United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Guided Bank Fishing Environmental Assessment Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Teton County, Wyoming September 2017
Photo credit: Morgan Trieger
Prepared in collaboration with Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc.
For More Information Contact:
Todd Stiles, District Ranger Blackrock Ranger District P.O. Box 278 20250 East Highway 26/287 Moran, Wyoming 83013 Phone: 307-543-3910 Email: [email protected] Fax: 307-543-9149
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 for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please 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, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Contents Contents ...... i 1. Introduction ...... 1 Description of the Project Area ...... 1 2. Need for the Proposal ...... 1 3. Public Involvement and Coordination ...... 2 4. Alternatives Considered ...... 6 4.1 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 6 4.2 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 6 Authorized River Segments ...... 6 Authorized Service Days ...... 7 River Access and Use Restrictions ...... 7 Other Terms and Conditions ...... 8 5. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives ...... 9 5.1 Methodology and Assumptions ...... 9 5.2 Recreation ...... 10 5.2.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 10 5.2.2 Affected Environment ...... 11 5.2.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 16 5.2.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 17 5.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 19 5.3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 19 5.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 21 5.3.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 24 5.3.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 27 5.4 Fisheries ...... 31 5.4.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 31 5.4.2 Affected Environment ...... 31 5.4.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 33 5.4.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 36 5.5 Wildlife ...... 38 5.5.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 38 5.5.2 Affected Environment ...... 39 5.5.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 50 5.5.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 56 5.6 Botany ...... 61 5.6.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 61 5.6.2 Affected Environment ...... 61 5.6.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative ...... 69 5.6.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action ...... 72 6. List of Preparers ...... 74 References ...... 75
i List of Tables
Table 1. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Classes in River Corridors (Acres) ...... 12 Table 2. Activity Participation Statistics for Fishing ...... 13 Table 3. Top Ten Recreation Activities in 2013 ...... 14 Table 4. Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail ...... 39 Table 5. Bird Conservation Region 10 Birds of Conservation Concern* ...... 48 Table 6. Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail ...... 62 Table 7. Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plant Species ...... 68
List of Figures
Figure 1. Area Map ...... 3
ii
Acronyms
AIS aquatic invasive species BTNF Bridger-Teton National Forest cfs cubic feet per second CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRMP comprehensive resource management plan DFC desired future condition ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended LAU lynx analysis unit MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding MIS management indicator species NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ORV outstandingly remarkable value ROS recreational opportunity spectrum SUP special use permit USFWS United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service WDA Wyoming Department of Agriculture WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database WSR wild and scenic river
iii This page intentionally left blank.
iv Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
1. Introduction The Blackrock Ranger District (District) of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) has received multiple proposals for the provision of guided day-use bank fishing1 within the District. Additionally, the BTNF has recognized a public need for the provision of such services on the Forest (USFS 2012). A special use permit (SUP) is required for any outfitting or guiding service conducted on National Forest System lands. Outfitting and guiding are defined as providing equipment/supplies or services/assistance to individuals or groups on National Forest System lands for monetary or other gain.
The District prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether authorization of SUPs for guided day-use bank fishing may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1500), Forest Service regulations (36 CFR, Part 220), and Forest Service policy (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapters 10 and 40). Compliance with other relevant authorities was also considered during the preparation of this EA. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the alternatives, in support of an agency decision regarding the issuance of SUPs. For more information on the alternatives, see Section 4, Alternatives Considered. Description of the Project Area The Blackrock Ranger District is the northernmost ranger district in the BTNF. Guided fishing is being considered along certain segments of Blackrock Creek, the Buffalo Fork of the Snake River (Buffalo Fork), Pacific Creek, and Spread Creek outside of the Teton Wilderness; all of these rivers, except for Spread Creek, are designated components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). The river segments under consideration are displayed in Figure 1, Area Map, and are further described in Section 4 under “Alternative 2—Proposed Action.”
2. Need for the Proposal SUPs for outfitting and guiding are issued only when there is an identified public need. Forest Service National Policy makes clear that “need” is generated from an identified public or agency need as opposed to individual need or demand. In 2012, the BTNF completed a “needs assessment” for summer outfitter-guide services in order to help respond to proposals to offer new or additional guided services (USFS 2012). The Forest Service uses five indicators to assess whether there is a public need for outfitter-guide services. These indicators are:
1. Is National Forest System land needed? 2. Would the service help further Forest management goals to care for the land and serve people? 3. Is specialized equipment or knowledge required? 4. Does the current use by existing outfitters suggest the need for additional use?
1 Bank fishing includes walking and wading.
September 2017 1 Guided Bank Fishing
5. Do trends in recreation use suggest the need for more services?
Guided bank fishing services met all five indicators, which suggests that additional service should be considered somewhere on the Forest.
Currently, summer outfitted services on the Blackrock Ranger District outside of the Teton Wilderness include day horse rides, wagon rides, mountain bike tours, canoeing, and fall hunting. Two outfitters are authorized to provide guided day-use fishing on non-wilderness rivers in the Blackrock Ranger District. However, reported actual use from these outfitter-guides shows that only 15 service days2 or less are being used per year; this indicates that fishing services are ancillary and rarely offered to the public because it is not the emphasis of the outfitters’ businesses.
In the summer and fall of 2015, the Blackrock Ranger District received two proposals to offer guided bank fishing services, particularly on the Buffalo Fork. Given that there is an identified public need for guided bank fishing and currently very little service available, the BTNF decided to respond to these proposals by initiating the environmental analysis process and determining whether there is competitive interest in offering this guided service. It was determined that competitive interest does exist, and a prospectus was issued to interested applicants allowing them to apply for the potential SUPs, pending the outcome of the environmental analysis.
The purpose of this project is to address the public need for guided day-use bank fishing experiences within the non-wilderness portions of the Blackrock Ranger District. Guided day-use bank fishing is not being considered in the Teton Wilderness, because considerable outfitter-guide activity is already authorized in that area and the easily accessed river segments provide popular day trips for the non-guided public. Additionally, the focus for guided wilderness activities is on multi-day experiences that disperse people throughout the area, offering outstanding opportunities for solitude, rather than on day-use activities that tend to concentrate use near trailhead areas. However, the BTNF believes that a public need for guided day-use fishing service does exist and many superb rivers are located in accessible backcountry areas on the National Forest outside of the Teton Wilderness.
3. Public Involvement and Coordination On March 4, 2016, the Blackrock Ranger District issued a request for public input on the District’s proposal to offer guided day-use bank fishing on non-wilderness river segments in the District (USFS 2016a). The notice of the opportunity for input on the proposal was mailed to the agencies, organizations, and individuals on the Ranger District’s mailing list. The notice was also posted on the BTNF’s website and is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48886.
The notice summarized the proposal and requested the receipt of public input by March 31, 2016. During the public input period, approximately 60 individuals provided input on the initial proposal. Some members of the public voiced support for the proposal, while others expressed concerns or offered suggestions for improving the proposal. Concerns raised by the public related to the following topic areas:
2 One service day is equal to one client for any portion of a day.
2 September 2017
This page intentionally left blank. Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
• Trespass and parking • Resource impacts • Crowding on the rivers • Process for outfitter-guide selection • Enforcement of outfitter-guide SUPs
In response to the public input received, the District released a project update on September 26, 2016, that summarized and responded to the input (USFS 2016b). To address certain concerns raised, the District modified the initial proposal. Notable changes include:
• Reducing the length of the Pacific Creek segment offered for guided day-use bank fishing • Reducing the total number of annual service days across all four rivers from 800 to 600 • Limiting service days on the Buffalo Fork to 400 days annually and restricting the number of guided parties on Buffalo Fork to 3 parties per day
These modifications to the proposal were incorporated into the prospectus, which sought potentially qualified outfitter-guides to whom the SUPs could be issued. The prospectus was released in January 2017 and five outfitter-guides were selected by the BTNF.
