerning this species.

Research Natural Areas

There are four Research Natural Areas (RNAs) within the forest: Osborn Mountain, Gros Ventre, Afton Front, and Swift Creek. These RNAs are not located within Greater sage-grouse habitat, do not support sagebrush vegetation and would not be affected by any management actions considered in this planning effort. Osborn Mountain RNA is a high elevation alpine plateau. The Gros Ventre and Swift Creek RNAs support tall forb communities. The Afton Front RNA is primarily Douglas fir.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-82

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

The BTNF includes three Wilderness Areas. Two were designated with the 1964 Wilderness Act and one with the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act.

Teton 584,324 acres* Gros Ventre 285,413 acres* Bridger 426,353 acres* *GIS calculations 2007

The BTNF also has two Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) were designated by Congress as part of the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act.

The Palisades WSA includes approximately 135,800 acres on the Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests (82,584 acres are within the BTNF).

The Shoal Creek WSA includes 32,374 acres contiguous with the Gros Ventre Wilderness. It forms the lower-elevation southern front of the Gros Ventre Mountains.

Although these areas differ from one another in character, they primarily represent high mountain environments and rugged terrain. The Teton Wilderness, known for its long distances and big game hunting opportunities, is visited by people from the larger region and nation-wide; a large majority of recreation use is guided and the major period of recreation use is late summer and fall. The Bridger Wilderness, known for its mountain lakes, scenery, and climbing, also attracts visitation from all over the nation and the world, with the high-use season being mid-summer. The Gros Ventre Wilderness is smaller and lesser known than the other two and attracts mostly local and regional visitation, although its proximity to Jackson Hole makes it attractive to national and international visitors as well. During the 2002 national visitor use monitoring study in the BTNF, wilderness visitors surveyed originated from over seventy zip codes. It was estimated that over 52,000 people visited one of the three wildernesses within the forest that year.

Wilderness Study Areas and other lands found to possess wilderness potential and recommended as future wilderness will be managed for desired conditions aimed at preserving wilderness characteristics, with the following guidance:

Motorized or mechanical transportation uses, as indicated in existing travel plans, are allowed only if they do not compromise wilderness values. New roads or trails for motorized or mechanical transportation are prohibited. Mechanical vegetation treatments that would compromise wilderness values are prohibited. Per the March 2006 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the State of Wyoming, areas are unavailable for new oil and gas leases until forest plans are revised and leasing availability decisions are completed. Improvements to trails are allowed only if they do not compromise wilderness values. New or expanded recreation uses, including special uses, are allowed only if they do not compromise preservation of wilderness characteristics.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-83

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Recreation settings will be managed either to maintain existing conditions or to increase primitive character.

The Palisades WSA includes high peaks and subalpine terrain, a variety of plant communities and vegetation types, and views of distant ranges, including the Tetons. Montane parklands in the mid-to- upper elevations have a wide diversity of forbs that create spectacular wildflower displays all summer. Wildlife includes several species of special interest: osprey and bald eagle near the Snake River, wolverine, elk, moose, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and introduced Rocky Mountain goat.

Shoal Creek WSA is bounded on the north by the Gros Ventre Wilderness. The area contains habitat for elk, moose, mule deer, mountain lion and other forest predators, migratory songbirds, goshawks, owls, and small mammals. It contains important winter range for elk, deer, and moose; the Dell Creek Game and Fish feedground is nearby. Spectacular geologic features exist within the WSA and in the adjacent Gros Ventre Wilderness, some of which are best seen from the WSA. These include bare, steep limestone faces and flatiron dip slopes, waterfalls (notably Shoal Falls and West Dell Falls), classic deep glacial canyons, and caves.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The BTNF inventoried roadless areas (subject to 2001 “roadless rule” and last mapped in 1983) are listed below.

Table 12: Inventoried Roadless Areas - BTNF Area Name Acres [1] Lake Alice - Commissary Ridge 179,920 Nugent Park - Hams Fork 21,590 Salt River Range 259,270 Riley Ridge 17,600 North Mountain 8,564 South Wyoming Range 76,191 Little Cottonwood Cr 4,874 Grayback 315,647 Monument Ridge 17,380 Munger Mtn. 12,900 Gros Ventre 435,320 [2] Little Sheep Mtn 17,300 Mosquito Lake – Seven Lakes 30,014 Spread Creek – Gros Ventre R 172,821 Pacific - Blackrock Cr 26,370 Teton Corridor 28,156 [3] Gannett Hills – Spring Creek 46,400 Palisades 81,872 [4] Phillips Ridge 9,900 West slope Winds [5]

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-84

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

[1] All of these acreages are from the 1983 BTNF roadless area re-evaluation. They differ significantly from more recent GIS mapping.

[2] Of this amount from the 1983 roadless re-evaluation, 287,000 acres later became the Gros Ventre Wilderness and 30,000 acres became the Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Area (Wyoming Wilderness Act, 1984).

[3] All of this area was added to the Teton Wilderness (Wyoming Wilderness Act, 1984).

[4] Most of this area became the Palisades Wilderness Study Area (Wyoming Wilderness Act, 1984).

[5] No acreage figure for this area was included in the 1983 document; however, most of the roadless area was added to the Bridger Wilderness (Wyoming Wilderness Act, 1984).

Of the total roadless lands within the BTNF those with wilderness potential have been evaluated according to attributes including the degree of naturalness; the level of development in the area; opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation; special features and values; and manageability (see section 2.6.2 and attachments thereof). 1,558,970 acres have been identified as lands with wilderness potential.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

In 1992, Forest Plan Amendment #2 identified 602 miles in 31 river segments as eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system. The segments within designated wilderness are managed as wilderness, while the remaining miles are managed under standards and guidelines listed in Management Prescription 3 in the Forest Plan. Management direction protects these segments from activities that would diminish or change the free-flowing characteristic, the water quality, or the scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife and other values which make the segment eligible for designation.

The Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act of 2009 designated approximately 400 miles of the Snake River Headwaters as wild and scenic rivers. This designation crosses several administrative boundaries, including those of the BTNF, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and the National Elk Refuge. Of the designated miles, about 316 miles are on the BTNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-85

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Designated river segments include portions of Bailey Creek, Blackrock Creek, Buffalo Fork of the Snake River, Crystal Creek, Granite Creek, Gros Ventre River, Hoback River, Pacific Creek, Shoal Creek, Snake River, Willow Creek, and Wolf Creek. Forest Service managers are in the process of writing a Forest Plan amendment providing management direction for the designated river segments. In the interim, those segments are managed by both the direction in Forest Plan Management Prescription 3 and by the direction in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and the Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2009. The table below displays total miles by classification. Figure 2 is a map of the river segments.

Table 13: Summary of designated river miles by classification - BTNF. Miles designated Classification 33.75 Recreational 97.07 Scenic 181.19 Wild 312.01 Total within the BTNF

Figure 2: Index Map of Wild and Scenic Rivers - BTNF

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-86

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Approximately 315 miles of rivers on the BTNF remain eligible but not designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Lands within a ¼ mile corridor on each side of the rivers are managed similarly as if the rivers were designated. Management Prescription 3 in the Forest Plan protects these segments from activities that would diminish or change the free-flowing characteristic, the water quality, or the scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife and other values which make the segment eligible for designation.

Current Management Practices

Current management for Special Interest Areas, Research Natural Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and eligible and designated Wild and Scenic Rivers protects natural systems.

Inventoried Roadless Areas are managed for various non-wilderness purposes. Additional limitations are placed on IRAs concerning timber and roads. Construction or reconstruction of roads and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in Inventoried Roadless Areas generally requires approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. Limited authority for those decisions has been delegated to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and to the Chief of the Forest Service for situations involving locatable minerals, emergency situations involving wildfire suppression, search and rescue imminent threats to public health and safety, incidental use related to implementation of an existing special use authorization, and projects involving generally small diameter timber for various listed reasons.

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could also protect special designation areas by restricting activities such as anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could both protect and disturb Special Designation Area resources. Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Research Natural Areas are managed to minimize anthropogenic disturbances, therefore very little restoration is expected to occur in these areas. Within Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wild and Scenic River Corridors, sagebrush restoration activities that would protect the natural character include: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, and reduction of wildfire threats. Restoration activities that could disturb the naturalness of Special Designation Areas include dust abatement (introduction of chemicals) on roads and disturbed surfaces, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile virus. 2.10.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Special Interest Areas

Special Interest Areas in the TBNG are managed to protect unique primitive and remote, paleontological, cultural, historical, botanical, geological, or ecological resources. There are six SIAs

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-87

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

distributed across the TBNG for a total of 26,780 acres, or 5 percent of the land base. All of the SIAs contain core or general sage-grouse habitat or a combination of both. The SIAs are as follows:

Alkali Divide SIA: This 5,140-acre site features a high concentration of fossil remains from the Late Cretaceous Period ending roughly 65 million years ago. The site is within the Lance formation which is composed of dull gray, sandy shale alternating with, light-colored sandstones and thin lignite (brown coal) beds. The Alkali Divide SIA, which is the most productive fossil–bearing site on the TBNG, is located entirely within general sage-grouse habitat.

Buffalo Divide SIA: This 490-acre site features a series of prehistoric camps that run along a grassy ridge that separates the watersheds of the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne Rivers. Excavations conducted in the early 1990s indicated a protohistoric (after initial European contact but before good written records) occupation as a hunting camp during the summer and fall. Due to its excellent preservation and the presence of many associated artifacts, it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The entire SIA is located in general sage-grouse habitat.

Cellars SIA: This 960-acre site is characterized by a series of prehistoric camps atop a continuous ridge overlooking the surrounding terrain. This complex of more than 120 stone circles was a major prehistoric campsite for early American Indians. The entire SIA is located in core sage-grouse habitat.

Cheyenne River Zoological SIA: This 5,980-acre site provides a prairie dog complex of approximately 3,000 acres, occupied mountain plover habitat, and potential black-footed ferret habitat. About six and three-quarter miles of the Cheyenne River also wind through the area, offering habitat for fish, beaver, and raptors. In addition, the area contains potential habitat for Ute ladies- tresses and bald eagle winter roost sites. The entire SIA is located in general sage-grouse habitat.

Cow Creek Historic Rangeland SIA: This 14,170-acre site features naturally appearing rangelands that function in a self-sustaining ecological manner. The area provides a glimpse into what rangelands were like in the pre homestead era, prior to the 1880s. Native vegetation and ecological processes function and are basically unaffected by human influence, with the exception of domestic livestock and the basic facilities needed to maintain them. Roughly 9,890 acres of this SIA are located in core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 4,280 acres are in general sage-grouse habitat.

Lance Geologic SIA: This 40-acre site is characterized by a wash approximately 10 acres in size containing numerous mushroom-like geologic features and three-dimensional views of ancient sedimentary structures. The area also offers opportunity for study of certain unique geologic features, ancient depositional environments, and paleontological and paleoecologic resources. The entire SIA is located within an area identified as general sage-grouse habitat.

Table 14: SIA Acreage by Core and General Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG Special Interest Area Core Acres General Acres Alkali Divide 0 5,140 Buffalo Divide 0 490 Cellars 960 0 Cheyenne River Zoological 0 5,980 Cow Creek Historic Rangeland 9,890 4,280 Lance Geologic 0 40 Total Acres 10,850 15,930

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-88

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas on the TBNG are managed to protect or enhance natural ecosystems allocated for non-manipulative research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. The TBNG contains two RNAs: Rock Creek and Wildlife Draw. Collectively, these two areas contain 1,210 acres and are both located entirely within core sage-grouse habitat.

Rock Creek: This 592-acre area is located about 8 miles northwest of Clareton, Wyoming and lies within the eco-region classified as the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steep Province, Powder River Basin Section, Southern Powder River Basin-Scoria Hills Subsection. The principal distinguishing features include rolling hills with vegetation of the big sagebrush/needle-and-thread plant association and the needle-and-thread / blue grama plant association, and draws supporting the silver sagebrush / western wheatgrass plant association. Three undesirable plants occur in the area: cheatgrass, meadow brome, and yellow alyssum. Pronghorn antelope are common and elk may utilize the area.

Wildlife Draw: This 630-acre area is located about 32 miles west of Newcastle, Wyoming and lies within the ecoregion classified as the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province. The area contains rolling hills with several draw and is vegetated entirely with grasslands and sagebrush shrub-steppe. Vegetation includes needle-and-thread, blue grama, western wheatgrass and threadleaf sedge. Wyoming big sagebrush is widespread. Three draws contain ephemeral streams and support a silver sagebrush/western wheatgrass association. Four exotic plant species are present: cheatgrass, meadow brome, yellow alyssum, and salsify. No federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species are known to be present in the area. Further, given the narrow shape and small acreage of the area, it is too small to support populations of pronghorn antelope, elk, and mule deer.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas on the TBNG were identified as having special values for semi-primitive recreation opportunities and/or biological diversity. There are six IRAs on the TBNG that collectively comprise 58,620 acres, or roughly 10 percent of the land base. Each IRA contains core or general sage- grouse habitat or a combination of the two. They are as follows:

Downs: This 6,510-acre IRA area is a mixed-grass prairie blended with sagebrush, cactus, and some greasewood. The landscape has a high degree of patchiness due to the substrate. Many shrubland communities occur in the area. Outstanding among these are patches of the birdsfoot sagebrush community which grows only on specialized clay and shale exposures. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tailed deer, grassland birds, raptors, reptiles, and amphibians. Livestock and hunting are the two most frequent activities; however, public access for hunting opportunities is very limited. Roughly 3,600 acres are identified as core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 2,910 acres are in general sage-grouse habitat.

Red Hills: This 6,840-acre IRA area is characterized by rolling sage- and grass covered hills, red scoria escarpments and buttes, dissected by mostly easterly flowing drainages. This area is a mixed- grass prairie, blended with sagebrush, cottonwood, greasewood, ponderosa pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tailed deer, grassland birds, raptors, reptiles, and amphibians. The entire IRA is located within general sage-grouse habitat.

Cow Creek Buttes: This 17,500-acre IRA is a mixed-grass prairie, blended with sagebrush, cottonwood, greasewood, ponderosa pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Ponderosa pine is patchy and scattered about the lower slopes of buttes and atop mesas. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, occasional elk, mule and white-tailed deer, grassland birds, an abundance of raptors (such as bald and golden eagles), reptiles, and amphibians. Current recreation includes hiking, viewing scenery and wildlife, dispersed camping, horseback riding, prairie dog shooting, hunting, and off-

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-89

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

highway motorized recreation. Roughly 13,060 acres are identified as core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 4,440 acres are in general sage-grouse habitat.

Duck Creek: This 12,330-acre IRA is characterized by grassy lowlands, woody draws, rolling hills, rocky shale and limestone escarpments, and mesas. This area is representative of a mixed-grass prairie ecosystem at the lower elevations, rising to pine-covered mesas. Vegetation includes little bluestem grasslands, patches of sagebrush steppe, several kinds of shrublands, including greasewood, ponderosa pine woodlands, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tailed deer, sage-grouse, grassland birds, raptors, reptiles, and amphibians. Livestock grazing and hunting are the two most frequent activities in the area. Roughly 4,240 acres are identified as core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 8,090 acres are in general sage-grouse habitat.

HA Divide: This 5,060-acre IRA is characterized by one large mesa with color-banded buttes tapering away from the mesa. The top of the mesa is comprised of ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain juniper while side slopes are partially barren. In general, H A Divide is a mixed-grass prairie, blended with sagebrush, limited cottonwood, some greasewood, ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain juniper. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tailed deer, grassland birds, raptors (including the bald eagle and peregrine falcon), reptiles, and amphibians. Roughly 1,900 acres are identified as core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 3,160 acres are in general sage- grouse habitat.

Miller Hills: This 10,370-acre IRA is a mixed-grass prairie, blended with sagebrush, cottonwood, greasewood, ponderosa pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Shrublands are found in the canyons on the north side of the Miller Hills around the base of the elevated plateau. The woodlands provide important habitat for bald eagle winter roosts. Wildlife includes prairie dogs, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tailed deer, grassland birds, raptors, reptiles, and amphibians. Roughly 1,390 acres are identified as core sage-grouse habitat while the remaining 8,980 acres are in general sage-grouse habitat.

Table 15: IRA Acreage by Core and General Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG Inventoried Roadless Area Core Acres General Acres Downs 3,600 2,910 Red Hills 0 6,840 Cow Creek Butte 13,060 4,440 Duck Creek 4,240 8,090 H A Divide 1,900 3,160 Miller Hills 1,390 8,980 Total Acres 24,190 34,420 *Numbers do not add to 58,620 due to rounding

Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

The TBNG does not contain Wilderness areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Current Management Practices

Special Interest Areas

Geophysical (seismic) operations that cause surface disturbance are prohibited. Several other activities are also prohibited including, but not limited to: fire control; additional rangeland improvements; ground disturbing oil and gas activities; and mineral material removal. Vegetation manipulation may be

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-90

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

used to maintain or restore natural conditions; to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; or to enhance other values for which the SIA was designated.

Research Natural Areas

Management practices described above for SIAs are similar for RNAs.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Motorized use is allowed for: 1) emergency purposes, such as rescue operations, 2) the suppression of wildfire when the need to suppress exceeds the estimated risks, 3) authorized administrative functions, 4) authorized maintenance of livestock developments by permittees, and 5) the recovery of threatened and endangered species when and where the needs of recovery efforts require motorized support. Livestock grazing and wildfire suppression and prescribed burning for specific purposes are allowed. Although road development and future oil and gas leasing are also allowed, both the Cow Creek Buttes and Downs IRAs require no surface occupancy unless production is established on existing leases. In those areas where future leases allow surface occupancy, the Forest Service will work with the energy industry to develop a minimal road system and will require rehabilitation of on-the-ground disturbances to achieve natural conditions.

Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

The TBNG does not contain any Wilderness, Wilderness Study, or Wild and Scenic River areas.

Management Issues and Concerns

Management issues and concerns identified for the MBNF and BTNF apply here as well.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-91

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.11 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (TES and MIS)

2.11.1 Overview

For the purpose of this assessment, special status species are defined as those species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (the Act, 16 USC §§ 1531-1534), as well as t h o s e species that are proposed or candidates for listing under the Act. Special status species also include species designated as sensitive by a Regional Forester (regional forester’s sensitive species). The State of Wyoming does not designate species as sensitive. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department maintains a list of Species of Special Concern which does not incorporate sensitive plant species. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/) studies and documents species of concern in Wyoming including those designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. These species lack formal federal or state status for protection, but populations may be at risk. These species receive consideration during periodic revision of the regional forester’s sensitive species list.

Objectives related to management of species listed under the Act (FSM 2670.22) provide that Forest Service units should:

1. Develop and implement conservation strategies for sensitive species and their habitats, in coordination with other Forest Service units, managing agencies, and landowners. 2. Coordinate management objectives to conserve sensitive species with state and federal agencies and other cooperators as appropriate. Approaches may include collaboratively developing individual species or multi-species conservation strategies, formalizing interagency conservation agreements, and incorporating recommendations into management direction set forth in Land and Resource Management Plans.

Federally Listed Species

The purposes of the Endangered Species Act are to provide a means for conserving the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and a program for the conservation of such species. The ESA directs all Federal agencies to participate in conserving these species. Specifically, section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and section 7 (a)(2) requires the agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. Consideration of listed species includes the following:

Endangered species: Species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species: Species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Experimental/Nonessential populations: Distinct populations that have protections as provided for experimental populations in section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. Candidate species: A species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. The Candidate designation is utilized by the USFWS when it determines that the species is warranted for listing under the ESA, but the development of a proposed listing rule is precluded by other higher priority listing actions.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-92

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Species identified as Candidates by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, such as the Greater sage-grouse, are automatically placed on the list of regional forester’s sensitive species. Species that have been delisted under the Act, because recovery criteria have been met, are automatically added to the sensitive species list for a period of at least 5 years.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Species designated as sensitive by a regional forester must be recognized by taxonomic experts and must be known or likely to occur on National Forest System lands. A regional forester may designate a species as sensitive based on the following:

Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.

The intent of designation of species as sensitive by a regional forester is to ensure that these species receive consideration in land management. In so doing, Forest Service actions should not contribute to the need to list a species under the Endangered Species Act.

Management Indicator Species

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) forms the foundation for the designation and monitoring of Management Indicator Species (MIS) as a component of Forest Service land and resource management planning. Implementing regulations are provided at 36 CFR 219.19, and in Forest Service Manual 2600:

“In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. In the selection of management indicator species, the following categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality . . .” (36 CFR 219.19(a)(1))

Forest Service Manual 2620 direction concerning habitat planning provides that:

“1. Management Indicators: Plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent.” (FSM 2620.5)

It is the policy of the Forest Service (FSM 2670.3) to integrate available scientific information, including Regional species evaluations, species and ecosystem assessments, and conservation strategies, into Forest Service planning and implementation; conduct appropriate inventories and monitoring of sensitive species to improve knowledge of distribution, status, and responses to management activities, coordinate efforts within the Region and with other agencies and partners where feasible; and, to analyze and manage for sensitive species in groups and habitat complexes, when feasible, to realize efficiencies and ecological soundness of multi-species and ecosystem management approaches.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-93

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.11.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The MBNF includes four units in three distinct mountain ranges. The Medicine Bow portion of the Central Rockies includes the northern extension of the Colorado Front Range, which divides to include the Laramie Range on the east (the southern extension is known as the Sherman Mountains) and the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains on the west. The Sierra Madre Mountains, which are the northern part of the Parks Range, occupy the westernmost portion of the Forest. The Continental Divide bisects the Sierra Madres. The major river drainages flow from the Continental Divide: the Green River Basin flows west into the Colorado River system, and the western Dakota sub-Basin and Platte River Basin flow east. All of the MBNF is mountainous. Elevations range from 5,050 feet above sea level in the Laramie Range to 12,013 feet at Medicine Bow Peak in the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains.

Approximately 80 percent of the MBNF is forested. Forests are comprised primarily of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta); other forest types include spruce-fir, aspen (Populus tremuloides), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). There are 28 geographic areas, within the four units, have been established on the MBNF. The physical and ecological characteristics of these geographic areas are described in the MBMF Land and Resource Management Plan (2003). Of the four larger units on the Forest, only three contain sagesteppe habitats designated as ‘core’ habitats (WY-EO-2011-5) for the GSG.

No Core sage-grouse habitat occurs within the Sherman Mountains Unit (Pole Mountain) of the MBNF. Within the Laramie Range unit, 2,638 acres have been designated as core sage habitats within the Boxelder Geographic Area. Within the Sierra Madre Unit, 1,295 acres of core habitats occur within the Northeast Sierra Madre Geographic Area (765); South Savery Geographic Area (100); Beaver Creek Geographic Area (125); and, the North Savery Geographic Area (304). Within the Snowy Range, designated core sage habitats occur within the Pennock Mountain Geographic Area (284) and the Platte River Geographic Area (348). In general, these habitats occur in areas of ecological transition. That is, these core habitats consist of areas of sagesteppe interspersed by rock or outcrops as they transition to primarily lodgepole pine forest types. No leks of the Greater sage-grouse are known to occur on the MBNF.

The following discussion of ‘Current Management Practices’ and ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ is directed toward the identification of sensitive species and issues that may be directly or indirectly related to the conservation of sagesteppe habitats. This is due to the primacy of sagesteppe habitats to the conservation of Greater sage-grouse.

Table 16a depicts NFS acreage within the four primary geographic units on the MBNF and the designated Greater sage-grouse core habitat acres within each of the respective units. Of the 1.26 million acres of NFS Lands within the four units, 4,564 acres (<0.4%) are designated as Core Habitat for the GSG.

Table 16a: Geographic Units and Core Sage-grouse Habitat – MBNF Unit Unit Acres Core Acres Laramie Peak 437,781 2,638 Sherman Mountains 55,584 0 Sierra Madre 362,217 1,294 Snowy Range 406,743 632 Total 1,262,325 4,564

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-94

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 16b depicts NFS acreage within the four primary geographic units on the MBNF and the designated Greater sage-grouse general habitat within each of the respective units. Of the 1.26 million acres of NFS Lands within the four units, 22,915 acres (<1.8%) are designated as General habitat for the GSG.

Table 16b: Geographic Units and General Sage-grouse Habitat - MBNF General Unit Unit Acres Acres Laramie Peak 437,781 5,523 Sherman Mountains 55,584 0 Sierra Madre 362,217 15,267 Snowy Range 406,743 2,025 Total 1,262,325 22,915

Current Management Practices

Federally Listed Species

The Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service previously provided the MBNF with correspondence, dated May 23, 2011, indicating listed species likely to occur within or in proximity to the Forest (WYESFO 2011a). This list was subsequently revised to incorporate the relisting decision for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). This revised list was communicated to the Forest on October 24, 2011. Listed species pertinent to subsequent analyses related to the incorporation of land and resource management plan conservation measures for the Greater sage-grouse are identified within table below. Relevance to sage and sagesteppe conservation on the MBNF was assessed on the basis of species habitat association or the likelihood that species occurs on the MBNF. The table below depicts these associations and their relevance to the sage-grouse assessment.

Table 17: Endangered Species Act Species within Region 2 of the Forest Service - MBNF Status: Endangered Habitat Relevance MAMMALS Black-footed ferret Restricted distribution, Shirley Basin, No-habitat association & Mustela nigripes WY. Prairie dog colonies occurrence. BIRDS Piping plover Platte River system No-habitat association Charadrius melodus Whooping crane Platte River system No-habitat association Grus americana Least tern Platte River system No-habitat association Sternula antillarum AMPHIBIANS Wyoming toad Restricted distribution, plains lakes, No-habitat association Bufo baxteri Albany Co., Wyoming FISHES Humpback chub Colorado River System No-habitat association Gila cypha Bonytail chub Colorado River System No-habitat association Gila elegans

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-95

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 17: Cont’d Status: Endangered Habitat Relevance Colorado pikeminnow Colorado River System No-habitat association Ptychocheilus lucius Pallid sturgeon Colorado River System No-habitat association Scaphirhynchus albus Razorback sucker Colorado River System No-habitat association Xyrauchen texanus PLANTS Astragalus osterhoutii Restricted distribution, badland shales, No-habitat association & (Osterhout milkvetch) Grand Co., CO occurrence. Penstemon haydenii Sand blowouts, sand ridges associated No-habitat association (Blowout penstemon) with dune habitats Penstemon penlandii Restricted distribution, badland shales, No-habitat association & (Penland beardtongue) Grand Co., CO occurrence. Phacelia formosula Restricted distribution, North Park, No-habitat association & (North Park phacelia) CO. occurrence. Status: Threatened Habitat Relevance MAMMALS Canada lynx Boreal spruce-fir forests to sagesteppe Lynx canadensis in linkage areas Yes, relevant to analyses Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Riparian grass – shrub zones No-habitat association Zapus hudsonius preblei Status: Threatened FISHES Greenback cutthroat trout Coldwater streams No-habitat association Oncorhynchus clarki stomias PLANTS Platanthera praeclara Tall grass, calcareous prairies and No-habitat association & Western prairie fringed orchid sedge meadows, Platte River System occurrence. Spiranthes diluvialis Moist meadows, stream terraces, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid oxbows. Elevations 4300-6850 ft Yes, relevant to analyses Table 17: Cont’d Status: Endangered Habitat Relevance Status: Candidate BIRDS Greater sage-grouse Yes, relevant to Sage, Sagesteppe Centrocercus urophasianus analyses Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western race) No-habitat association & Cottonwood riparian. Coccyzus americanus (Candidate) occurrence

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The intent of designation of a species as a regional forester’s sensitive species is to ensure that these species, identified as being at risk, receive adequate consideration during programmatic and site- specific project planning. Sensitive species of native plant and animals must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. That is, there should be no impacts to regional forester’s sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and on

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-96

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

the viability of the species (FSM 2672.1). A complete list of species designated as sensitive may be accessed online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml.

Regional forester’s sensitive species for the MBNF, pertinent to subsequent analyses related to the incorporation of Land and Resource Management Plan measures to conserve the Greater sage-grouse, are identified within the table below.

Table 18: Terrestrial Wildlife Species - MBNF Species Habitat* Relevance

BIRDS American bittern No-habitat association & Marshes. Does not occur on MBNF. Botaurus lentiginosus occurrence. Trumpeter swan No-habitat association & Marshes. Does not occur on MBNF. Cygnus buccinator occurrence. Harlequin duck Mountain rivers, lakes. Does not occur No-habitat association & Histrionicus histrionicus on MBNF. occurrence. Bald eagle Lakes, rivers. No-habitat association (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Northern goshawk SF, AS, LPP, RIP No-habitat association Accipiter gentiles Ferruginous hawk MS, FM, SS, 4500 – 7500 ft elevation Yes, relevant to analyses Buteo regalis American peregrine falcon RO 50-200ft high, SS near RO, 4500- Yes, relevant to analyses Falco peregrinus anatum 9000 ft elevation Northern harrier Grassland, Marsh, SS near water, Yes, relevant to analyses Circus cyaneus <2400m Columbian sharp-tailed grouse MS west of Continental Divide Yes, relevant to analyses T. phasianellus columbianus Greater prairie-chicken Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Tympanuchus cupido MBNF Lesser prairie-chicken Dry grasslands. Does not occur on (Candidate) No-occurrence MBNF Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Gunnison sage-grouse SS. Does not occur on the MBNF (Candidate) No-occurrence (USDA 2010). Centrocercus minimus Greater sage-grouse (Candidate) SS Yes, relevant to analyses Centrocercus urophasianus White-tailed ptarmigan Alpine willow. Currently considered No-habitat association & Lagopus leucurus extirpated on the MBNF occurrence Mountain plover Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Charadrius montanus MBNF Long-billed curlew Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Numenius americanus MBNF

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-97

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 18: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Black tern No-habitat association & Wetlands. Does not occur on the Forest Chlidonias niger occurrence Yellow-billed cuckoo (Candidate) Cottonwood riparian. Does not occur No-habitat association & Coccyzus americanus on the MBNF occurrence Burrowing owl Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Athene cunicularia MBNF Boreal Owl Spruce-fir, Lodgepole pine. No-habitat association Aegolius funereus Flammulated owl AS, PP stands in southern portion of No-habitat association Otus flammeolus Sierra Madres Short-eared owl SS, grasslands, marshes. Might occur Yes, relevant to analyses Asio flammeus only on the Laramie Peak unit. Black swift Wet cliff faces. Does not occur on No-habitat association & Cypseloides niger Forest occurrence Lewis’ woodpecker PP. Occurs on the Laramie Peak unit No-habitat association Melanerpes lewis Black-backed woodpecker SF, PP and recently burned conifer No-habitat association Picoides arcticus forest American three-toed woodpecker SF, LPP, AS No-habitat association Picoides tridactylus dorsalis Olive-sided flycatcher SF, LP, WET, FM No-habitat association Contopus borealis Purple martin AS in specific area on west side of No-habitat association Progne subis Continental Divide. Loggerhead shrike Grassland w/shrubs <8000 ft. Yes, relevant to analyses Lanius ludovicianus Brewer’s sparrow SS Yes, relevant to analyses Spizella breweri Cassin’s sparrow Grasslands. Extreme southeast No-occurrence Aimophila cassini Wyoming Grasshopper sparrow Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Ammodramus savannarum Forest Sage sparrow SS below 6500 ft. Yes, relevant to analyses Amphispiza bellii McCown’s longspur Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Calcarius mccownii Forest Chestnut-collared longspur Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Calcarius ornatus Forest MAMMALS Grizzly bear Various habitats in Greater No-occurrence Ursus arctos horribilis Yellowstone Area

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-98

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 18: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Shrublands, Rock outcrops, Alpine. 3 Yes, relevant to analyses Ovis Canadensis canadensis herds on Forest. Desert bighorn sheep Shrublands, Rock outcrops, Alpine. No-occurrence Ovis canadensis nelsoni Does not occur on the Forest Pygmy shrew Wetland edges in SF above 9000 ft. No-habitat association Sorex hoyi Fringed myotis Forages in PP, oak, shrublands, Yes, relevant to analyses Myotis thysanodes pinyon/juniper . Juniper shrub,desert sagebrush Spotted bat grasslands. Not known to occur on Yes, relevant to analyses Euderma maculatum Forest. Townsend’s big-eared bat Summer foraging habitat over live Yes, relevant to analyses Corynorhinus townsendii canopy, shrublands Black-tailed prairie dog Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Cynomys ludovicianus Forest White-tailed prairie dog Colony at Six-Mile/Platte River. Yes, relevant to analyses Cynomys leucurus Gunnison’s prairie dog Dry grasslands at high altitudes. Does No-occurrence Cynomys gunnisoni not occur on the Forest Wyoming pocket gopher SS, Grassland. Not known on Forest Yes, relevant to analyses Thomomys clusius Alpine, subalpine, and foothills Water vole riparian. Does not exist on Forest No-habitat association Microtus richardsoni (USDA 2010). Swift fox Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Vulpes velox Forest Kit fox Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Vulpes macrotis Forest River otter Rivers No-habitat association Lontra canadensis American marten SF,LPP No-habitat association Martes americana Wolverine SF,AL,LPP,RO No-habitat association Gulo gulo Common hognosed skunk Sparsely timbered or brushy areas. No-occurrence Conepatus leuconotus Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2010). REPTILES Massassauga rattlesnake Grasslands. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Sistrurus catenatus (Candidate) Forest Black Hills redbelly snake FM in Black Hills. Does not exist on Storeria occipitomaculata No-occurrence Forest (USDA 2010). pahasapae

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-99

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 18: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance

AMPHIBIANS Boreal toad Wetlands, less common in densely forested No-habitat association Anaxyrus boreas boreas areas Plains leopard frog Permanent water, including ponds along No-occurrence Lithobates blairi transient streams Columbia spotted frog Only known from Bighorn and Shoshone No-occurrence Lithobates luteiventris NF Northern leopard frog Wide variety aquatic habitats, wetlands Yes, relevant to analyses Lithobates pipiens Wood frog Sedge, grass meadows, willow hummocks, No-habitat association Lithobates sylvatica aspen, lodgepole pine forests, woodlands MOLLUSCS Rocky Mountain capshell snail Littoral zones of rmesotrophic lakes No-habitat association Acroloxus coloradensis <9400 ft. Known only from CO, MT Pygmy mountain snail Does not occur on the Forest No-occurrence Oreohelix pygmaea Cooper’s mountain snail Known only on Black Hills National No-occurrence Oreohelix strigosa cooperi Forest FISHES Bluehead sucker Large rivers, west slope Colorado No-occurrence Catostomus discobolus Flannelmouth sucker Large rivers, west slope Colorado No-occurrence Catostomus latipinnis Mountain sucker Clear, cold creeks, small to medium-sized No-habitat association Catostomus platyrhynchus rivers with sand, gravel, rubble substrate Rio Grande sucker Endemic to the Rio Grande basin in No-occurrence Catostomus plebeius Colorado. Lake chub Permanent spring flow, usually at the No-occurrence Couesius plumbeus headwaters of small streams Rio Grande chub Endemic to Rio Grande basin in Colorado No-occurrence Gila pandora Roundtail chub Only occurs in Colorado River basin No-occurrence Gila robusta Plains minnow Great Plains streams with fluctuating Yes, relevant to analyses Hybognathus placitus stream flows, shifting sand substrates. Sturgeon chub Great Plains rivers No-occurrence Macrhybopsis gelida Pearl dace No-habitat association & Clear, cold-water streams with some gravel Margariscus margarita occurrence Hornyhead chub Isolated populations in the Laramie and No-occurrence Nocomis biguttatus North Laramie rivers Colorado River cutthroat trout Cold-water streams No-habitat association Oncorhynchus clarkiii pleuriticus

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-100

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 18: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Rio Grande cutthroat trout No-habitat association & Cold-water streams Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis occurrence Yellowstone cutthroat trout No-habitat association & Cold-water streams Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri occurrence Northern redbelly dace Permanent spring seeps, usually at the No-occurrence Phoxinus eos extreme headwaters of small streams Southern redbelly dace Streams and ponds that are clear with sand No-occurrence Phoxinus erythrogaster and silt substrates. Finescale dace Permanent spring seeps, usually at the No-occurrence Phoxinus neogaeus extreme headwaters of small streams Flathead chub Big Horn, Tongue, Powder, Little Powder, No-occurrence Platygobio gracilis Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne river systems INSECTS

Susan’s purse making caddisfly Wetlands. Does not occur on the MBNF No-occurrence Ochrotrichia susanae Ottoe skipper Tall-grass prairie. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Hesperia ottoe MBNF Hudsonian emerald Boggy ponds No-habitat association Somatochlora hudsonica regal fritillary Tall-grass prairie. Does not occur on the No-occurrence Speyeria idalia MBNF Nokomis fritillary butterfly Wetlands. Known range south and west of No-habitat association Speyeria nokomis nokomis Wyoming *AL-alpine, AS-aspen, FM-forest meadow, LPP-lodgepole pine, SS-sagebrush shrub, MS-mountain shrub, PP- ponderosa pine, RIP-riparian, RO-rock/cliff/cave, SF-spruce-fir, WET-wetland

Table 19 depicts plant species designated as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species within Region 2 of the Forest Service. Relevance to sagesteppe conservation on the MBNF assessed on the basis of species habitat association or the likelihood that species occurs on the MBNF. Species known within the Pole Mountain unit excluded due to lack of designated core sage habitats. Assessment further narrowed to include only those species known or suspected to occur within the Laramie, Sierra Madre, and Snowy Range Mountain Units of the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-101

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 19: Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species - MBNF

Species Habitat Relevance

Aquilegia laramiensis Crevices in north facing granite boulders, No-habitat association Laramie columbine 6,250-8,000 ft Astragalus leptaleus Willow carrs/ Sedge-grass transition to No-habitat association park milkvetch shrub. 8,800 ft. Botrychium lineare Grass, stream, forest edges, also upland No-habitat association narrowleaf moonwort habitats, 0 ft -10,500 ft. Carex diandra Peatland-fens, pond edge, 6,100 to 8,600 ft. No-habitat association lesser panicled sedge Carex livida Floating mats, bogs, fens, and marls with No-habitat association livid sedge Carex, hummocks, 9,000 to 10,000 ft. Cypripedium parviflorum Mossy woods, streams and bogs, 4,000 to No-habitat association lesser yellow lady’s slipper 6,400 (10,000) ft. Draba exunguiculata Alpine fell fields, No-habitat association Clawless draba (Gray’s peak draba) 10,000 ft+ Draba grayana Alpine fell fields, No-habitat association Gray’s draba 10,000 ft+ Drosera rotundifolia Acid fens, float mats, bogs, No-habitat association roundleaf sundew 9,100 to 9,800 ft. Eleocharis elliptica Thermal seeps/ springs, stock ponds, No-habitat association Elliptic spike rush (boreal spike rush) 6,200 to 7,250 ft (9,100 ft). Eriogonum exilifolium Semi bare sandy bunchgrass communities, dropleaf (slender leaved) buckwheat seleniferous gumbo, 6,900 to 8,800 ft. Yes, relevant to analyses Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Fens, No-habitat association whitebristle cottongrass 9,500-14,000 ft Eriophorum gracile Sedge meadows, floating bogs saturated No-habitat association slender cottongrass soil to shallow water, 6,900 to 10,500 ft Festuca hallii Sloped montane meadows, edges open No-habitat association plains rough fescue (Hall’s fescue) conifer 6,800 to 11,000 ft. Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi Openings in conifer forest slopes, ridges No-habitat association scarlet gilia (Rabbit Ears gilia) 7,200 to 8,300 ft WY Flooded marl wetlands with Carex Kobresia simpliciuscula simulata No-habitat association simple bog sedge (Kobresia) 6,000 ft. WY Machaeranthera coloradoensis Gravelly places in Mtn parks, dry tundra, No-habitat association var. coloradensis Colorado tansyaster sandstone / limestone, 8,400-8,500 ft Mimulus gemmiparus Granitic seeps, slopes and alluvium in open No-habitat association Rocky Mountain monkeyflower sites w/ SF and aspen , 8,500 to 10,500 ft. Parnassia kotzebuei Moist seeps, wet tundra on thin clay soil, No-habitat association Kotzebue’s grass of Parnassu moist ledges .10,000 to 12,000 ft Penstemon harringtonii Open sagebrush moderate slopes No-occurrence Harrington’s beardtongue calcareous soils, 6,800 to 9,200 ft

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-102

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 19: Cont’d Species Habitat Relevance

Potentilla rupincola Mountain gravel soils or shelves /niches rock cinquefoil (front range No-habitat association cliffs-often granite, 6,900 to 10,500 ft. cinquefoil) Ranunculus karelinii Ridges, peaks, in rocks and scree, low- No-habitat association ice cold buttercup lying snow banks 10,000-14,100 ft Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Dense canopy in lodgepole, spruce-fir w/ No-habitat association dwarf raspberry (nagoon berry) Linnaea borealis , 7,000 to 10,000 ft. Salix candida Cool, boreal forests and prairies in remnant No-habitat association sageleaf willow (hoary willow) fen and seeps, 6,600 to 10,600 ft Salix serissima Calcareous fen meadow, No-habitat association autumn willow 7,800-9,300 ft. Selaginella selaginoides Mossy banks, wet meadows, marsh wet No-habitat association Club spikemoss (northern spikemoss) spruce forests, 7,700 to 8,000 (9,500) ft

Sphagnum angustifolium Fens, acid fens, floating vegetation mats. 7,000-12,000 ft No-habitat association sphagnum

Sphagnum balticum Iron fens, wetter areas of ombrotrophic No-habitat association Baltic sphagnum bogs 7,000-12,000 ft

Triteleia grandiflora Grassy areas in sagebrush at edge of aspen, lodgepole to 8,400 ft WY Yes, relevant to analyses largeflower triteleia

Utricularia minor Shallow fens, wetland, subalpine ponds, No-habitat association lesser bladderpod 6,600 to 8,600 ft.

Viola selkirkii Moist, shaded ravines and cold boreal forest 8,500 to 9,100 ft. No-habitat association Selkirk’s violet

**Ladyman, J.A.R. (2007). Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/triteleiagrandiflora.pdf [April 19, 2012].

Though habitat for Triteleia grandiflora may occur on the MBNF, this species is known only from within the Yellowstone Ecosystem in northwest Wyoming. One record dating from 1929 cites the occurrence of this species on the MBNF (Ladyman 2007). Penstemon harringtonii, though associated with age habitats, is known only from Colorado.

Management Indicator Species

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) forms the foundation for the designation and monitoring of Management Indicator Species (MIS) as a component of Forest Service

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-103

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

land and resource management planning. Implementing regulations are provided at 36 CFR 219.19, and in Forest Service Manual 2600.

The Forest Service Manual defines Management Indicator Species as "…plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent" (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]-Forest Service 1991). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that MIS be selected as part of the forest plan to estimate the effects of planning alternatives on fish and wildlife populations (USDA 2003). So, MIS are used as barometers to evaluate the effects of Forest management on wildlife within the Forest.

Management Indicator Species selected in the 2003 Revision of the MBNF Land and Resource Management Plan were chosen for their ability to “resolve uncertainty about management effects” with an emphasis on management issues (USDA 2003, p. H-2).

All management indicator species are known to occur across the MBNF; relevance to sage and sagesteppe conservation on the MBNF was assessed on the basis of species habitat association on the MBNF are depicted in the table below.

Table 20: Management Indicator Species - MBNF Species Indicator of: Habitat Relevance Snowshoe hare Adequacy of habitat to Conifer habitats with No-habitat association Lepus americana support prey for predators dense understory American marten Landscape fragmentation Spruce-fir, Lodgepole No-habitat association Martes americana and coarse woody debris Pine forest types Northern goshawk Late seral lodgepole and Aspen, Lodgepole pine No-habitat association Accipiter gentiles aspen forest types Golden-crowned kinglet Fragmentation within a Spruce-fir, Lodgepole No-habitat association Regulus satrapa forest stand Pine forest types Three-toed woodpecker Snags, old forest, recent Spruce-fir, Lodgepole No-habitat association Picoides tridactylus forest burns pine forest types Lincoln’s sparrow Riparian zone, herbivory in Riparian vegetation No-habitat association Melospiza lincolnii willow community Wilson’s warbler Riparian zone, herbivory in Riparian vegetation No-habitat association Wilsonia pusilla willow community

Common trout Water quality Coldwater streams No-habitat association

The MBNF lacks any substantial area of sage or sagesteppe habitats. In aggregate, core sage-grouse habitats comprise less than 0.4 percent of NFS lands on the MBNF. Given the minimal acreage of this habitat type on the Forest, and the distribution of these habitats in isolated parcels, sage and sagesteppe habitats did not warrant consideration in terms of identification of management indicator species during revision of the 2003 MBNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Consequently, none of the designated Management Indicator Species on the MBNF provide any utility in terms of tracking any subsequent implementation of sage-grouse conservation measures.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-104

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a number of issues of primary concern relative to the range-wide decline of the Greater sage-grouse (75 FR 13910-14014). Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation likely pose the most substantial threat to the species. Actions to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems could improve conditions for associated sensitive species by restricting or regulating:

the extent of anthropogenic disturbance within sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials, the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Conversely, restriction of water development and the use of prescribed fire could negatively impact sensitive species.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration could improve habitat for sensitive species. These activities could include: reclamation of roads, trails, and other disturbed areas; dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces; native grass and plant seeding; removal of areas seeded with perennial grasses; transplanting sagebrush; reduction of predator perches; burial of power lines; requirements for fencing and netting of mineral sumps, pits, or tanks; land exchanges or land acquisitions; treatment of invasive species; clustered and unitized development on mineral leases; fuel treatments to reduce the threat of wildfire; and, pond or reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus.

The MBNF lacks those sources of disturbance or fragmentation associated with mineral, fluid mineral, or renewable energy development. In general, those issues consistent with the 2010 finding that may typically influence the availability or quality of sage habitats on the MBNF are primarily limited to managed grazing, wildland fire, and the use of prescribed fire. The limited extent of core habitats on the MBNF further indicates the minimal contribution the Forest is likely to make with respect to the range-wide conservation of the Greater sage-grouse.

2.11.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The Bridger-Teton is a 3.4 million acre National Forest located within portions of Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette and Teton Counties in Northwest Wyoming. The Forest includes five primary mountain ranges, including the Gros Ventre, Snake River, Salt River, Wyoming and Wind River mountain ranges. The Forest is sub-divided into six management units that include the Buffalo, Jackson, Greys River, Kemmerer, Big Piney, and Pinedale Ranger Districts.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-105

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Approximately 66 percent of the Forest is comprised of coniferous and deciduous (aspen) community types; the remainder consists of grassland, willow, mountain shrub and sage shrub community types along with rock and lakes. The primary coniferous types are subalpine fir/spruce and lodgepole pine. Of the 430,865 acres of sage shrub community types on the Forest (about 12.4% of the total BTNF area), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate ssp. tridentate) is most common, comprising 88 percent of all sagebrush community types on the Forest.

Core and general sage-grouse habitat has been mapped on the BTNF by the State of Wyoming (WY- EO-2011-5). Additional occupied sage-grouse habitats (not within those core and general sage-grouse areas mapped and designated by the State) have also been identified and mapped by the Upper Snake River Basin Local Working Group and BTNF personnel based on observation data. The table below summarizes mapped habitats by category and Ranger District; Map 2 in Section 1.1 spatially displays locations of mapped habitats on the Forest. Currently, there are 2 active and 1 satellite lek(s) known to occur on the Forest; one active and one satellite lek is located on the Jackson Ranger District within General Habitat and one active lek is located on the Big Piney Ranger District within BT Occupied Habitat; no known lek sites on the BTNF are located within Core Habitat.

Table 21: Mapped Greater sage-grouse Habitat Acres by Category - BTNF Sagebrush Sagebrush Core Habitat General Habitat BT Occupied Total Acres of Community Community Acres * on the Acres* on the Habitat Acres* Mapped Sage Type Acres* Type Acres* Unit BT BT (Outside Core Grouse (Within (Within BT (WY-EO-2011- (WY-EO-2011- and General) Habitat* General Habitat) 5) 5) Habitat) Buffalo Ranger District 220 33,068 0 33,288 - - Jackson Ranger District 2697 144,231 5,586 152,514 - - Greys River Ranger District 0 1,855 2,923 4,778 - - Kemmerer Ranger District 0 7,723 0 7,723 - - Big Piney Ranger District 0 34,240 12,738 46,978 - - Pinedale Ranger District 3076 40,899 39,337 83,312 - -

76,600 (29% 41,300 (68% Total Acres 5,933 262,018 60,584 328,535 of mapped of mapped habitat = habitat = sagebrush) sagebrush)

* Excludes PVT lands within proclaimed USFS boundaries.

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided the most current and up to date list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species known or suspected to occur on the BTNF on October 26, 2011; a copy of the letter and updated list from the USFWS to the BTNF Supervisor is located – the list is on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Jackson, WY. The table below summarizes

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-106

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

those species identified by the USFWS that are known or suspected to occur on the BTNF and their potential to occur within designated sage-grouse habitats on the Forest. Endangered Species Act Status terms referenced in the table are defined below: Endangered species: Species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species: Species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Experimental/Nonessential populations: Distinct populations that have protections as provided for experimental populations in section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. Candidate species: A species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. The Candidate designations are utilized by the USFWS when it determines that the species is warranted for listing under the ESA, but the development of a proposed listing rule has been precluded by other higher priority listing actions. Table 22: Threatened, Endangered, Experimental, and Candidate Species - BTNF Species and/or Species Habitat present within Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations Species/Status Designated SG Habitat with Sage Grouse Species Habitat This rare fish species is only known to occur in Kendall Warm Kendall Warm Springs located within the Upper Green River drainage on the Springs Dace Pinedale Ranger District. Kendall Warm Springs is located (Rhinichthys osculus Yes Yes within General Sage Grouse Habitat mapped by the State of thermalis) Wyoming, and the springs are surrounded by sagebrush Endangered Fish community types. There is a positive association with sage- grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. Canada lynx prefer forest types associated with spruce and subalpine fir coniferous forest types of mixed age and Canada lynx structural classes. Lynx habitat on the BTNF has been mapped (Lynx Canadensis) Possible No per guidance in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Threatened Species Direction (NRLMD), but mapped lynx habitats do not include sagebrush community types. No habitat association with sage- grouse. Critical habitat for the Canada lynx (50 CFR 17.95(a)) has been designated by the USFWS for portions of Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton Counties on the BTNF. Critical Canada lynx habitat boundaries include Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) in Critical Habitat NA Yes their entirety, and include all community types within LAU

boundaries (including sagebrush community types). However, sagebrush types do not provide preferred habitats for lynx; therefore, there is no habitat association with sage-grouse. Wolves are dependent on movements of big game populations Gray Wolf and may occur in large ungulate migration, wintering, or (Canis lupus) Probable Yes parturition areas that include sagebrush habitats. There is a Experimental/Non- positive association with sage-grouse habitat, and this species essential is relevant to the assessment. Grizzlies are partially dependent on movements of big game Grizzly Bear populations and may occur in large ungulate migration, (Ursus arctos Probable Yes wintering, or parturition areas that include sagebrush habitats. horribilis) There is a positive association with sage-grouse habitat, and Threatened Species this species is relevant to the assessment.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-107

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 22: Cont’d Greater Sage-grouse Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by (Centrocercus sagebrush and a diverse native grass and forb (flowering Probable Yes urophasianus) herbaceous plants) understory. Providing habitat for this Candidate Species species is the focus of this assessment Wolverines occur within a wide variety of forest types, but North American prefer higher elevation alpine and boreal forest community Wolverine types. Although this species has been observed on occasion Possible No (Gulo gulo luscus) searching for carrion within shrub steppe community types Candidate Species at lower elevations, there is little potential for habitat associations with GSG. In Wyoming, the yellow-billed cuckoo is dependent on large Yellow-billed Cuckoo Not areas of woody, riparian vegetation that combine a dense (Coccyzus americanus) No Suspected shrubby understory for nesting and a cottonwood over-story Candidate Species for foraging. There is no habitat association with GSG Sensitive Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Species Sensitive species are those species for which population viability is a concern. They are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588) and are administratively designated by the Intermountain Region’s Regional Forester. The most recent sensitive species list was updated by Regional Forester on July 27, 2011. Those sensitive species known and/or suspected on the BTNF (as designated by the Intermountain Regional Forester) are summarized in the 23 below, along with their potential to occur within designated sage-grouse habitats on the Forest. Table 23: Affected Environment and Relevancy Table for Sensitive Species - BTNF Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage Grouse Species / Habitat Birds This species requires nesting trees/platforms near large rivers or lakes and available fish and water bird species prey. Bald eagles Bald eagle are known to forage and nest along the Snake River, Green River (Haliaeetus Possible No and Large Lakes in the Wind River Range immediately adjacent leucocephalus) to mapped sage-grouse habitat. However, There is little potential for habitat associations with GSG Nesting requirements include vertical cliff habitat with large potholes or ledges that are inaccessible to land predators and are preferentially located near habitat that has a high avian prey population such as wetlands, large bodies of water, or rivers. American Peregrine Yes Cliff nesting/roosting habitat is not known to occur near or Falcon Probable (Hunting within mapped sage-grouse habitats, but individuals are known (Falco peregrinus Habitat) to hunt along the forest/shrub steppe interface where sage-grouse anatum) potentially occur (especially along the Wyoming Range East Front on the Big Piney and Kemmerer Ranger Districts. Thus, there is potential for positive associations with sage-grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. This species inhabits large expanses of contiguous forests that Boreal Owl Not are typically structurally complex Engelmann spruce/subalpine No (Aegolius funereus) Suspected fir forest types. There is no potential for habitat associations with GSG.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-108

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 23: Cont’d Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage Grouse Species / Habitat Birds This species prefers dense coniferous forest types that are most usually associated with mature or old growth Douglas fir forest Great Gray Owl Not No for nesting; great gray owls forage primarily in wet montane (Strix nebulosa) Suspected meadows. There is no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. This species is most commonly associated with ponderosa pine forests, but is sometimes found in Douglas fir stands mixed with Flammulated owl Not No aspen. Flammulated owls prefer to forage in open and semi-open (Otus flammeolus) Suspected forest, small grass openings, and the edges of meadows. There is no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. This species is known to occur within a variety of habitats on the BTNF, including mixed conifer forests of lodgepole pine, Three-toed Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir (Wyoming Woodpecker Probable Yes Partners in Flight 2003). Coniferous forests with large numbers (Picoides tridactylus) of recently killed trees provide the best habitat for this species. There is no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. Suitable habitat includes very low gradient streams with dense Harlequin duck Not shrubs, braided channels, swift currents, and water with (Histronicus No Suspected abundant aquatic insects. There is no potential for habitat histronicus) associations with sage-grouse. Swans nest on a wide variety of freshwater ponds, lakes and Trumpeter Swan Not (occasionally) rivers; they prefer areas with abundant and No (Cyngnus buccinator) Suspected diverse communities of aquatic plants. There is no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. This species prefers mature forests with large trees, relatively closed canopies, and open understories for nesting; nest stands are most usually 30 to 40 acres in size. Foraging areas often Yes Northern Goshawk include forests with a high density of large trees interspersed Possible (Hunting (Accipiter gentilis) with shrublands and openings that provide a variety of prey Habitat) species for goshawk that include birds and small mammals. Thus, there is potential for positive associations with sage-grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. Breeding habitat for loons includes secluded, clear-water lakes more than 10 acres in size located between 6-8,000ft elevation. Common loon Not No Lake depths that exceed 6 feet and provide high fish populations (Gavia immer) Suspected are essential. There is no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. The mountain plover is unique to the short-grass prairie Mountain Plover Not No environment. There is no potential for habitat associations with (Charadrius montanus) Suspected sage-grouse. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by Greater Sage-grouse sagebrush and a diverse native grass and forb (flowering (Centrocercus Probable Yes herbaceous plants) understory. Providing habitat for this species urophasianus) is the focus of this assessment. .In Wyoming, the yellow-billed cuckoo is dependent on large Yellow-billed Cuckoo Not areas of woody, riparian vegetation that combine a dense No (Coccyzus americanus) Suspected shrubby understory for nesting and a cottonwood over-story for foraging. There is no habitat association with sage-grouse.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-109

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 23: Cont’d Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage Grouse Species / Habitat Mammals This species prefers high elevation alpine habitats with steep Bighorn Sheep escape terrain adjacent to open foraging areas during summer Not (Ovis canadensis No months; bighorn sheep usually winter within mountain meadows Suspected canadensis) at lower elevations within their home ranges. There is no habitat association with sage-grouse. This species prefers extensive, mature to old-growth spruce-fir Fisher Not No forests with high levels of canopy closure. There is no habitat (Martes pennanti) Suspected association with sage-grouse. Wolverines occur within a wide variety of forest types, but prefer higher elevation alpine and boreal forest community North American Not types. Although this species has been observed on occasion Wolverine No Suspected searching for carrion within shrub steppe community types at (Gulo gulo luscus) lower elevations, there is little potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. The spotted bat occupies a wide variety of habitats, from desert scrub to coniferous forest, although it is most often observed in low deserts and basins and juniper woodlands .It often occurs in association with canyons, prominent rock features, and permanent water sources. In montane habitats, it forages over meadows, along forest edges, or in open coniferous woodlands. Spotted Bat Not The spotted bat roosts in cracks and crevices in high cliffs and No (Euderma maculatum) Suspected canyons. It also may occasionally roost in buildings, caves, or abandoned mines. However, all recorded occurrences of spotted bats in Wyoming were associated with canyons containing cracks and fissures, high bare rock walls, and rock ridges close to a permanent water source (Hester and Grenier, 2005). Such habitats are not known to occur within the project area, and there is little potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, but its distribution is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and abandoned mines for roost sites. This species requires Townsend’s Western caves or abandoned mines during all stages of its life cycle, Big-eared Bat Not including maternity roosts, day and night roosts, reproduction, No (Corynorhinus Suspected and hibernacula. It usually occurs between 3675 and 8300 ft.) in townsendii townsendii) Wyoming (Hester and Grenier, 2005). Caves and abandoned mines that provide habitat for this species are not known to occur within the project area, and there is little potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. Amphibians In Wyoming, the Columbia spotted frog has been found in Bighorn, Sheridan, Johnson, Teton, Sublette, Fremont and Lincoln counties in sub-alpine forests, grasslands and sagebrush Probable habitats at elevations from 1,700 feet to 6,400 feet. Columbia Columbia Spotted Frog Yes spotted frogs remain close to water during the breeding season, (Rana luteiuentris) but may wander far from it afterwards to feed on earthworms,

mollusks, and crustaceans. Breeding sites and adjacent foraging areas are known to occur within sagebrush community types and sage-grouse habitats on the Forest; there is a positive

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-110

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 23: Cont’d Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage Grouse Species / Habitat Fish association with sage-grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. Boreal toads occupy montane forest habitats between 7,000’ and 12,000’ elevation. Breeding occurs in ponds, slow streams, river backwater channels and along lake edges. Adults are primarily Boreal Toad Probable No terrestrial and have been observed in a great variety of habitats (Bufo boreas boreas) on the Forest, including sagebrush community types and sage- grouse habitats. There is a positive association with sage-grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. Bonneville Cutthroat The Bonneville cutthroat trout is native to Wyoming in the Salt Trout Probable Creek and Smith Fork drainages of the Bear River system on the Kemmerer Ranger District, but there is little potential for habitat No (Oncorhynchus clarki associations with sage-grouse. utah)

Colorado River The Colorado River cutthroat trout is native to Wyoming in the Cutthroat Trout Green River drainage of the Colorado River system and this Probable No species is known to occur within the Green River and its (Oncorhynchus clarki tributaries. However, there is little potential for habitat pleuriticus) associations with sage-grouse. Northern Leatherside The species is native to Wyoming in the Bear Creek and Snake River drainages on the Kemmerer, Greys River and Jackson Probable No (Lepidomeda copei) Ranger Districts, but there is little potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse. Yellowstone/Snake The Yellowstone cutthroat trout is native to the Yellowstone and River fine-spotted Snake River systems on the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger cutthroat Districts, but there is little potential for habitat associations with Probable No sage-grouse. (Oncorhynchus clarki spp)

Plants Pink agoseris The wet meadow habitat of pink agoseris does not have a sagebrush component and as such the habitat for pink agoseris No No Agoseris lackschewitzii does not overlap with that of sage-grouse.

Sweet-flowered rock The preferred habitat of sweet-flowered rock jasmine is on jasmine exposed settings of rocky ridge crests, slopes with rock outcrops and thin soils of limestone or dolomite substrate at 8,500 to Androsace 10,800 feet elevation. These areas generally do not have a chamaejasme ssp. No No sagebrush component and as such the habitat of sweet-flowered rock jasmine does not overlap with that of sage-grouse. carinata

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-111

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 23: Cont’d Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage-grouse Species / Habitat Plants This species is found in moist, often alkaline meadows and Meadow milkvetch swales in sagebrush valleys at 4,400 to 6,300 feet elevation often described as a playa vegetation type. Recorded from one Yes historical site in Green River basin in 1834. This species has not Astragalus diversifolius Yes (historical) been found on the BTNF since. The conservation measures var. diversifolius associated with sage-grouse are likely to have a positive association with meadow milkvetch because its habitat will be protected and proliferated. Starveling milkvetch This species is found on dry barren ridges and bluffs of shale and stone, clay or cobblestones at 6,000 to 7,100 feet elevation. Astragalus jejunus var. No No Because sagebrush is not a component of this habitat type there jejunus is no overlap between the habitats of sage-grouse and starveling milkvetch This species occurs primarily in disturbed areas on sandy soils that have a low cover of forbs and grasses at elevations of 5,850 to 9,600 feet which often occur as a mosaic component of sage Payson's milkvetch shrublands. The conservation measures for sage-grouse are Yes Yes likely to have a negative interaction with Payson’s milkvetch. Astragalus paysonii Payson’s milkvetch is disturbance adapted and the conservation measures for sage-grouse are likely to limit the ability to create habitat for Payson’s milkvetch. This species occurs primarily in alpine and subalpine moist Seaside sedge tundra and wet rock ledges 10,000 to 12,200 elevation. No No Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat type. As such, there Carex incurviformis is no overlap between the habitat of seaside sedge and sage- grouse. Black and purple sedge This species is found in subalpine wet meadows and stream sides at 10,000 to 10,600 feet elevations. Sagebrush is not a Carex luzulina var. No No component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap atropurpurea between the habitat of black and purple sedge and sage-grouse.

Wyoming tansymustard is restricted to the southern Absaroka Range and the Rock Springs Uplift. Habitat is sandy soil at the Wyoming tansymustard base of cliffs composed of volcanic breccia or sandstone, under No No slight overhangs, in cavities in the volcanic rock, or on ledges. It Descurainia torulosa is found at elevations of 7,700 to 10,500 feet. Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of Wyoming tansymustard and sage-grouse. Rockcress draba is found in moist, gravelly alpine meadows and Rockcress draba talus slopes, often on limestone-derived soils. Found from 8,100 No No to 12,400 feet. Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat type. Draba globosa As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of rockcress draba and sage-grouse. Narrowleaf goldenweed This species is typically found in semi-barren, whitish clay flats and slopes, gravel bars, and sandy lakeshores at elevations of Ericameria discoidea No No 7,700 to 10,300 feet. Sagebrush is not a component of this var. linearis habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of narrowleaf goldenweed and sage-grouse.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-112

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 23: Cont’d Species or habitat Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat Associations present in project area Species with Sage-grouse Species / Habitat Plants Woolly daisy This species is found on alpine or subalpine limestone talus slopes at 11,000 feet elevation. Sagebrush is not a component of No No Erigeron lanatus this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of woolly daisy and sage-grouse. This species is endemic to the carbonate mountain ranges of west-central Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern Montana. It is found on rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, often calcareous substrates at elevations of 5,500 to 10,600 feet. The wide elevation range of this species means that it has a possible association with sage-grouse habitat. The conservation measures Payson's bladderpod associated with sage-grouse could have a negative (although Possible Possible slight) effect on Payson’s bladder pod. The sparse vegetation Lesquerella paysonii type where Payson’s bladderpod grows could become closed in with conservation measures associated with sage-grouse conservation. However, Payson’s bladderpod is not disturbance adapted and is a late-successional species in areas which are naturally sparsely vegetated which are created by processes outside the realm of sage-grouse conservation measures (usually geologic processes). Naked-stemmed parrya This species is found on alpine talus, often on limestone substrates at 10,700 to 11,400 feet elevation. Sagebrush is not a No No Parrya nudicaulis component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of naked-stemmed parrya and sage-grouse. Creeping twinpod Found on barren, rocky, calcareous hills and slopes at 6,500 to 8,600 feet elevation. Sagebrush is not a component of this Physaria integrifolia No No habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of var. monticola creeping twinpod and sage-grouse.

Greenland primrose This species is found in wet meadows along streams and calcareous montane bogs from 6600 to 8000 ft. Sagebrush is not No No Primula egalikensis a component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of Greenland primrose and sage-grouse. Weber's saussurea Restricted to the Gros Ventre and northern Wind River ranges Habitat is on alpine talus slopes and gravel fields at 9,600 to No No Saussurea weberi 11,500 feet. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of Weber’s saussurea and sage-grouse. In Wyoming, this species has been found in the Big Horn Mountains and Hoback Canyon. It prefers sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 8,500 feet Soft aster elevation. The identification of the Hoback Canyon occurrence Yes Yes has been questioned, but the issue is unresolved. As such, the Symphyotrichum molle presence of soft aster is acknowledged for the project area. The conservation measures for sage-grouse will have a beneficial interaction with soft aster because its habitat will be protected and proliferated.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-113

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Bridger-Teton National Forest Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are identified in the BTNF Plan, and are those species whose population changes are believed to reflect the effects of land management activities. MIS include harvested species, ecological indicator species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, and federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species. Four additional ecological indicators were recently identified by the Forest including: bighorn sheep for mountain meadow, boreal toad/boreal chorus frog for wetlands, quaking aspen for aspen, and cutthroat trout for riparian habitats. The potential for MIS species and/or their habitats to occur within sage-grouse habitats and the potential for habitat associations with Sage Grouse are described in Table 24 below. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species that are also MIS are indicated in the table. Table 24: Affected Environment and Relevancy Table for MIS - BTNF Species or habitat present in project area Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat

Species Associations with Sage-grouse Species Habitat Birds The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is Bald Eagle addressed in Table 23. Possible No

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Peregrine Falcon Yes The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is Probable (Hunting addressed in Table 23. (Falco peregrinus anatum) Habitat) This species was extirpated from the Rocky Mountains Whooping Crane and does not occur on the BTNF, and there is no potential No Yes for habitat associations with sage-grouse (Grus Americana) The species prefers lower elevation sagebrush shrublands., Brewer’s sparrow and there is a positive association with sage-grouse Known Yes habitat; this species is relevant to the assessment and (Spizella breweri) positive benefits are anticipated. Mammals Bighorn Sheep The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is addressed in Table 23. Known Yes (Ovis canadensis canadensis) Grizzly Bear This species is listed as a Threatened Species and is Known Yes addressed in Table 22. (Ursos arctos horribilus) Elk are habitat generalists that summer throughout the Elk BTNF and winter at and below the lowest elevations on Known Yes the BTNF. Habitat for elk overlaps with sage-grouse (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) habitat and there is a positive association with sagebrush vegetation types; this species is relevant to the assessment. Mule deer are habitat generalists that summer throughout the BTNF and winter at and below the lowest elevations Mule Deer on the BTNF. Habitat for mule deer overlaps with sage- Known Yes grouse habitat and there is a positive association with (Odecoileus hemionus) sagebrush vegetation types; this species is relevant to the assessment. Moose Moose summer throughout the BTNF, and prefer willow Known Yes complexes at lower elevations during winter; willow (Alces alces shirasi) complexes can occur in association with sagebrush

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-114

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 24: Cont’d Species or habitat present in project area Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat

Species Associations with Sage-grouse Species Habitat Mammals vegetation types. Thus, habitat for moose can overlap . with sage-grouse habitat; this species is relevant to the assessment. This species prefers lower elevation sagebrush and grassland habitats, and summers within these types on the Pronghorn Antelope Bridger-Teton Habitat for antelope overlaps with sage- Known Yes grouse habitat and there is a positive association with (Antilocarpa americana) sagebrush vegetation types; this species is relevant to the assessment.