In addition to the public input period, the District and the BTNF also communicated with the following entities during the development of this EA:
• Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD)
o During the initial proposal design, Forest Service staff communicated with staff from the WGFD in order to address any preliminary concerns regarding impacts to species from the proposal. Subsequently, during the development of the supporting specialist reports, Forest Service staff again communicated with WGFD staff to ensure no concerns had arisen from the modified proposal. Primary points of contact at WGFD included the fisheries biologist and the nongame biologist. • Native American Tribes
o The BTNF has shared information with representatives of area Native American Tribes (the Shoshone-Bannock, Gros Ventre, and Eastern Shoshone) by providing them copies of the March 4, 2016, request for input and the September 26, 2016, project update. Through this information sharing and through the course of previous NEPA reviews, no Tribal concerns have been identified. • Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
o In accordance with Appendix B of the Programmatic Agreement among the Forest Service (Wyoming Forests), the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the authorization of the proposed SUPs is an undertaking that does not authorize new ground disturbance and is therefore exempt from the need to conduct additional cultural resource survey beyond those that have occurred in the undertaking area. However, the proposed permit was further analyzed by cultural resource staff on the BTNF. The analysis consisted of a review of recorded sites and the location of the undertaking
September 2017 5 Guided Bank Fishing
(specifically where parking areas are authorized, as well as stretches of river where guided fishing would occur). The cultural resource records at the BTNF indicate that no eligible sites (historic properties) are located on the river banks considered for guided fishing. The BTNF cultural resource staff determined that no historic properties would be affected by the authorization of the proposed SUPs and that cultural resource clearance is recommended. • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
o Informal consultation with the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was initiated through the BTNF’s request for a list of listed species in the project area. Using the species list received from the USFWS, the BTNF prepared a biological assessment (BA), which determined that the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect any listed species. The BA was sent to the USFWS on September 14, 2017, for USFWS’s concurrence with the BA’s determinations.
Publicly available documents related to the project, including the request for public input and summary response, are available on the BTNF’s website under “Current and Recent Projects” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48886.
4. Alternatives Considered Through the BTNF’s internal scoping process and as a result of the BTNF’s consultation efforts, the BTNF determined that the NEPA analysis should evaluate a No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. These two alternatives are described below. 4.1 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative No SUPs for guided day-use bank fishing would be issued; therefore, such opportunities in the Ranger District would continue to be limited to ancillary service offered by two existing outfitter- guides. This ancillary service has offered 15 or less service days in past years and would likely remain at very low use levels. Fishing opportunities for the non-guided public would continue to be available in accordance with applicable Forest Service regulations and in accordance with the WGFD fishing regulations. In accordance with existing SUPs, guided fishing would continue to be available as an incidental activity accompanying progressive pack trips in the wilderness portion of the Blackrock Ranger District. 4.2 Alternative 2—Proposed Action The Blackrock Ranger District would issue SUPs for guided day-use bank fishing with a 10-year authorization. The authorized river segments and service days, as well as additional restrictions and terms and conditions of the SUPs, are described in the following subsections.
Authorized River Segments • Blackrock Creek, from the Blackrock Ranger Station upstream to where it is crossed by Flagstaff Road (Forest Service Route 30100), a total of 10.8 river miles • Buffalo Fork, from the west end of Burro Hill upstream to the Teton Wilderness boundary, a total of 10.9 river miles • Pacific Creek, from the cut-bank located north of the private inholding upstream to the Teton Wilderness boundary, a total of 4.2 river miles
6 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
• Spread Creek, in the Sagebrush Flat area from Skull Creek Trail downstream to the mouth of the canyon, a total of 5.6 river miles
In total, 31.5 miles of river would be authorized for guided day-use bank fishing under Alternative 2.
Authorized Service Days A total of 600 service days per year would be authorized under the following conditions:
• 100 service days would be allocated to each of the five selected outfitter-guides • 100 service days would be reserved in a common pool
o Reserved days may be distributed to outfitter-guides at the District Ranger’s sole discretion based on the following factors: . Outfitters’ demonstrated need for additional service days, as demonstrated by use of a significant portion of their initial allocation . Outfitters’ compliance with permit requirements . Existing resource conditions
o Authorized reserved common pool days cannot be used on the Buffalo Fork • No more than 400 service days may be used on the Buffalo Fork • No more than three guided parties per day would be allowed on the Buffalo Fork
River Access and Use Restrictions The mode of travel for guided parties while fishing would be via foot. The use of boats, including belly boats or similar flotation devices, would be prohibited.
In order to avoid resource impacts, river access points and parking locations (collectively, “access points”) would be restricted to specific locations for each river. All selected river access and parking locations are currently existing sites, so there would be no new disturbance. Access to these points would be restricted to designated routes on the BTNF in accordance with the Jackson and Blackrock Districts Motor Vehicle Use map. No parking or walking access is allowed within Grand Teton National Park under these SUPs.
Blackrock Creek – three access points • Near the kiosk along Flagstaff Road (Forest Service Route 30100) where it crosses Blackrock Creek • At the Blackrock Ranger Station • Foot access along ATV/UTV (50 inch or less) trail 6072 from the Togwotee State Snowmobile parking lot just west of Togwotee Mountain Lodge
Buffalo Fork – seven access points • Turpin Meadow Trailhead • Downstream of the Turpin Meadow bridge in a small parking area adjacent to the Moran Fire Department dry well • From the end of Forest Service Route 30071
September 2017 7 Guided Bank Fishing
• From the end of Forest Service Route 30050B • From the end of Forest Service Route 30069 • From the end of Forest Service Route 30069C • On US 26/287 west of the Wyoming Wildlife Viewing site adjacent to the irrigation diversion access gate
Pacific Creek – nine access points • There are eight signed and numbered camping areas located along Forest Service Route 30090; parking would be restricted to these eight numbered sites and at the Pacific Creek Trailhead.
Spread Creek – one access point • Parking would be restricted to the intersection of Forest Service Routes 30165 and 30166. Outfitter-guides and clients would then proceed by foot along Forest Service Route 6073 to the river.
Other Terms and Conditions This section describes other requirements, collectively referred to as “Terms and Conditions,” that would be implemented with Alternative 2.
A requirement to use best practices for fishing would be incorporated into each of permitted outfitter-guide’s operation plan. Best practices are designed to reduce stress on fish, avoid the unintended deaths of fish to the maximum extent possible, and minimize any other resource impacts associated with the issuance of the SUPs. All selected outfitter-guides included their individual recommendations for best practices in their applications for a SUP. Outfitter-guides were selected based in part on the best practices they identified in their applications; therefore, those individual recommendations would be incorporated as required terms in their operating plans under the SUP. Although the practices vary by outfitter-guide, common best practices include:
• Industry standard procedures for handling of fish (e.g., wetting hands prior to touching the fish, minimizing the duration the fish is out of the water, releasing fish with its head pointing into the current, etc.) • Industry standard protocols for preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) (e.g., decontaminating boots, gaiters, and other fishing gear via recognized methods such as drying for multiple days, freezing, or use of disinfecting agents) • Use of barbless hooks • Catch and release only for native fine spotted Snake River cutthroat trout • Utilization of Leave No Trace principles
In addition to these best practices, several additional terms and conditions would apply:
• The annual operating season will last from May 1 through October 1. • Operating plans will incorporate a 400-meter buffer around active bald eagle or trumpeter swan nest sites.
8 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
• Operating plans will specifically state that guided fishing is a day-use activity; camping is not permitted in association with the use of service days authorized by the SUPs. • Operating plans will specify that compliance with all applicable WGFD fishing regulations is required for both guides and clients. • Operating plans will specifically prohibit modifications to streambanks, creation of pools, or any other alterations to the river channels. • Operating plans will specifically note that compliance with the BTNF food storage order for operating in bear country is required. • Outfitter-guides will be required to carry a card identifying themselves and the terms of their SUP, as well as display a readily identifiable sign or logo on their motor vehicle while operating under the SUP.
5. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives This section describes the potential environmental consequences, or impacts, of implementing Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) or Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Through the BTNF’s internal scoping process, public input, and consultation efforts, the BTNF determined that the resources included in this section warranted detailed analysis in the EA, while other resource areas were dismissed from detailed analysis. 5.1 Methodology and Assumptions The primary analysis area for this EA follows the boundaries of the designated wild and scenic river (WSR) corridors established in the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP; USFS 2014). These corridors have an average 0.25-mile buffer from the ordinary high-water mark. For Spread Creek, which is not in the NWSRS, a 0.25-mile buffer on either side of the river was used.
The analysis also defines the short term as the 10 years for which the SUPs would be authorized; the long term is defined as greater than 10 years.
The analysis assumes that no more than one guided fishing party would use an access point on a given day. This is because outfitter-guides do not want their clients to fish near other parties in order to maximize the potential for successfully catching fish and the quality of the overall fishing experience.
Given the popularity of the Buffalo Fork and the availability of other rivers for guided bank fishing, it is unlikely that any one river would experience the maximum number of service days. Furthermore, there may be certain days during the season that receive higher use levels than others. However, there is no data on which to base reasonable assumptions about use patterns, either across rivers or throughout the season; therefore, under Alternative 2, each of the rivers is analyzed at the maximum number of service days prescribed by the alternative and as constrained by the number of access points and season of use (153 days). This assumes that only one guided party would be at an access point at a time; therefore, the maximum service days analyzed for each of the rivers are as follows:
• Blackrock Creek—459 service days
September 2017 9 Guided Bank Fishing
• Buffalo Fork—400 service days • Pacific Creek—600 service days • Spread Creek—153 service days 5.2 Recreation
5.2.1 Scope of Analysis The following issues were identified for analysis:
• Competition between guided and non-guided fishing parties o Concern that use will be concentrated in a few desirable locations, leading to crowding o Crowding on these smaller rivers will force locals to travel farther to be able to fish in their desired setting o Concern about increased potential for conflict over fishing spots between guides and non-guided fishing parties and about guides not following etiquette • Recreation impacts o Concern that smaller streams are too easily disturbed and do not have the infrastructure to handle use o Concern that more use will result in more trash or sanitation issues o Concern about potential increase in traffic on Pacific Creek Road • Enforcement of SUP terms and conditions o Concern that outfitters and guides will not be aware of jurisdictional boundaries and will trespass or park on private land or on Grand Teton National Park land o Concern that the Forest Service will not be able to closely monitor and enforce permits o Concern that outfitter-guides should not be relied on to monitor and enforce regulations, such as illegal outfitting
For these issues, the following indicators will be used to quantitatively measure the impact of implementing the alternatives being considered for detailed analysis:
• Number of authorized service days of guided day-use bank fishing • Number of authorized parking areas for guided day-use bank fishing • Miles of river where guided bank fishing would be authorized • Density of authorized river access points • Group size and group number restrictions • Number of authorized outfitter-guides for guided day-use bank fishing in the non- wilderness portion of the Blackrock Ranger District
10 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
For some issues, quantitative analysis is not possible, due to either the nature of the issue or a lack of information or available research. For these issues, a qualitative analysis will be provided. The qualitative indicator is the quality of the recreation opportunities for both guided and non-guided parties.
5.2.2 Affected Environment
General Recreation Setting of the Blackrock Ranger District Most of the District—81 percent—is within the Teton Wilderness. Activities under this project would only occur in the non-wilderness portion of the District, which covers 137,700 acres in the southern portion of the District (USFS GIS 2017).
The District is predominantly surrounded by other federally managed lands; in general terms, Yellowstone National Park is to the north, Shoshone National Forest is to the east, the Jackson District of the BTNF is to the south, and Grand Teton National Park is to the west. Scattered throughout the District are several private inholdings, most of which are along the Buffalo Valley.
The District is transected in a general east-west direction by US Highway 26/287. It is the main travel corridor through the District and connects communities, such as Dubois, in the east, along the Wind River to the Jackson Hole area. In 2010, the highway had an estimated 955 average daily vehicles (USFS 2014).
In addition to US Highway 26/287 there are also 106.6 miles of Forest Service-designated motor vehicle routes and 11.3 miles of county roads in the District (Forest Service GIS 2017). These routes provide visitors with motorized access to the many recreation opportunities on the District (for more information on recreation opportunities, see Table 3, Top Ten Recreation Activities in 2013). Motor vehicle use on the District is restricted to designated motor vehicle routes. Parking is allowed along designated Forest Service motor vehicle routes, in accordance with season of use restrictions, unless otherwise prohibited or where the parking would inhibit traffic flow. Motorized travel is permitted within 300 feet of the centerline of designated motor vehicle routes for accessing desired dispersed camping locations. Designated vehicle parking is available at trailheads (e.g., Angles, Pacific Creek, Sheffield, and Turpin Meadow), campgrounds (i.e., Hatchet, Pacific Creek, Turpin Meadow, and Sheffield), the Blackrock Ranger District Office, and pullouts along US Highway 26/287. No estimates of motor vehicle use are available for the Forest Service routes or county roads on the District.
Currently on the Blackrock Ranger District there are 1,800 non-stock-based summer activity days (e.g., backpacking, mountain biking, and NOLS) and 36,015 summer stock days, which include day-use rides and progressive overnight travel. Some of the progressive overnight travel days are split between the Blackrock and Jackson Ranger Districts, because both districts manage portions of the Mount Leidy highlands area. There are 45 summer outfitters between the Teton Wilderness and Mount Leidy highlands with some outfitters operating on both districts while others operate only on one district in the highlands.
A SUP is required for any outfitting or guiding service conducted on National Forest System lands. Although several outfitter-guides hold SUPs that allow for fishing as an incidental activity during progressive pack trips, these trips occur in the Teton Wilderness portion of the District. Currently, two outfitter-guides are authorized to provide guided day-use bank fishing as a primary activity on the non-wilderness portion of the District; however, this service is ancillary to those outfitter-guides’ businesses. Actual use under the SUPs has been 15 days or fewer, annually.
September 2017 11 Guided Bank Fishing
Crossed by the Continental Divide, the District is the headwaters of the Yellowstone River and of many tributaries to the Snake River. There are approximately 142 miles of named rivers in the non-wilderness portion of the District and approximately 677 miles of named rivers in the District as a whole (NHD GIS 2017).
Several rivers in the Snake River headwaters on the non-wilderness portion of the District are designated components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Buffalo Fork, Blackrock Creek, and Pacific Creek. The segments of these rivers considered under this proposal are all classified as scenic and are in Desired Future Condition (DFC)3 3C areas.
Spread Creek is not a designated Wild and Scenic River and was determined not to be eligible for inclusion the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USFS 2007b). The portion of Spread Creek considered under this proposal flows in a general east to west direction. Most of Spread Creek, particularly the north side of the river, is in DFC 10 (80 percent of the river corridor), while DFC 12 constitutes the remainder of the river corridor.
See the Desired Condition discussion, below, for more information on the applicable DFCs.
The recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) classification system is used for facility planning and to direct management on the BTNF (USFS 1990, p. 152). The types and qualities of recreation experiences vary across the spectrum, as do visitors’ expectations and desired outcomes. The corridors4 of river segments considered under this proposal are in the ROS classes described in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Classes in River Corridors (Acres) Blackrock Creek Buffalo Fork Pacific Creek Spread Creek Primitive 0 0 Fewer than 100 0 Semi-primitive 0 300 400 700 non-motorized Semi-primitive 400 0 0 100 motorized Roaded natural Less than 100 2,400 900 700 Rural 3,200 600 0 0 Alienated lands5 0 200 0 0 Total 3,600 3,500 1,300 1,500 Note: Acres are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: Forest Service GIS 2017
3 DFCs describe land management direction intended to accomplish the Goals and Objectives identified in the Forest Plan. Each DFC is to be achieved over the 50-year planning horizon by applying Management Prescription “policies” and Standard and Guideline “limits” specific to that DFC. Therefore, each DF has a unique set of Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines. For more information on DFCs, see USFS 1990, p. 199. 4 For this report, the primary analysis area follows the boundaries of the designated Wild and Scenic River corridors established in the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan (USFS 2014). On average, these corridors are 0.25-mile buffers from the ordinary high water mark. For Spread Creek, a 0.25-mile buffer on either side of the river was used. 5 Other ownership within the Forest boundary.