This species primarily inhabits old-growth coniferous forest dominated by spruce/fir with well-developed understories and abundant coarse woody debris. There is American Marten no potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse.

Suspected Yes (Martes americana origines)

Amphibians Boreal Toad The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is Known Yes addressed in Table 23. (Bufo boreas boreas) This species inhabits small streams and non-flowing bodies of water, such as marshes, ponds, and small lakes. When not breeding, they are generally found in damp Boreal Chorus Frog grassy/marshy areas or damp forests near water, but have Known Yes also been found up to 0.5 km from water. Because (Pseudacris triseriata) breeding sites are known to occur adjacent to sagebrush vegetation types, there is a positive association with sage- grouse habitat, and this species is relevant to the assessment. Fish Bonneville cutthroat trout The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is addressed in Table 23. Probable No (Oncorhynchus clarki Utah) The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is Colorado River cutthroat addressed in Table 23.

Probable No (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) Rainbow trout are a non-native trout species, but were Rainbow trout historically stocked in many lakes and streams on the Probable No BTNF. This species likely occurs within some streams (Oncorhynchus mykiss) adjacent to sagebrush vegetation types; however, there is little potential for habitat associations with sage-grouse.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-115

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 24: Cont’d Species or habitat present in project area Habitat, Comments, and Relevancy to Habitat

Species Associations with Sage-grouse Species Habitat Fish The species is also a listed Sensitive Species and is Yellowstone/Snake River addressed in Table 23. fine-spotted cutthroat Probable No

(Oncorhynchus clarki spp.) Plants Distribution of Schultz’s milkvetch is centered in Wyoming in the Teton, Salt and Wind River ranges. It is Shultz’s milkvetch found primarily in subalpine forb communities on shallow, No No rocky, calcareous soils at elevations of 8,800 to 11,500 (Astragalus shultziorum) feet. Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of sage- grouse and Shultz’s milkvetch. Known in Wyoming from the southwestern Absaroka, western Wind River, Gros Ventre, Salt and Wyoming ranges, Jackson Hole and the Yellowstone Plateau. North- Boreal draba facing limestone, dolomite or volcanic slopes, cliffs and No No riparian areas from 6200-8500. Sagebrush is not a (Draba borealis) component of this habitat type. As such, there is no overlap between the habitat of boreal draba and sage- grouse. In lower elevations aspen forms a mosaic with sagebrush habitat types (among other habitat types) in Wyoming. The sage-grouse conservation measures are likely to have Aspen a negative indirect interaction with aspen regeneration and Yes Yes management to some degree. The mosaic pattern of aspen (Populus tremuloides) and sagebrush is likely the result of past disturbances and a cessation of these disturbance processes by conservation measures could have a negative effect to aspen regeneration and recruitment.

Given the primacy of sage steppe habitats to the conservation of GSG, the following discussion of ‘Current Management Practices’ and ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ will be directed toward the identification of current management practices and issues/concerns that may be directly or indirectly related to the conservation of sage steppe habitats that overlap with habitats of threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and/or management indicator species.

Current Management Practices

Federally Listed Species

The primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover identified threatened and endangered species and to provide a means for conserving the ecosystems upon which those species depend. The ESA directs all Federal agencies to participate in conserving these species; specifically, section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and section 7 (a)(2) requires the agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-116

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

As shown in Table 22, the endangered Kendall Warm Springs Dace, threatened grizzly bear and Greater sage-grouse (a candidate species for listing under the ESA) were identified species that have a positive association with sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse habitat. In addition to provisions identified in the ESA to protect federally listed species, the BTNF Plan also includes the following specific standards that provide protection for these species:

Fish, Wildlife, and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Standard - Range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help meet the needs of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, especially on key habitat areas such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage-grouse leks, and nesting sites. Kendall Warm Springs Dace Management Standard – the existing population and habitat of the Kendall Warm Springs dace will be maintained and enhanced. Grizzly Bear Habitat Management Standard – Within Grizzly Bear Management Situation 1 and 2, existing and future Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines will be followed to maintain and improve habitat. Allotment Management Plan Standard – Fisheries, riparian habitats, and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species’ needs will be addressed in allotment management plans. Forage Improvement Standard – Range in less-than-satisfactory condition will be improved. Disturbed areas will be stabilized or regenerated prior to resuming grazing use. Noxious Weeds Control Standard – Effective management of noxious weeds will be accomplished by cooperating with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and County weed control districts, using Integrated Pest Management techniques, following the procedures outlined in the Bridger-Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides. No toxic chemicals will be applied in a manner that will adversely affect non- target species.

Sensitive Species

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). 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: 1) significant current, or predicted, downward trend in population numbers or density; or 2) 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."

As shown in Table 23, the American peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, Columbia spotted frog, boreal toad, meadow milkvetch, Payson’s milkvetch, Payson’s bladderpod and soft aster were identified species that have a positive association with sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse habitat. The BTNF Plan includes the following specific sagebrush related standards that provide protection for these species:

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-117

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Forage Improvement Standard – Range in less-than-satisfactory condition will be improved. Disturbed areas will be stabilized or regenerated prior to resuming grazing use. Noxious Weeds Control Standard – Effective management of noxious weeds will be accomplished by cooperating with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and County weed control districts, using Integrated Pest Management techniques, following the procedures outlined in the Bridger-Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides. No toxic chemicals will be applied in a manner that will adversely affect non-target species. Peregrine Falcon Disturbance Standard – Land use practices or development which eliminate peregrine falcon habitat within 1.0 mile of occupied or suitable-but-unoccupied cliffs within a recovery area will not be allowed. Research or management activities necessary for adequate protection of peregrine falcon habitat will only be allowed under close supervision of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Peregrine Fund, and the BTNF (incorporated by reference: Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, 1977). Sensitive Species Management Standard (Fisheries and Wildlife) – Quantifiable objectives will be developed to identify and improve the status of Sensitive species and eliminate the need for listing. 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 alternative watering sites out of the riparian area, longer allotment rests, or improved livestock distribution.

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).

As shown in Table 24, Brewer’s sparrow, elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn antelope, boreal chorus frog and aspen were identified management indicator species that have a positive association with sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse habitats. The BTNF Plan includes the following specific sagebrush habitat related standards that provide protection for these species:

Forage Improvement Standard – Range in less-than-satisfactory condition will be improved. Disturbed areas will be stabilized or regenerated prior to resuming grazing use. Noxious Weeds Control Standard – Effective management of noxious weeds will be accomplished by cooperating with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and County weed control districts, using Integrated Pest Management techniques, following the procedures outlined in the Bridger-Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides. No toxic chemicals will be applied in a manner that will adversely affect non-target species. Allotment Planning Standard – All livestock grazing use will be managed under the direction of an allotment management plan. Noxious Weeds Control Standard – Effective management of noxious weeds will be accomplished by cooperating with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and County weed control districts, using Integrated Pest Management techniques, following the procedures outlined in the Bridger-Teton Environmental Assessment for noxious weed control and appropriate technical guides. No toxic chemicals will be applied in a manner that will adversely affect non-target species.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-118

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Pronghorn Antelope Migration Corridor – The Forest Plan was amended in 2008 to include protection measures for a pronghorn migration route in Teton and Sublette Counties in Wyoming. Significant portions of the route occur on the BTNF, extending from the Forest boundary near the Green River Lakes Road north of Pinedale to the Forest boundary with Grand Teton National Park northeast of Kelly. It includes approximately 47,000 acres within the Pinedale and Jackson Ranger Districts of the BTNF, much of which occurs on sagebrush vegetation types, and occupied sage-grouse habitat. The purpose of this amendment to the BTNF Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) is to ensure that projects, activities, and facilities authorized by the Forest Service on National Forest System lands within the corridor allow for continued successful pronghorn migration.

In addition to the specific Forest Plan Standards listed above, the BTNF also identifies several additional resource specific guidelines (pages 121-124) that are intended to provide protection and maintenance of Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species.

Management Issues and Concerns

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Sensitive and Management Indicator Fish and Wildlife Species (TES & MIS)

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems could improve conditions for associated TES and MIS by restricting or regulating:

Conversely, restriction of water development and the use of prescribed fire could negatively impact sensitive species.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration could improve habitat for TES & MIS species. These activities could include: reclamation of roads, trails, and other disturbed areas; dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces; native grass and plant seeding; removal of areas seeded with perennial grasses; transplanting sagebrush; reduction of predator perches; burial of power lines; requirements for fencing and netting of mineral sumps, pits, or tanks; land exchanges or land acquisitions; treatment of invasive species;

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-119

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

clustered and unitized development on mineral leases; fuel treatments to reduce the threat of wildfire; and, pond or reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile virus.

Sensitive and Management Indicator Plant Species

The potential conservation measures for sage-grouse may interact with sensitive and MIS plant species. The cessation of natural and artificial disturbance processes from the implementation of sage-grouse conservation measures would potentially have a negative interaction with the habitat of three species (Payson’s milkvetch, Payson’s bladderpod and aspen) and a potentially positive interaction with the habitat of two species (meadow milkvetch and soft aster). The negative interactions could arise from a lack of disturbance, which would stop the creation of habitat or allow the natural succession of habitat for sensitive and MIS plant species. The positive interactions with sensitive and MIS plant species arise from the protection and proliferation of habitat with sage-grouse conservation measures. The only Candidate plant species on the BTNF, whitebark pine, would have no interaction with the proposed sage-grouse conservation measures, outside that of a general alteration of fire-regime at a landscape scale, but this is an effect common to all species and has no unique bearing on whitebark pine.

2.11.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The TBNG is comprised of over 553,000 acres of NFS lands with intermingled areas of private and state ownership. The administrative boundary of the TBNG encompasses over 1.7 million acres within portions of Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties. Table 25 depicts NFS acreage on the TBNG and designated Greater sage-grouse core habitat acres. Of the over one-half million acres of NFS lands that comprise the TBNG, 217,768 acres (~39%) have been designated as core sage-grouse habitats by the State of Wyoming.

Table 25: NFS Acreage and Designated GSG Core Habitat Acres - TBNG Total Acres General Core Habitat of Sage Unit Habitat Acres Acres Grouse

Habitat Thunder Basin

National 217,768 336,096 553,864 Grassland

The TBNG management plan also designates where and how much habitat will be managed for in high, medium and low structure. These are spelled out within each Geographic Area direction. In this direction it is stated that “A substantial amount of this should be located where it would optimize sage- grouse habitat and associated species.”

With the exceptions of relatively small inclusions such as open pit coal mines, timbered escarpments, and water bodies, all of the TBNG is considered occupied Greater sage-grouse habitat. Of the 553,864 acres of National Grassland surface, 217,768 acres have been designated by the State of Wyoming as core sage-grouse habitat. The remaining acreage on the grassland (336,096 acres) has been designated as general sage-grouse habitat. That is, the entirety of the TNBG is considered to be occupied Greater sage-grouse habitat. Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) comprises the vegetative dominant species on approximately 438,500 acres within the grassland. Other shrublands, including silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), occupy an additional 31,000 acres on the grassland.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-120

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The table below depicts NFS acreage within the primary geographic units on the TBNG and the designated Greater sage-grouse core habitat acres within each of the respective units. Of the over one- half million acres of NFS lands that comprise the TBNG, 217,768 acres (~39%) have been designated as core sage-grouse habitats by the State of Wyoming.

Table 26: Primary Geographic Units and Greater Sage-grouse Core Habitat - TBNG Geographic Area Range of High Structure Sagebrush Broken Hills 55,104 to 62,976 acres Cellers Rosecrans 42,378 to 48,432 acres Fairview Clareton 27,639 to 32,245 acres Hilight Bill 25,195 to 30,234 acres Spring Creek 17,059 to 19,496 acres Upton Osage 11,308 to 12,924 acres Total Range 178,683 to 206,307 acres

Current Management Practices

Federally Listed Species

The Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service previously provided the TBNG with correspondence, dated June 9, 2011, indicating listed species likely to occur within or in proximity to the Grassland (WYESFO 2011b).

The following table identifies species listed under the Endangered Species Act within Region 2 of the Forest Service that may occur within or in proximity to the TBNG. Relevance to sage and sagesteppe conservation on the TBNG was assessed on the basis of species habitat association or the likelihood that species occurs on the TBNG.

Table 27: ESA Species – Relevance to Sage and Sagesteppe Conservation - TBNG Status: Endangered Habitat Relevance PLANTS Penstemon haydenii Sand blowouts, sand ridges associated No-habitat association & (Blowout penstemon) with dune habitats occurrence. Status: Threatened PLANTS Spiranthes diluvialis Moist meadows, stream terraces, Yes, relevant to analyses Ute ladies’-tresses orchid oxbows. Elevations 4300-6850 ft Status: Candidate BIRDS Greater sage-grouse Sage, Sagesteppe Yes, relevant to analyses Centrocercus urophasianus

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-121

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Figure 3: General location of Designated Greater Sage-grouse Core Habitats - TBNG

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-122

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

At present, no listed vertebrates are known to occur on the TBNG. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has previously determined that the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) was not warranted for listing (74 FR 63343). A similar listing decision (76 FR 27756) was reached for the Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus).

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Regional forester’s sensitive species for the TBNG, pertinent to subsequent analyses related to the incorporation of Land and Resource Management Plan measures to conserve the Greater sage-grouse, are identified within Table 28.

Table 28: Region 2 Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species - TBNG Species Habitat* Relevance

BIRDS American bittern No-habitat association & Marshes Botaurus lentiginosus occurrence. Trumpeter swan No-habitat association & Marshes Cygnus buccinator occurrence. Harlequin duck No-habitat association & Mountain rivers, lakes Histrionicus histrionicus occurrence. Bald eagle Lakes, rivers No-habitat association (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Northern goshawk SF, AS, LPP, RIP No-habitat association Accipiter gentiles Ferruginous hawk Yes, relevant to MS, FM, SS, 4500 – 7500 ft elevation Buteo regalis analyses American peregrine falcon RO 50-200ft high, SS near RO, 4500- Yes, relevant to Falco peregrinus anatum 9000 ft elevation analyses Northern harrier Yes, relevant to Grassland, Marsh, SS Circus cyaneus analyses Columbian sharp-tailed grouse MS west of Continental Divide No-occurrence T. phasianellus columbianus Greater prairie-chicken Grasslands No-occurrence Tympanuchus cupido Lesser prairie-chicken (Candidate) Dry grasslands No-occurrence Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Gunnison sage-grouse (Candidate) SS No-occurrence Centrocercus minimus

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-123

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 28: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Greater sage-grouse (Candidate) Yes, relevant to SS Centrocercus urophasianus analyses White-tailed ptarmigan Alpine willow. Currently considered No-habitat association & Lagopus leucurus extirpated occurrence Mountain plover Yes, relevant to Grasslands Charadrius montanus analyses Long-billed curlew Yes, relevant to Grasslands Numenius americanus analyses Black tern Yes, relevant to Wetlands Chlidonias niger analyses Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western race) Cottonwood riparian No- occurrence Coccyzus americanus(Candidate) Burrowing owl Yes, relevant to Grasslands Athene cunicularia analyses Boreal Owl Spruce-fir, Lodgepole pine. No-habitat association Aegolius funereus Flammulated owl AS, PP stands in southern portion of No-habitat association Otus flammeolus Sierra Madres Short-eared owl Yes, relevant to SS, grasslands, marshes Asio flammeus analyses Black swift No-habitat association & Wet cliff faces Cypseloides niger occurrence Lewis’ woodpecker PP. Occurs on the Laramie Peak unit No-habitat association Melanerpes lewis Black-backed woodpecker SF, PP and recently burned conifer No-habitat association Picoides arcticus forest American three-toed woodpecker SF, LPP, AS No-habitat association Picoides tridactylus dorsalis Olive-sided flycatcher SF, LP, WET, FM No-habitat association Contopus borealis Purple martin AS in specific area on west side of No-habitat association Progne subis Continental Divide Loggerhead shrike Yes, relevant to Grassland w/shrubs <8000 ft Lanius ludovicianus analyses Brewer’s sparrow Yes, relevant to SS Spizella breweri analyses Cassin’s sparrow Grasslands. Extreme southeast No- occurrence Aimophila cassini Wyoming Grasshopper sparrow Yes, relevant to Grasslands Ammodramus savannarum analyses Sage sparrow Yes, relevant to SS below 6500 ft Amphispiza bellii analyses McCown’s longspur Yes, relevant to Grasslands Calcarius mccownii analyses

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-124

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 28: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus

MAMMALS Grizzly bear Various habitats in Greater No-occurrence Ursus arctos horribilis Yellowstone Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Shrublands, rock outcrops, alpine. No-occurrence Ovis canadensis canadensis Three herds on MBNF Desert bighorn sheep Shrublands, Rock outcrops, Alpine. No-occurrence Ovis canadensis nelsoni Pygmy shrew Wetland edges in SF above 9000 ft. No-habitat association Sorex hoyi Fringed myotis Forages in PP, oak, shrublands, Yes, relevant to Myotis thysanodes pinyon-juniper analyses Spotted bat Juniper shrub, desert sagebrush Yes, relevant to Euderma maculatum grasslands analyses Townsend’s big-eared bat Summer foraging habitat over live Yes, relevant to Corynorhinus townsendii canopy, shrublands analyses Black-tailed prairie dog Yes, relevant to Grasslands Cynomys ludovicianus analyses White-tailed prairie dog Colony at Six-Mile/Platte River. No-occurrence Cynomys leucurus Gunnison’s prairie dog Dry grasslands at high altitudes. Not No-occurrence Cynomys gunnisoni known on Grassland Wyoming pocket gopher SS, Grassland. Not known on No-occurrence Thomomys clusius Grassland Water vole Alpine, subalpine, and foothills No-occurrence Microtus richardsoni riparian Swift fox Yes, relevant to Grasslands. Vulpes velox analyses Kit fox Grasslands. No-occurrence Vulpes macrotis River otter Rivers No-habitat association Lontra canadensis American marten SF,LPP No-habitat association Martes americana Wolverine SF,AL,LPP,RO No-habitat association Gulo gulo Common hognosed skunk Sparsely timbered or brushy areas. No-occurrence Conepatus leuconotus

REPTILES Massassauga rattlesnake Grasslands. No-occurrence Sistrurus catenatus (Candidate) Black Hills redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata FM in Black Hills. No-occurrence pahasapae

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-125

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 28: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance

MOLLUSCS Rocky Mountain capshell snail Littoral zones of mesotrophic lakes No-habitat association & Acroloxus coloradensis <9400 ft. Known only from CO, MT occurrence Pygmy mountain snail Does not occur on the Forest / No-occurrence Oreohelix pygmaea grassland Cooper’s mountain snail Known only on Black Hills National No-occurrence Oreohelix strigosa cooperi Forest

FISHES Bluehead sucker Large rivers, west slope Colorado No-occurrence Catostomus discobolus Flannelmouth sucker Large rivers, west slope Colorado No-occurrence Catostomus latipinnis Clear, cold creeks, small to medium- Mountain sucker sized rivers with sand, gravel, rubble No-habitat association Catostomus platyrhynchus substrate Rio Grande sucker Endemic to the Rio Grande basin in No-occurrence Catostomus plebeius Colorado. Lake chub Permanent spring flow, usually at the Yes, relevant to Couesius plumbeus headwaters of small streams analyses Rio Grande chub Endemic to Rio Grande basin in No-occurrence Gila pandora Colorado Roundtail chub Only occurs in Colorado River basin No-occurrence Gila robusta Plains minnow Great Plains streams with fluctuating Yes, relevant to Hybognathus placitus stream flows, shifting sand substrates analyses Sturgeon chub Great Plains rivers No-occurrence Macrhybopsis gelida Pearl dace Clear, cold-water streams with some No-habitat association & Margariscus margarita gravel occurrence Hornyhead chub Isolated populations in the Laramie No-occurrence Nocomis biguttatus and North Laramie rivers Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkiii Cold-water streams No-habitat association pleuriticus Rio Grande cutthroat trout No-habitat association & Cold-water streams Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis occurrence Yellowstone cutthroat trout No-habitat association & Cold-water streams Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri occurrence Northern redbelly dace Permanent spring seeps, usually at the Yes, relevant to Phoxinus eos extreme headwaters of small streams analyses Southern redbelly dace Streams and ponds that are clear with Yes, relevant to Phoxinus erythrogaster sand and silt substrates. analyses Finescale dace Permanent spring seeps, usually at the Yes, relevant to Phoxinus neogaeus extreme headwaters of small streams analyses

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-126

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 28: Cont’d Species Habitat* Relevance Big Horn, Tongue, Powder, Little Flathead chub Yes, relevant to Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne Platygobio gracilis analyses river systems AMPHIBIANS Boreal toad Wetlands, less common in densely No-habitat association Anaxyrus boreas boreas forested areas Plains leopard frog Permanent water, including ponds No-occurrence Lithobates blairi along transient streams Columbia spotted frog Only known from Bighorn and No-occurrence Lithobates luteiventris Shoshone NF Northern leopard frog Wide variety aquatic habitats, Yes, relevant to Lithobates pipiens wetlands analyses Sedge, grass meadows, willow Wood frog hummocks, aspen, lodgepole pine No-habitat association Lithobates sylvatica forests, woodlands INSECTS Susan’s purse making caddisfly No-habitat association & Wetlands. Ochrotrichia susanae occurrence Ottoe skipper No-habitat association & Tall-grass prairie Hesperia ottoe occurrence Hudsonian emerald No-habitat association & Boggy ponds Somatochlora hudsonica occurrence Regal fritillary No-habitat association & Tall-grass prairie Speyeria idalia occurrence Nokomis fritillary butterfly Wetlands. Known range south and No-habitat association & Speyeria nokomis nokomis west of Wyoming occurrence

Management Indicator Species

The Forest Service Manual defines Management Indicator Species as "…plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent" (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]-Forest Service 1991). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that MIS be selected as part of the forest plan to estimate the effects of planning alternatives on fish and wildlife populations. So, management indicator species are used as barometers to evaluate the effects of forest management on wildlife within the Forest.

Management Indicator Species selected in the 2002 revision of the TBNG Land and Resource Management Plan include the Greater sage-grouse, the Black-tailed prairie dog and the Plains sharp-tailed grouse. They are systematically monitored over time to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and habitat, and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-127

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Greater Sage-grouse

Habitat Greater sage-grouse have been documented as year- round residents of TBNG. The primary habitat they use is sagebrush shrub-land habitats, with some use of adjacent habitat for movement and minimal foraging. Sagebrush is essential for sage-grouse during all seasons of the year. This relationship is perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush for both food and cover. Quality habitat is described as a sagebrush stand with 6 to 40 percent canopy cover (NE Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2006) of sagebrush and a tall and dense understory of native grasses and forbs. During the spring and summer, succulent forbs and insects become important additional food sources are. Sage grouse require an extensive mosaic dominated by sagebrush of varying densities and heights along with an associated diverse native plant community dominated by high levels of native grasses and forbs (Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2003). The amount of potential sage-grouse habitat (sagebrush and grassland mixture) currently available to sage-grouse on TBNG is estimated at 438,000 acres (USDA Forest Service, 2002, Appendix H).

Population Monitoring Protocol and Data Collected Greater sage-grouse leks are monitored in March and April through lek counts. This information is then provided to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for compilation. A key outcome of this compilation is the mean sage-grouse males per lek value. This can then be compared trends within the Northeast Wyoming Working Group area and State-wide trend. The graph below illustrates these trends.

Figure 4: Average Number of Displaying Male Sage-grouse per Lek (1996-2011) – TBNG

41 TBNG NE WY 36

STATE

Grouse Males/Lek Grouse 16 -

Sage 11

1 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-128

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The graph and table above show that the fluctuations in male attendance per lek on TBNG is consistent with what appears to be happening across both northeast Wyoming, and state-wide. The graph above shows that in 2011 the TBNG was at a 16 year low for its average males per lek. The Northeast Wyoming Working Group Area was at a 15 year low, and the State-wide average was at a 14 year low.

Sage-grouse population estimates Population estimates for Greater sage-grouse are based upon using this average number of males attending leks per year as an index to calculate the minimum population estimate. This estimate is generated using the following formula: MPE = [(Total Males/Complexes Checked) x 3] x Total Complexes over Survey Period Based on this measure, the minimum estimated population of Greater sage-grouse on the TBNG in 2011 was estimated at 917 birds. This population estimate reflexes a 13 year population low. The following graph a shows the estimated sage-grouse population over the last 14 years.

Figure 5: Minimum Estimated Sage-grouse Population (1998-2011) - TBNG

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 ESTIMATED TBNG MINIMUM POPULATION MinimumGrouse Sage PopulationEstimate 10 YEAR MEAN 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Black Tailed Prairie Dog

Habitat Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). In mixed grass prairies, colonies frequently originate in areas that have been disturbed by previous soil disturbances such as cultivation, water developments, pipelines, and range ripping or furrowing. Areas grazed by livestock also represent potentially suitable locations for prairie dogs to colonize, especially when those sites have been heavily grazed by concentrated animals.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-129

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. Many species such as the black-footed ferret, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and swift fox (Vulpes velox) are dependent on prairie dogs during a portion of their life cycle. The black-tailed prairie dog is selected as a MIS for low structure grasslands.

Population Monitoring

Population monitoring for prairie dogs has been found to be difficult to track over time. It has become the accepted norm to use acres of occupied habitat as a surrogate to direct population monitoring. Estimated total active acres of prairie dog colonies within the TBNG from 1996-1997 and from 2001- 2011 are illustrated in Figure 2. Colony acreages experienced a significant reduction from 1997 through 2000 due to plague outbreak. In 2006 the number of estimated acres of active prairie dogs fell to nearly the 2004 numbers due to continuing plague. All active prairie dog colonies on TBNG are mapped annually. Currently, the population for 2011 is 9,857 acres.

Figure 6: Prairie Dog Acres - TBNG

25,000 20,000

15,000 Acres 10,000

5,000 0

Year

Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse

Habitat The plains sharp-tailed grouse are most often found in grasslands with a diversity of structural stages, including an abundance of high structure grasslands. Interspersed shrubs and shrub communities also contribute to habitat suitability for this species. Habitats that are grazed lightly by livestock and/or periodically rested from annual livestock grazing generally benefit sharp-tailed grouse. This species was selected as an MIS for high-structure grasslands.

Populations: Sharp-tailed grouse population trends are also monitored through lek counts on TBNG. The total number of males observed on leks is used to indicate population fluctuations. Leks are observed during late March and early April as this is usually the peak attendance period.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-130

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Ten sharp-tailed leks were surveyed in 2011 with a total of 97 males. Most males observed were on leks that occur on NFS lands. With the 2011 survey information there is a decreasing trend of sharp-tailed grouse on NFS lands (Figure 7). There was a sharp decline in population numbers in 2011. This could be due to a long hard winter and late cold spring. Habitat for sharp-tailed grouse appears to be good condition

Figure 7: Number of Displaying Male Sharp-tailed Grouse Observed Annually (2003-2011) - TBNG

Management Issues and Concerns

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a number of issues of primary concern relative to the range-wide decline of the Greater sage-grouse (75 FR 13910-14014). Historic loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation likely pose the most substantial threat to the species.

Specific issues identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service that are pertinent to conservation of the Greater sage-grouse on the TBNG include:

Habitat Conversion for Agriculture Infrastructure in Sagebrush Habitats Fire –Wildland Fire and the Use of Prescribed Fire Invasive Plants (Annual Grasses and Other Noxious Weeds) Grazing Energy Development Disease Predation State Laws and Regulations Federal Laws and Regulations Pesticides

These issues are briefly addressed below and expanded upon elsewhere in this document.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-131

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Habitat Conversion for Agriculture

Regarding the loss and fragmentation of sage and sagesteppe habitats, and with respect to Management Zone 1 in particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service noted in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014) that:

Large losses of sagebrush shrubsteppe habitats due to agricultural conversion have occurred range wide, but have been especially significant in the Columbia Basin of Washington (MZ VI), the Snake River Plain of Idaho (MZ IV), and the Great Plains (MZ I). Conversion of sagebrush habitats to cropland continues to occur, although quantitative data is available only for Montana. We do not know the current rate of conversion, but most areas suitable for agricultural production were converted many years ago. The current rate of conversion is likely to increase in the future if incentives for crop production for use as biofuels continue to be offered. Urban and exurban development also have direct and indirect negative effects on sage-grouse, including direct and indirect habitat losses, disturbance, and introduction of new predators and invasive plant species. Given current trends in the Rocky Mountain west, we expect urban and exurban development to continue. Infrastructure such as powerlines, roads, communication towers, and fences continue to fragment sage-grouse habitat.

Much of the loss of sage habitats associated with agricultural conversion on the TBNG is likely a result of historical activities. That is, there is little on-going loss of sage habitats due to agricultural conversion. However, the associated infrastructure likely continues to fragment habitats that may persist as marginal or unsuitable habitats for Greater sage-grouse. These areas may serve as potential restoration sites to enhance or enlarge core area habitats.

Infrastructure in Sagebrush Habitats

Infrastructure such as roads, well pads, fences, transmission lines have been the primary source of sage- grouse habitat fragmentation and loss. As noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014):

The negative effects of habitat fragmentation on sage-grouse are diverse and include reduced lek persistence, lek attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival, and female nest site choice (Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 517-523; Walker et al. 2007a, pp. 2651-2652; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194). Since fragmentation is associated with most anthropogenic activities, the effects are ubiquitous across the species range (Knick et al. in press, p. 24). We agree with the assessment that habitat fragmentation is a primary cause of sage-grouse decline and in some areas has already led to population extirpation. We also conclude that habitat fragmentation will continue into the foreseeable future and will continue to threaten the persistence of Greater sage-grouse.

Conversely, the elimination or modification of infrastructure within sage-grouse habitats may present the most immediate mechanism of habitat improvement for sage-grouse on the TBNG.

Fire –Wildland Fire and the Use of Prescribed Fire

Wildland fire, and the use of prescribed fire, has resulted in substantial losses of sage habitats across the range of the Greater sage-grouse. As noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014):

Fire is one of the primary factors linked to population declines of Greater sage-grouse because of long- term loss of sagebrush and conversion to monocultures of exotic grasses (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7; Johnson et al., in press, p. 12; Knick and Hanser, in press, pp. 29-30). Loss of sagebrush habitat to wildfire has been increasing in western areas of the Greater sage-grouse range for the past three decades. The change in fire frequency has been strongly influenced by the presence of exotic annual grasses and significantly deviates from extrapolated historical regimes. Restoration of these communities is challenging, requires many years, and may, in fact, never be achieved in the presence of invasive grass species.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-132

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

In terms of the historical conversion of sage habitats to provide improved forage for cattle, prescribed fire may historically been the most frequently utilized tool to alter large landscapes. Because re-establishment and restoration of sage habitats may require decades, The Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order emphasizes the role of fire suppression in maintaining core area habitats:

Fire suppression efforts in Core Population Areas should be emphasized, recognizing that other local, regional, and national suppression priorities may take precedent. However, public and firefighter safety remains the number one priority for all fire management activities.

The role of fire and fire suppression will likely be a substantive issue relevant to achieving conservation of the Greater sage-grouse

Invasive Plants (Annual Grasses and Other Noxious Weeds)

Fire regimes in sage habitats have been altered dramatically as a consequence of the pervasive influence of non-native and invasive species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). This was also noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014):

Invasive plants negatively impact sage-grouse primarily by reducing or eliminating native vegetation that sage-grouse require for food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. A variety of nonnative annuals and perennials (e.g., Bromus tectorum, Euphorbia esula) and native conifers (e.g., pinyon pine, juniper species) are invasive to sagebrush ecosystems. Nonnative invasive species, including annual grasses and other noxious weeds, continue to expand their range, facilitated by ground disturbances such as wildfire, grazing, and infrastructure. Pinion and juniper and some other native conifers are expanding and infilling their current range mainly due to decreased fire return intervals, livestock grazing, and increases in global carbon dioxide concentrations associated with climate change, among other factors. Collectively, invasive plants impact the entire range of sage-grouse, although they are most problematic in the Intermountain West and Great Basin (MZs III, IV, V, and VI).

Non-native invasive species such as cheatgrass may currently occur on over 200,000 acres of the TBNG. Consequently, habitat effectiveness of infested sage habitats may be consequently diminished and Wildland fire risk increased.

Grazing

For the majority of lands within the TBNG, managed livestock grazing has been determined to be a suitable use. Improperly managed grazing, as noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014) may result in loss of habitat value for sage-grouse:

Livestock management and domestic grazing can seriously degrade sage-grouse habitat. Grazing can adversely impact nesting and brood-rearing habitat by decreasing vegetation concealment from predators. Grazing also has been shown to compact soils, decrease herbaceous abundance, increase erosion, and increase the probability of invasion of exotic plant species. Once plant communities have an invasive annual grass understory dominance, successful restoration or rehabilitation techniques are largely unproven and experimental (Pyke, in press, p. 25). Massive systems of fencing constructed to manage domestic livestock cause direct mortality to sage-grouse in addition to degrading and fragmenting habitats. Livestock management also can involve water developments that can degrade important brood-rearing habitat and or facilitate the spread of West Nile virus.

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could impact rangeland management and domestic livestock grazing by restricting anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS roads, water development, structural range improvements, the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Conversely, rangeland management and domestic livestock grazing could also benefit from actions to conserve, enhance, or restore the sagebrush ecosystem. These action include restrictions on: off road

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-133

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and development/removal of mineral materials.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could also benefit rangeland health and livestock grazing through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, and reduction of wildfire threat.