12 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Visitation and Recreation Activities within the District As part of the Greater Yellowstone area, which includes the popular Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, the region has received increasing national interest. This has encouraged a high level of recreation use (USFS 1990). While there are no visitor statistics specific to the Blackrock Ranger District, the Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Program provides the most recent visitation estimates for the BTNF (USFS 2008, 2013), as follows:
• 2008—2,182,000 National Forest visits6 • 2013—1,623,000 National Forest visits
Despite the decline in National Forest Visits to the BTNF between 2008 and 2013, more current visitation estimates from the nearby national parks suggest that visitation to public lands in the Jackson Hole area has been increasing since 2013. Visitation to Grand Teton National Park increased by only 8 percent between 2008 and 2013 but by 22 percent between 2013 and 2016 (NPS 2017). At the same time, visitation to Yellowstone National Park increased by 4 percent between 2008 and 2013 and by 34 percent between 2013 and 2016. This is consistent with the trend in increased visitation observed by Blackrock Ranger District staff.
NVUM also provides estimates of visitor activity participation during visits to the Forest. Table 2, below, provides information on fishing in the BTNF.
Table 2. Activity Participation Statistics for Fishing Percent of Visitors Participating in Percent of Visitors whose Average Hours Spent Fishing Fishing Main Activity is Fishing when it is the Main Activity 2008 9.0 4.3 7.1 2013 9.5 4.7 5.4 Sources: USFS 2008, 2013
The NVUM activity statistics in Table 2 demonstrate an increasing popularity of fishing on the BTNF. This trend correlates with anecdotal evidence observed by Forest Service personnel.7
Due to the limited number of authorized service days for guided fishing and the limited actual use of the authorized service days, the reported increase in fishing on the District is occurring from non-guided fishing parties. Concurrent with the increase in non-guided fishing on the District is an increase in identified demand for guided fishing services. The 2012 forest-wide needs assessment for summer outfitter-guide services determined that the trends in this recreation use suggest the need for additional guided fishing services. The demand for fishing is expected to continue to increase (USFS 2012).
6 A National Forest visit is defined as the entry of one person into a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. 7 L. Merigliano, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager, BTNF, personal communication with Blake Busse, Recreation Specialist, EMPSi, July 11, 2017).
September 2017 13 Guided Bank Fishing
Currently, two outfitter-guides provide guided day-use bank fishing on the non-wilderness portion of the District; however, this service is ancillary to their business, because they have offered 15 or fewer service days annually in the past.
Most fishing on the District typically is during the summer and early fall, because conditions for fishing are usually best during these times. Although it varies annually due to factors such as snowpack, precipitation, and temperature, the period begins sometime after peak runoff and before the low water periods of the fall. For example, peak flows on Blackrock Creek typically are in early June at around 422 cubic feet per second (cfs). The river will typically reach its base flow in late September or early October, at approximately 30 to 50 cfs (USFS 2014). The Buffalo Fork generally has peak flows of 3,760 cfs and a historic low of 70 cfs. Pacific Creek generally has peak flows of 2,190 cfs and a historic low of 19 cfs. Flow information is not available for Spread Creek. During periods around base flow levels, fish may be concentrated in smaller areas, such as deep pools.
In addition to fishing, the Forest supports numerous other recreation activities, as described in Table 3, Top Ten Recreation Activities in 2013.
Table 3. Top Ten Recreation Activities in 2013 Percent of Visitors whose Main Percent of Visitors Activity is the Specific Activity Participating in the Activity Recreation Pursuit Downhill skiing 32.8 31.6 Hiking/walking 28.0 15.8 Viewing natural features 27.2 7.0 Viewing wildlife 23.3 0.4 Relaxing 16.6 1.8 Bicycling 11.0 8.3 Snowmobiling 9.8 6.6 Fishing 9.5 4.7 Other nonmotorized 8.7 5.5 Driving for pleasure 6.0 1.1 Source: USFS 2013
There are documented unpermitted, illegal outfitter-guide activities, including fishing, on the District; District law enforcement officers have issued citations for such activities. There may be additional illegal guiding that has yet to be identified.8
8 L. Merigliano, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager, BTNF, personal communication with B. Busse, Recreation Specialist, EMPSi, July 11, 2017.
14 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Desired Condition Desired Future Condition 3C (USFS 2014, p. 237) These segments are accessible via paved roads and highways, some of which are scenic byways, and/or Forest roads. however, the level of development is lower, and the use is primarily by small groups and individuals. Recreation facilities are largely primitive and activities are dispersed. For example, boat launches are unpaved launching points, there are few developed campgrounds, and most opportunities are for dispersed camping and day use activities. The corridors provide for day-use and overnight camping in developed or dispersed settings. A wide range of recreational and educational experiences, including fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing, will be encouraged. Information will describe opportunities to explore the full Headwaters system. Interpretation of both natural and cultural resources will educate the public about river values and how activities in the headwaters system help protect and enhance these values. Resource adaptation and resilience will be promoted through retention of management flexibility, especially regarding fish and wildlife habitat projects. (USFS 1990, p.237)
Desired Future Condition 10: Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big-Game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species (USFS 1990, p. 310 et seq.) Recreation prescription—Existing roaded recreation opportunities continue where they do not interfere with the objectives for this area. Areas of both semi-primitive motorized and semi- primitive non-motorized are provided.
Fisheries and wildlife prescription—Groups of species are emphasized, such as early- or late succession-dependent species, in order to increase species richness or diversity. Habitat is managed to achieve the game and fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service.
Desired Future Condition 12: Backcountry Big-Game Hunting, Dispersed Recreation, and Wildlife Security Areas (USFS 1990, p. 310 et seq.) Recreation prescription—Recreation and other human activities are managed to meet needs of the big-game species.
Recreation opportunity guideline—Existing roaded recreation opportunities should be allowed to continue where they do not interfere with objectives for this area. Areas of semi-primitive recreation should be provided for both motorized and non-motorized use. Existing and future road systems should be managed to retain backcountry areas that are large and remote enough to provide semi-primitive recreation.
Fisheries and wildlife prescription—Habitat will be managed to help meet the game populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives, and to fully achieve the fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service.
DFC common recreation activity matrix (USFS 1990, p. 202)—The matrix states that fishing is considered an “appropriate” recreation activity in DFCs 3C, 10, and 12.
September 2017 15 Guided Bank Fishing
5.2.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts Recreation resources and opportunities may be impacted by changes that alter the type, amount, or quality of recreation experiences, a visitor’s expectations or desired outcomes, or the activities’ settings.
By not issuing the SUP for guided day-use bank fishing, competition between guided and non- guided fishing parties would not increase. This is because no new service days would be authorized and no additional parking areas or river access points would be occupied by guided fishing parties. Non-guided fishing parties would not experience a change in their perception of crowding on the river; they would continue to face competition only from other non-guided fishing parties for desired fishing locations.
Existing infrastructure and facilities would not see increased use beyond current levels from non- guided fishing parties; therefore, there would be no impact on recreation-related infrastructure or facilities.
The Forest has identified a public demand for fishing in bear country. Visitors to the District who do not possess the knowledge or skill to take themselves fishing in bear country without a reputable outfitter-guide would continue to go without this experience.
Authorized guided fishing parties would not trespass onto private lands or on Grand Teton National Park; however, illegal guided fishing parties would continue trespassing or this activity could increase. Monitoring and enforcing illegal guided fishing on the non-wilderness portion of the District would continue to remain difficult. This is because there would be no new outfitter- guides to assist the Forest Service in identifying illegal guiding activities.
Outfitter-guides are more likely to be aware of permitted uses than members of the public. This is because they have an interest in maintaining the value of their own permits. Illegal outfitter-guide activities increase competition with authorized outfitter-guides and non-guided parties for fishing and vehicle parking spots. They also reduce the quality of recreation by adding to visitors’ perceptions of crowding when they encounter illegal outfitter-guides.
Such outfitter-guides also increase the degree of impacts on resources that support or complement recreational fishing; examples of these impacts are intended or unintended fish mortality, an increase in foot traffic trampling vegetation, and wildlife being temporarily displaced. Such wildlife could have been observed by authorized outfitter-guides or non-guided parties.
Cumulative Impacts Guided bank fishing would continue at approximately 15 service days per year. Alternative 1 would not alter the existing impacts associated with those 15 service days, which are small compared to the estimated 154,185 visitors to the BTNF who participated in fishing in 2013 (USFS 2013).
There would be impacts on recreation resources and opportunities from the growing trend in non- guided fishing in the District, for example, increased perceptions of crowding and increased stress on resources that support or complement recreational fishing, such as fish, vegetation, and wildlife.
16 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
5.2.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 2, competition between guided and non-guided fishing parties would slightly increase on authorized portions of Blackrock Creek (10.8 river miles), the Buffalo Fork (10.9 river miles), Pacific Creek (4.2 river miles), and Spread Creek (5.6 river miles). This would be due to the allowable service days on these river segments (Forest Service GIS 2017). Approximately 111 miles (78 percent) of named, non-wilderness rivers would remain free of guided fishing parities (Forest Service GIS 2017; NHD GIS 2017).
There would be competition only on those segments of the river authorized for guided bank fishing; even so, guided parties fishing on the authorized segments may temporarily displace non- guided parties from their desired fishing locations, but only while guided fishing parties are present in those locations. The low density of river access points would also distribute guided parties, leaving portions of the river available for non-guided parties. River access densities would be follows:
• Blackrock Creek—3.6 river miles per access point (three access points) • Buffalo Fork—3.6 river miles per access point (seven access points, but restricted to three parties per day) • Pacific Creek—0.5 river miles per access point (nine access points) • Spread Creek—5.6 river miles per access point (one access point)
While the density is notably higher along the authorized portion of Pacific Creek, an average of a half-mile distance between access points for parties would still be consistent with the ROS classes along the Pacific Creek corridor.
In the social setting in roaded natural areas, which constitutes 69 percent of the Pacific Creek corridor, the Forest Service anticipates moderate evidence of human sights and sounds and the concentration of uses at campsites (Forest Service GIS 2017). The remainder of the corridor is a Semi-primitive non-motorized area, where the Forest Service anticipates a high probability of solitude but some evidence of other people.
The sinuosity of the braided and multi-channel watercourse in a forested setting encourages perceptions of solitude. This is due to physically screening visitors from each other while the river noise diminishes the sounds of other visitors. Although there is no limit on the size of guided fishing parties, practical limits on guide-to-client ratios suggest that total party size for guided fishing will be three or fewer individuals; hence, when guided and non-guided fishing parties do interact, the recreation setting that both parties anticipate would not be meaningfully altered during the temporary interaction with groups of this size while the parties are in sight of each other.
Additionally, due to the season of use restriction guided fishing parties and hunters would not be in conflict during the fall. Moreover, competition between guided and non-guided fishing parties would be avoided during the fall. This is when quality fishing spots are more limited due to lower river levels.
Individual fish would be negatively impacted by the increased fishing pressure from implementing Alternative 2. Regardless of the skill and knowledge of the permitted outfitter-
September 2017 17 Guided Bank Fishing guides, applying best handling techniques for fish, and requiring catch-and-release of Snake River cutthroat trout, there would still be some degree of fish mortality, known as the “hooking mortality rate.” Current research suggests a hooking mortality rate for cutthroat trout of 0.3 to 3.0 percent of trout hooked (Schill et al. 1986). 9
Despite this, the fishery in Blackrock Creek is robust enough to sustain such losses which would preserve the quality of the fishing experience on these rivers.10 Additionally, restrictions on guided fishing during the fall via the season of use restrictions would reduce fishing pressure during a season when fish are more stressed due to lower river levels.
Because guided fishing would be restricted to day use, there would not be increased competition for campgrounds or dispersed camping sites. There would be temporary and minor traffic increases from guided fishing parties using designated travel routes to access authorized river access points. Two vehicle trips per day, to the river and back, could be expected for each guided fishing party. Given the access point restrictions for each river and restrictions on the number of parties on the Buffalo Fork, this would generate up to 32 additional vehicle trips per day on the District. Up to 18 of those vehicle trips could occur on Pacific Creek Road per day.
Incorporating “leave no trace” principles into outfitter-guide operating plans would minimize impacts on resources and facilities. This would come about by applying best practices, such as managing trash and human waste and travel on durable surfaces where possible. Teaching these leave no trace principles to guided clients would further the long-term resource stewardship. This would be the result of making former clients aware of such practices when they are recreating in a future non-guided scenario.
Illegal outfitter-guide activities increase competition with authorized outfitter-guides and non- guided parties for fishing and vehicle parking spots. They also reduce the quality of recreation by adding to perceptions of crowding. This is the result of increasing the degree of impacts on resources that support or complement recreational fishing; examples of these impacts are intended or unintended fish mortality, an increase in foot traffic trampling vegetation, and wildlife being temporarily displaced. Such wildlife could have been observed by authorized outfitter-guides or non-guided parties.
Outfitter-guides who are permitted to provide guided bank fishing services have a business interest in complying with the terms and conditions of their SUP to legally continue providing
9 Several meta-analyses of hooking mortality on recreational fisheries have been conducted (e.g., Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). However, because the likelihood of hooking mortality varies widely between environments (freshwater versus saltwater) and fish type (family or species), generic hooking mortality analyses that lump species groups may not provide generalizable insights (Hühn and Arlinghaus 2011). Species-specific meta-analyses have been conducted for salmonid species (Taylor and White 1992; Schill and Scarpella 1997), which may provide a more representative indication of hooking mortality rates of cutthroat trout in the region. Schill and Scarpella (1997) report that for flies and lures combined, mean hooking mortality for nonanadromous trout was 4.5 percent for barbed hooks and 4.2 percent for barbless hooks. They concluded that since natural mortality for wild stream trout ranges from 30 to 65 percent annually, a 0.3 percent difference in mortality from hook types was irrelevant at the population level. Taylor and White (1992) do not report a mean generalized mortality rate, but report relative magnitudes of mortality rate based on variables such as if bait or artificial flies or lures are used (higher mortality rates were observed for bait), hook type (mortality is greater for barbed hooks), and trout species (brown trout exhibited lower mortality than brook or rainbow). 10 D. Miller, Fisheries Biologist, WGFD, personal communication with Morgan Trieger, Biologist, EMPSi, August 4, 2017.
18 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest that service; therefore, permitted outfitter-guides would ensure their familiarity with the boundaries of the authorized river segments in order to avoid trespassing on private lands or on Grand Teton National Park or operating outside of their SUP. Given their business interest in their SUPs, permitted outfitter-guides have an incentive to informally assist the Forest Service with monitoring for illegal guided services, either fishing or otherwise; this is because illegal guiding diminishes the value of their permits. Further, outfitter-guides are more likely to be aware of permitted uses than members of the public and are therefore better monitors.