Energy Development

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of public lands on the TBNG. Given that the TBNG may, in its entirety, be described as occupied Greater sage-grouse habitat, energy development will continue to be an issue relevant to the conservation of sage-grouse. As noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014):

Energy development is a significant risk to the Greater sage-grouse in the eastern portion of its range (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern Utah – MZs I, II, VII and the northeastern part of MZ III), with the primary concern being the direct effects of energy development on the long-term viability of Greater sage-grouse by eliminating habitat, leks, and whole populations and fragmenting some of the last remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for the species’ persistence. The intensity of energy development is cyclic and based on many factors including energy demand, market prices, and geopolitical uncertainties. However, continued exploration and development of traditional and nonconventional fossil fuel sources in the eastern portion of the Greater sage-grouse range is predicted to continue to increase over the next 20 years (EIA 2009b, p. 109). Greater sage-grouse populations are predicted to decline 7 to 19 percent over the next 20 years due to the effects of oil and gas development in the eastern part of the range (Copeland et al. 2009, p. 4); this decline is in addition to the 45 to 80 percent decline that is estimated to have already occurred range wide (Copeland et al. 2009, p. 4).

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could restrict mineral resource and renewable energy management. Restrictions could be placed on anthropogenic disturbance of sage- grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral materials.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could result in additional requirements for mineral resource and renewable development projects, including additional reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, application of dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, use of native grass and plant seeding, transplanting sagebrush, reduction of predator perches, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, and pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus.

Disease

It is reasonably foreseeable that measures to conserve the Greater sage-grouse may include efforts to limit the likelihood of transmission of the West Nile virus (West Nile virus). This may require manipulation, treatment, or restriction of surface water sources intended for livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service noted in their 2010 finding (75 FR 13910) that:

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-134

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Substantial new information on West Nile virus and impacts on the Greater sage-grouse has emerged since we completed our finding in 2005. The virus is now distributed throughout the species’ range, and affected sage- grouse populations experience high mortality rates with resultant, often large reductions in local population numbers. Infections in northeastern Wyoming, southeastern Montana, and the Dakotas seem to be the most persistent, with mortalities recorded in that area every year since West Nile virus was first detected in sage- grouse. Limited information suggests that sage-grouse may be able to survive an infection; however, because of the apparent low level of immunity and continuing changes within the virus, widespread resistance is unlikely...

We anticipate that West Nile virus will persist within sage-grouse habitats indefinitely, and will remain a threat to Greater sage-grouse until they develop a resistance to the virus. The most significant environmental factors affecting the persistence of West Nile virus within the range of sage-grouse are ambient temperatures and surface water abundance and development. The continued development of anthropogenic sources of warm standing water throughout the range of the species will likely increase the prevalence of the virus in sage- grouse, as predicted by Walker and Naugle (in press, pp. 20-24; see discussion above). Areas with intensive energy development may be at a particularly high risk for continued West Nile virus mortalities due to the development of surface water features, and the continued loss and fragmentation of habitats (see discussion of energy development above).

Transmission of the West Nile virus depends upon a mosquito vector. Disrupting the life cycle of the mosquito by treating water sources with a larvicide (e.g., Bacillus thuriengensis) may at some point be considered as a conservation measure intended to prevent outbreaks of disease in sage-grouse associated with infection by the West Nile virus. Consequently, those sensitive species associated with water bodies, that may be indirectly affected as a consequence of prospective treatment protocols, are noted above.

Predation

The pervasive development of fluid and mineral resources across the TBNG has resulted in the concurrent development of associated infrastructure which may, in fact, facilitate the movement or attraction of predators as noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910- 14014):

Where habitat is not limited and is of good quality, predation is not a threat to the persistence of the species. However, sage-grouse may be increasingly subject to levels of predation that would not normally occur in the historically contiguous unaltered sagebrush habitats. The impacts of predation on Greater sage-grouse can increase where habitat quality has been compromised by anthropogenic activities (such as exurban development, road development) (e.g. Coates 2007, p. 154, 155; Bui 2009, p. 16; Hagen in press, p. 12). Landscape fragmentation, habitat degradation, and human populations have the potential to increase predator populations through increasing ease of securing prey and subsidizing food sources and nest or den substrate. Thus, otherwise suitable habitat may change into a habitat sink for grouse populations (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 517). Anthropogenic influences on sagebrush habitats that increase suitability for ravens may limit sage-grouse populations (Bui 2009, p. 32). Current land-use practices in the intermountain West favor high predator (in particular, raven) abundance relative to historical numbers (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426). The interaction between changes in habitat and predation may have substantial effects at the landscape level (Coates 2007, p. 3). The studies presented here suggest that, in areas of intensive habitat alteration and fragmentation, sage-grouse productivity and, therefore, populations could be negatively affected by increasing predation.

State Laws and Regulations

The implementation of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order related to the Greater sage-grouse (WY-EO-2011-5) is intended to address those threats most immediately associated with the range-wide decline of the sage-grouse. This was noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding:

Wyoming and Colorado have implemented State regulations regarding energy development that could provide significant protection for Greater sage-grouse. In Wyoming, regulations regarding new energy

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-135

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

development have the potential to provide adequate protection to Greater sage-grouse by protecting core areas of the species’ habitat. BLM Wyoming has adopted Wyoming’s approach for projects under their authorities through a short-term IM. However, the restrictive regulations do not apply to existing leases, or to habitats outside of core areas. Thus, sage-grouse may continue to experience population-level impacts associated with activities (e.g., energy development) in Wyoming…

The Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order may become a model replicated in other western states that may provide some measure of regulatory assurance providing for sage-grouse conservation on state and private lands. The Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order places a cap on disturbance within core sage- grouse habitat of 5 percent of the land area and caps the density of disturbance at one disturbance element (e.g., a well pad) per section (640 acres).

Substantial energy development on the TBNG, and the potential limitation on the allowable area of disturbance, particularly with respect to existing lease, has both externally and internally been identified as a substantive issue.

The Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order, and implementing guidance regarding the calculation of disturbance density may be accessed online at http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000382.aspx.

Federal Laws and Regulations

The TBNG Land Resource Management Plan describes a designated Management Area (3.63) specifically as black-footed ferret reintroduction Habitat. This management area encompasses 47,442 of National Grassland surface and has management direction specifically designed to maintain and enhance black-footed ferret habitat. This area overlaps designated Greater sage-grouse core area habitat (Figure 8). Resolution of possible management conflicts will likely be an issue as efforts to conserve the Greater sage-grouse are advanced.

To meet the goals and objectives of this management area, management activities are implemented to conserve short-grass prairie habitats and black-tailed prairie dogs. Current management activities being used within this management area include prescribed fire; mowing; installation of temporary fencing to facilitate the growth of vegetative buffers; the dusting of prairie dog burrows to combat bubonic plague; designation of prairie dog shooting closures; installation of signage; trapping and translocation of prairie dogs encroaching on private land; application of rodenticides where other methods have proven ineffective; and, the installation of raptor perches to encourage predation of prairie dogs in proximity to private lands.

Pesticides

USDA APHIS has historically applied pesticides on the TBNG for the purpose of treating outbreaks of grasshoppers (Order: Orthoptera) and the Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex). Conceivably, treatment for these species using aerially applied pesticides could affect the quality of particularly brood habitat of the Greater sage-grouse. While not recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service as an issue likely to result in range-wide declines, it may be of relevance on the TBNG.

Depiction of the overlap between designated Greater sage-grouse core area habitats and Management Area 3.63 as defined within the TBNG Land and Resource Management Plan. Management Area 3.63 has been designated as potential black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat. That is, it is managed primarily for species such as the black-tailed prairie dog.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-136

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Figure 8: Sage-grouse Core Areas and MA 3.63 - TBNG

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-137

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.12 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS 2.12.1 Overview

The goal of the Forest Service Transportation System is to provide safe, sustainable access to and sometimes through National Forests and Grasslands in a fiscally and environmentally sound manner. Travel management is a critical link in all programs essential to the stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands. Travel is fundamental to what the Forest Service does, whether it is associated with recreation, wildlife, timber, range, water, fire, minerals, or any other program.

Forest Highways, National Forest System Roads (NFSR), National Forest System Trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands are the major components of the Forest Service Transportation System. The National Forests and Grasslands work with private entities, as well as national, regional, state, local, and Tribal governments to provide access and create an effective transportation system. At times, the checkerboard landownership can create opportunities or challenges for the movement of people and commodities to and through the Forests Service system. The agency may use easements, right-of-ways, condemnation, or other reciprocal agreements, among other tools, to gain access where necessary.

The Forest specific Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), often referred to as the Forest Plan, should guide decisions on overall access and transportation management philosophy and objectives. Specific travel management decisions are more appropriate for the project level since they relate to specific on-the-ground activities. Whether or not changes in a travel plan would require a Forest Plan amendment depends on how the changes affect the Forest Plan decision. Forests should follow Forest planning process guidelines in assessing the need for a plan amendment. At a minimum, travel management direction and decisions need to be consistent with the Forest Plan and applicable current laws, rules, and regulations. For example, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the 2005 Travel Management Rule bind all Forests and Grasslands.

The existing roads within the Forests and Grassland vary in maintenance level which is described below. Each NFSR has a designated maintenance level with maintenance levels ranging from a low of “1” (closed to motorized vehicles) to a high of “4” (moderate degree of user comfort and aggregate surfaced). Combined maintenance levels may exist on the same road.

Maintenance Level 1- Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage structures and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level.

Roads receiving maintenance level 1 may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. While being maintained at level 1 they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non- motorized uses. The roads are single lane with native surfaces that maybe grown in with vegetation. Most Level 1 roads are in good condition because they are closed to vehicular traffic. Basic custodial maintenance is preformed to prevent damage to adjacent soil and water resources and limit the size of the disturbed area connected by the road corridor. Maintenance also helps preserve the basic road prism for future resource management and maintains the road closures to vehicular traffic.

Maintenance Level 2 - Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses including hauling logs from

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-138

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

timber sales. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. . Maintenance is conducted at a minimal level and may only occur for purposes of drainage control. These roads are on native material, single lane and prone

to rutting and can be very erosive. All regulatory and warning signs installed on level 2 NFSR’s shall be consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Maintenance level 3 - Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either "encourage" or “accept." "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Maintenance level 4 - Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced with some roads that are single lane. These roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

Level 3 and 4 NFSR’s receive regular annual maintenance and are subject to the Highway Safety Act, which states that they shall comply with The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in conjunction with the Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service.

2.12.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The National Forest Service Road (NFSR) system provides access for resource management, public access, and motorized recreation. The transportation plan on the forest was developed to assist with multiply use management of timber resources, mining, recreation, grazing and access to private property. Many of the roads on the forest have been in existence and maintained for over fifty years for the management of the natural resources. They were built with drainage structures (rolling dips, culverts, low water crossings, leadoff ditches) surfaced, ditched and the vegetation cleared. The National Forest Service Road surfaces are aggregate or built on native materials. All roads that traverse through core and general sage-grouse areas are located west of the Snowy Range Mountains with no core or general areas on the Laramie Ranger District.

There are four open roads in the general habitat area identified on the Laramie Peak Unit. They are: 696 (Elkhorn), 690 (Brumley Mounain), 658 (LaBonte Canyon), and 610 (Devil’s Pass). NFSR 696 and NFSR 610 are open year-round. NFSR 690 is closed from August 16 to December 31 to provide a better success rate during hunting season. NFSR 658 is closed at the Forest Service boundary from November 15 through April 30 for resource protection. All of the roads provide important and rare public access to popular developed and dispersed recreation during the spring, summer and fall months.

There is no legal public access to the Deer Creek Range on the Laramie Peak Unit; therefore, the existing two-track routes are closed to motorized use. However, during hunting season, those carrying Wyoming State Hunter Management Area hunter tags may access the area and use the routes during their hunting activities.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-139

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Some Level 2 and 3 roads traverse the core sage-grouse areas on the MBNF and all of the roads effecting core sage-grouse areas on the Sierra Madre portion of the forest are level 2 roads. With the infrequent maintenance that these level 2 roads receive they typically have low traffic volumes throughout of the year with a potential increase during big game hunting seasons. These roads are all located along the forest boundary and are typically connected to roads that access adjacent federal, state or private lands.

Level 2 and level 3 roads cross core sage-grouse areas on southern part of the Snowy Range portion of the forest. NFSR 492 is a level 3 road that accesses the Six-mile campground off of State Highway 130 and crosses core sage-grouse areas from the highway onto Forest Service lands.

NFSR 491 crosses core sage-grouse areas on the northern portion of the Snowy Range and is a level 3 road. This road is accessed from lands owned by the State of Wyoming and has a seasonal closure due to its location adjacent to the Pennock Mountain Habitat Management Area. The affected roads on the Snowy Range portion of the forest would typically have low traffic volumes during the year with increased use only during big game hunting seasons.

The Savery Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being completed on the Sierra Madre portion of the forest. The travel management section of the EIS proposes to decommission some of the roads crossing core sage-grouse areas. Roads planned for decommissioning are typically duplicate access routes, user created routes and routes where unacceptable resource damage is occurring.

As of January 1, 2002, the State of Wyoming passed the Wyoming Off-Road Recreation Vehicles State Statute, which guides how ORVs may be used on public lands. The Statute regulates the recreation aspects of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) and Off Highway Motorcycles (OHM) within the state of Wyoming. The Wyoming State off Road Vehicle Program works closely with the Forest Service and other public land management agencies to identify roads, routes, trails, and open areas to add or develop for enrollment in the State Trails Program. The Forest Service in turn provides the motorized opportunities, enforces the program, and may apply for funds from the State in order to conduct maintenance and expand the motorized system.

All Forest Service open roads can be used by ORV’s when proper licenses and state laws are adhered to, and at this time there are few motorized trails developed on the Sierra Madre or Snowy Range portions of the forest that are affected by core sage-grouse areas. The majority of ORV use occurs on NFSR’s, user created routes, and a few developed trails. The main potential use in core sage-grouse areas would be from ORV’s using level 2 forest roads.

ORV use on level 2 roads may be more prevalent in these areas than full sized vehicles due to roughness and poor road conditions that are typical for this area. Use along the routes in core sage- grouse areas would be typically permittees, and the public, with limited use by Forest Service personnel.

The MBNF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, 2003 outlines several Standards and Guidelines limiting transportation and access as they affect sage-grouse. They are the following:

Chapter 1-40, Wildlife

Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging or other concentrated intense activities [from March 1 through June 30]. Standard During project design, maintain or increase security areas composed of blocks of hiding cover >250 acres over ½ mile from any roads or motorized trails that are open to motorized use. Guideline

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-140

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

During project analysis and design, evaluate current and desired open road density at the geographic area scale and design projects, including road management to provide adequate security areas for wildlife and limit disturbances during parturition, nesting, and fledging periods. Guideline

No new construction or reconstruction is conducted on roads during the sage-grouse timing restrictions as described in the above standards and guidelines. Travel management for Laramie Peak reduced road density and new motorized trails were established outside of sage-grouse areas.

Management Issues and Concerns

Current sage-grouse timing restrictions can cause delays in repairing roads, interfering with the ability of landowners, recreational users and industrial traffic to safely and efficiently use the road system. 2.12.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The BTNF consists of approximately 3.4 million acres. It is critical to have a transportation system that meets agency management objectives and operations while still being safe and functional. This Forest hosts an estimated 2.7 million visitors per year, and an effective transportation system is vital in allowing these visitors to experience the sites and opportunities the Forest provides. (USDA Forest Service National Visitor Use Data 2003). Roads and trails under Forest Service jurisdiction that provide access to the BTNF lands are considered either National Forest System Roads or Trails (NFSR or NFST). It is important to note that there is an extensive network of unauthorized roads and trails that has evolved over many years and still exists on the Forest. As part of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the BTNF is in the process of inventorying unauthorized roads that may include but are not limited to old timber sale roads, old mining roads, and user created routes. Road and trail use has increased dramatically on the National Forest over the past several years. The Forest Plan and all other applicable laws and regulation will continue to be used to identify changes necessary to the Forest transportation system to meet agency goals and objectives.

National Forest Transportation Access Goals: Some of the primary goals for maintaining access to and through the national Forests and grasslands are:

Ensure Safe Access - Safety is paramount on every transportation system. Manage the transportation system to accommodate Forest Plan Desired Future Uses and Management of Natural Resources Provide “Seamless” Transportation to, and sometimes through, the National Forest Improve Rural Economic Diversity – The economies of some small communities located close to the National Forests rely heavily on the adjacent Forest resources. This economy is often based on the development of natural resources provided through the Forest Plan as well as commercial services provided to Forest visitors. Properly managed and maintained roads and trails offer the best opportunity for local economies to diversify their economy.

Current Management Practices

Motorized travel is currently limited to designated routes (roads and trails) in accordance with the Travel Management Rule of 2005. New or modified management practices may develop as a result of further analysis. Through site specific NEPA projects and land transactions, the transportation system may be modified as necessary to provide for Forest management, public health and safety, and access to public lands.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-141

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Management Issues and Concerns

Access to some areas may be affected due to conflicts with sage-grouse habitats. Restrictions or transportation system changes may be considered to protect sage-grouse habitats. Some of the items that could be considered:

Closure of unnecessary and/or unauthorized routes Seasonal restrictions Realignment or reconstruction of routes to improve current habitat 2.12.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The following information confirms Grasslands. Trails are covered under the Recreation section.

General Transportation - Roads

The TBNG and surrounding areas include numerous small tracts under public management (State, BLM, and USFS), interspersed by private inholdings. State highways and major County roads provide the backbone of arterial roads that connect major communities.

Two major north-south transportation routes traverse the western and eastern portions of the National Grassland. State Highway 59 runs along the western edge of the grassland, and provides connections (south to north) between Douglas, Wright, and Gillette, and the Spring Creek geographic area of the TBNG. State Highway 585 and U.S. Highways 18/85 together traverse the eastern edge of the TBNG, running from (north to south) Sundance to Newcastle to Cheyenne (eventually). State Highway 450 traverses east-west across the TBNG, connecting these two major north-south routes, and also serving as the main connection for travel between Wright and Newcastle. An additional transportation route, U.S. Highway 16 services the Newcastle-Osage-Upton corridor, traversing in a northwest direction from Newcastle to U.S. Highway 90.

The TBNG road system provides numerous connections between the major highways listed above and other major County roads. These connections are listed in the table below.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-142

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 29: Major Road Connections - TBNG Major Road Connections with the TBNG Road System Major U.S., State, or Connected USFS Roads (Maintenance Level 3 Only) County Route U.S. Hwy 16 1276, 1248, 1325, East Upton Road (914.03) Steckley Road (942), Jacobs Road (944), Stienle Road (13.40), Dull Center State Hwy 59 Road (13.38) State Hwy 585 East Upton Road (914.03) 1108.e, School Creek Road (968), 1107,1105.G, 1105, Field Ranch Road State Hwy 450 (1257.B), Cellars Loop (923.03; via WY-56), 1256, 1240.G, 1235 Corder Creek Road (1619), Payne Road (934), 1109, School Creek (968), County Road 83 934.G, 934.F County Road 7C 1257F, C Keyton Rd. (937), 1263.H , Frog Creek (938), 1235, Dull Center Road County Road 7A (13.38) County Road 62 Bacon Creek Road (925) County Road 58 1242 County Road 56 Cellars Loop Road (923.03), Field Ranch Road (1257.B) County Road 54 1263H County Road 39 Dull Center Road (13.38) County Road 34 Steckley Road (942) County Road 17 1269 County Road 14 Dull Center Road (13.38)

The majority of roads on the TBNG under USFS jurisdiction do not provide major or primary connections between large communities. However, approximately 57 miles of road under USFS jurisdiction is considered to serve an arterial function, serving as a primary route to access major TBNG areas utilized for ranching, mineral resource operations, recreation, and/or administrative purposes (see Table 30).

Table 30: Arterial and Collector Roads - TBNG Table 30: Arterial and Collector Roads on the TGNG Length (miles) Road Name (USFS) Function

Arledge Road 8 Arterial Bacon Creek Road 8 Arterial Cellars Loop 17 Arterial Dull Center Road 29 Arterial East Upton Road 14 Arterial Payne Road 5 Arterial School Creek Road 3 Arterial Steckley Road 24 Arterial Stienle Road 12 Arterial West Cellers 7 Arterial Beckwith Road 4 Collector Bobcat/Cow Creek Road 4 Collector Clay Spur 1 Collector

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-143

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 30: Arterial and Collector Roads on the TGNG East Bill/Cow Creek Road 20 Collector Keyton Road 10 Collector Phillips Road 11 Collector Rochelle Hills Road 13 Collector York Road 9 Collector

An additional 67 miles of road serve as collector roads, primarily serving as access routes to the multiple local roads (roughly 1,400 miles) that serve individual oil and gas installations, ranches, windmills, etc. Many local roads are serviced directly by USFS arterial roads or by major County or State highways. Roads that were considered to have an arterial function on the TBNG were rated “high,” collector roads as “moderate,” and local roads as “low” to determine an overall transportation value for each road.

Several maintenance level 3 roads on the TBNG were rated as high or moderate value for multiple uses, including recreational use, rangeland management, and mineral development. The majority of these roads are located in the south-central and northeastern portions of the TBNG, as well as in the southern Spring Creek area. These roads, along with their use value ratings, are presented in the table below.

Table 31: High Value Roads by User Type - TBNG High Value Roads on the TBNG by User Type Relative Value Road Names (ID #) Mineral Range Recreation Development Management Dull Center Road (13.38) Beckwith Road (1618)

York 4351 (900) High High High School Creek Road (968) Steckley Road (942) Phillips Road (973) Rochelle Hills Road (933) Moderate High High Keyton Road (937) Arledge Road (913)

East Upton Road (914.03) Low High High Cellars Loop (923.02) 924 (Unnamed) Payne Road (934) High High Moderate Bobcat/Cow Creek Road (959) Clay Spur (917) Moderate High Moderate

Level 2 Roads

These roads are typically two track roads which have low traffic volumes and are suited for high clearance vehicles. They are not designed, maintained, or suited for passenger vehicles. Currently, there are 1,584 of Level 2 roads equating to approximately 1400 miles on the TBNG. The Level 2 roads connect at some point to other level 2 or 3 roads or a county road or state highway. These roads are considered to be local roads. The use on the roads is primarily from hunting, ranching activities, and mineral industry/commercial activities. Maintenance is scheduled only as needed on a once every five years. Some of these roads are under Road Use Permits as needed by commercial users to access

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-144

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

oil and gas wells or other commercial activity. The RUP requires the commercial user to complete the maintenance on the road as necessary.

Maintenance on Roads

Maintenance on system roads on the TBNG occurs year-round and is completed by Forest engineering road crews, county government road and bridge departments, and commercial users. Each year the Forest Roads Engineer plans out which roads will be maintained. Typically, all level 3 roads are maintained annually. Level 2 roads are maintained on a priority level and special requests submitted by the District. Maintenance by counties is done through agreements on those roads that may cross national grassland and are connected to the county road system but are not easements held by the counties. Other maintenance occurs through authorizations given to various commercial users of the roads specifically if the commercial use requires a maintenance level above and beyond what the public requires and if the commercial activity is the primary user of the road.

Safety

Various public safety issues and concerns on the road system mainly stem from the various types of traffic on the roads. Types of traffic can vary from ATV, dirt bikes, passenger vehicles (on crown & ditch roads), four-wheel drive vehicles. In the high mineral activity areas there are hauling trucks, heavy equipment, work-over rigs, and an increase in the number of 4x4 trucks. There is also quite a bit of local rancher traffic to access range allotments, haul cattle, and other activities associated with that industry. Given the nature of the grasslands, these roads are essentially open year round and do not have a particular season that is off limits to the public.

Current Management Practices

The TBNG Plan, 2001, outlines several Standards and Guidelines limiting transportation and access activities as they affect sage-grouse. They are the following:

Chapter 1, 1-18,

47. To help reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, prohibit the following activities within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: Standard Construction (e.g. roads) Reclamation Gravel mining operations

48. To reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, do not authorize the following activities within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: Guideline Construction

49. To help prevent reproductive failure, limit noise on sage-grouse display grounds from nearby facilities and activities to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise) from March 1 to June 15. Guideline

52. Prohibit development or operations of facilities within 2 miles of a sage-grouse display ground if these activities would exceed a noise level of more than 10 decibels above the background noise level (39 dBA), at 800 feet from the noise source, from March 1 to June 15. Guideline

The Thunder Basin National Grassland Travel Management Plan, 2009, designated open roads and trails for motorized use, limiting motorized use to those routes. The open routes are shown on the TBNG Motor Vehicle Use Map and used as the legal document for enforcement purposes.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-145

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

No new construction or reconstruction is conducted on roads during the sage-grouse timing restrictions as described in the above standards and guidelines.

Management Issues and Concerns

Current sage-grouse timing restrictions can interfere with reconstruction of roads on the grassland, which most commonly occurs during spring, when the forest road crew is available, and the road conditions are optimal for working. Delays in reconstruction work can result in a project left incomplete, which affects the ability of road users to safely and efficiently use the road system.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-146

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.13 VEGETATION 2.13.1 Overview

Vegetation resources within the planning area are diverse and in some areas unique. The precipitation, elevation, and temperature extremes, combined with soil and geology variability, create a variety of vegetation habitat types. Vegetation resources within the planning area include mixed-grass, sagebrush shrubland, and forest communities. Riparian areas and wetlands are ecologically among the most important resources on public land. Structurally diverse plant communities provide habitat for wildlife as well as forage for domestic animals. In addition, healthy riparian areas and wetlands stabilize the soil, act as sponges releasing water throughout the year, and improve water quality for adjacent streams. Resource uses may affect the natural function and condition of riparian areas and wetlands.

Noxious and invasive weeds are identified as a major threat to native ecosystems. They contribute to the loss of rangeland productivity, increased soil erosion, reduced native species diversity and loss of wildlife habitat and, in some instances, are hazardous to human and animal health and welfare (Federal Noxious Weed Act, Public Law 93-629). Waterways, roads, and animals are the principal vectors for expansion of noxious and invasive weed species. Weeds are a component evaluated during Standards for Healthy Rangelands assessments.

According to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations (CFR 219.26), grassland and forest planning must provide for diverse plant and animal communities consistent with the overall multiple- use objectives of the planning area. The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are major pieces of federal legislation intended to protect aquatic resources. The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Additional direction for conservation of other species at risk is provided in FSM 2670. 2.13.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The Brush Creek/Hayden and Laramie Ranger Districts is situated on the Sierra Madre and Snowy mountain ranges and are therefore dominated by dense forest vegetation. Spruce-fir forests occupy higher elevations, while aspen and lodgepole pine dominate the next lower elevational zone. Upland shrublands occupy the lowest elevation edges of the forest and only make up a small percentage of total district acres. Primary upland shrubland habitat types are big sagebrush/bunchgrass and big sagebrush- bitterbrush/bunchgrass, but also include some plant communities dominated by three-tip sagebrush, alkali sagebrush, black sagebrush, serviceberry, mountain snowberry, true mountain-mahogany, chokecherry and gambel oak.

The majority of rangelands on the districts (including shrublands, riparian areas and aspen forest) are in satisfactory condition with a stable or upward trend. Some small, localized area are still recovering from historical heavy grazing use. Forested lands have long been considered to be in satisfactory condition, but the recent severe drought of 1999-2005 and the large scale forest insect and disease outbreak that followed have significantly altered the nature and health of forest stands. A majority of mature lodgepole pine trees, and many stands of mature limber pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen and Douglas-fir have been killed. Natural regeneration of the forest has already begun in many areas and is expected to continue.

Greater sage-grouse habitat, as delineated on the two districts, includes about 10,673 acres of forest (aspen and coniferous), 230 acres of riparian habitat, 347 acres of tall, dense mixed shrub habitat (gambel oak, serviceberry, chokecherry), and 7,701 acres of sagebrush and sagebrush/mixed mountain

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-147

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

shrub habitat. The 56 percent of delineated habitat that is forested is not likely to be used much, if at all, by Greater sage-grouse. In addition, some of the shrubland and riparian sites are small parcels surrounded by forest and do not appear to be preferred habitat for sage-grouse.

Shrubland management on the districts has undergone a transition over time from large scale removal or thinning of shrubs (conducted from the late 1950’s through the early 1980’s), to management for a variety of age classes, with the majority in mid to late seral stages. Many acres of big sagebrush were sprayed with 2,4-D to remove or thin sagebrush stands that had become very dense as a result of historical overgrazing. Within the designated sage-grouse habitat, about 35 percent of the shrublands were sprayed with 2,4-D between 1962 and 1981. In the past 100 years wildfire has only affected a relatively small percentage of the two districts, however, that situation could change with the high tree mortality the units are now undergoing.

Sagebrush stands within sage-grouse habitat vary in species composition and other characteristics among sites. On shallower soil sites shorter species such as black sagebrush, three-tip sagebrush dominate. On the more moist sites, bitterbrush is co-dominant with big sagebrush. Canopy cover of sampled sites within designated sage-grouse habitat areas varies from 8 to 22 percent. One game-proof study exclosure within the core area on Six Mile Allotment has big sagebrush canopy of 40 – 42 percent. This site is located within big game winter range. Bare ground measurements on these sites range from 1 to 18 percent. The herbaceous layer on most sites is dominated by native bunchgrasses and native perennial forbs. The Douglas Ranger District is characterized by granite rock outcrops and large areas of Ponderosa Pine with intermingled meadows on the east side of the District and Limber and Lodgepole Pine with intermingled high plains on the west side of the District. The approximately 8,000 acres of National Forest System land that lie within either core or general sage-grouse habitat as designated by the Governor of Wyoming, are within five of the geographic areas located on the Douglas District. Boxelder Geographic Area: The Boxelder geographic area is located on the far west side of the District. It is characterized by mixed timber and grassland, with the dominant species being Lodgepole Pine. Grasses shrubs and forbs make up 5 percent of the vegetation. The western side is remote and primitive with more drainages than the east side. Management emphasis is focused on forested flora and fauna and backcountry recreation. The sage-grouse core area is located in this geographic area. Warbonnet Geographic Area: The Warbonnet geographic area is located just east of Boxelder GA. It is dominated by Lodgepole Pine and smaller amounts of Ponderosa and Limber Pine, with intermingled areas of grass and shrubs (6% of the vegetation). The area has wet open parks and islands of spruce and Lodgepole pine. The area has significant elk habitat and calving areas. The dominant management area within the geographic area is deer and elk winter range. Labonte Creek Geographic Area: This geographic area is located just east of the Warbonnet Geographic area, in the west-central portion of the Unit. The GA is characterized by nearly equal amounts of Lodgepole and Ponderosa Pine with wet areas having Engelmann Spruce and aspen. Grasses, shrubs and forbs make up 2 percent of the vegetation. This geographic area has heavy summer recreational use. Management area emphasis is on deer and elk winter range and back country recreational use. Bear Creek Geographic Area: The Bear Creek geographic area is located farther east and south of Labonte Creek GA in the south central portion of the Unit. The area is characterized by Ponderosa Pine (33%), and Lodgepole (12%) dominating the landscape. Grasses, forbs and shrubs make up 5 percent of the vegetation. This GA is considered to be fairly remote, with very limited public access. The management emphasis is general forest and rangelands, with a rangeland vegetation emphasis. Back country recreation and deer and elk winter range are also major management areas.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-148

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Palmer Canyon Geographic Area: The Palmer Canyon geographic area is located in the far southeast end of the District. This is a small GA (32,363 acres) containing Ponderosa Pine and minor amounts of Limber Pine. Grasses, forbs and shrubs make up only 2 percent of the vegetation within this GA. The management emphasis for the entire GA is big game winter range, including bighorn sheep habitat. The area is mostly exposed granite rock outcrops with sparse, scattered forest vegetation cover.

Current Management Practices

Vegetation is managed for healthy, diverse native plant communities. In forested areas timber harvest has long been used to create a variety of age classes. Before the insect and disease epidemic, a majority of forest stands were in late seral stages. Now the forest is transitioning to largely early seral state as a result of the major insect and disease outbreak. Timber harvest will continue for some time, with emphasis on creation of fuel breaks, salvage of dead material and thinning of young stands. Where natural regeneration is not adequate, tree planting is being planned and implemented.

Shrublands are managed for 10-20 percent early seral, 60-80 percent mid seral, and 10-20 percent late seral stages. Prescribed burning is the primary tool used to create early seral stands. Burns are planned and managed to achieve a fine-scale mosaic. Within the sage-grouse habitat, approximately 460 acres have been burned by prescription between 1988 and 1995. Recovery of big sagebrush canopy to pre- treatment levels varies widely depending on the method of treatment, site conditions, other shrubs present and levels of livestock and wildlife grazing and browsing.

Riparian areas, because of their high ecological value, are managed under an extensive set of standards, guidelines and best management practices. They are managed for upper mid seral ecological status.

Vegetation is currently managed to meet Plan objectives of a mix of seral stages. In general, the forested areas are in late seral stages, with the grass and riparian areas offering diversity in seral stage. Livestock grazing is balanced with the needs of wildlife. Active areas of timber thinning have taken place and will continue to take place. There are a number of prescribed burns planned for timbered areas. No active vegetation management is taking place that would adversely affect sage-grouse habitat.

Management Issues and Concerns

Most of the recommended habitat conservation measures for Greater sage-grouse are already addressed as standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and Allotment Management Plans. These include:

Managing rangelands (including riparian areas) to ensure plant vigor and maintain a diverse mix of native plant species. For upland shrublands this includes managing for a variety of native bunchgrasses as well as native forbs Managing shrublands for a variety of age classes, but a majority of mid to late seral stages Leaving adequate plant material for healthy watershed function, hiding cover and wildlife forage Creating riparian pastures or exclosures where other management practices fail to bring about the desired condition

If use of fire as a shrubland management tool is curtailed, it will be difficult to maintain the early seral sites over the long term. Early seral sites can provide good foraging areas for sage-grouse if created at the appropriate scale and location. Shrubland treatments may have to be done chemically or mechanically and on a smaller scale than has been done using fire.

Managing riparian areas for mostly upper mid seral ecological status may need to be re-visited in light of the value of perennial forbs for sage-grouse. Many upper mid seral or late seral riparian plant

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-149

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

communities are dominated by grasses, sedges and rushes and do not have a very diverse forb component. Maintaining some riparian areas at a lower seral stage might be beneficial for sage-grouse.

Recent analysis of the rangeland vegetative composition for the Douglas Ranger District indicates that most areas are in late intermediate to late seral stage with much National Forest System land being timbered.

Proposed restrictions on the use of prescribed fire may ultimately limit the ability to improve habitat for sage-grouse populations and bighorn sheep. Many of the sagebrush stands that exceed the upper end of optimal canopy cover, and nesting and brood-rearing habitat could be enhanced with small individual hand treatments of just single-digit acres across the landscape.

2.13.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

This section describes sagebrush vegetation conditions on the BTNF. Each vegetative type description discusses vegetation structure, species composition, ground cover, and disturbances and processes.

Mountain big sagebrush

The most common sagebrush vegetation type, comprising 88 percent of all sagebrush communities on the Forest, is mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata). Forest-wide 60 percent of the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-150

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

mountain big sagebrush type has a sagebrush canopy greater than 25 percent (USFS 2007a); a mountain big sagebrush canopy less than 40 percent is desirable for optimum herbaceous understory (Winward 2004). Bitterbrush, a preferred browse species associated with the mountain big sagebrush community is predominantly mature and often decadent. The most common understory species in the mountain big sagebrush type is Idaho fescue, a plant highly palatable for all ungulates. Listed in no particular order are the other most common grass/grasslike species: Letterman’s needlegrass, bluegrass species other than Kentucky, Columbia needlegrass, slender wheatgrass and elk sedge. Most common forbs (again in no particular order) are lupine, sulphur buckwheat, rose pussytoes, groundsels, arrowleaf balsamroot, geranium and Indian paintbrush. In some locations the diversity of species is relatively low. Ground cover averages in mountain big sagebrush are variable across the Forest; overall approximately 1/3 of the vegetation type has more than 20 percent bare soil (USFS 1997). Mountain big sagebrush on the BTNF is documented as generally increasing in cover and extent since the early 1900s (Gruell 1980a).

The predominance of mountain big sagebrush canopy > 25 percent and the decadence of bitterbrush in the mountain big sagebrush type is primarily attributable to an altered fire return interval. The fire regime in the big sagebrush ecosystem has been altered over the last 100 years, directly by fire suppression and indirectly by livestock and wildlife grazing which removes fine fuels (BTNF PFC 1997, Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002, A. Norman personal communication 2008).

Core and General Sage Grouse habitat has been mapped on the BTNF by the State of Wyoming (WY- EO-2011-5). There are 3,059 acres of mountain big sagebrush on the BTNF that were mapped as Core Habitat for the Greater sage-grouse. Of these acres, 698 acres have a sagebrush/ bitterbrush canopy cover of 10-24 percent, and 2,361 acres are mapped as having a canopy cover of 25-100 percent.

Additional occupied sage-grouse habitats (not within those core and general areas mapped and designated by the State) have also been identified and mapped by the Upper Snake River Basin Local Working Group and BTNF personnel based on observation data. There are 70,894 acres mapped as occupied sage-grouse habitat within the mountain big sagebrush vegetation types. Of these acres 27,827 acres have a sagebrush/ bitterbrush canopy cover of 10-24 percent, and 43,067 acres are mapped as having a canopy cover of 25-100 percent.

To fully discuss the vegetation AMS for the Greater sage-grouse “Additional range” is included in this report. The “Additional range” is sagebrush vegetation that is not mapped as Core or Occupied habitats but has potential to be occupied by sage-grouse. There are 35,138 acres of mountain big sagebrush mapped as additional range. Of these acres 16,362 acres have a sagebrush/ bitterbrush canopy cover of 10-24 percent, and 18,776 acres are mapped as having a canopy cover of 25-100 percent.

Silver sagebrush

The silver sagebrush vegetation type is slightly more than eight percent of all sagebrush communities on the BTNF. Like mountain big sagebrush it tends to have a canopy greater than 25 percent across the Forest (USFS 2007a) compared to an ideal range of canopy cover of 10-30 percent (Mueggler and Stewart 1980, USDA 1997). The most common understory species in the silver sagebrush vegetation type are highly palatable grasses. Common grasses/grasslike species include elk sedge, needlegrasses (Columbia and Thurber’s), slender wheatgrass and mountain brome. Forbs that are common tend to provide little forage value. The most common forb species are: yarrow, herbaceous cinquefoil(s), groundsel(s), aster(s), leafy bract aster, one flowered helianthella, strawberry, fleabane(s) and geranium. Ground cover is high, as it should be, on the mesic sites occupied by silver sagebrush.

Ground cover averages in mountain big sagebrush are variable across the Forest; average ground cover for this vegetation type ranges from 80-98 percent (USFS 1997). It is not expected that the extent of silver sagebrush communities has changed much since pre-settlement conditions due to its mesic site preference.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-151

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Core and General Sage Grouse habitat has been mapped on the BTNF by the State of Wyoming (WY- EO-2011-5). There are 2 acres of silver sagebrush on the BTNF that were mapped as Core Habitat for the Greater sage-grouse. These acres have a canopy cover of 10-24 percent.

Additional occupied sage-grouse habitats (not within those core and general areas mapped and designated by the State) have also been identified and mapped by the Upper Snake River Basin Local Working Group and BTNF personnel based on observation data. There are 4,595 acres mapped as occupied sage-grouse habitat within the silver sagebrush vegetation types. Of these acres 713 acres have a canopy cover of 10-24 percent, and 3,882 acres are mapped as having a canopy cover of 25-100 percent.

In an effort to fully discuss the vegetation AMS for the Greater sage-grouse “Additional range” is included in this report. The “Additional range” is sagebrush vegetation that is not mapped as Core or Occupied habitats but has potential to be occupied by sage-grouse. There are 5,723 acres of silver sagebrush mapped as additional range. Of these acres 1,100 acres have a canopy cover of 10-24 percent, and 4,623 acres are mapped as having a canopy cover of 25-100 percent.

Current Management Practices

Prescribed fire, chemical, biological, and mechanical methods, and/or livestock grazing could be used to achieve vegetation goals. Vegetation treatments will be designed to reduce erosion, protect Special Status Plant Species, enhance vegetation community and watershed health, increase forage production, and enhance wildlife habitats. Treatments will be designed to consider the natural role of fire in ecosystem management and to restore the natural range of variability in vegetation community types. Treated areas will generally be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons after treatment or until at least 60 percent ground cover is achieved. Analysis could indicate a need for a longer rest period.

Management Issues and Concerns

Fire suppression has greatly altered the fire regime of most vegetation types across the BTNF. This has caused a shift toward older age classes and denser sagebrush canopies across the Forest. The pre- settlement mosaic of age and structure classes has been replaced by large areas of dense, old sagebrush. This change has been accompanied by reduced herbaceous production and increased bare soil in the understory. Loss of grass and forb productivity and species may result in habitat loss for big game animals, invertebrates, and several species of birds, including sage-grouse. 2.13.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Wyoming has the fewest number but the largest grassland areas and low agricultural cultivation. The largest area is approximately 11,500 square miles, adjacent to another area of approximately 8,400 square miles. The TBNG falls within these two areas.

Aquatic Environment

An assessment of the aquatic resources was completed to examine the condition, status and trend of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater and aquatic species in the northern Great Plains. The Northern Great Plains Aquatic Assessment (Johnson 1998) covers the area from central Montana to the Red River Valley of North Dakota and from the Canadian border to the Sandhills of Nebraska. Portions of five states are within the assessment area: Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-152

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

and Wyoming. Major threats to aquatic resources were numerous including channelization, draining and dewatering, damming, removal of streamside vegetation, excavation of streambed material, realignment of drainages, point and nonpoint pollution, agriculture, feedlots, fertilizers, pesticides, municipal wastes, mining, oil and gas production, refineries, and introduction of non-native aquatic species. However, the potential for pesticide runoff and nutrient loading from agriculture is low in northeastern Wyoming.

It is estimated that about 60 percent of historical wetland acres remain in Wyoming. Most wetland losses have resulted from agricultural activities. Wetland losses overall in the last 10 years have been reduced to less than 3 percent per year, and in some areas wetland acreages have actually increased.

Terrestrial Environment

The Northern Great Plains Terrestrial Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2000) focused on the broad- scale status and trend of habitats and ecological processes characteristic of the major biological communities in this region. In this context, the ecological processes that shaped the biological communities of this area are viewed as the tools to maintain and restore the native and endemic biological diversity.

A major finding presented in the assessment report is that the frequency, intensity and spatial patterns of the ecological processes of fire and herbivory that helped shape these communities historically, are much different today. These relatively recent changes have altered vegetation in this region and, in turn, have altered the diversity and abundance of many plant and animal species.

Vegetation Composition and Structure

The TBNG is comprised of grasslands, shrublands and forested areas. Vegetation composition is described in terms of seral stage and structure. These classifications are based on the major species found in the vegetation type. The composition of a plant community changes over time due to the interactions of many factors, such as grazing, fire, and weather. Differences in seral stage may imply a difference in primary productivity. Primary productivity is an expression of the ecological efficiency of a site to convert sunlight to plant material. Because primary productivity is difficult to predict and model, vegetation composition is used as a key indicator. Structure, with regard to vegetation species composition, is closely related to vegetation seral states.

The grassland is in a broad transition area between the plains of the central United States and range physiographic provinces to the west. It occupies a north-south transition area between the southern and middle Rocky Mountains. Because of its location, the TBNG contains plants characteristic of a variety of regions, such as hawthorn, big bluestem, little bluestem, creeping juniper, buffalo grass, blue grama and prickly pear cactus. The area also has extensive areas of sagebrush communities, greasewood and Western wheatgrass. Foothill and lower-elevation mountain species also occur, such as ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, Oregon grape and boxelder.

Table 32: Dominant Vegetation Communities and Acres - TBNG Dominant Vegetation Community Acres Big Sagebrush 338,500 acres Other Shrub Species 31,000 acres Grassland 161,700 acres Forest 9,300 acres TOTAL 512,600 acres

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-153

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Sagebrush communities have a mean canopy cover of big sagebrush that can range as high as 55 percent. Western wheatgrass, blue grama, threadleaf sedge, prairie junegrass and needle-and- thread are some of the main understory species. Prairie sandreed is a component of the understory on more sandy sites.

Vegetation communities dominated by other shrub species include upland areas and drainages dominated by silver sagebrush, spiny saltbush, sand sagebrush, fringed sagewort, greasewood, rabbitbrush, willow, or other shrubs. Wooded draws and upland thickets dominated by snowberry, buffaloberry, chokecherry, American plum, or other shrubs.

Grassland vegetation includes Western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, blue grama, buffalo grass, prairie junegrass, green needle grass and prickly pear cactus.

Ponderosa pine stands also exist on the TBNG. No field studies or inventories have been completed on these stands. Species consist of Ponderosa Pine and juniper species with a mixed herbaceous understory.

Desired Seral Conditions

A range of seral states and vegetation structure should be found throughout the grassland. These percentages vary based on Geographic Area goals and objectives. Mid to late seral stages, depending on the fire return intervals, typically would have an overstory of Wyoming big sagebrush and an understory mix of western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, and green needlegrass. Early to mid seral stages would have a higher canopy cover and frequency of blue grama, and lower canopy cover and frequency, in most cases, of Wyoming big sagebrush.

Early Seral Stage Early seral conditions are associated with pioneer plant communities that usually follow behind disturbance processes. Plant communities found in early seral stages within the analysis area include species such as blue grama, red three-awn, and a variety of perennial and annual forbs. A higher percentage of bare ground (> 30%) can also be associated with early seral conditions. On the Grassland, western wheatgrass and scarlet globemallow can quickly respond after a major disturbance, such as fire. Blue grama canopy cover and frequency increases as a community trends toward early intermediate seral stages according to the Benkobi and Uresk model (1995).

Early Intermediate Seral Stage On the Grassland early intermediate seral stages are dominated by primarily blue grama, although mid to tall grasses are beginning to establish in the plant community. These species include mainly western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, and on a few sites, green needlegrass. Wyoming big sagebrush is typically lower in canopy cover and frequency. Benkobi and Uresk (1995) found that early intermediate sites were composed of approximately 48 forbs, 17 grasses, and 7 shrub species. Generally, under plant succession principles, as the site trends toward late intermediate seral stage, blue grama would start to decline while western wheatgrass and Big sagebrush begin to increase (1995).

Late Intermediate Seral Stages Late intermediate seral stages are most commonly found on productive ecological sites and typically contain Wyoming big sagebrush with a diverse mix of perennial grasses, often dominated by western wheatgrass (Benkobi and Uresk 1995). Typically, bare ground should be low to moderate (15- 20%). Species diversity, as determined by plot data from Benkobi and Uresk (1995), consisted of 45 forbs, 20 grasses, and 9 shrubs for late intermediate seral stages. Generally, herbaceous production in pounds per acre is highest on late intermediate sites in the analysis area based on production analysis.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-154

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Late Seral Conditions On many clayey to loamy ecological sites (highly productive soils), lack of disturbance from fire or moderate browsing, can result in a very dense stand of Wyoming big sagebrush (+35% canopy cover). Herbaceous diversity in the understory is relatively low and bare ground can range from 15 to 30 percent. Approximately 3-5 percent of the analysis area supports vegetation communities with Wyoming big sagebrush cover at this density.

Late seral conditions can also be found on productive sites with less sagebrush cover, but with higher canopy cover and a more diverse understory of perennial grasses. Wyoming big sagebrush cover is approximately 11 percent while needle-and-thread is >30 percent cover. Other perennial grasses create a diverse and productive herbaceous understory. Bare ground is relatively low (<15%) and residual vegetation is remaining. Over time, depending on disturbance factors (fire, grazing, browsing), this site may trend toward slightly higher sagebrush cover. Generally, as described by Benkobi and Uresk (1995), index values for big sagebrush cover would increase, while grass species decline, as a site moves toward, and while in, late seral conditions.

Plant community composition which is closely tied to ecological sites creates a range of vegetation conditions that could be classified in late seral. The amount of bare ground, past and current management practices, as well as disturbance processes are also analyzed when classifying sites to determine pasture seral condition.

Vegetation Structure

Vegetative structure is a characteristic used to analyze habitat quality for wildlife species. It is decided as the height and density of vegetation including residual stubble left following ungulate grazing within a management unit (pasture). A mosaic of acreage in various degrees of vegetation structure (high, moderate, low) is needed to provide a variety of habitat needs for all grassland wildlife species.

Variation in vegetation structure objectives across the grassland is designed to provide the mix of plant communities for associated wildlife. High structure in the sagebrush communities can have tall and dense sagebrush, or lesser canopy cover of sagebrush with a diverse, dense herbaceous understory. Residual cover is important, and its value increases during drought years when current year herbaceous cover is reduced. Vegetation communities providing high structure are usually in late to late intermediate seral stages on highly productive soils with a desired species composition.

Since a large portion of the grassland is primarily a shrubland, multiple structural components exist on the landscape with the presence of predominantly Wyoming big sagebrush and various mixed grass prairie plant species. Guthery (1996) defined structure as the height, density, biomass, and dispersion of herbaceous and woody vegetation. Wyoming big sagebrush is abundant within the analysis area, and is a key structural component, especially in areas where sage-grouse nesting sites are located. Based on District surveys, nesting occurs within these sagebrush habitat types, and the height and density of grasses and forbs, as well as residual matter in the understory of sagebrush stands, are important factors influencing structure.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is low structure. Low structure grassland is primarily what its name implies; a grassland. Typically, very few shrubs are present on areas classified in low structure, with dominant species being blue grama, western wheatgrass, and scarlet globemallow. Prairie dog colonization and/or heavy livestock utilization can create low structure grassland from a mixed grass prairie. Therefore, low structure is usually associated with early to early intermediate seral stages.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-155

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Rare Plant Communities

Maintaining or enhancing biological diversity on the TBNG requires identification and conservation of ecological communities as well as rare species (Ostlie et al. 1997, Faber- Langendoen et al. 1997). By identifying and conserving intact ecological communities, ecological processes, biotic interactions, and species (including poorly studied or understood taxa like microbes and soil invertebrates) are most likely to be conserved. This type of an approach to conservation of biological diversity includes identifying, inventorying, and conserving rare plant communities.

Rare plant communities known or suspected to occur on the Grassland occupy sites within Big Sagebrush / Wheatgrass vegetation type or within riparian areas. The following lists are comprised of the communties that are known to occur, suspected to occur and not suspected to occur.

Known to occur: Eastern Cottonwood / Western snowberry Birdfoot Sagebrush / Western Wheatgrass Dwarf-shrubland Gardners Saltbush / Western Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Veg Prairie Cordgrass / Western Wheatgrass Vegetation Silver Sagebrush / Western Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Veg Black Greasewood / Alkali Sacaton Sparse Vegetation Western Wheatgrass / Green Needlegrass Herbaceous Veg Rocky Mtn. Juniper / Big Sagebrush Woodland Three-square Bulrush Herbaceous Vegetation and Prairie Cordgrass / Three-square Bulrush Herbaceous Vegetation Western Wheatgrass Herbaceous Vegetation

Suspected to occur: Western Wheatgrass – Spikerush Herbaceous Vegetation Silver Sagebrush / Needle-and-thread Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation Silver Sagebrush / Prairie Sandreed Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation Prairie Sandreed / Needle-and-thread Herbaceous Vegetation Greasewood / Bluebunch Wheatgrass Shrubland Eastern Cottonwood / Western Wheatgrass Woodland Ponderosa Pine / Sun Sedge Woodland Ponderosa Pine / Western Wheatgrass Woodland Ponderosa Pine / Little Bluestem Woodland Little Bluestem / Sideoats Grama, Blue Grama / Thread-leaf Sedge Herb Veg

Species of Special Concern

There are several species of special concern that exist for the Grassland. These species will be covered in the Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species section of this report.

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds pose a threat to native plant habitats on the grassland. These species and the coinciding current conditions are further covered in the Plant and Animal Damage section of this assessment.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-156

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Monitoring Protocols/Data Collected (for vegetative structure)

Rangeland analysis efforts have been conducted across the entire Grassland over the last eight years (Spring Creek unit in 2004, Thunder Basin area in 2005-2006, and Inyan Kara area in 2007). Cover- Frequency transects were read on most allotments, with resultant photopoints and Robel pole readings taken at established transect intervals to measure vegetation height. Visual inspections of nearly all pastures were made to verify and extrapolate transect results. Parker 3-Step permanent transects were re-read in many locations as well.

Table 33: Percent of Rangeland Vegetation Structure (as of 2008) - TBNG Vegetation Structure High Moderate Low

Grassland Plan Desired Condition 29 - 39 38 - 48 18 - 28

Existing Condition as of 2008 -- Acres 152,157 288,730 95,222 --Percent *** 28 52 17

Actions needed in the next 5-10 years to meet overall Grassland Plan Desired Condition: 1. Measured at the greater landscape scale across all 550,000+ Thunder Basin National Grassland acres, current management is within 1-4 percent of meeting desired vegetative structure. All categories have a 10 percent range of acceptable levels. 2. Move about 5,000 – 10,000 acres from Moderate structure to Low structure. 3. Move about 10,000 – 20,000 acres from Moderate structure to High structure. 4. For the most part, across most allotments, maintain existing vegetative structure. Slight modifications of use in some pastures of some allotments will be adequate to accomplish the above changes in categories.

Monitoring Protocols/Data Collected (for current vegetative species composition and seral stage)

Rangeland analysis efforts have been conducted across the entire Grassland over the last eight years (Spring Creek unit in 2004, Thunder Basin area in 2005-2006, and Inyan Kara area in 2007). Parker 3- Step permanent condition and trend transects were re-read in many locations. Cover-Frequency transects were installed on most allotments, with readings recorded for all perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs, as well as tree species. Visual inspections of nearly all pastures were made to verify and extrapolate transect results.

Results were evaluated using the following Ecological Classification Types developed by rangeland research scientist Dr. Daniel Uresk of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Rapid City, South Dakota: 1. Wyoming big sagebrush – western wheatgrass – blue grama 2. Greasewood – western wheatgrass 3. Needleandthread – western wheatgrass – blue grama 4. Plains cottonwood (Annual species, including annual bromes, were not used in computations; however, greater presence of those species usually decreases the numbers of perennial plants, thereby generally lowering the vegetation composition stage.)

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-157

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Generally, big sagebrush is dominant in the Late seral stage, western wheatgrass in Late Intermediate, and blue grama in Early Intermediate. Early stages are often associated with pioneer plant communities that follow behind disturbance processes, and generally display higher percentages of annual forbs, annual grasses, and base soil.

Table 34: Percent of Rangeland Vegetation Seral Stages (as of 2008) - TBNG Late Early Seral Stages Late Intermediate Intermediate Early

Grassland Plan Desired Condition 12 - 22 28 - 38 28 - 38 14 - 24

Existing Condition as of 2008 -- Acres 63,268 206,268 153,924 108,879 --Percent *** 12 37 28 20

Actions needed in the next 5-10 years to meet overall Grassland Plan Desired Condition: 1. Measured at the greater landscape scale across all 550,000+ TBNG acres, current management is already meeting desired vegetative seral stages in all four categories. 2. Since 3 of the 4 categories are near the outside of their ranges, efforts should continue to move toward the middle of those ranges. 3. For example, management of 10,000 – 20,000 allotment/pasture acres could be slightly adjusted to move them from Late Intermediate up into Late, and a similar amount could be moved downward into Early Intermediate.

The most recent structure and composition data (2006-2009) was broken out by core sage-grouse habitat and by general sage-grouse habitat. The results are in the following table:

Table 35: Percent Structure and Composition by Sage-grouse Habitat Type - TBNG Late Early Seral Stages Late Intermediate Intermediate Early Core Habitat 7 56 19 18 General Habitat 20 32 28 20

Structure H M L Core Habitat 20 65 16 General Habitat 30 47 21

Management Issues and Concerns

Recent analysis of the rangeland vegetative structure and composition (seral stages) data within the 576,692 acres of core (primary) habitat indicate about 63 percent of the acres are in late and late- intermediate seral stages and about 84 percent of the acres contain moderate and high structure (these are for all land ownerships within the national grassland allotments – only 217,716 of which are national grassland acres). These overall favorable conditions would seem to indicate that additional needed results may be able to be achieved by smaller and site-specific livestock management adjustments rather than by big changes across large acreages.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-158

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Proposed restrictions on the use of prescribed fire may unduly limit the ability to improve habitat for sage-grouse populations, especially on the Spring Creek geographic area where 89 percent of the total acreage is in late and late-intermediate condition and 90 percent of the unit contains high and moderate structure. Many of the sagebrush stands there exceed the upper end of optimal canopy cover, and nesting and brood-rearing habitat could be enhanced with small individual hand treatments of just single-digit acres across the extensive landscape.

In addition, on the eastern side of the grasslands, there are areas where juniper is encroaching into sagebrush stands. Again, several scattered small-acreage treatments could enhance the existing habitat for improved nesting and brood-rearing habitat.

In cooperation with the NRCS and ARS, development of Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) – especially those parts concerning state and transition models – will begin in the summer of 2012 on the TBNG. It will likely take at least two years to complete. The models will be highly valuable in evaluating soils and vegetation data to better refine broad site capabilities for maintaining and improving sage-grouse habitat. This is the first case of developing ESDs on NFS lands in Wyoming with ARS leadership.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-159

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.14 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2.14.1 Overview

Visual resources within the planning area are influenced by a wide variety of topographic, geologic, hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region. Landforms ranging from relatively flat land, to low mountains, low rolling or flat-topped hills, and isolated hills, to higher elevations containing mountain shrub vegetation and alpine forest atop the highest areas. Elevation and precipitation vary widely within the planning area and determine the dominant vegetation. The widely diverse vegetation patterns that result from varying topographic soils and precipitation characteristics create changes in color, form, line, and contrast.

On the MBNF and TBNG, the Forest Service utilizes the Scenery Management System (SMS) to provide an overall framework for the orderly inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. The SMS applies to all National Forests and National Grasslands administered by the Forest Service and to all Forest Service activities including, but not limited to, timber harvesting, road building, stream, range and wildlife improvements, special use developments, utility line construction, recreation developments and fuel management.

Four Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) provide forest plan objectives to achieve the desired scenic condition and landscape character of the Forest. The SIOs are described below:

Very High SIO refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character is intact with only minute if any deviations.

High SIO provides the landscape character to appear intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

Moderate SIO allows the valued landscape character to appear slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

Low SIO provides the valued landscape character to appear moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are under Forest Plan guidelines. Guidelines are advisable courses of action that should be followed to achieve forest goals, but are optional. Deviation from guidelines must be analyzed during project level analysis and documented in a project decision but do not require a forest/grassland plan amendment. A grace period of one year is provided to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives of High and Moderate and three years to meet Low SIO after the completion of a project.

On the BTNF, scenery in managed through Visual Quality Objectives, or VQOs. VQOs are defined as desired levels of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. The VQOs that apply to the project area are Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification. The following defines the VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification. Guidelines for meeting VQOs are described in Forest Service Handbook 462, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2.

Retention: “Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape, and should not be evident to casual forest visitors.”

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-160

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Partial Retention: “Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but remain visually subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape.”

Modification: “Activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established line, form, color, and texture so that their visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area when viewed as middle ground or background. Activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape.”

Distance Zones Foreground is the landscape found within 0 to ½ mile from the viewer. Middle ground is the landscape located ½ mile to 4 miles from the viewer. Background is the landscape located 4 miles + from the viewer. 2.14.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

The MBNF includes four units in three distinct mountain ranges. The Medicine Bow portion of the Central Rockies includes the northern extension of the Colorado Front Range, which divides to include the Laramie Range on the east (the southern extension is known as Sherman Mountains) and the Medicine Bow Mountains on the west. The Sierra Madre Mountains, which are the northern part of the Parks Range, occupy the westernmost portion of the Forest. The Continental Divide bisects the Sierra Madres. The major river drainages flow from the Continental Divide: the Green River Basin flows west into the Colorado River system, and the western Dakota sub-Basin and Platte River Basin flow east. All of the MBNF is mountainous with elevations range from 5050 feet above sea level in the Laramie Range to 12,013 feet above sea level at Medicine Bow Peak in the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains and approximately 80 percent of the MBNF is forested. Lodgepole pine forests are the predominant vegetation type on the Forest. Other vegetation types include spruce-fir, aspen and Ponderosa pine.

Timber harvest and livestock grazing activities have been part of the landscape character on the forest before the turn of the century and other activities such as developed and dispersed recreation, road and trail development, water improvements and utility line development also are included in the visual landscape of MBNF.

Current Management Practices

There are numerous Federal laws require all Federal land management agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in project planning. The revised 2003 MBNF Plan provides guidance for all resources management activities on National Forest lands. The Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines for the scenic resources in the Forest-wide Direction and Management Area Prescriptions.

Providing scenic quality and a range of recreation opportunities, which responds to the needs of National Forest and National Grassland customers and local communities, is one of the several Regional goals as stated in the Forest-wide Direction.

The desired condition on scenic resources for the MBNF is to provide scenic quality and maintain the overall landscape character. There would be some changes made through timber harvest, and other vegetation treatments such as prescribed fire. Additional changes from natural events such as insects and disease, and fires will be evident on the landscape.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-161

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 36: Scenic Integrity Objective inside Sage-grouse Core Area - MBNF

Surface Land Scenic Integrity Objective Ownership Acres Low NFS 1,397 Moderate NFS 2,967 High NFS 119 Very High NFS 82 Total 4,564

Management Issues and Concerns

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could protect scenic resources by restricting activities such as: anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, new road construction, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements, domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression. Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could improve scenic resources through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, and clustered and unitized development on mineral leases. 2.14.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

The BTNF is a large part of the Greater Yellowstone region, and it contains some of the most pristine landscape areas. People come from around the world to see the scenery and wildlife of the Great Yellowstone area. The contribution of the BTNF’s scenery resources to this area’s desirability as a world-wide destination cannot be over-estimated.

The landscape character for the project area is surrounded by high, steep, rugged mountain peaks and precipitous ridges sometimes associated with gentle sloping sagebrush grassy mountains, leading to broad lush valleys. Several sections represent the montane and alpine zones of the central Rocky Mountains and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Scenic views offer, outstanding cliffs, crags, rock outcrops, talus slopes, and avalanche chutes are rich in variety of form, line, color, and texture. Project elevations range from o 6,200 feet to 11,682 feet. Vegetation patterns of coniferous forest, deciduous aspen forest, grass/brush communities all add dramatic visual contrast to the mountainous setting. While small meandering streams in the broad valleys serve as dominant visual features.

Vegetation patterns in the project area are primarily contiguous with a strong interplay of texture and color created by the mosaic of conifer timber, aspen, sagebrush, and grass. Grassy openings and or open grown stands of trees are dominant visual patterns on east facing slopes and along the mountain ridgelines. The primary tree species are spruce/subalpine fir mix, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, aspen, and mountain big sagebrush.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-162

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Desired landscape character is maintained and or enhanced. Perform activities to further increase visual quality, which is already at or near desired conditions, by increasing variety, integrity and stability of the valued attributes defined in the Visual Management System.

Managing for scenic quality benefits the local and regional economy; it creates tourism because of the natural human response to beautiful scenery. The most important draw is the renewal that humans receive from being in a natural setting. The Greater Yellowstone area is a major recreation destination, attracting visitors from Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana residents to travelers from across the United States and parts of the world. It is important to manage the scenic resources to ensure a quality sightseeing experience for the public. Scenery is an integral component of all forest settings, and contributes to the quality of the users’ experience. Providing a natural appearing landscape for these visitors is important. In the National Visitor Use Monitoring Project scenery was identified as the number one reason that visitors come to the BTNF.

Just as important as what visitors see is what they have come to expect a forest to look like. Some studies show that “Visual-quality ratings generally decrease significantly as pest damage increases in foreground and middleground landscapes. Studies have identified quite low (human) thresholds (in terms of the area of the visible landscape affected by pest activity), below which perceived visual quality drops significantly with increasing visible pest damage.” (Sheppard/ Picard, 2005)

Visual quality or “scenery” is an important component of the forest environment. The BTNF has recognized the importance of the visual quality/scenery by providing management direction for visuals in the Forest Plan.

Management of Retention - Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character "appears" natural. Changes may be present but must repeat form, line, color, texture and pattern common to the character so completely that they are not evident.

Management of Partial Retention - Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character, "appears slightly altered." Noticeable changes must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

Management of Modification - Refers to landscapes which “appear moderately altered”. Changes begin to dominate the viewed area, but they borrow attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and the pattern of natural openings. They should be compatible or compliment the landscape character.

Management Issues and Concerns

Management of multiple resources has altered the natural landscape character into the existing condition of the landscape. The most obvious effects on scenic resources are from vegetation and landform alterations. Multiple resource management actions that have altered scenic resources include but are not limited to timber management, oil and gas extraction, roads and trails, campgrounds and picnic grounds, fire management (suppression and prescribed burning), and livestock grazing. Management activities are evaluated the management of multiple resources and the possible effects on scenic resources.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could improve scenic resources through activities such as: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing and cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, and clustered and unitized development on mineral leases.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-163

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.14.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

The TBNG is located in northeast Wyoming and includes public land intermingled with other ownerships dispersed among plateaus and rolling foothills. Primary vegetation on the grassland includes grass and sagebrush communities. The TBNG landscape is rather unique as it is characterized by the remote and undeveloped lands and as well as developed lands with multiple uses. Coal, gas and oil developments and associated roads, utility corridors and livestock grazing improvements are evidence throughout the grassland landscape. The Missouri River Basin is situated within the TBNG and provides water resources for multiple uses on the grassland.

Current Management Practices

There are numerous Federal laws require all Federal land management agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in project planning. The Revised 2001 TBNG Plan provides guidance for all resources management activities on National Forest lands. The Grassland Plan includes standards and guidelines for the scenic resources in the Grassland-wide Direction and Management Area Prescriptions.

The Revised TBNG Plan utilizes the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS system provides an overall framework for the orderly inventory, analysis and management of scenery and applies to all National Forests and National Grasslands administered by the Forest Service and to all Forest Service activities including, but not limited to, timber harvesting, road building, stream, range and wildlife improvements, special use developments, utility line construction, recreation developments and fuel management.

Table 37: Scenic Integrity Objective inside Core Sage-grouse Habitat - TBNG Surface Land Scenic Integrity Objective Ownership Acres Low NFS 172,125 Moderate NFS 29,940 High NFS 15,703 Total 217,768

Manag ement Issues and Concerns

Please see ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ identified above for the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-164

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.15 WATER RESOURCES 2.15.1 Overview

Water resources discussed in this section include surface water and groundwater, water rights and uses, water quality and riparian areas and wetlands. Surface Waters include lakes, streams, rivers, ponds and wetlands. These water bodies can be either perennial and flow most of the year, or intermittent or ephemeral, depending on the climate and precipitation patterns and geology of the area. Ground Water resides in aquifers and supplies water to springs, seeps and other water bodies. Wetlands are often formed where groundwater reaches the land surface. Groundwater is used for many water uses on NFS lands, such as for campground wells and spring developments for stock water use. Riparian areas and Wetlands are places where water-dependent vegetation lives and grows on the banks of stream, lakes, and rivers. Wetlands are areas that are frequently inundated by surface water or groundwater sufficient to support a variety of characteristic vegetation or aquatic life. Wetland plant and animal communities typically require saturated or seasonally saturated soils to survive. Examples of wetland habitat types include fens, marshes, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, and playas. Natural and man-made ponds often have wetlands at the outlet or around the perimeter of the pond. Riparian areas are transitional zones between aquatic and upland habitats. They occur as strips of vegetation and are unique from wetlands. Water Rights and Uses are governed by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. Water rights follow the ‘First in Time’ doctrine of prior appropriation. Both surface and ground water uses require permits to divert and use water. Typical water uses on NFS lands include spring developments, wells and stock ponds for range, wells for campground water use and irrigation ditches which divert water off forest for agricultural purposes, and water used for administrative sites and summer homes. Reservoirs and lakes located on NFS lands are used for both municipal and agricultural uses off forest, as well as for recreational uses such as fishing and boating. A number of municipal wells are also located on-NFS lands. The Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) classifies the Water Quality of all the streams, rivers, reservoirs and other water bodies in the state. Every two years, WYDEQ publishes the Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) report which describes the water quality of the water bodies in the state and lists the water bodies currently not meeting state water quality rules in the 303(d) list. This report can be found on the DEQ website: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/index.asp Non-point pollution is minimized through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The NFS identifies BMPs specifically for each project. The State of Wyoming has developed BMPs for silvicultural activities, grazing, and other activities, based in part on Forest Service Handbooks, such as the Rocky Mountain Region FSH 2509.25 and the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22) used in Region 4. BMPs are also included as standards or guidelines in Forest and Grassland plans, and are applied to all activities on NFS lands, per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WYDEQ. BMPs are monitored for implementation and effectiveness, and results are shared with WYDEQ annually per the MOU. 2.15.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

Surface Water: There are approximately 1,600 miles of perennial streams in public lands within the MBNF. Water originating on the Forest contributes to flow in both the Platte and Green River basins.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-165

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The majority of the Forest is in the Platte River drainage, with the west side of the Sierra Madre Mountain Range located within the Little Snake River watershed.