Cumulative Impacts This alternative would increase opportunities for guided day-use bank fishing beyond the existing authorization for the activity. The associated impacts would also increase but would be minimized by the alternative design such as limits on service days, authorized access points, and best practices incorporated into permitted outfitter-guide operating plans. 5.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers
5.3.1 Scope of Analysis The following issues were identified for analysis:
• Effect on water quality and free-flow of the three designated WSRs • Effect on the identified outstandingly remarkable values (ORV) for each of the three designated rivers • Effect on the Forest Service’s ability to manage use within identified visitor capacity estimates for each of the three designated rivers
For these issues, the following indicators will be used to quantitatively measure the impact of implementing the alternatives being considered for detailed analysis:
• Changes to the identified recreational ORV, as indicated by o Types of recreational opportunities available in the river corridor o Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors
o Number of authorized guided parties in the river corridors o Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing o Density of authorized parking sites for guided day-use bank fishing • Changes to the identified fishery ORV, as indicated by
o Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors
o Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing • Changes to the identified ecological/wildlife ORVs, as indicated by
o Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors
o Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing
September 2017 19 Guided Bank Fishing
o Density of authorized parking sites for guided day-use bank fishing o Acres of new surface disturbance • The Forest Service’s ability to manage use within the identified visitor capacity estimates, as indicated by
o Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors
o Number of authorized guided parties in the river corridors o Number of authorized parking sites for guided day-use bank fishing There are no indicators for the scenic, geologic, or cultural ORVs; water quality; free-flowing condition; or classification. These issues have been dismissed for detailed analysis; due to the nature of the issue and alternatives, there is no potential for impacts on these issues under either of the alternatives. A rationale for each issue dismissed is provided below.
Scenic ORV—This value is comprised of landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors. This results in notable or exemplary visual features or attractions. The project alternatives do not authorize any activities which would alter the characteristics of the landscape. This is because no surface disturbances would occur; that is, there would be no movement of soil, no vegetation removal, no logging, no road or other facilities construction, and no water diversions. Existing parking sites would be used. Because the identified scenic ORVs would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, the scenic ORV is not included in their detailed analyses.
Geologic ORV—This value occurs when a river corridor contains one or more examples of a geologic feature, process, or phenomenon that is unique, rare, or exemplary in the region of comparison. The project alternatives do not consider authorizing any activities that would alter the geologic values associated with Buffalo Creek. Restrictions on specific parking sites, the absence of any new facilities or roads, and mere foot travel would not alter the braided stream course or its channel or the presence of channel or point bars. Because Buffalo Fork’s geologic ORV would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, the geologic ORV is not included in their detailed analyses.
Cultural ORV—This value occurs when the river or area in the river corridor contains important evidence of historic or prehistoric human occupation or use. The project alternatives do not consider authorizing any activities that would alter the landscape or authorize a surface-disturbing activity. Because Togwotee Pass and the Rosencrans Historic District would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, the cultural ORV is not included in their detailed analyses.
Water quality—Federal agencies are obligated to either meet the water quality standards of the Clean Water Act or avoid degrading existing water quality for designated rivers, whichever is more protective (IWSRCC 1998, p. 53). The project alternatives do not consider authorizing any activities that would alter the existing water quality of the rivers. This is because no pollutants11 would be discharged into the rivers, and there would be no surface-disturbing activities, such as for new facilities. Access and parking would be restricted to existing designated motor vehicle
11 The Clean Water Act, Section 502(6) defines pollutant as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.”
20 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest routes and parking sites. Incorporating “leave no trace” principles, including the proper disposal of waste, into outfitter-guide operation plans would minimize the potential for any water quality degradation. Because water quality would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, water quality is not included in their detailed analyses.
Free-flowing condition—The WSR Act requires the Forest Service to preserve the free-flowing condition of rivers in the NWSRS. The project alternatives do not authorize any activities that would alter the free-flowing condition of the rivers; for example, there would no riprapping, straightening, or diversions. Because free-flowing condition would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, free-flowing condition is not included in their detailed analyses.
Classification—The Forest Service is obligated to maintain the classification of wild, scenic, or recreational of designated rivers (USFS 2016). The project alternatives do not consider authorizing any activities that would alter the classification of these rivers; that is, there would be no additional facilities developed or roads or other infrastructure constructed. Because classification would not be impacted by any actions under either alternative, classification is not included in their detailed analyses.
5.3.2 Affected Environment In 2009, Congress passed the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act as a component of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. It added all or segments of 13 rivers, for a total of 414 miles in the Snake River headwaters area to the NWSRS; 315 of these miles are in the BTNF.
Three of the four rivers being considered for guided day-use bank fishing under this proposal were designated in the NWSRS as a part of that legislation. The designated river segments under consideration include non-wilderness portions of the Buffalo Fork, Blackrock Creek, and Pacific Creek; these segments are all classified as scenic and are in areas designated as DFC 3C in the amended BTNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Cumulatively, the length of these designated river segments totals 25.9 miles.
Each of the three designated rivers being considered is described individually below. The narrative summarizes the existing condition for those rivers, as presented in the CRMP (USFS 2014).
In general, as described in the CRMP, DFC 3C rivers receive low to moderate use (USFS 2014, p. 3-34). Most recreation use is driving for pleasure, camping, bank fishing, fall big-game hunting, and seasonal boating on the Buffalo Fork. For each of these activities, the river is a critical part of the recreation experience.
Blackrock Creek The entirety of Blackrock Creek from its source to its confluence with the Buffalo Fork (21.7 miles in length) is designated as scenic; however, only the portion of Blackrock Creek from the Blackrock Ranger Station upstream to where the river is crossed by Flagstaff Road would be authorized for use under the SUPs, for a total of 10.8 miles.
Blackrock Creek receives sediment from natural sources in the watershed and the 62 miles of roads (USFS 2014). Blackrock Creek’s water quality has been sparsely monitored, so no further water quality information is available (USFS 2014, p. 2-7).
September 2017 21 Guided Bank Fishing
Blackrock Creek was determined to possess the ORVs listed below, with a brief description of the rationale supporting each (USFS 2014):
• Scenic—There are background views of the Teton Range and middle ground views of the Breccia Cliffs and other nearby mountains; wide expanses at Blackrock Meadows to a narrow, incised canyon downstream to meandering reaches. • Recreation—Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway of US Highway 26/287 provides numerous opportunities for driving for pleasure. It also provides access to hubs for snowmobiling and skiing during the winter. The CRMP noted that average daily use along the highway was 955 vehicles in 2010 (USFS 2014). • Cultural—Togwotee Pass was an important travel corridor over the continental divide from prehistoric times through the early exploration and settlement of the Jackson Hole area. • Ecological/wildlife—Blackrock Creek area has high vegetation diversity and is important to wildlife. It is a high elevation area, with a well-developed riparian zone. • Fishery—Blackrock Creek contains sensitive amphibian species and at least six native fish species, including both Snake River and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. It has high species diversity and habitat for native species reproduction.
While the CRMP does not provide a visitor capacity estimate for river use, it does provide an estimate of 78 vehicles at one time in established parking areas. The rationale is as follows (USFS 2014, p. 3-37): “There are approximately five pullouts and one constructed parking area located on the Togwotee Highway that can provide access to Blackrock Creek. Four of the pullouts along the highway can comfortably accommodate four vehicles per pullout. A large parking area was constructed to accommodate snowmobile traffic and can accommodate 50 vehicles with trailers at one time. At the [Blackrock] Ranger District office, a visitor pullout can accommodate another 12 vehicles.”
Buffalo Fork The designated portions of the Buffalo Fork are in two segments, as follows:
• A 70.3-mile segment, consisting of several forks upstream of Turpin Meadows and extending into the Teton Wilderness; it is classified as wild. • A 14.1-mile segment, from Turpin Meadows downstream to the Forest Service boundary with Grand Teton National Park; it is classified as scenic. Only a portion of the segment classified as scenic, from the west end of Burro Hill upstream to the Teton Wilderness boundary, or 10.9 miles, would be authorized for use under the SUPs.
Water quality on the Buffalo Fork is high, with no portions listed on the US Environmental Protection Agency 303(d) streams in or immediately downstream of the designated segment (USFS 2014). Additionally, water temperatures are meeting standards for the period of record, it has very low turbidity, and has achieved of State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality water quality standards (USFS 2014).