Groundwater: Most of the Forest is located in the Western Ranges groundwater region. The majority of the Forest, portions over 7,500 feet elevation, is underlain by Precambrian aquifers. Lower elevation portions of the Forest are underlain by Pennsylvanian/Cambrian aquifers on the west side of the Laramie Range and Valley and Terrace Alluvium aquifers on the north edges of the Snowy Range. Precambrian rocks are not a major aquifer; therefore, groundwater storage across most of the Forest is localized and limited. Development of groundwater resources on the Forest tends to only occur in shallow alluvial aquifers. Riparian/Wetlands: There are over 70,000 acres of wetland and riparian areas on the MBNF. The majority of wetland and riparian areas occur within forested vegetation types. Wetlands in sagebrush habitats tend to be narrow strips along perennial steams and beaver pond meadow complexes in lower gradient stream reaches. Water Uses: The majority of water uses on NFS lands are for range stock water. Other uses include water for campgrounds and other facilities and lakes for fisheries and recreational uses. Water rights held by others on NFS lands include water developments for public water supplies for the City of Cheyenne and many ditches and small reservoirs which supply water for irrigation uses below the forest boundary. Water Quality: Most surface waters on the Forests are believed to be meeting all designated water quality uses, but due to the sampling requirements only a small subset of the waters have recent assessments to support this conclusion. Surface water quality on the Forest is good overall, although there are four stream reaches that are on the state of Wyoming 303(d) list of impaired water bodies (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2010) (Table 1). The impairments for these streams are either from heavy metals leaching from historical mining or from bacteria levels which exceed the allowable levels. None of the impaired streams are located in sage-grouse general or core area. Table 38: Forest Water Quality Impairments for Colorado and Wyoming - MBNF Water Body Ranger Threatened or Year first Impaired Cause of Name District Impaired identified Designated Use Impairment Little Snake River Basin - Wyoming W Fork Battle Yes – 303(d) Coldwater fisheries; BCH 2000 Metals Creek Impaired Aquatic life Yes – 303(d) Coldwater fisheries; Haggerty Creek BCH <1988 Metals Impaired Aquatic life South Platte River Basin - Wyoming N. Branch N Fork Yes – 303(d) LRD 2004 Contact Recreation E.coli Crow Creek Impaired Middle Crow Yes – 303(d) LRD 2010 Contact Recreation E.coli Creek Impaired

Current Management Practices

Current livestock management practices within sage-grouse core and general are range stock water uses and grazing management which has the potential to affect riparian and wetland areas. Stock ponds are located in T14N, R88W, Section 8 SWSW and Sec 17, NWNW. Riparian exclosures and reconstructed stock tanks have been installed in the last several years in the Sixmile Area (T13N, R80W, Section 32. These actions should improve riparian habitat and so improve habitat for sage-grouse. Stock ponds and

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-166

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

stock tanks could potentially provide source habitat for West Nile Virus. In channel stock ponds inhibit movement of aquatic species, such as fish and amphibians which prey on the mosquitoes which transmit West Nile Virus.

Management Issues and Concerns

Ponds constructed for stock or wildlife use could potentially provide habitat for West Nile virus. Troughs are not as much of a concern because water flushed through them. Degraded riparian habitat—due to grazing, roads, dispersed recreation, and other activities and facilities near riparian areas—is a concern due to reduced riparian function and degraded water quality. Impacts from oil and gas activities have the potential to adversely impact water quality in surface and groundwater supplies.

Water quality degradation may occur where Forest roads and trails are poorly maintained, poorly located, or are used during wet seasons, particularly where they are near—or cross-- streams. Cut and fill slopes may fail, culverts fill or fail, and users may create alternate routes, which cause further resource damage.

Actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could protect water resources by restricting: anthropogenic disturbance of sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, new road construction, domestic livestock grazing, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

2.15.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Surface Water: There are approximately 5,200 miles of perennial streams within the outer boundaries of the BTNF. Water originating on the Forest flows to the Green River (headwaters of the Colorado River), Bear River and the Snake River. There are lakes and ponds across the Forest. The greatest number and density of lakes are found in the Wind River Mountains on the Pinedale Ranger District. The largest lakes on the Forest are also found along the Wind River Front, including Fremont, Willow, New Fork, Half Moon, Burnt, and Boulder Lakes. The large number of lakes resulted from alpine glacial activity in the area, and Fremont Lake is also the municipal water supply for the town of Pinedale.

Groundwater: Water flowing off the Forest also feeds regional aquifers for groundwater use on- and off-Forest. Groundwater quality is variable across the Forest: it may be highly mineralized in certain locations due to natural geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. For example, in the upper Green River basin near Pinedale, total dissolved solids and other constituents are naturally high and groundwater quality in the basin generally decreases with depth and with distance from outcrops. (WWDC, 2010). A groundwater study at the Jackson Hole airport (Wright, 2010) found that water quality in the aquifer was generally considered good, though hard to very hard and dissolved iron and manganese were detected at concentrations exceeding the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water in two monitoring wells. These latter two are nonenforceable, aesthetic, secondary standards. All three components are also likely natural constituents resulting from local geology.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: According to the National Wetland Inventory, there are approximately 69,300 acres of wetland on the BTNF (excluding ponds and lakes). There are over 109,000 acres of riparian vegetation as mapped by the 2007 Forest vegetation inventory. Many of the latter acres overlap wetland acres. Many riparian areas and wetlands follow stream channels and support a variety of vegetation types,

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-167

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Water Uses: The Town of Pinedale, Star Valley, and the Kemmerer area draw upon stream water coming from the BTNF for municipal needs. Some municipalities, including Alpine and towns along the Star Valley Front, are seeking additional water sources on the Forest to accommodate their growing needs. In the Star Valley area, Bedford, Alpine, Afton, Happy Valley, Osmond, Star Valley Ranch, Turnerville, and Etna are dependent upon water from the BTNF. The Town of Kemmerer operates a reservoir—Kemmerer Reservoir-- on the Hams Fork River which supplies water to the communities of Frontier, Kemmerer, and Diamondville in downstream order. Most of the flow in the Hams Fork originates on the BTNF.

Fremont Lake is on the Forest and is the municipal water source for the town of Pinedale. Pinedale is growing due to expansion of nearby oil and gas fields. This may lead to an increase in the amount of water the Town seeks to withdraw from Fremont Lake. While the Town currently does not filter the water it draws from the lake (due to the lake’s high quality water), increased use on and around Fremont Lake may eventually cause this situation to change.

In addition to the above-mentioned uses, numerous diversions draw water for varied uses off-Forest. There are also on-Forest summer homes and administrative sites that use water. Numerous ponds across the Forest are used for livestock watering. Some of these are natural features, but many have been constructed by range permittees to provide stock water where there are no other nearby sources. These ponds are fed by snowmelt, rain, or they intercept groundwater. Troughs fed by springs and diversions from other sources also provide supplemental or alternative water sources to natural water bodies. There are also requests to construct ponds on the Forest to benefit wildlife, such as swans.

Water Quality: Most of the recent data (1990s to 2000s) gathered by Forest Service personnel on the BTNF have concentrated on stream flow, water temperature, fine sediment levels, and physical stream channel conditions. These are the greatest potential indicators of water quality concerns for most Forest activities. Outside agencies (e.g., Wyoming DEQ, Conservation Districts) have gathered other water quality data on the Forest. Results from recent water quality monitoring efforts are summarized in the following table. These results are not a comprehensive summary of water quality data, but do show conditions in a variety of locations across the Forest.

Table 39: Water quality monitoring results - BTNF Monitoring agency Date(s) Location Results Sublette County 2001- Upper Green River No exceedances of state surface water standards for Conservation 2006 watershed chemical or physical parameters. District USGS and National 1998- Pacific Creek above GTNP Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate met state standards. Park Service 2002 boundary, Spread Creek at Some exceedance of EPA recommended total N and diversion dam, Ditch Creek total P criteria for forested mountain streams. below South Fork near Pesticides lower than reporting levels. Fecal coliform Kelly met recreation standard limits. USGS 1985- Gaging station near mouth Water temperature met state water quality standards. 1999 of Greys River USGS, Town of 1965- Flat Creek, Cache Creek, Runoff from the town of Jackson was determined to Jackson, Teton 2005 Game Creek be the primary source of water quality degradation in Conservation the Flat Creek watershed. At the on-Forest Cache District Creek gage, temperature and nutrients met state standards. USGS, WY DEQ 1985- Buffalo Fork above Lava Water temperature met state standards. One sample 1998 Creek (note: non-Forest for nutrients found non-detectable levels. lands are upstream from here, too)

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-168

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 39: Cont’d Monitoring Date(s) Location Results agency Town of Pinedale, 2006- Fremont Lake Forest sampling of water and sediments for volatile and USFS 2009 synthetic organic compounds (due to incomplete combustion of (USFS) fuel from motorboats) led to inconclusive results. The Town continues water sampling because the lake is the municipal water supply for Pinedale. Monitoring Date(s) Location Results agency Sublette Co. 2002- Hoback River at Turbidity increases during spring runoff (as expected); some County 2007 Hoback dissolved oxygen levels below one day minimum cold water Conservation Campground criteria, depending on aquatic life stage; Chloride, nutrient, pH, District and temperature data all met State standards.

Water quality monitoring associated with the Forest’s air quality program has detected changes in high lake chemistry near Pinedale due to oil and gas activities in the area.

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.”

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); 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.

Where riparian area and stream channel conditions on the Forest are in good condition or have improved, so, by inference, has water quality. These conditions vary across the Forest, and must be described on a site-specific basis. The Forest is making a concerted effort to identify degraded areas and improve conditions in those areas by a combination of management practices and, where needed, structural measures.

There are currently no 303(d) listed streams located on the Forest. There are several segments downstream from the Forest on the 2010 303(d) list, but the one that would be of interest in relation to sage-grouse habitat is Flat Creek. The listed segment is between the Snake River and Cache Creek; it is listed for the “threatened” designated uses of aquatic life and cold water game fish; and the source for the listing is storm water runoff from the town of Jackson. As stated in the current Wyoming 305(b)/303(d) report, “a watershed improvement project is underway to reduce sediment loading to the stream. This project includes education and monitoring, snow removal and storage planning and the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-169

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

installation of storm water filtration systems to filter storm water from the rodeo grounds and five urban sites. In addition, the Flat Creek Restoration Project was initiated in 2004, with the goals of improving habitat and allowing the creek to reach its ecological potential.”

Current Management Practices

As stated above, the condition of riparian areas is an indicator of water quality conditions. Although riparian areas occupy a relatively small portion of the landscape (0 to 16% of a given HUC is mapped as having riparian vegetation), these areas are critical ecological features. Forest management activities in certain areas have impacted the extent of riparian areas and their ability to function. Roads constructed in and near riparian areas reduce riparian acreage and affect the movement of water that feeds these areas (e.g., Cottonwood Creek, Dry Creek, Swift Creek), thus reducing their ability to act as stream buffers from upland activities. The Forest is no longer building many roads, and is concentrating instead on road decommissioning and improvement of existing roads so these impacts should decrease. Relocating roads that are impacting riparian areas and improving stream crossings would also improve riparian conditions; opportunities are being sought to fund such projects. User- created roads and trails, as well as dispersed campsites near water bodies, impact riparian area function – and water quality-- due to impacts on soil, water, and vegetative resources. This continues to be a concern in areas that are heavily used in this way (e.g., Grover Park, Greys River). Livestock grazing impacts to stream channels and adjacent riparian areas have caused local water tables to drop, reducing the extent of riparian vegetation; improved management practices in recent years is allowing many of these areas to recover, while others continue to be degraded. Other impacts to riparian areas include changes in beaver presence, impacts of elk in managed feed grounds near riparian areas, and changes in natural disturbance regimes which can alter riparian characteristics (e.g., expansion of conifers into riparian areas).

Roads are the greatest potential source of sediment to streams from management activities across the BTNF, and small portions of roads may be important contributors of sediment. In the case of the Middle Fork of the Payette River, Boise National Forest, monitoring showed that 7 percent of the points monitored delivered 90 percent of the road-derived sediment at measured drainage points (Black et al., 2012). The amount of roads within riparian areas is a concern to water quality because of the increased potential for sedimentation and stream bank erosion. This analysis intersected the road layer with the riparian vegetation map to produce miles of road per square mile of riparian area. The basic assumption is that the more miles of road within riparian areas, the higher the potential there is to degrade water quality. The table below shows the 10 watersheds with the most amount of roads per square mile of riparian area on the Forest.

Table 40: Miles of Road per Square Mile of Riparian Area - BTNF Miles rd/sq mi 6th field HUC HUC Name riparian area 160101020204 Middle Smiths Fork 9.00 170401050108 Dry Creek-Salt River 8.53 170401030205 Lower Flat Creek 8.15 170401030507 Greys River-White Creek 4.48 170401030104 Mosquito Creek 4.04 170401050107 Star Valley 3.70 170401030510 Lower Little Greys River 3.53 160101020203 Coantag Creek 3.42 170401050205 Willow Creek-Salt River 3.30 170401030511 Greys River-Squaw Creek 3.14

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-170

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Oil and gas exploration and development is a growing management activity on the east and south sides of the Forest. Facilities and activities associated with such development have the potential to affect water resources within sage-grouse habitat, particularly in the Green River basin, Muddy Creek drainage, and Bare Creek drainages. Prescribed burning to improve vegetative conditions, including conditions for wildlife, takes place across the Forest.

Management Issues and Concerns

Please see “Management Issues and Concerns” provided above for MBNF. 2.15.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview Surface Water: The majority of TBNG (except the Spring Creek Unit) lies within the Cheyenne River Watershed, with portions of the north and northwest edges in the Belle Fourche River Watershed. The Spring Creek Unit is split between the Powder River Basin on the west and the Little Missouri River to the east.

Ground Water: The primary aquifers on the TBNG are quaternary alluvial aquifers and the Lower Tertiary aquifer system. Quaternary aquifers are generally shallow and are made of unconsolidated alluvium deposited along valley bottoms and alluvial fans. The Lower Tertiary aquifer system is a sequence of layers of sandstones and coal seams formed during different eras. Clinker is formed when a portion of the coal seam burns, leaving hardened nodules with a large amount of pore space in the area of the coal seam. Clinker aquifers are an important groundwater resource in the area. The high infiltration rate of exposed clinker allows precipitation to fill up the aquifer. The water is then discharged to seeps and springs and to streambed. The primary perennial streams on the TBNG are a result of groundwater contribution from the clinker aquifer.

Riparian/Wetlands: There are 1156 wetlands identified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) on NFS lands within sage-grouse core areas on the TBNG. More than half of these are identified as being man-made, either by excavating or impounding waters. In reality, many more are anthropogenic. Most of these ponds are constructed in-channel, inhibiting the flow of water and sediment down the drainage, as well as movement by amphibians and fish. Some of these impoundments have vegetation present around the edges or at the pond outlets. Other wetlands include riverine wetlands along the mainstems of the principal drainages, such as the Cheyenne River and Antelope Creek.

Water Uses: The majority of water uses on the TBNG lands are for range stock water. There are over 1000 water rights for range stock water on the TBNG. These include both stock ponds and water systems which have wells, storage tanks, pipelines and multiple points of use. Other uses include few ponds or lakes for wildlife, fisheries and recreational uses. Additionally, the coal mines and oil and gas companies use water for facilities and for dust suppression and flood control.

Water quality: The majority of streams on TBNG are designated as Class 3B, a subcategory of Class 3 waters. Class 3B waters are tributary waters including adjacent wetlands that are not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies and where those uses are not attainable. Class 3B waters are intermittent and ephemeral streams with sufficient hydrology to support communities of aquatic life including invertebrates, amphibians, or other flora and fauna which inhabit waters of the state at some stage of their life cycles.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-171

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Beaver Creek, and Lance Creek, tributaries of the Cheyenne River are designated as Class 2ABWW. The perennial streams and adjacent wetlands in the analysis area are designated as Class 2AB - Fisheries and Drinking Waters. Class 2AB waters are those surface waters known to support or have the potential to support populations of game fish and/or drinking water supplies. They are considered to be high quality waters, which support the beneficial uses of aquatic life, fisheries, drinking water, recreation, wildlife, agriculture and scenic value. The “WW” notation indicates that these streams are considered to support warm water fisheries.

The most recent State of Wyoming 305(b) report identifies two impaired water bodies. The Little Powder River is listed as impaired for contact recreation due to fecal coliform levels from the state line to an undetermined point upstream. The Belle Fourche River is also listed as impaired due to fecal coliform below the NFS boundary, possibly originating from the City of Gillette, WY. The 2006 305b report is available at the following website: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/index.asp

Water quality assessment reports are available for the Belle Fourche River) and for Antelope Creek, Black Thunder Creek and the Cheyenne River are available from the WYDEQ website. These assessments found that these water bodies were fully supportive of beneficial uses with the exception of contact recreation in the Belle Fourche River, with insufficient data to determine whether contact recreation and fish consumption uses were supported for Antelope Creek, Black Thunder Creek and the Cheyenne River. These reports are available at the following website: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Downloads/Monitoring/MonitoringReports/Watershed ReportsMap.htm. Current Management Practices On the grassland, small impoundments along ephemeral drainages were constructed in the 1940’s to the 1980’s to back up flow to reduce downstream sediment movement. Many additional ponds have been constructed to provide water for livestock grazing, although not all of these ponds reliably hold water. More recently, coal bed methane produced water has altered the flow regime in some ephemeral drainages to more perennial flow. This has resulted in these drainages now supporting sedges and other wetland vegetation along the stream channels.

Range management has developed multiple well and pipeline systems in the last decade to provide more reliable stock water than was available from the many impoundments in the area. These developments have also been designed to draw cattle away from riparian areas and improve cattle distribution, thereby reducing impacts. Management Issues and Concerns

Please see the ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ information provided for the MBNF

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-172

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.16 WILD HORSES 2.16.1 Overview

The Forest Service does not have wild horses.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-173

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.17 WILDLAND FIRE

2.17.1 Overview

The wildland fire program is managed to protect life and property while providing the maximum benefits of both prescribed fire and wildfire to overall resource management. Fire is a management tool used to maintain or increase age class diversity within vegetation communities (e.g., big sagebrush/grassland); rejuvenate fire dependent vegetation communities (e.g., true mountain mahogany/ponderosa pine); maintain or increase vegetation productivity, nutrient content, and palatability; and maintain or improve wildlife habitat, rangeland, and watershed condition. Fire is also considered a management tool for disposal of timber slash, seedbed preparation, reduction of hazardous fuel, control of disease or insects, grazing management, thinning, or species manipulation in support of forest management objectives.

The Forests and Grassland are comprised of a variety of vegetation types that are susceptible to fire including sagebrush and grassland communities at the lower elevations, and mixed mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer stands at higher elevations. In mixed conifer stands, fuel sources include dead and down, as well as standing timber with heavy fuel loading, because of past fire suppression, drought, and insect infestation. Although aspen are not as susceptible to fire as are conifers, they will burn and carry fire during the late fall and during drought conditions.

Wildland fires occur from natural causes, such as lightning, or are caused by humans either accidentally or with the intent to cause damage. Prescribed fire is used for beneficial purposes (such as reducing hazardous fuel accumulation) in a controlled manner under a specific prescription and planned effort. Wildland fires are sometimes managed to achieve resource objectives. The response to a wildland fire is based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety; the circumstances under which the fire has occurred, including weather and fuel conditions; natural and cultural resource management objectives; and resource protection priorities. Wildland fire can be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and can be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. The full range of fire management activities will be used to help achieve ecosystem stability, including its interrelated ecological, economic, and social components. 2.17.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

The Brush Creek/Hayden and Douglas Ranger District’s encompass a variety of different vegetation communities in a range of seral stages. Vegetation communities that are susceptible to fire include sagebrush, shrubland, and grassland communities at the lower elevations, mixed mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer stands at mid elevations, and subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce and the highest elevations. Notable changes in vegetation on the Districts include spruce mortality due to the spruce bark beetle, SAD (Sudden Aspen Decline), conifer encroached aspen, juniper encroaching on shrublands, landscape level lodgepole pine mortality due to mountain pine beetle epidemic, and a variety of other insects and pathogens, at endemic levels, effecting various tree species.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-174

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Wildland fire occurs both from natural causes, such as lightning or by humans either accidentally or with the intent to cause damage. Natural ignitions (wildland fire) are managed (when practical) to achieve resource objectives when they occur within defined prescriptive parameters and as outlined and allowed in our Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2003) and our Fire Management Plan (2011). The response to a wildland fire is based on: (1) evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety, (2) the circumstances under which the fire has occurred including weather and fuel conditions, (3) natural and cultural resource management objectives, and (4) resource protection priorities. Wildland fire can be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and may be allowed to function in its natural ecological role.

Current fire management options in the critical sage-grouse habitat on Brush Creek/Hayden and Douglas District’s include Direct Control (not specifically identified but always an option), Perimeter Control, and Prescription Control, depending upon the specific location.

Management Issues and Concerns

Restriction on the use of prescribed fire due to Sage Grouse habitat concerns that limit size and location of prescribed fires. Increasing fire suppression costs due to increases in equipment and staffing requirements to minimize loss of Sage Grouse habitat from wildland fire. Increasing post fire rehab requirements for Sagebrush reclamation and Cheat grass control. Restriction in the use of Perimeter and Prescription Control as fire management options in Sage Grouse habitat. 2.17.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Wildland fire and prescribed fire have been key ecosystem processes in maintaining desired vegetation and watershed conditions on the Forest. Many plants and animals on the BTNF are considered “fire dependent,” and require fire, (or possibly a surrogate disturbance) to flourish.

The appropriate use or management of fire provides benefits, including range betterment, scenery enhancement, timber production (site preparation), wildlife habitat improvement, and hazard fuels reduction. On the other hand, unwanted fires can cause negative social and economic effects both on federal and adjacent private lands. Unwanted fires include accidental or arson, or uncharacteristic fires that create undesired fire effects.

Historic fire regimes are identified for each vegetation type in terms of fire frequency and severity and the changes to the fire regime have been estimated using “fire regime condition class.” Fire regime condition class is an approximation of ecosystem departure resulting in a change of fire regimes. The greater the departure, the greater the probability that the status of some ecosystem component will degrade if a fire occurs (Sexton and Robertson). Departure from reference conditions results in changes to key vegetation characteristics such as species composition, structural stage, canopy closure and mosaic pattern.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-175

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 41: Fire Regimes by vegetation communities (Bradley 1992) - BTNF Community/Species/ Fire Fuel Loads Fire Return Fire Severity Group Interval

Limber Pine/One Light, sparse, 75-100 years Light surface fires discontinuous

Moist Douglas-fir/Three Moderate to High 300 Years Light surface fires to stand depending on stand replacing density

Lodgepole pine/Five Moderate in 150-200 Years Stand replacing fires younger stands High in older stands

Subalpine fir/spruce lower High 400 Years Stand replacing elevation/Six

Whitebark, Upper elevation Light 50-400 Years Low to mixed severity Subalpine fir 400 Years Stand replacing

Mountain Big Sagebrush Discontinuous, 30 Years Stand Replacing with dependent on site unburned areas on the moisture landscape

Basin Big Sagebrush 30-100 Years Stand Replacing with unburned areas on the landscape

Wyoming Big Sagebrush+ Discontinuous 100+ years Stand Replacing

Subalpine Big Sagebrush 20-40 years Mixed severity

Mountain Shrubs Continuous, Heavy 100 Years Stand Replacing

400 Years Mixed Severity

Current Conditions & Trends

Prior to European settlement of the area covered by the BTNF, fire occurred as a product of lightning with a minor contribution from human induced ignitions by indigenous peoples. A policy of “fire exclusion” was the result of an active fire suppression that began in the early 1900’s, and lasted into the 1970’s. Fire was prevented from playing its proper role as a disturbance process and altered historic fire regimes resulted. During this period, most fires were successfully suppressed at small acreages with only an occasional fire growing beyond 1,000 acres, and only two fires growing beyond 10,000 acres; the 1931 Gravel Creek Fire (10,980 acres) and the 1934 Fall Creek Munger Mountain fire (12,000 acres).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-176

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The most significant changes to fire regime have occurred in the lower elevation “short interval” fire types such as sagebrush/grass and aspen, along with some shrub communities. In addition to fire suppression, livestock grazing in grasslands has reduced the amount of herbaceous fuels (grasses) and consequently reduced fire frequency and spread. In shrub communities, grazing combined with fire suppression has caused a shift to dominance by woody vegetation. In some cases the herbaceous understory is significantly reduced as the shrubs become more and more dense. Depending on shrub spacing and density, this can lead to either very rapid fire spread under moderate to extreme fire conditions or little or no spread under low to moderate conditions.

While fire exclusion at the mid and upper elevations fire exclusion has had less effect. Much of the subalpine vegetation of the BTNF commonly burns in a large size with a mixed to high severity pattern. On the other hand, successful suppression of numerous small to mid-sized fires in these vegetation types has led to changes to the patch size and homogeneity of the fuels.

Since 1987, there has been a general trend towards larger wildfires, and more acres burned per year. This increase in acres burned may be attributed to several factors. The past 20 years have seen numerous years with dry and warm weather conditions, leading to favorable fire conditions for large fire growth. Many areas on the Forest burned between the late 1700’s and late 1800’s and vegetation in these areas had reached older age classes that were receptive to fire ignition and growth. Successful fire exclusion efforts further increased the homogeneity of the fuels versus a mosaic of fuel classes which would increase the likelihood of large fire spread and severity. An increased prescribed fire and fire use or managed fire program has also contributed to an increase in acres burned.

The most significant fire season was the 1988 fire season when over 270,000 acres on the BTNF burned. Much of the acreage burned was in the Teton Wilderness, which because of topography and fuel types lends itself to large fires.

During the mid-1970’s managers realized the importance of wildland fire in the ecosystem, and began implementing landscape prescribed burns on the Forest. Before this, prescribed fire treatments were limited to treatment of post-harvest slash.

The prescribed burn program has treated 52,521 acres on the Forest. Early burns were focused on range and wildlife improvement, with most acres burned in lower elevation sagebrush/grass and aspen. While much of the prescribed burning still occurs in these types, more burning now occurs in conifer. Much of the prescribed burning during the 1970’s and 1980’s was focused in several areas, including the Gros Ventre drainage, Buffalo Valley and Labarge Creek. Several years of little or no prescribed burning followed the 1991 Dry Cottonwood prescribed burn escape, with a gradual increase in the program through the late 1900’s. Following the 2000 fire season, priority shifted to treating wildland urban interface areas, with a resultant decrease in prescribed burn treatments. With the stabilization of the wildland urban interface program, landscape burning has slowly increased since 2003.

In 1976, wildland fire use was approved for the Teton Wilderness, allowing naturally occurring fires to burn under certain weather and fire behavior conditions. Similar plans were approved for the Bridger Wilderness (1980), and Gros Ventre Wilderness (1996). From 1976 to 1988, a relatively conservative fire use strategy was employed, with only fourteen fires managed. None of these fires grew beyond one acre. Following the 1988 fire season, wildland fire use was suspended, pending several regional and national reviews. Over the course of the next few years, the two original plans (Teton and Bridger) were brought back on line, along with the new Gros Ventre plan.

Beginning in 2001, larger and more complex fire use projects were managed. In 2004 the Forest Plan was amended to clarify ability to use Wildland fire use throughout the Forest, allowing fire managers maximum flexibility to manage wildland fire efficiently and safely while maximizing resource benefits from acceptable wildland fires.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-177

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

From 1952 through 2006, the total acreage burned including wildfire, wildland fire use and prescribed fire was 457,350 acres, for an average of 6,849 acres per year. Approximately 15 percent of the Forest has burned in this time, or an average 0.27 percent per year. It should be noted that this acreage represents “mapped perimeter,” and that much of the acreage was only burned in low to moderate severity.

Based on current information and discussion with fire managers, the following trends are expected in the fire program:

There will be a continued increase in the percent of wildland fire use or managed fire candidate fires managed through the wildland fire program, both in wilderness and non- wilderness areas. There will be an increase in management of wilderness boundary fires. During favorable fire seasons wildland fire use will account for 3,000 to 8,000 acres, with occasional 15,000 acre years. There will be a gradual increase in wildfire acres. Wildfire acres should slowly decrease as more fires are managed under the fire use strategy, and an active prescribed program treats additional acres. Initially, wildfire acres will average 2,000 to 6,000 acres/ year with occasional larger years to 30,000 acres, and other years with less than 1,000 acres burned. As fire use increases throughout the Forest, there will be a gradual decrease in wildfires to 1,000 to 4,000 acres per year, although occasional 30,000 acre years would still be possible during extreme fire years. There will be a gradual increase in prescribed fire, especially as emphasis moves back to landscape burning following completion of urban interface projects. Prescribed burns will be focused in areas where wildland fire use would not be appropriate because of risk or technical difficulty. Year to year prescribed burning would be influenced by the amount of fire use. During big fire use and wildfire years, there would likely be a tendency for less prescribed burning. There could also be a decrease in prescribed fire acres due to continued barriers related to single species management. Based on these trends, an annual prescribed program of 3,000 to 7,000 acres is expected with occasional 12,000 acre years.

Current Management Practices

The BTNF currently utilizes the full spectrum of fire management practices. Wildland fires on the BTNF are either suppressed by means of full perimeter control; partially suppressed by means of full perimeter control on only certain portions of the fire; or managed entirely for resource benefits by methods of point protection for any values and monitoring of fire progression and effects. For wildland fires, management action points are utilized as planning tools to inform actions that may need to occur based on values for a specific fire. The BTNF also utilizes prescribed fires to treat fuels in pre- identified areas to either reduce fuel build up or create a diversity in age classes of vegetation types.

Sagebrush habitat types on the BTNF are over represented by late seral stage classes and is proven by the BTNF 2007 Vegetation GIS Layer with a large majority of sagebrush canopy cover in the greater than 25 percent categories. Also, sagebrush vegetation classes on the BTNF do not meet recommended percentages of vegetation classes in the ‘Landfire biophysical setting model’ for Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe. In this model, Class C is over represented and would show Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) for sagebrush on the Forest in either FRCC2 or FRCC3. The cause for heavy shrub cover is due to the absence of fire as a disturbance mechanism over the last 100 years.

Management Issues and Concerns

Issues and concerns related to high shrub cover on the Forest are:

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-178

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Managing sagebrush on the Forest to move towards FRCC1 through wildland fire and prescribed fire Managing sagebrush to meet or have continued sage-grouse habitat into the future, especially where wildland fire could remove large or entire sagebrush habitats Restrictions on wildland fire and/or prescribed fire due to sage-grouse will negatively impact future sagebrush habitat presence and possibly sage-grouse presence Exposure and undue risk of firefighters to protect sagebrush habitat during wildland fire events

Over time, conifer and aspen vegetation types encroach into sagebrush vegetation types through seed dispersal and rhizomatous roots. Without wildland or prescribed fire as a disturbance, sagebrush habitat can decrease in size.

2.17.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Most fires on the TBNG occur in July and August, after the wetter months of May and June. Some fires will occur in the early spring (pre green-up) and in the fall after curing, but these are not normally problem fires. Green-up begins in spring (April), curing in mid-summer (July-Aug), and freezing temperatures may be expected in early fall (late September). Continuous snow cover is generally less than two months in duration.

The primary fire cause is lightning and many of these fires remain small and are knocked down by rain from thunderstorms. Large fires can occur during dry thunderstorm events with wind. Most of these fires are single burning period events in the sagebrush/grass fuel type, but can be longer if they occur in or burn into timber.

The dominant fuel types in the analysis area are sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie with ponderosa pine stands near ridge tops. Fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, with plant litter and stem wood from the shrub or timber over story contributing to fire intensity.

The following fire occurrence statistics include wildland fire taking place on federal land or fires threatening federal land. It does not include all wildland fires occurring on private and state lands.

Distribution of number of fires by year for TBNG 2001-2011 There were 205 fires on the TBNG from 2001-2011 Highest number of fires (30) in 2011 Lowest number of fires (13) in 2002, 2008, 2009 Average number of fires per year: 19

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-179

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Figure 9: Fires by Year - TBNG

Distribution of acres burned by year for TBNG 2001-2011 Average size of a fire on TBNG: 173.5 acres Total acres burned in 11 year period: 35562.2 acres Minimum fire size: 0.01 ac Maximum fire size: 5670 ac 54 percent of acreage burned in 2010 and 2011 5 years (2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011) had more than 2500 acres burned

Figure 10: Distribution of Acres Burned by Year - TBNG

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-180

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Distribution of fire cause for TBNG 2001-2011 61 percent are caused by lightning (1) 20 percent are caused by railroad (6) 12.2 percent are caused by miscellaneous (9)

Figure 11: Distribution of Fire Cause (2001 – 2011) - TBNG

Current Management Practices

Due to the proximity of Forest System lands to private land, initial attack suppression action is taken on all fires. The TBNG lies within four Wyoming counties Campbell, Converse, Niobrara and Weston. The Forest Service and these Counties have Interagency Cooperative Fire Management Agreements that are updated yearly and documents the way wildland fire suppression will be managed in cooperative and efficient manner. Cooperating agencies are used for initial attack, extended attack and large fire support on TBNG.

The Grasslands have few limitations to accessibility for initial attack. Initial attack response is usually immediate, although response times can be long due to travel distances, and in most cases is accomplished by engines.

Starting in 2007 and continuing into 2012 there has been an active prescribed fire program that has burned 11,900 acres on TBNG. The purpose of these prescribed burns is to reduce hazardous fuels and move vegetation resources toward desired conditions that would enhance Plover and Prairie Dog habitat.

Management Issues and Concerns

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-181

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.18 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 2.18.1 Overview

Wildlife habitat is best characterized by vegetation type and water resource; although air quality, geology and topography, and soils are also important contributors to habitat character. Such factors as fire management, forest management, ROWs, livestock grazing, energy developments (e.g., windpower and coal mining), OHV use and other recreation activities, and wild horses also influence the quality of habitat. Wildlife species generally use vegetation on the basis of its physiognomy (e.g., structure [height and spacing] and growth form [gross morphology and growth aspect] of the predominant species and leaf characteristics of the dominant or component plants). This means that a given species may use a shrub of a particular height and growth form irrespective of its species. Therefore, the mapping of vegetation zones characterizes wildlife habitat in general terms. Important habitats within the planning area include mountain shrub (mountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush); monotypic stands of bitterbrush and true mountain mahogany; and coniferous, rockland, aspen, riparian, and lowland sagebrush (primarily Wyoming big sagebrush on flatlands and basins below 7,000 feet) (Wichers 2002).

The State of Wyoming has jurisdiction over wildlife in the state and species are managed by either WGFD or USFWS. The WGFD is responsible for oversight of big game species, nongame species, and small game species that are non-migratory. The USFWS has oversight of migratory bird species and of all federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant and animal species. USFS manages the habitat that supports these wildlife species, and thus has an integral role in ecological health and viability of the species.

Wildlife

A diverse array of wildlife habitats occur within the planning area due to the variety of ecoregions that span the area. Habitats include montane forests of lodgepole and ponderosa pines; aspen stands; mountain mahogany and juniper woodlands; sagebrush-steppe communities; sand dunes; badlands; and extensive areas of grasslands (Knight 1994). Vertebrate wildlife species that occur within USFS administered lands represent all major vertebrate classes including: reptiles, amphibians, fishes, birds, and mammals. Emphasis is primarily placed upon birds and mammals because of increased interest in them by the hunting, fishing, and the recreating public. Important species or groups include:

Big game species such as pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep;

Waterfowl such as ducks and geese and other water birds such as rails, coots, and snipes;

Upland game birds such as sandhill crane, pheasant, partridge, grouse, dove, and turkey;

Small game mammals such as cottontail rabbit, hare, and squirrel;

Furbearers such as badger, bobcat, marten, weasel, coyote, raccoon, red fox, skunk, beaver, mink, and muskrat; as well as

Nongame species such as raptors and neotropical migrant song birds.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-182

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Fisheries

Fisheries resources within the area covered by this document are primarily mountainous cold water fisheries on the National Forests, with some limited warm water fisheries on the National Grasslands. The aquatic habitat includes perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish through at least a portion of the year. A number of major drainages occur within the planning area. USFS administered lands provide habitat for many species of fish, including: native cutthroat trout, stocked rainbow, brown, and brook trout, dace and other native fishes, as well as introduced warm water game fish.

Fisheries habitat conditions are closely tied to stream riparian conditions. Riparian vegetation moderates water temperatures, adds structure to the banks to reduce erosion, provides in-stream habitat for fish, and provides organic material for aquatic insects. As riparian habitats degrade, erosion and sediment transport increases, temperature fluctuations increase, oxygen content can reach critically low levels, and streams widen and become shallower. As streams improve in condition, populations of some sensitive aquatic species could subsequently improve. 2.18.2 Medicine Bow National Forest

Overview

Wildlife

The MBNF includes four units in three distinct mountain ranges. The Medicine Bow portion of the Central Rockies includes the northern extension of the Colorado Front Range, which divides to include the Laramie Range on the east (the southern extension is known as the Sherman Mountains) and the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains on the west. The Sierra Madre Mountains, which are the northern part of the Parks Range, occupy the westernmost portion of the Forest. The Continental Divide bisects the Sierra Madres. The major river drainages flow from the Continental Divide: the Green River Basin flows west into the Colorado River system, and the western Dakota sub-Basin and Platte River Basin flow east. All of the Medicine Bow National Forest is mountainous. Elevations range from 5,050 feet above sea level in the Laramie Range to 12,013 feet at Medicine Bow Peak in the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow Mountains.

Approximately 80 percent of the MBNF is forested. Forests are comprised primarily of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta); other forest types include spruce-fir, aspen (Populus tremuloides), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). There are 28 geographic areas within the four units that have been established on the MBNF. The physical and ecological characteristics of these geographic areas are described in the MBNF Land and Resource Management Plan (2003). Of the four larger units on the Forest, only three contain sage or sagesteppe habitats designated as ‘core’ habitats (WY-EO-2011-5) for the Greater sage- grouse.

No Core Habitat for GSG occurs within the Sherman Mountains Unit (Pole Mountain) of the MBNF. Within the Laramie Range unit, 2,638 acres have been designated as core sage habitats within the Boxelder Geographic Area. Within the Sierra Madre Unit, 1,295 acres of core habitats occur within the Northeast Sierra Madre Geographic Area (765); South Savery Geographic Area (100); Beaver Creek Geographic Area (125); and, the North Savery Geographic Area (304). Within the Snowy Range, designated core sage habitats occur within the Pennock Mountain Geographic Area (284) and the Platte River Geographic Area (348). In general, these habitats occur in areas of ecological transition. That is, Core Habitat consists of areas of sagesteppe interspersed by rock or outcrops as they transition to primarily lodgepole pine forest types. No leks of the Greater sage-grouse are known to occur on the MBNF.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-183

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

The table below depicts NFS acreage within the four primary geographic units on the Medicine MBNF and the designated Greater sage-grouse core and general habitat acres within each of the respective units. Of the 1.26 million acres of NFS lands within the four units, 4,564 acres (<0.4%) are designated as Core Habitat for the Greater sage-grouse and 22,915 acres (<1.8%) are designated as General habitat for the GSG.

Table 42: NFS Acreage and Greater Sage-grouse Core and General Habitat - MBNF General Unit Unit Acres Core Acres Acres Laramie Peak 437,781 2,638 5,523 Sherman Mountains 55,584 0 0 Sierra Madre 362,217 1,294 15,267 Snowy Range 406,743 632 2,025 Total 1,262,325 4,564 22,915

Fisheries

The MBNF supports a variety of native and non-native fisheries in lotic (flowing) and lentic (still water) ecosystems. The Forest is situated across 3 major drainages including the Colorado, North Platte, and South Platte River Basins, all of which have native and introduced fish species. In many cases, introduced fish have reduced the abundance and distribution of native species through competition/ displacement, predation, and in some cases, hybridization.

Fish populations on the MBNF are managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, while the Forest manages much of the habitat. Management of fisheries and aquatics resources is largely driven by balancing the needs of native species with the desire to maintain a sport fishery. Management goals are largely dependent on the geographic area of consideration, the native species present and their relative population status, as well as habitat availability.

Current Management Practices

Wildlife

The following discussion will be restricted to the Laramie Peak, Snowy Range, and Sierra Madre units of the MBNF as the Sherman Mountains unit (Pole Mountain) lacks any designated Core sage-grouse habitat.

Issues of relevance to the conservation of the Greater sage-grouse, that are related to the distribution or management of other wildlife species may include the conservation of sensitive species such as passerines associated with sage or sagesteppe habitats, the conservation of raptors such as the Northern harrier (a regional forester’s sensitive species), and the management of large ungulates such as the Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), and the Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus).

The conservation of passerines and other sensitive species such as raptors, that may be associated with sage or sagesteppe habitats, have been addressed in Section 2.11 Special Status Species (TES).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-184

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Consequently, the following discussion will focus on the implications of big game management on the conservation of sage habitats.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, as the trust steward of game species such as large ungulates, manages and monitors these species in terms of geographic areas that are defined as ‘herd management units.’ In turn, the following discussion will address herd management units for Bighorn sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain elk within the Laramie Peak, Snowy Range, and Sierra Madre geographic areas of the MBNF.

Laramie Peak Geographic Area

Within the Laramie Peak Geographic Area, the herd population estimate for Rocky Mountain elk far exceeds the respective herd management objective (Table 42). This is an area of dissected landownerships with substantial acreage held in private ranches. In this case, the lack of access to private land confounds the management of regulated elk harvest.

The table below depicts big game herd population objectives and current population estimates of Bighorn sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain elk in the Laramie Peak geographic area (GA) of the MBNF. Where population estimates exceed herd unit objectives, data is high-lighted in boldface. Data from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2010 Job Completion Reports (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/WILDLIFE-1000497.aspx, accessed April 23, 2012).

Table 43: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Laramie Peak GA - MBNF Bighorn Sheep Mule Deer

Laramie Peak Unit Bates Hole / Hat Six Units Current Population 250 Current Population 5,940 Population Objective 500 Population Objective 12,000 Rocky Mountain Elk Pronghorn antelope

Laramie Peak Herd Unit MBNF Herd Unit Current Population 9,323 Current Population 56,358 Population Objective 5,000 Population Objective 60,000

Snowy Range Geographic Area

Within the Snowy Range GA, the herd population estimate for Pronghorn antelope far exceeds the respective herd management objective (Table 43). This too is an area of dissected landownerships with substantial acreage held in private ranches. In this case, the availability of access to private land confounds the management of regulated antelope harvest.

The table below depicts the big game herd population objectives and current population estimates of Bighorn sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain elk in the Snowy Range geographic area of the MBNF. Where population estimates exceed herd unit objectives, data is highlighted in boldface. Data from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2010 Job Completion Reports (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/WILDLIFE-1000497.aspx, accessed April 23, 2012).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-185

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 44: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Snowy Range GA - MBNF Bighorn Sheep Mule Deer Douglas Creek Herd Unit Sheep Mountain Herd Unit Current Population 95 Current Population 12,282 Population Objective 350 Population Objective 15,000 Rocky Mountain Elk Pronghorn antelope

Snowy Range Herd Unit Elk Mountain Herd Unit Current Population 5,885 Current Population 10,093 Population Objective 6,000 Population Objective 5,000

Sierra Madre Geographic Area

Within the Sierra Geographic Area, the herd population estimates for Pronghorn antelope and Rocky Mountain elk far exceeds their respective herd management objectives (Table 44). This too is an area of dissected landownerships with substantial acreage held in private ranches. In this case, the lack of access to private land confounds the management of regulated antelope harvest. In the case of elk harvest on public lands, accessibility may be limited due to the hazards associated with substantial tree mortality as a result of a pine beetle epidemic.

The table below depicts big game herd population objectives and current population estimates of Bighorn sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain elk in the Sierra Madre geographic area of the MBNF. Where population estimates exceed herd unit objectives, data is highlighted in boldface. Some Data from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2010 Job Completion Reports (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/WILDLIFE-1000497.aspx, accessed April 23, 2012).

Table 45: Big Game Herd Population Objectives For the Sierra Madre GA - MBNF Bighorn Sheep Mule Deer Encampment River Unit Platte Valley Herd Unit Current Population 50 Current Population 13,000 Population Objective 200 Population Objective 20,000

Baggs Herd Unit Current Population 17,000 Population Objective 19,000 Rocky Mountain Elk Pronghorn antelope Sierra Madre Herd Unit Iron Springs Herd Unit Current Population 7,700 Current Population 10,940 Population Objective 4,200 Population Objective 12,000

Big Creek Herd Unit Current Population 1,462 Population Objective 600

Baggs Herd Unit Current Population 6,700 Population Objective 9,000

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-186

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Fisheries

Fishbearing streams within sage-grouse core areas consist of an extremely small percentage of the overall amount of fishbearing habitats on the Forest. The construction of in-channel reservoirs or off-site watering facilities for livestock may have altered fish distributions where they occur, and may have altered habitats that create competitive advantages for non-native species to flourish. Primary threats to aquatic habitats in or near identified core habitats include sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, hybridization, riparian degradation, dewatering, and exotic fish introductions. Current sage-grouse management is not believed to have significantly impacted fish resources at a localized or broad geographic scale.

Management Issues and Concerns

The MBNF lacks those sources of disturbance or fragmentation associated with mineral, fluid mineral, or renewable energy development. In general, those issues consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 sage-grouse finding (75 FR 13910) that may typically influence the availability or quality of sage habitats on the MBNF are primarily limited to managed grazing, wildland fire, and the use of prescribed fire. The limited extent of core habitats on the MBNF (< 0.4% of National Forest System lands) further indicates the minimal contribution the Forest is likely to make with respect to the range- wide conservation of the Greater sage-grouse.

However, based on monitoring of range quality within the Sierra Madre geographic area of the MBNF, it is apparent that big game species, all of which may utilize sage or sage shrublands seasonally, may influence the quality or composition of sage habitats on the Forest (Table 45). Consequently, should management emphasize the enhancement of sage shrublands, it may become necessary to consider the impact of certain big game species, in certain geographic areas, on habitat quality with respect to the Greater sage-grouse.

The table below provides a summary of 2002 vegetation transect data collected to assess the relative impact of cattle grazing and ungulate browsing on vegetation within the vicinity of the North Platte Six Mile access area within the Sierra Madre geographic region of the MBNF. Data is average canopy cover at transect points. The big game exclosure prohibited access to vegetation to both cattle and big game species, the cattle exclosure did not prohibit access to vegetation by big game species, and the column labeled ‘Outside Exclosures’ was accessible to both cattle and big game species.

Fisheries

Actions undertaken to limit or restore sage-grouse habitats could have positive impacts to fish populations. Reducing disturbance in upland areas may translate to positive benefits to riparian areas and streams where native fish populations currently exist. Reclamation of roads/trails/or other disturbed areas may reduce sedimentation to aquatic habitats, thereby benefitting fish populations. In addition, reclamation of impoundments and/or restoring natural hydrologic regimes may benefit native fish species but may be detrimental to non-native fish species.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-187

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 46: Summary of 2002 Vegetation Transect Data - MBNF Big Game Cattle Outside Cover Type Exclosure Exclosure Exclosures Litter 44 27 17

Bare Ground 6 10 21

Gravel 4 22 17

Moss/Lichen 4 3 2

Basal Vegetation 27 25 24

Shrub species Big sagebrush 42 10 8 Artemisia tridentata Snakeweed 2 10 10 Gutierrezia sarothra Bitterbrush 9 6 0 Purshia tridentata Douglas rabbitbrush <1 0 0 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Horsebrush <1 0 <1 Tetradymia canescens Herbaceous species Idaho fescue 23 6 6 Festuca idahoensis Western wheatgrass 4 2 6 Pascopyrum smithii Needle-and-thread grass 8 <1 0 Stipa comata Sandberg bluegrass 8 3 13 Poa secunda Junegrass <1 9 3 Koeleria macrantha Kingspike fescue <1 0 0 Leucopoa kingii Letterman needlegrass <1 1 <1 Achnatherum lettermanii Sedge <1 <1 <1 Carex spp. Nelson needlegrass <1 0 0 Achnatherum nelsonii Bluebunch wheatgrass 2 15 0 Agropyron spicatum Number of Forbs 15 21 11

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-188

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

2.18.3 Bridger-Teton National Forest

Overview

Wildlife

The BTNF provides a wide diversity of habitats that support over 395 vertebrate species, including 6 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 74 mammals, 208 birds, and 25 fish species that are indigenous to the BTNF. There are 5 mammals and 71 birds that are listed as rare or accidental visitors to the Forest.

As required by laws and regulations, the Forest Service works closely with other federal and state agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Game and Fish, and Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge. The Forest Service is primarily responsible for management of wildlife habitat on lands for which it has administrative responsibility. In contrast the State agencies are directly responsible for managing wildlife populations and have authority to carry out statutory policy to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage all fish and wildlife species.

Close cooperation between different state and federal agencies is necessary to ensure proper management of the fish and wildlife resources. The Forest Service and state agencies work in partnership to achieve optimum balance between wildlife population goals and habitat management on the Forest. Effects to most species due to management activities on NFS lands are measured by changes in habitat and habitat trends. Generally, habitats are comprised of varying combinations of vegetation groups or cover types and varying degrees of the following vegetative components: (a) vertical structures, (b) size class, (c) density, (d) species composition, (e) snags, and (f) down woody debris. Some species of wildlife are sensitive to human activity in close proximity during the breeding, nesting, and wintering portions of their life cycles. Human activities, whether intentional or unintentional, can increase stress to some species and may reduce reproductive success.

The land cover of the BTNF is divided between 66 percent forested and 34 percent non-forested. The forested areas are comprised of coniferous (primarily subalpine fir/spruce and lodgepole pine) and deciduous (primarily aspen) community types. The non-forested areas include grassland, willow, mountain shrub and sage shrub cover, with some areas of rock and water. Of the 430,865 acres of sage- shrub community types on the Forest (about 12.4% of the total BTNF area), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate ssp. tridentate) is the most common, comprising 88 percent of all sagebrush community types on the Forest.

Core and general sage-grouse habitat has been mapped on the BTNF by the State of Wyoming (WY- EO-2011-5). Additional occupied sage-grouse habitats (not within those core and general areas mapped and designated by the State) have also been identified and mapped by the Upper Snake River Basin Local Working Group and BTNF personnel based on observation data. The table below summarizes mapped habitats by category and Ranger District. Currently, there are 2 active and 1 satellite lek(s) known to occur on the Forest; one active and one satellite lek is located on the Jackson Ranger District within General Habitat and one active lek is located on the Big Piney Ranger District within BTNF Occupied Habitat; no known lek sites on the BTNF are located within Core Habitat.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-189

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 47: NFS Acreage and Mapped GSG Habitat Acres by Category - BTNF Sagebrush Sagebrush Core Habitat General Habitat BT Occupied Total Acres of Community Community Acres * on the Acres* on the Habitat* Mapped Sage Type Acres* Type Acres* Unit BT BT (Outside Core Grouse (Within (Within BT (WY-EO-2011- (WY-EO-2011- and General) Habitat* General Occupied 5) 5) Habitat) Habitat) Buffalo Ranger District 220 33068 0 33,288 - - Jackson Ranger District 2697 144231 5586 152,514 - - Greys River Ranger District 0 1855 2923 4,778 - - Kemmerer Ranger District 0 7723 0 7,723 - - Big Piney Ranger District 0 34240 12738 46,978 - - Pinedale Ranger District 3076 40899 39337 83,312 - -

76,600 (29% 41,300 (68% Total Acres 5,933 262,018 60,584 328,535 of mapped of mapped habitat = habitat = sagebrush) sagebrush) * Excludes PVT lands within proclaimed USFS boundaries.

Fisheries

The BTNF supports a variety of native and non-native fisheries in lotic (flowing) and lentic (still water) ecosystems. Cutthroat trout were historically present and native to each of the four river basins on the BTNF (Bear, Green, Snake, Yellowstone). Only the Sweetwater River drainage was not historically occupied by trout on the BTNF. Beginning in the mid-1800’s western trout, particularly subspecies of interior cutthroat trout experienced severe declines in distribution and abundance as a result of non- native fish introductions, habitat degradation, over harvest, and habitat fragmentation. The introduction of non-native fishes has been identified as posing the greatest present-day danger to native cutthroat trout conservation, due mainly to hybridization and introgression. Native cutthroat trout populations on the BTNF (Bonneville, Colorado River and Yellowstone/Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout) have declined due to hybridization and introgression, population fragmentation from manmade barriers, and competition from introduced trout species that include Rainbow trout. In addition, the ability of many cutthroat trout populations to persist has declined due to reduced watershed function and habitat degradation from dam operations, water diversions, road networks, timber harvest, permitted livestock grazing, private and public developments on floodplains, developed and dispersed recreation in riparian areas, and recreational angling.

Fish populations on the BTNF are managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, while the Forest manages much of the habitat. Management of fisheries and aquatics resources is largely driven by balancing the needs of native species with the desire to maintain a sport fishery. Management goals are largely dependent on the geographic area of consideration, the native species present and their relative population status, as well as habitat availability.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-190

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices

Given the primacy of sage steppe habitats to the conservation of Greater sage-grouse, the following discussion of ‘Current Management Practices’ and ‘Management Issues and Concerns’ will be directed toward the identification of current management practices and issues/concerns that may be directly or indirectly related to the conservation of sage steppe habitats that overlap with habitats of management indicator species. Management Indicator Species on the BTNF whose habitat requirement are fully or partially dependent on sagebrush habitat types (and thus, indicate a positive association with sage-grouse habitat) where identified in Table 24 of Section 2.11.3 of this document, and include Brewer’s sparrow, elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn antelope and boreal chorus frog.

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). Elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose are all harvest management indicator species within the BTNF. They are habitat generalists, for the most part, selected for analysis to represent important harvest species. The brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate and an ecological MIS for sagebrush dependent species. Two amphibians were identified as ecological MIS for wetland habitats; the boreal chorus frog and the boreal toad. The boreal toad was recently added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list and was addressed in Section 2.11.3 of this document.

Wildlife

Brewer’s Sparrow

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).

The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) recently completed breeding bird surveys from 2009 throughout the State of Wyoming. RMBO began ‘Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds’ in 2002, in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and WGFD. In 2009, RMBO implemented a new spatially balanced design based upon Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) and management boundaries in Wyoming. This new design allows for comparison of density estimates across public and private lands and to the results of other long-term monitoring projects throughout the country. This project implemented throughout Wyoming is designed for long-term monitoring of birds at large spatial scales. This is crucial to birds identified as MIS, particularly the Brewer’s Sparrow, to understand the trend of the species at the BCR level.

In the RMBO 2009 monitoring report (Rehm-Lorber et. al 2010), the BTNF, as well as a majority of the state of Wyoming, is mapped as Bird Conservation Region 10 in the Northern Rockies. Brewer’s sparrows in this BCR were surveyed on BLM and USFS managed sagebrush vegetation types within the Green River drainage. Density surveys of Brewer’s Sparrows in this survey area recorded about 112 birds/ sq. km, the second highest density of birds recorded in the State; the Worland BLM Unit recorded the highest densities. Surveys of Brewer’s Sparrows on the Shoshone (the eastern neighbor of the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-191

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

BTNF) recorded about 23 birds/ sq. km. Since this was the first year data was collected using this survey method, no State or Regional density or population trend information is currently available.

As of 2009, only two transects were located on the BTNF. Of these two transects, one was on the Jackson Ranger District and one was on the Big Piney Ranger District in the Bondurant Basin (Rehm- Lorber et. al 2010). Two transects are not sufficient to understand Brewer’s Sparrow densities throughout the forest. Therefore, in 2010, the BTNF in partnership with the RMBO and Region 2 of the Forest Service, added 15 transects to the forest survey plan that will provide necessary data to better estimate populations and long term trends. In the future, and depending on budget, additional transects may need to be added to fully understand the status of Brewer’s Sparrows, as well as other migratory birds, on the Forest.

Elk, Mule Deer, Moose, and Pronghorn Antelope

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is responsible for managing wildlife populations within the state of Wyoming, including big game ungulates. The department manages and monitors these species in terms of geographic areas that are defined as ‘herd management units.’ The following discussion will address herd management units for elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and moose within the Jackson and Sublette geographic areas where the majority of sage-grouse habitat is located on the BTNF.

The table below depicts big game herd population objectives and population estimates of elk, mule deer, moose, and pronghorn antelope in the Jackson geographic area (GA) of the BTNF. Data was collected from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2010 Job Completion Reports (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/WILDLIFE-1000497.aspx, accessed April 24, 2012).

Table 48: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Jackson GA - BTNF Mule Deer – Targhee Herd Elk – Jackson Herd Unit Unit

Population Objective 11000 Population Objective 850 Population 2007 12582 Current Population Unknown Population 2008 12552 Trend Unknown Population 2009 11691 Population 2010 11978

Moose – Jackson Herd Pronghorn Antelope –

Unit Jackson

Population Objective 3700 No Objectives or Population Info Available Population 2007 1705 Population 2008 970 Population 2009 934 Population 2010 919

Elk population trends in the Jackson Herd Unit have remained stable over the past few years, and population estimates have slightly exceeded objectives since 2007. This herd winters primarily on Elk Winter Feed Grounds on the National Elk Refuge and within the Gros Ventre drainage. Elk use of mapped sage-grouse habitats in the Jackson Hole Valley and Gros Ventre occurs yearlong, but primarily during winter and spring (parturition habitat).

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-192

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Due to the “Interstate” nature of the mule deer herd in the Jackson GA (referred to by Wyoming Fish and Game as the Targhee herd), population management is problematic. Mule deer in this population spend summer and early fall in Wyoming and migrate to lower elevations in Idaho to spend the winter in the foothills of the Teton Range or along the Teton River. Because of minimal numbers of wintering deer in Wyoming, there have been no classification counts since 1998. Field observations, public comments and harvest statistics indicate that this population has declined from the levels observed in the 1970s and 1980s. The State of Idaho initiated liberal seasons prior to 1998 to address deer numbers on winter ranges on the Teton River and damage concerns along the state line. Conservative hunting seasons were in place in Wyoming from 1998 to 2001 due to low numbers of deer observed on winter ranges along the Wyoming/Idaho state line. Since 2001, hunting seasons have been set that are consistent with deer areas east of Jackson.

Moose populations in the Jackson Herd Unit have declined significantly since approximately 2000, and current populations are well below objectives. Several studies have been initiated to determine the reasons for population decline. Moose use of sagebrush vegetation types within the Jackson Hole Valley and Gros Ventre occur year –long, and primarily within the sagebrush and willow community ecotone.

Pronghorn antelope summer in the Jackson Hole Valley and Gros Ventre within sagebrush flats and sage-grouse summer and winter habitat, but migrate south to winter ranges in Sublette County south of Pinedale. Because population estimates are based on count surveys conducted during winter months, the Wyoming Fish and Game does not provide population estimates for antelope that summer in the Jackson area.

Table 49: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Hoback GA - BTNF Mule Deer – Sublette Herd Elk – Hoback Herd Unit Unit

Population Objective 1100 See Info in Piney GA Table Population 2007 995 Population 2008 1064 Population 2009 1076 Population 2010 850

Moose – Sublette Herd Pronghorn Antelope –

Unit Sublette Herd Unit

See Info in Piney GA Table See Info in Piney GA Table

Elk populations in the Hoback Herd Unit have been slightly below population objectives since 2005. Elk in this unit winter primarily on Elk Winter Feed Grounds, but some natural winter and parturition ranges also exist along HWY 191within sagebrush vegetation types and sage-grouse summer habitats.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-193

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 50: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Piney GA - BTNF Mule Deer – Sublette Herd Elk – Piney Herd Unit Unit

Population Objective 2400 Population Objective 32000 Population 2007 3763 Population 2007 31207 Population 2008 3616 Population 2008 28700 Population 2009 3485 Population 2009 26057 Population 2010 3280 Population 2010 26162

Moose – Sublette Herd Pronghorn Antelope –

Unit Sublette Herd Unit

Population Objective 5500 Population Objective 48000 Population 2007 4481 Population 2007 62200 Population 2008 4768 Population 2008 59200 Population 2009 4701 Population 2009 57000 Population 2010 4908 Population 2010 59000

The Piney Elk Herd has remained well above objective since 2005. These elk rely heavily on five Winter Elk Feed Grounds located west of Big Piney along the East Wyoming Range Front and within large sagebrush flats. Use of sage-grouse habitats are primarily restricted to winter and spring time periods (winter and parturition range).

The Sublette Mule Deer Herd Unit covers a very large area and includes the majority of Sublette County. The estimated total population has remained below objective since 2005. Deer in this herd winter almost exclusively within sagebrush flats in the Valley and within sage-grouse summer and winter habitat.

The Sublette Moose Herd Unit covers a very large area and includes the majority of Sublette County. The estimated total population has remained below objective since 2005, but has shown a slow but steady climb to a population estimate of 4908 in 2010. Moose winter primarily in willow complexes within sagebrush flats and sage-grouse summer and winter habitats. During less severe winters with lower snow depths, moose also winter within the sagebrush and conifer ecotone.

The Sublette Pronghorn Herd populations has remained fairly steady and over objective since 2005. The herd occupies most of the Green River drainage north of Interstate Highway 80 in addition to portions of the Gros Ventre, Hoback, and Sweetwater River drainages. Within the Sublette herd, 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 over 150 air miles. The Sublette herd 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 herd unit boundaries. This herd utilizes sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat year long.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-194

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 51: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Upper Green GA - BTNF Elk – Upper Green River Mule Deer – Sublette Herd

Herd Unit Unit

Population Objective 2500 See Info in Piney GA Population 2007 2452 Population 2008 2600 Population 2009 2639 Population 2010 2550

Moose – Sublette Herd Pronghorn Antelope –

Unit Sublette Herd Unit

See Info in Piney GA See Info in Piney GA

The Upper Green Elk Herd Unit has remained at objective since 2005, with only slight total population variations. Elk winter on two Winter Feed Grounds, but some use also occurs on natural winter ranges on and adjacent to sagebrush vegetation types and summer sage-grouse habitat along the Upper Green River.

Table 52: Big Game Herd Population Objectives and Trends - Pinedale GA - BTNF Mule Deer – Sublette Herd Elk – Pinedale Herd Unit Unit

Population Objective 1900 See Info in Piney GA Population 2007 1741 Population 2008 2006 Population 2009 1980 Population 2010 2000

Moose – Jackson Herd Pronghorn Antelope –

Unit Sublette Herd Unit

See Info in Piney GA See Info in Piney GA

The Pinedale Elk Herd Unit has remained at and slightly above objective since 2005. These elk winter almost exclusively on Winter Elk Feed grounds which occur within sagebrush vegetation types and sage-grouse habitat along the Wind River Range front near Pinedale.

Boreal Chorus Frog

Chorus frogs breed in shallow, ephemeral pools, marshes, and sometimes more permanent waters. During summer months, they may move up to 1/3 mile from breeding ponds into wet meadows. Some breeding sites on the BTNF are known to occur adjacent to sagebrush flats that also provide habitat for sage-grouse. Monitoring sites for ten boreal chorus frog breeding sites were established on the Forest in 2010; an additional ten monitoring sites will be established in 2012. No population trend data is available at this time.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-195

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Fisheries

Fish-bearing streams within sage-grouse core areas consist of an extremely small percentage of the overall amount of fish-bearing habitats on the Forest. The construction of in-channel reservoirs or off- site watering facilities for livestock may have altered fish distributions where they occur, and may have altered habitats that create competitive advantages for non-native species to flourish. Primary threats to aquatic habitats in or near identified core habitats include sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, hybridization, riparian degradation, dewatering, and exotic fish introductions. Current sage-grouse management is not believed to have significantly impacted fish resources at a localized or broad geographic scale.

Management Issues and Concerns

Wildlife

In regard to those species addressed in this section, it is likely that any management actions developed to limit losses of sage-grouse habitat or any actions taken to restore sage-grouse habitats would have little to no impact on elk, moose or boreal chorus frogs; and, such management actions may be beneficial to Brewer’s sparrow, mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Because wild ungulates graze on herbaceous forbs, and sometimes on the sagebrush plant itself, there is potential for adverse impacts on sage-grouse habitat by elk, moose, pronghorn antelope and mule deer. However, significance of these impacts are unknown. Since the majority of sage mapped sage-grouse habitat on the BTNF also occurs within active livestock grazing allotments, monitoring wild ungulate impacts on sage-grouse habitats would be difficult.

Fisheries

Actions undertaken to limit or restore sage-grouse habitats could have indirect positive impacts to fish populations. Reducing disturbance in upland areas may translate to positive benefits to riparian areas and streams where native fish populations currently exist. Reclamation of roads/trails/or other disturbed areas may reduce sedimentation to aquatic habitats, thereby benefitting fish populations. In addition, reclamation of impoundments and/or restoring natural hydrologic regimes may benefit native fish species. 2.18.4 Thunder Basin National Grassland

Overview

Wildlife

Please refer to the general overview provided at the beginning of Section 2.18.

Fisheries

While fisheries habitat on the TBNG is limited, it supports a number of native and non-native warmwater and, to a lesser extent, coldwater fisheries. Much of the available habitat consists of perennial streams with some habitat provided by intermittent reaches that may flow for relatively short periods of the year. Habitat connectivity, water development, energy development, and introductions of non-native fishes pose significant threats to a number of native fish populations. Some native fish populations remain relatively stable, while others have declined due to a number of complex factors.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-196

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices - Wildlife

General Raptor Information

In 2001, nesting raptors (bald eagles, golden eagles, Red-tailed hawks, Swainson’s hawks, and ferruginous hawks) were inventoried on 3,500 acres of the TBNG to provide resource information for land management decisions, and to assist other ongoing raptor projects. A total of 89 raptor nests were located,

16 percent (14 nests) were active. This, however, does not represent a totally accurate percent of active nests. Each year specific areas are targeted for survey, leaving other areas with an undetermined status for many nests. Depending on the habitat available, the raptor species using it will vary. The per cent active category only represents the minimum per cent of active nests found in one year. It is suspected that the low activity level was due to a lack of prey caused by a crash in the local rabbit population.

Table 53: Raptor Nest Monitoring - TBNG Figure 12: Graph: Per Cent Active Nests - TBNG Year Total Number % Inventoried Active Active % Active Raptor Nests

2003 208 37 18 70 2004 155 62 40 60 2005 104 64 61 50 61 2006 337 166 49 40 49 50 48 30 40 2007 151 76 50 % Active 2008 190 92 48 20 2009 123 11 09 10 18 9 18 16 2010 126 23 18 0 2011 88 14 16

Thunder Basin Elk Herds - Rochelle Hills Elk Herd

The following big game information has been summarized from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Job Completion Reports from 2002 through 2010 from the Casper and Sheridan Regions. Habitat: Elk habitats found within this herd unit include Yearlong (YRL), Winter Yearlong (WYL) and Crucial Winter Range (CRUWIN). Elk within this herd unit do not concentrate primarily in the existing ponderosa pine stands found within the herd unit. Instead, they are found throughout the herd unit, and most of the analysis area. These elk will use the cottonwood/willow riparian galleries, broken topography, sagebrush grassland, and have even been recorded on black-tailed prairie dog towns. A unique aspect of their habitat is that, as a result of coal mine reclamation, portions of the herd have increased their use within the Jacobs Ranch Mine to the point that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has classified a portion of the reclamation as Crucial Winter Range.