The scenic portion of the Buffalo Fork was determined to possess the ORVs listed below, with a brief description of the rationale supporting those ORVs (USFS 2014):
22 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
• Scenic—Spectacular views of the Teton Range and pastoral setting of the Buffalo Valley; classic point bars, meanders, and oxbows add to the beauty of the gravelly, braided stream • Recreational—Numerous river access points and recreation facilities along Buffalo Valley Road; opportunities for numerous guided and non-guided recreation opportunities • Cultural—Rosencrans Cabin Historic District (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) • Ecological/wildlife—Broad riparian zone supports extensive willow communities, mixed with conifers and cottonwood galleries that support an assemblage of seasonal and resident wildlife; important winter range for moose; critical migration corridor for elk; contains Teton wire-lettuce • Fishery—Contains Snake River cutthroat trout, other native fish species, and several sensitive or MIS amphibians • Geologic—Classic braided stream that includes oxbows, multiple channels, active lateral point bars, and mid-channel bars
Currently, there are 80 day-use canoe service days authorized on the Buffalo Fork.
Two outfitter-guides are authorized to provide guided day-use bank fishing in the non-wilderness portion of the District; however, these services are ancillary to those businesses and provide negligible guided day-use bank fishing opportunity. This is because 15 service days or fewer per year have been used. The CRMP notes that overnight campsite availability is the limiting factor for protecting identified river values for most of these river segments (USFS 2014, p. 3-36); however, no overnight use would be authorized under the proposed SUPs. Because of that, this primary limiting factor for capacity is inapplicable to this proposal. The CRMP does provide a capacity estimate of 200 service days for river use (100 service days of priority use,12 plus 100 days of temporary13 use).
This estimate was based the following rationale (USFS 2014, p. 3-37): “Outfitted river use is likely to increase more than non-outfitted use due to the presence of two guest resorts in this corridor; thus, river capacity is based on outfitted use. Eighty service days are currently authorized for outfitted river use on the Buffalo Fork. A large increase in priority use is not advised due to the lack of facilities to handle concentrated human use and associated impacts. Temporary use is issued in blocks of 50 service days. Given facility restrictions, no more than 100 days of temporary use is advised. Allowing 100 service days for both priority and temporary use provides equity for these two types of outfitted river use.” Along the Buffalo Fork, clients and guides could access the outhouses at Turpin Meadow Trailhead and Box Creek Trailhead.
Pacific Creek The designated portions of Pacific Creek are in two segments, as follows:
• A 22.5-mile segment, from its headwaters in the Teton Wilderness to the wilderness boundary, which is classified as wild
12 Priority use—Commercial outfitter-guide services; up to 10-year authorizations 13 Temporary use—Institutional outfitters, including nonprofit entities, offering programs that are part of an accredited school or specialized services program; 1-year authorizations
September 2017 23 Guided Bank Fishing
• A 6.8-mile segment, from the wilderness boundary to the National Park Service boundary, which is classified as scenic
Only the portion of the Pacific Creek that is classified as scenic would be authorized for use under the SUPs. This is 4.2 river miles, running from the Teton Wilderness boundary, downstream to the cut bank north of the private inholding.
In 2002, the United States Geological Survey and Grand Teton National Park sampled a site on Pacific Creek on the BTNF. Nutrient levels were generally low, and sample levels were less than the water-quality criteria for surface waters in Wyoming. Sources of nutrients were presumed to be natural, because the basin is largely undeveloped; however, an upstream campground and upstream campsites were noted as possible contributors (USFS 2014, p. 2-66).
Pacific Creek was determined to possess the ORVs listed below, with a brief description of the rationale supporting those ORVs (USFS 2014, pp. 2-67 to -69):
• Recreational—Day-use and dispersed camping with hunting and fishing from these camps; a small and remote campground; winter sports • Ecological/wildlife—Importance as a travel corridor for migratory wildlife foraging and nesting; relatively pristine condition; vegetation diversity • Fishery—Contains at least 12 native fish species, including both Snake River and Yellowstone cutthroat trout; high species diversity, including presence of amphibian MIS; natural reproduction of native species
The CRMP does not provide a visitor capacity estimate for river or day-use on Pacific Creek. It provides only an estimate of overnight use, which is inapplicable to this proposal.
Desired Condition In accordance with the CRMP, the DFC 3C includes all three river corridors in their entirety (USFS 2014). DFC 3C is described in the amended Forest Plan for the BTNF (USFS 1990, p. 237) as follows:
“These segments are accessible via paved roads and highways, some of which are scenic byways, and/or Forest roads. However, the level of development is lower, and the use is primarily by small groups and individuals. Boat launches are primitive, campgrounds are few, and there are many opportunities for dispersed camping and day use. The corridors provide for day-use and overnight camping in developed or dispersed settings. A wide range of recreational and educational experiences, including fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing, will be encouraged. Information will describe opportunities to explore the full Headwaters system. Interpretation of both natural and cultural resources will educate the public about river values and how activities in the Headwaters system help protect and enhance these values. Resource adaptation and resilience will be promoted through retention of management flexibility, especially regarding fish and wildlife habitat projects.”
5.3.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect impacts over either the short term or long term to the analyzed ORVs. Moreover, there would be no impacts on the Forest Service’s
24 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest ability to manage use within the visitor capacity estimates in the CRMP. Each river is discussed individually below.
Blackrock Creek
Recreational ORV The existing recreational values supporting this ORV would not be impacted by Alternative 1. Visitors who are driving for pleasure would not experience changes in traffic volumes along US Highway 26/287. No new travel from guided fishing parties would occur, and the absence of a SUP for guided fishing would not discourage travelers from using the highway. Additionally, the landscape viewed from this travel route would not be altered in any manner that would improve or detract from its current condition. Similarly, access to winter recreation would not be impacted. This is because there would be no change in traffic volumes nor the recreation setting.
Ecological/Wildlife ORV No new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited by this alternative in the river corridor. For this reason, there would be no impact on vegetation diversity, wildlife habitat, or the river’s high-elevation riparian area; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Fishery ORV The diversity of native fish species and their habitat for reproduction would not be impacted by this alternative. This is because no new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited by this alternative in the river corridor; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Visitor Capacity Estimate The CRMP established a visitor capacity estimate for Blackrock Creek in terms of its motor vehicle parking capacity in established parking areas. Under this alternative, there would be no change in the number of motorists seeking established parking areas on Blackrock Creek. This is because motor vehicle use along Blackrock Creek would neither be promoted nor discouraged by the absence of a SUP for guided day-use bank fishing.
Buffalo Fork
Recreational ORV The broad array of current guided and non-guided recreation on the Buffalo Fork would not be impacted by a change in the level of recreation on this river. This is because no new service days on the river would be authorized. No new activities would occur, nor would any be prohibited or discouraged. Similarly, the ability of recreationists to reach and use the numerous river access points and recreation facilities along Buffalo Valley Road would not be impacted by this alternative. Although existing recreation would not be impacted by the Alternative 1, the recreational ORV for this river recognizes a diversity of guided and non-guided activities along the river corridor; this diversity would be limited by not authorizing a SUP for guided day-use bank fishing.
Ecological/Wildlife ORV No new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited by this alternative in the river corridor. Because of this, there would be no impact on the extensive willow communities and
September 2017 25 Guided Bank Fishing mixed forest that support an assemblage of seasonal and resident wildlife; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Fishery ORV The native Snake River cutthroat trout and other native fish species and amphibians in the river would not be impacted by this alternative. The reason for this is that no new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited by this alternative in the river corridor; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Visitor Capacity Estimates There would be no change in the number of authorized service days on the Buffalo Fork; therefore, there would be no change in the Forest Service’s ability to manage use within the identified river use capacity estimate.
Pacific Creek
Recreational ORV Because no service days would be authorized, the existing hunting and fishing opportunities would not be impacted. This applies to both day use and from dispersed campsites. Likewise, without a change in authorized service days, campground use, and winter activities would not be impacted.
Ecological/Wildlife ORV No new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited in the river corridor by this alternative. For this reason, there would be no impact on the wildlife travel corridor, the ability of wildlife to forage or nest along the river, the river’s relatively pristine condition, or the diversity of vegetation; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Fishery ORV The native Snake River cutthroat trout and other native fish species and amphibians in the river would not be impacted by this alternative. This is because no new activities or facilities would be authorized or prohibited by this alternative in the river corridor; that is, the disturbances would neither increase nor decrease.