Population: The entire analysis area falls into one elk herd unit, the Rochelle Hills Elk Herd Unit. The current population is approximately 728 animals which above the desired objective of 400 animals. This population has fluctuated between 600 and 800 animals over the last 10 years, but has consistently remained above the Wyoming Game and Fish Department objective.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-197

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Table 54: Elk Population – TBNG Figure 13: Elk Population - TBNG Year 2010 1000 Rochelle Hills Elk Population 800 Current Population 728 600 Population Objective 400 % above/below objective 82% 400 Number of years +/- objective 12 years 200 Estimated Population Harvest 81 animals 0 Hunter success 70%

Figure 14: Antelope Herd Units - TBNG

Thunder Basin Antelope Herds

Habitat: Pronghorn Antelope will use all habitat types found within the analysis area, excluding the ponderosa pine habitat, and the more dense portions of the cottonwood willow riparian. Generally, antelope prefer habitats with vegetation 15 inches or these in height (Wyo. Game and Fish Bulletin #28). Antelope feed somewhat opportunistically, focusing on grasses in the spring and summer, forbs during mid-summer and browsing on shrubs (primarily sagebrush) through the fall and winter. Also the

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-198

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

availability of water is critical to antelope habitat. Antelope generally won’t use habitat more than 5 miles from a water source (Wyo. Game and Fish Bulletin #28).Within TBNG there are antelope habitats that provide conditions that support antelope yearlong.

Highlight Herd Unit

Population: This herd unit involves only antelope hunt area 24 and is located just north of Wyoming highway 450 near the current coal mining activity. The current population is approximately 13,108 animals and has been above the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 11,000 animals for the last 6 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 25 percent of this herd unit.

Table 55: Highlight Herd Population – TBNG Figure 15: Highlight Herd Population - TBNG Year 2010 North Black Hills Herd Unit Current Population 13,108 20000 18000 Highlight Antelope Herd Population Objective 11,000 16000 % above/below objective 19% above 14000 Number of years +/- objective 6 years A 12000 n 10000 8000 Harvest 1,319 animals i Estimate… Hunter success 97% m 6000 Populati… a 4000 2000 l 0 s 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Population: This herd unit involves 5 hunt areas, but only antelope hunt area 18 includes the TBNG. It is located just east of Wyoming highway 59north of Gillette near the old Weston Town site. The current population is approximately 12,832 animals and has been at, or below the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 14,000 animals for the last 2 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 25 percent of this herd unit.

Table 56: N Black Hills Population – TBNG Figure 16: N Black Hills Population - TBNF Year 2010 25,000 North Black Hills Antelope Current Population 12,832 20,000 A Population Objective 14,000 N 15,000 % above/below objective 8.3% below I Number of years +/- objective 2 years at or M 10,000 below Estimated A Population 5,000 Harvest 1,311 animals L Hunter success 86% S 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-199

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Gillette Herd Unit

Population: This herd unit involves only antelope hunt area 17. It is located just west of Wyoming highway 450, north of Gillette near the old Weston Town site. The current population is approximately 12,038 animals and has been above the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 11,000 animals for the last 7 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 10 percent of this herd unit.

Table 57: Gillette Herd Population – TBNG Figure 17: Gillette Herd Population - TBNG Year 2010 27,000 24,000 A Current Population 12,038 21,000 Gillette Antelope N 18,000 I Population Objective 11,000 15,000 M % above/below objective 9% above 12,000 A Number of years +/- objective 7 years above 9,000 L 6,000 Estimated Population Harvest 1,208 animals S 3,000 Hunter success 85% 0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Cheyenne River Herd Unit

Population: This herd unit involves 8 hunt areas, 7 of which involve TBNG. This Herd Unit is located just east of Wyoming highway 59, and South of I-90 between Bill and Newcastle. The current population is approximately 13,108 animals and has been above the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 11,000 animals for the last 6 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 25 percent of this herd unit.

Table 58: Cheyenne River Population – TBNG Figure 18: Cheyenne River Herd Population - TBNG Year 2010 65,000 Cheyenne River Antelope 60,000 55,000 Current Population 38,795 50,000 A 45,000 40,000 Population Objective 38,000 N % above/below objective 2 % above 35,000 I 30,000 Number of years +/- objective 8 years 25,000 M 20,000 Estimat Harvest 6,725 animals A 15,000 10,000 ed Hunter success 93% L 5,000 Popul… S 0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-200

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

North Converse Herd Unit

Table 59: N Converse Population – TBNG Figure 19: N Converse Population - TBNG Year 2010 50,000 North Converse Antelope Current Population 34,808 40,000 A Population Objective 28,000 N 30,000 % above/below objective 27 % above I 20,000 Number of years +/- objective 7 years above M

A 10,000 Estimated Population Harvest 3,184 animals L Population Objective Hunter success 96 % S 0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-201

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herds

Figure 20: Mule Deer Herds – TBNG

Habitat: Mule deer will use all habitat types found within the analysis area. Generally, mule deer concentrate on shrubland habitats in winter and use all habitat types available in the analysis area during the remainder of the year. Diet is primarily sagebrush and deciduous shrubs during winter. Diet includes more herbaceous material during the remainder of the year. The TBNG contains habitat to support mule deer throughout the year.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-202

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Powder River Herd Unit Population: This herd unit involves hunt areas 17, 18, 23, and 26 but only hunt area 18 is located on the TBNG. The herd unit is defined by the area around Weston, Gillette, and Sheridan, near the current coal mining activity. The current population is approximately 40,196 animals and has been below the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 52,000 animals for the last 3 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 10 percent of this herd unit.

Table 60: Powder River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG Year 2010

Current Population 40,196

Population Objective 52,000 % above/below objective 22% below Number of years +/- objective 4 years

Harvest 2925 animals Hunter success 65%

Figure 21: Powder River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG

60000 Powder River Mule Deer Herd 50000

A 40000 n i 30000 m a 20000 l Estimated Population s 10000 Population Objective

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-203

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Cheyenne River Herd Unit

Population: This herd unit involves 9 hunt areas, but only hunt areas 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 21 includes the TBNG. It is located southeast of Gillette. The current population is approximately 23,963 animals and has been below the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 38,000 animals for the last 10 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 25 percent of this herd unit.

Table 61: Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG Year 2010

Current Population 23,963

Population Objective 38,000 % above/below objective 37% below Number of years +/- objective 10 years

Harvest 1817 animals Hunter success 58%

Figure 22: Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd - TBNG 45,000 40,000 Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd 35,000 A 30,000 N I 25,000 M 20,000 A Estimated Population L 15,000 S 10,000 Population Objective

5,000 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-204

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Black Hills Herd Unit Population: This herd unit involves hunt areas 1 - 6. Only hunt areas 5 and 6 occur on TBNG. The herd unit surrounds the Black Hills in northeast Wyoming. The current population is approximately 16,092 animals and has been below the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 20,000 animals for the last 2 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 10 percent of this herd unit.

Table 62: Black Hills Mule Deer Herd - TBNG Year 2010

Current Population 16,092

Population Objective 20,000 % above/below objective 19% below Number of years +/- objective 2 years below

Harvest 1723 animals Hunter success 38%

Figure 23: Black Hills Mule Deer Herd - TBNG

30,000 Black Hills 27,000 A 24,000 N 21,000 I 18,000 M 15,000 A 12,000 L 9,000 Estimated Population S 6,000 Population Objective 3,000 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-205

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

North Converse Herd Unit Population: This herd unit includes hunt area 8. This Herd Unit is located just south of Highway 387, west of Highway 59, and north of Interstate 25. The current population is approximately 8,546 animals and has been below the Wyoming Game and Fish objective of 9,100 animals for the last 2 years. National Grassland Surface makes up less than 10 percent of this herd unit.

Table 63: N Converse Mule Deer Herd - TBNG Year 2010

Current Population 8546

Population Objective 9100 % above/below objective 6 % below Number of years +/- objective 2 years

Harvest 820 animals Hunter success 85%

Figure 24: N Converse Mule Deer Herd - TBNG

14,000 North Converse Mule Deer Herd

12,000

A 10,000 N I 8,000 M 6,000 A

L 4,000 Estimated S Population 2,000 Population Objective 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-206

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Current Management Practices - Fisheries

Recent droughts have likely altered flow regimes on the TBNG and may have influenced abundance and distribution of native fish species. Most streams on the TBNG have been manipulated to store water during dry periods for a variety of beneficial uses including livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and agriculture. Altered flow regimes resulting from numerous impoundments are likely favoring exotic fish species (including desirable sport fish) while reducing available habitats for native fish species. Mineral development has altered aquatic habitats and produced water from CBNG development may favor habitat connectivity for non-native species such as green sunfish, while reducing intermittent pools tolerated by native fish such as flathead chub and plains minnow.

Management Issues and Concerns - Wildlife

The management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat will, in turn have an effect on all other wildlife habitat on the TBNG. In some cases, actions to conserve, enhance or restore the sagebrush ecosystem could protect other wildlife species by restricting the following:

anthropogenic disturbance of the sage-grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, new road construction, road traffic speed vehicle use on NFS and mineral development roads, recreation special use permits, utility corridor permits or easements domestic livestock grazing, water development, structural range improvements, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, development/removal of mineral materials (gravel, sand, etc.), the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatment, and wildfire suppression.

Sagebrush ecosystem restoration activities could improve habitat for other wildlife species, including: reclamation of roads/trails/other disturbed areas, dust abatement on roads and disturbed surfaces, native grass and plant seeding, removal of perennial grass seeded areas, transplanting sagebrush, reduction of predator perches, burial of power lines, requirements for fencing cover for mineral sumps/pits/tanks, land trades or acquisition, prevention/treatment of invasive species, clustered and unitized development on mineral leases, reduction of wildfire threats, pond/reservoir modifications to reduce source habitat for West Nile Virus.

Restriction of water development and the use of prescribed fire could also negatively affect some other wildlife species.

Management Issues and Concerns – Fisheries

Improving habitat connectivity and restoring hydrologic processes may prove beneficial to a number of imperiled native warmwater fish species. Numerous water developments have been developed to provide a number of uses for livestock, wildlife, and agriculture, yet many of these developments alter the hydrologic regime to an extent that impedes migration and dispersal for a number of native fishes. Additionally, many impoundments provide source populations for non-native fish such as green sunfish, plains topminnow, brook stickleback, plains killifish, and carp. Native species adapted to intermittency exist on the grasslands and include species such as flathead chub and plains minnow.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-207

Final AMS Chapter 2 – Resource Analysis

Energy development, road construction, mining, and livestock grazing have impacted stream reaches and fish habitats. Reducing upland disturbances would translate to improvements to stream and riparian habitats favored by a number of native fish species. Historic water developments that are no longer functioning for their intended use should be evaluated for potential removal. This may reduce vectors for West Nile virus while improving connectivity for a number of native fish species. Riparian function, including regeneration of cottonwood stands, may also be enhanced by restoring natural flow regimes.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 2-208

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

CHAPTER 3 - RELEVENT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES

This section provides a listing of the authorities that apply to the development and selection of management alternatives in the LRMP amendment.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Organic Administration Act of 1897

This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the National Forests. This is the basic authority for authorizing use of National Forest System lands for other than rights-of-way.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) sets forth requirements to consider the environmental impact of proposed actions; identify adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided; consider alternatives to the proposed action; consider the relationship between local short-term uses and long-term productivity; and identify any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources (FSM 1950).

Planning Regulations

1. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, Subpart A. This regulation provides direction on land management planning procedures on National Forest System lands.

2. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1500 through 1508.28. This regulation directs the Forest Service to apply environmental analysis to environmentally significant decision points during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities.

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088)

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088) states that federal agencies must comply with applicable pollution control standards.

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514)

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514, as amended by EO 11991) establishes the policy for federal agencies to provide leadership in environmental protection and enhancement.

3.2 LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960

This Act directs the Forest Service to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of national forests for multiple uses and sustained yield of the products and services obtained from those resources.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-1

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFMA amends the Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) and sets forth the requirements for plans (for the National Forest System). See FSM 1920 for specific requirements.

The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1978

This Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to include, as appropriate, research activities when managing forest and rangeland resource, and to periodically assess the national situation of the forest and rangeland resources. This assessment is called the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessment. See FSM 1906 and FSM 1910 for detailed requirements.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FLPMA, as amended (43 USC 1701, et seq.), provides for public lands to be generally retained in federal ownership for periodic and systematic inventory of the public lands and their resources; for a review of existing withdrawals and classifications; for establishment of comprehensive rules and regulations for administering public lands statutes; for multiple-use management on a sustained yield basis; for protection of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; for receiving fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources; for establishment of uniform procedures for any disposal, acquisition, or exchange; for identification and protection of ACECs; for recognition of the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands, including implementation of the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970; and for payments to compensate states and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of federal lands from state and local taxation.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Title III of this act directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop programs of land conservation and use to protect, improve, develop, and administer the land acquired and to construct structures thereon needed to adapt the land to beneficial use. Under the act, the Department of Agriculture may issue leases, licenses, permits, term permits, or easements for most uses, except rights- of-way.

General Mining Law of 1872

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 22, et seq.), provides for locating and patenting mining claims where a discovery has been made for locatable minerals on public lands in specified states.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 USC 181, et seq.), provides for the leasing of deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, native asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen, bituminous rock or gas, and lands containing such deposits owned by the United States, including those in national forests but excluding those acquired under other acts subsequent to February 25, 1920, and those lands within the national petroleum and oil shale reserves. This act authorizes the issuance of permits and easements for oil and gas pipelines. It requires annual payments in advance which represent fair market rental value and provides for reimbursement to the Government for administrative and other costs incurred in monitoring, construction (including costs for preparing

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-2

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

required environmental analysis and documentation), operation, maintenance, and termination of oil and gas pipelines.

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 USC 201, et seq.) requires competitive leasing of coal on public lands and mandates a broad spectrum of coal operations requirements for lease management.

Materials Act of 1947

The Materials Act of 1947, as amended (30 USC 601–604, et seq.), provides for the sale of common variety materials for personal, commercial, or industrial uses and for free use for local, state, and federal governmental entities.

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 USC 315), provides authorization to the Secretary of the Interior to establish grazing districts from any part of the public domain of the United States (exclusive of Alaska) which, in the Secretary’s opinion, are chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops; to regulate and administer grazing use of the public lands; and to improve the public rangelands.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901, et seq.) provides for the improvement of range conditions on public rangelands, research on wild horse and burro population dynamics, and other range management practices.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 USC 2814), provides for the designation of a lead office and a person trained in the management of undesirable plants, establishment and funding of a management program for undesirable plants, completion and implementation of cooperative agreements with state agencies, and establishment of integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act serves to further the Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The Act strengthens public participation in developing high- priority forest health projects; reduces the complexity of environmental analysis, allowing federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection; provides a more effective appeals process, encouraging early public participation in project planning; and issues clear guidance for court action against forest health projects.

Grazing Fees of 1986 (EO 12548)

EO 12548 provides for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands and directs that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per AUM.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-3

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

Wilderness Act of 1964

This Act establishes the National Wilderness Preservation System, defines a wilderness area and its purpose, addresses management of wilderness areas, and prescribes the process for adding additional wilderness areas to the system.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

This Act establishes the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, designates the rivers included in the system, establishes policy for managing designated rivers, and prescribes a process for designating additions to the system.

Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988

The Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act amended FLPMA with respect to BLM land exchanges. It was designed to streamline land exchange procedures.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act provides for the use of revenues from the sale or exchange of public lands identified for disposal under land use plans in effect as of the date of the FLTFA.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926

In 1954, the Congress enacted the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 USC 869 et. seq.) as a complete revision of the Recreation Act of 1926 in response to the public need for a nationwide system of parks and other recreational and public purposes areas. The Act authorizes the sale or lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. Examples of typical uses under the Act are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, fire houses, law enforcement facilities, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, parks, and fairgrounds.

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act established the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants to public agencies and, in some cases, to private owners and entities for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport systems.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provides numerous authorities related to access that are specific to National Forests in Alaska (except for sec. 1323(a), which applies to all National Forest System lands. Section 1323(a) provides that, subject to terms and conditions established by the Secretary of Agriculture, the owners of non-Federal land within the National Forest System shall be provided adequate access to their land. Regulations implementing section 1323(a) are set forth at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart D - Access to Non-Federal Lands. See FSM 2701.3, paragraph 3, for the summary of the provisions of 36 CFR 251, Subpart D.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act

This Act authorizes road and trail systems for the national forests, granting of easements across NFS lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads (FSM 7705), and imposition of

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-4

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including cooperative deposits for that work.

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A, B, and C)

Subpart A of these regulations establishes requirements for administration of the forest transportation system, including roads, trails, and airfields, and contains provisions for acquisition of rights-of-way. Subpart A also requires identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands and use of a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale in determining the minimum road system. Subpart B describes the requirements for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and for identifying designated roads, trails, and areas on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). These regulations require that motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands must be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or ranger districts. Subpart C provides for regulation of use of over-snow vehicles on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000

The purposes of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, as amended (42 USC 6217 et seq.), are to—

Grant specific authority to the President to fulfill obligations of the United States under the international energy program Provide for the creation of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve capable of reducing the impact of severe energy supply interruptions Conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs, and, where necessary, the regulation of certain energy uses Provide for improved energy efficiency of motor vehicles, major appliances, and certain other consumer products Provide a means for verification of energy data to ensure the reliability of energy data Conserve water by improving the water efficiency of certain plumbing products and appliances.

3.3 AIR QUALITY The Clean Air Act of 1990

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, as amended (42 USC 7401, 7642), requires the Forest Service to protect air quality, maintain federal- and state-designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of the state implementation plans.

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

Wyoming air quality standards and regulations, Chapters 1 to 11, specify the requirements for air permitting and monitoring to implement CAA and state ambient air quality standards.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-5

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

3.4 WATER QUALITY

The Clean Water Act of 1987

The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 USC 1251), establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. The Act also requires permits for point source discharges to navigable waters of the United States and the protection of wetlands and includes monitoring and research provisions for protection of ambient water quality.

The Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells. SDWA authorizes the EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and manmade contaminants that may be found in drinking water. U.S. EPA, states, and water systems work together to ensure that these standards are met.

Wyoming Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Wyoming water quality standards and regulations implement permitting and monitoring requirements for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, operation of injection wells, groundwater protection requirements, prevention and response requirements for spills, and salinity standards and criteria for the Colorado River Basin.

Colorado River Salinity Control Act

The 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320, authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of works in the Colorado River Basin to control the salinity of water delivered to Mexico.

3.5 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS (EO 11990)

Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

Floodplain Management (EO 11988)

Floodplain Management (EO 11988) provides for the restoration and preservation of national and beneficial floodplain values, and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out programs affecting land use.

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Antiquities Act of 1906

The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects objects of historic and scientific interest on public lands. It authorizes the President to designate historic landmarks and structures as national monuments and provides penalties for people who damage these historic sites. The Act has two main components: (1) a criminal enforcement component, which provides for the prosecution of persons who appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-6

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

lands owned or controlled by the United States, and (2) a component that authorizes a permit for the examination of ruins and archeological sites and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States.

Historic Sites Act of 1935

The Historic Sites Act (16 USC 461) declares national policy to identify and preserve historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, thereby providing a foundation for the NRHP.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The NHPA, as amended (16 USC 470), expands protection of historic and archeological properties to include those of national, state, and local significance. The NHPA (in Section 106) requires federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of agency actions on properties listed on or eligible for the NRHP. Agencies are also required to consult with the SHPO, and sometimes with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, concerning those effects. The SHPO is also sometimes consulted concerning applicable methods for determining whether there are NRHP-eligible properties in the area of potential effect of an agency undertaking, whether properties are eligible, and appropriate mitigation measures. The NHPA (in Section 110) also requires federal agencies to identify properties that may qualify for listing on the NRHP, to evaluate and nominate such places to the register, and to develop plans for their management. Both Section 110 and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 require federal agencies to develop proactive programs to interpret archeological resources for the benefit of the public. The 1992 amendments to the NHPA call for federal agencies to conduct Native American consultation on projects that may affect sites or resources that tribal representatives consider sensitive, sacred, or culturally important.

National Trails System Act of 1968

The National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended (16 USC 1241–1249), establishes a national trails system and requires that federal rights in abandoned railroads be retained for trail or recreation purposes, or sold with the receipts to be deposited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The purpose of the Act is to provide the means for outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and to promote the preservation of and access to outdoor areas and historic resources of the United States by instituting a national system of recreation, scenic, and historic trails, designating the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail as the initial components of the system, and prescribing the methods and standards by which additional components may be added to the system.

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment of 1971

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (EO 11593) directs federal agencies to locate, inventory, nominate, and protect federally owned cultural resources eligible for the NRHP and to ensure that their plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of nonfederally owned resources.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) clarifies U.S. policy pertaining to the protection of Native Americans’ religious freedom. The special nature of Native American religions has frequently resulted in conflicts between federal laws and policies and religious freedom. The Act establishes a policy of protecting and preserving the inherent right of individual Native Americans (including American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians) to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-7

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

The Archeological Resource Protection Act, as amended (16 USC 470a, 470cc, 470ee), requires permits for the excavation or removal of federally administered archeological resources, encourages increased cooperation among federal agencies and private individuals, provides stringent criminal and civil penalties for violations, and requires federal agencies to identify important resources vulnerable to looting and to develop a tracking system for violations.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Native American tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. In addition, NAGPRA authorizes Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with the documentation and repatriation of Native American cultural items, and establishes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee to monitor the NAGPRA process and facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise concerning repatriation under NAGPRA.

Indian Sacred Sites (EO 13007)

EO 13007, signed in 1996, requires each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of federal lands to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Native American sacred sites by Native American religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, whenever possible.

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO 13175)

EO 13175, signed in 2000, required federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, to strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes.

Trails for America in the 21st Century (EO 13195)

EO 13195, signed in 2001, requires federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable—and in cooperation with tribes, states, local governments, and interested citizen groups— to protect, connect, promote, and assist trails of all types throughout the United States.

Preserve America (EO 13287)

EO 13287, signed in 2003, requires the Federal Government to lead the preservation of America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the government and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties.

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-8

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 USC 9601–9673), provides for liability, risk assessment, compensation, emergency response, and cleanup (including the cleanup of inactive sites) for hazardous substances. The Act requires federal agencies to report sites where hazardous wastes are or have been stored, treated, or disposed of and requires responsible parties, including federal agencies, to clean up releases of hazardous substances.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (42 USC 6901–6992), authorizes the U.S. EPA to manage, by regulation, hazardous wastes on active disposal operations. The Act waives sovereign immunity for federal agencies with respect to all federal, state, and local solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations. Federal agencies are subject to civil and administrative penalties for violations and to cost assessments for the administration of the enforcement.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 USC 11001–11050) requires the private sector to inventory chemicals and chemical products, to report those in excess of threshold planning quantities, to inventory emergency response equipment, to provide annual reports and support to local and state emergency response organizations, and to maintain a liaison with the local and state emergency response organizations and the public.

3.8 WILDLIFE

Endangered Species Act of 1973

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the USDI’s USFWS and the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine species such as salmon and whales.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668) prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, transport, export or import, of any bald eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest, or disturb (50 CFR §22.3).

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

The Act of March 10, 1934, (16 USC 661 et seq.) as amended, authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with federal and state agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. The Act also directs the Bureau of Fisheries to use impounded waters for fish-culture stations and migratory-bird resting and nesting areas and requires consultation with the Bureau of Fisheries before the construction of any new dams to provide for fish migration. In addition, the Act authorizes the preparation of plans to protect wildlife resources, the completion of wildlife surveys on public lands, and the acceptance by the federal agencies of funds or lands for related purposes provided that land donations receive the consent of the state in which they are located.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-9

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

The amendments enacted in 1946 require consultation with the USFWS and the fish and wildlife agencies of states where the “waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under a federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of “preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources.”

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978

The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 USC 7421; 92 Stat. 3110), Public Law 95- 616, authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, conduct, and assist with national training programs for state fish and wildlife law enforcement personnel. It also authorized funding for research and development of new or improved methods to support fish and wildlife law enforcement. The law provides authority to the Secretaries to enter into law enforcement cooperative agreements with state or other federal agencies and authorizes the disposal of abandoned or forfeited items under the fish, wildlife, and plant jurisdictions of these Secretaries. Public Law 105-328, signed October 30, 1998, amended the Act to allow the USFWS to use the proceeds from the disposal of abandoned items derived from fish, wildlife, and plants to cover the costs of shipping, storing, and disposing of those items.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (USC 2901–2911), commonly known as the Nongame Act, encourages states to develop conservation plans for nongame fish and wildlife of ecological, educational, aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic, or scientific value. The states may be reimbursed for a percentage of the costs of developing, revising, or implementing conservation plans approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Amendments adopted in 1988 and 1989 directed the Secretary to undertake research and conservation activities for migratory nongame birds.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful (16 USC 703–712. § 703). It shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702); the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936; the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 [1]; and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976 (50 CFR §10.12). See also Executive Order 13186 discussion below.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-10

Final AMS Chapter 3 – Relevant Statutes

Executive Order 13186

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 11, 2001, a copy of which is in the Project File), which outlines responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Pages/Species/Species_MigBirds).

The Order requires each federal agency whose actions have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In December of 2008, a MOU between the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the USFWS to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed (USDA, 2008). Pursuant to the Executive Order and the MOU, the USFS shall ensure that environmental analyses of Federal actions required by NEPA evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on: 1) species of management concern along with their priority habitats; and 2) species of conservation concern.

Sikes Act of 1960

The Sikes Act (16 USC 670a–670o, 74 Stat. 1052), as amended, Public Law 86-797, approved September 15, 1960, provides for cooperation by the Departments of the Interior and Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations throughout the United States. Key amendments to the Act that affect this EIS are highlighted below:

An amendment enacted August 8, 1968 (Public Law 90-465, 82 Stat. 661), authorized a program for development of outdoor recreation facilities. Public Law 93-452, signed October 18, 1974 (88 Stat. 1369), authorized conservation and rehabilitation programs on Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USFS, and BLM lands. These programs are carried out in cooperation with the states by the Secretary of the Interior and on USFS lands by the Secretary of Agriculture. Public Law 97-396, approved December 31, 1982 (96 Stat. 2005), provided for the inclusion of endangered plants in conservation programs developed for BLM, USFS, NASA, and DOE lands. Public Law 105-85, approved November 18, 1997 (11 Stat. 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022), added that each integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) prepared under this act should provide for the sustainable use by the public of natural resources, to the extent that the use is not inconsistent with the needs of fish and wildlife resources. Public Law 105-85 also requires that the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies, submit a report annually on the amounts expended by the USDI and state fish and wildlife agencies on activities conducted pursuant to INRMPs to respective congressional committees with oversight responsibilities.

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

The purpose of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (16 USC 63) is to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and those who use caves located on federal lands for scientific, education, or recreational purposes.

Greater Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-11

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AMP Allotment Management Plan

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

APHIS-WS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services

AUM Animal Unit Months

BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices BOR Bureau of Reclamation BTNF Bridger-Teton National Forest

CAA Clean Air Act

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CF Cubic Feet

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

CFS Cubic Feet per Second CO Carbon Monoxide COA Condition of Approval CSU Controlled Surface Use DOE Department of Energy DPC Desired Plant Community EO Executive Order FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GA Geographic Area IRA Inventoried Roadless Area LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

MA Management Area

MBNF Medicine Bow National Forest

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NDD National Diversity Database

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System Road

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO No Surface Occupancy

OHV Off-highway Vehicle

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SSC Species of Special Concern SUP Special Use Permit T&E Threatened and Endangered TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland TCP Traditional Cultural Properties TMA Travel Management Areas USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VQO Visual Quality Objective WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WAPA Western Area Power Administration

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WDEQ-AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WGSGCP Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSO-RMG Wyoming BLM State Office-Reservoir Management Group

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation

LIST OF PREPARERS

AMS Team Project Leaders: Melissa Martin, MBNF Mary Cernicek, BTNF

Air Quality Greg Eaglin, MBNF Terry Svalberg, BTNF

Cultural Resources Kolleen Kralick, MBNF Amanda Sanchez, TBNG Jamie Schoen, BTNF

Forestry Frank Angele, MBNF and TBNG Travis Bruch, TBNG

Lands and Realty Tom Florich, MBNF Amy Ormseth, TBNG Michael Schrotz, BTNF

Minerals (O&G) Tom Florich, MBNF Amy Ormseth, TBNG Shane Walker, BTNF

Range and Vegetation Bob Mountain, MBNF and TBNG Wendy Haas, MBNF Rachel McGee, TBNG Dave Cottle, BTNF

Recreation and Travel Management Brian Waugh, MBNF Marcia Rose-Ritchie, TBNG Nancy Arkin, BTNF

Socio-economics Allen Hambrick, TBNG Jan Burke, MBNF Mary Cernicek, BTNF

Soils Randy Tepler, MBNF and TBNG Ronna Simon, BTNF

Special Areas Melissa Martin, MBNF and TBNG Pam Bode, BTNF

Visual Resources Jeff Tupala, MBNF and TBNG Bernadette Barthelenghi, BTNF

Water Resources Carol Purchase, MBNF and TBNG Ronna Simon, BTNF

Wildland Fire Mick Hood, MBNF Clay Westbrook, TBNG Mark Randall, BTNF

Wildlife and Fisheries Clark McCreedy, MBNF Shawn Anderson, MBNF Tim Byer, TBNG Gary Hanvey, BTNF

Writer – Editor Felipe Moreno

This page intentionally left blank

LITERATURE CITED

Agouridis, C.T., S.R. Workman, R.C. Warner, and G.D. Jennings. 2005. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review. J. of the American Water Resources Association, 41(3):591- 606. Black, T., C. Luce, R. Cissel, J. Thornton, and N. Nelson. 2012. Inventory and modeling the impacts of forest roads on watershed resources in the MF Payette, ID. PowerPoint presentation of monitoring results. Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Science Program. Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Bradley, A.F., W.C. Fischer, and N.V. Noste. 1992. Forest ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L.Van Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. 206pp. Cordell, Ken; Betz, Carter; Green, Gary; Stephens, Becky, 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking water from forests and grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 p Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior], [Online]. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/index.php [2010, October 28]. Haas, W. 2006. Range Analysis Summary Report/Existing Condition Report-Northeast Sierra Madre Analysis Area (Jack Creek, Spring Creek, Calf Creek, Cow Creek, Encampment, Hog Park Allotments). Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Brush Creek/Hayden District. Saratoga, WY. 25pp. Haas, W. 2004. Range Analysis Summary Report for Upper North Platte Analysis Area (Beaver Creek, Big Creek, Six Mile Allotments). Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Brush Creek/Hayden District. Saratoga, WY. 68pp. Haas, W. 2009. Range Analysis Summary Report/Existing Condition Report-Snowy Range Cattle #2 Analysis Area (Barrett Ridge, Bow River, Cook, Lincoln Creek, North Brush, Pass Creek Allotments). Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Brush Creek/Hayden District. Saratoga, WY. 43pp. Knight, D.H. 1994. Mountains and Plains, the Ecology of Wyoming Landscapes. Yale University Press, New Haven Connecticut. 338 pp. Ladyman, J.A.R. 2007. Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/triteleiagrandiflora.pdf. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Vegetation Dynamics Models. [Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Leffert, R.L. 2005. Caribou National Forest riparian grazing implementation guide, version 1-2. Riparian process paper. 94pp. Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2006. Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_NECONSERVATIONPLAN0000678.pdf Rose-Ritchie, Marcia, 2004. Weston Recreation Use Survey. Safranek, A. 2008. Range Analysis Summary Report for Sandstones Rangeland Analysis Area (Big Sandstone and Little Sandstone Allotments). Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Brush Creek/Hayden District. Saratoga, WY. 39pp. 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. USDA Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Wright Area Coal Lease by Applications – Final Environmental Impact Statement. Casper Field Office, Casper WY. Also online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/Wright-Coal.html USDA Forest Service, 2004.Recreation Site Facility Master Planning, Niche Workshop. Bridger-Teton National Forest USDA Forest Service 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 2003 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service (FS). 2002. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Record of Decision. Medicine Bow Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Laramie, WY. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/forestplans/thunderbasin/index.shtml. USDA Forest Service. May 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision, Northern and Rocky Mountain Regions. Chadron NE. USDA Forest Service 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land Resource Management Plan, 2001 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service 1995. Handbook # 701 Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington D.C. Wichers, B. 2002. Comments on Preliminary Draft Management Situation Analysis, Rawlins BLM Resource Management Plan. Letter to Art Reese, Director, Office of Federal Land Policy, dated August 14, 2002. 10 pp. Wright, P.R. 2010. Hydrogeology and water quality in the Snake River alluvial aquifer at Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson, Wyoming, September 2008-June2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5172. 54p. WYESFO. 2011a. Correspondence dated May 23, 2011 from R. Mark Sattelberg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, Cheyenne, WY.

WYESFO 2011b, 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Letter to Robert Sprentall, District Ranger from R. Mark Sattelberg, dated June 9, 2011; Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest; 4pgs Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2010 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Downloads/305b/2010/WY2010IR.pdf Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2007. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Chapter 1. Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards. 27p. plus appendices. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Grazing Best Management Practices (final). Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 49p. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2011. 2010 Annual Big Game Job Completion Reports. Available at: http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000497.aspx Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009. 2008 Annual Big Game Job Completion Reports. Cheyenne, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. 2002 Annual Big Game Job Completion Reports. Cheyenne, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2002 - 201 Big Game Job Completion Report online at: http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000496.aspx Wyoming Game and Fish Habitat Extension Bulletin #28 Pronghorn Antelope on line at: http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/ExtBulletinsCont/index.asp Wyoming Governor’s Executive order 2011-5. Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available at; http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000382.aspx Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. Available at http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_WGFDFINALPLAN0000653.pdf Wyoming Water Development Commission. 2010. WWDC Green River Basin Water Plan II. Groundwater Study Level I (2007-2009). Available at http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/2010/finalrept/gw_toc.html http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/Monitoring%20Data.asp http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/landscapes/Locations/Glees/GLEES.shtml

Table of Contents