Visitor Capacity Estimates Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in overnight use along Pacific Creek and, therefore, no change in the Forest Service’s ability to manage use within the identified capacity estimate in the CRMP.
Cumulative Impacts Guided bank fishing would continue at approximately 15 service days per year. Alternative 1 would not alter the existing impacts of those 15 service days. These impacts are small, in comparison to the estimated 154,185 visitors to the BTNF who participated in fishing in 2013 (USFS 2013). There would be additional impacts on WSR resources from the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District. The impacts of bank fishing include temporary displacement of fish and wildlife due to human presence, trampling of vegetation from foot travel, and contribution to perceptions of crowding.
26 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
5.3.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Impacts
Aquatic Invasive Species The increase in fishing on these rivers would increase the risk of introducing AIS; however, the risk could be minimized by incorporating best practices for preventing the spread of AIS into outfitter-guide operating plans. Teaching these best practices to clients would help reduce the risk of AIS spread when these clients engaged in non-guided recreation in the future.
Blackrock Creek Alternative 2 would authorize 10.8 river miles of Blackrock Creek for guided day-use bank fishing. Three access points would be available for guided fishing parties, with a density of 3.6 river miles per access point. Due to access point and season of use restrictions, there could be up to 459 service days on Blackrock Creek.
Recreational ORV Visitors driving for pleasure may be negatively impacted by a very slight increase in traffic along US Highway 26/287. This increase would be due to guided fishing parties using the highway to get to the authorized river access points. Portions of US Highway 26/287 would be used for reaching the three access points on Blackrock Creek, the seven access points along Buffalo Fork, and the one access point on Spread Creek. Based on the daily vehicle use in the CRMP, full use of these access points would increase vehicle traffic by approximately 1 percent. Issuing the SUP would also limit the ability of motorists driving for pleasure along US Highway 26/287 to use the pullouts authorized as river access points under the SUP by guided fishing parties potentially occupying one of the twelve parking spots at the Blackrock Ranger District or one of the many parking spots at the very large Togwotee State Snowmobile parking lot.
Use of US Highway 26/287 for accessing winter recreation activities would not be impacted. This is because the service days would be seasonally restricted to times of the year that do not conflict with winter recreation.
Ecological/Wildlife No new acres of surface would be disturbed, and parking and access would be restricted to existing access points. For these reasons, the increase in service days and miles of river available for use would minimally impact wildlife. Impacts would come from additional human presence along the river segment when guided parties are present.
There would be short-term impacts on individual plants from guided fishing party foot traffic, and guided fishing parties could serve as additional vectors for the spread of noxious weeds; however, the ORV of the riparian zone and the vegetation diversity of the river corridor would not be diminished by the quantity of foot travel under this alternative. Additionally, the low density of access points would allow for wildlife to remain undisturbed by guided fishing parties in substantial portions of the river segment.
Fishery ORV The addition of the increased fishing pressure that would accompany these service days would minimally impact the native fish species in Blackrock Creek, including the fine spotted Snake River cutthroat trout. Some degree of fish mortality would occur, regardless of the skill and
September 2017 27 Guided Bank Fishing knowledge of the permitted outfitter-guides, the use of best handling techniques for fish, and catch-and-release requirement for Snake River cutthroat. Research suggests a hooking mortality rate of 0.3 to 3 percent of cutthroat trout hooked (Schill et al. 1986).14 Despite this, the fishery in Blackrock Creek is robust enough to sustain such losses.15
Amphibians could be disturbed by the presence of guided fishing parties, whose members could trample amphibians or their habitat.
Visitor Capacity Estimate The CRMP estimates a visitor capacity of 78 vehicles in established parking areas at any one time along Blackrock Creek. Implementing this alternative would limit the ability of visitors to use the pullouts authorized as river access points. There are 12 parking spots at the Blackrock Ranger District office. Guided fishing parties could occupy one of the 78 vehicle parking spaces (less than 1 percent) in the established parking areas.
Further, there would be 66 spots for vehicles that would not be directly impacted. This is because guided fishing parties would not be authorized to park there; however, these 66 spots could be indirectly impacted by other visitors’ vehicles being displaced from the parking areas authorized for guided bank fishing use. This would be the case if guided fishing party vehicles were occupying spots in those parking areas.
The other two authorized river access points are not on US Highway 26/287 and are therefore not included in the 78-vehicle capacity estimate for Blackrock Creek.
Buffalo Fork Alternative 2 would authorize 10.9 river miles of the Buffalo Fork for that guided day-use bank fishing. Although seven access points would be available for guided fishing parties, a maximum of three guided parties per day would be allowed on the Buffalo Fork; therefore, the effective density would be of 3.6 river miles per access point. No more than 400 service days would be allowed on the Buffalo Fork.
Recreational ORV Authorizing guided bank fishing would increase the already numerous opportunities for guided and non-guided activities on the river. Increasing the quantity of available recreation opportunities would bolster this aspect of the recreational ORV; however, the increase in the quantity of recreation opportunities would also be accompanied by a slight decrease in the quality of the existing recreation opportunities. This would be due to the potential perception of increased crowding that may occur from the presence of up to three guided fishing parties per day along the Buffalo Fork. The low density of access points would allow for portions of the river segment to remain free of guided fishing parties.
Ecological/Wildlife ORV Parking and access would be restricted to existing access points, so no new surface acres would be disturbed; the increase in service days and miles of river available for use would minimally impact wildlife. This would be due to the increased human presence along the river segment from guided bank fishing parties. There could be short-term impacts on willow communities or Teton
14 See footnote 9 for more information on hooking mortality rates. 15 D. Miller, Fisheries Biologist, WGFD, personal communication with Morgan Trieger, Biologist, EMPSi, August 4, 2017.
28 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest lettuce from guided fishing parties’ foot traffic, and guided fishing parties could serve as additional vectors for the spread of noxious weeds; however, the ORV of the broad riparian zone and Teton wire-lettuce presence would not be diminished by the quantity of foot traffic under this alternative. Additionally, the low density of access points would allow for wildlife to remain undisturbed by guided fishing parties in portions of the river segment.
Fishery ORV The increased fishing pressure that would accompany these service days would minimally impact the native fish species, such as the fine spotted Snake River cutthroat trout in the Buffalo Fork. Regardless of the skill and knowledge of the permitted outfitter-guides, applying best handling techniques for fish and requiring catch-and-release for Snake River cutthroat, there would be some degree of fish mortality. Current research suggests an unintended mortality rate of 0.3 to 3 percent of cutthroat trout hooked (Schill et al. 1986).16 Despite this, the fishery in the Buffalo Fork is robust enough to sustain such losses.17
Amphibians could be disturbed by guided fishing parties trampling individuals or their habitat.
Visitor Capacity Estimate The CRMP provides a visitor capacity estimate for river use on the Buffalo Fork of 200 service days. This capacity estimate for river use is intended to be applicable to float use, where boat ramps and other infrastructure are needed for launching or taking out watercraft. The CRMP also states that overnight campsite availability is the limiting factor for protecting most of the identified ORVs. The river use capacity estimate is comprised of 100 days of priority service use and 100 service days of temporary use. The limitation on priority service days is “due to the lack of facilities to handle concentrated human use and associated impacts” (USFS 2014, p. 3-37).
Although Alternative 2 would increase service days above the visitor capacity estimate, guided day-use bank fishing parties would not compete for space at boat ramps or campsites. Additionally, the alternative ensures a low access point density, which distributes visitor use across existing facilities and thereby addresses the central concern raised by the visitor capacity estimate.
Further, incorporating “leave no trace” principles in the outfitter-guides’ operating plans would further reduce impacts on facilities. This would come about by applying proper waste disposal techniques during guided fishing activities and teaching such techniques to clients for their use in future, non-guided situations. In addition, toilet facilities are available at the Box Creek and Turpin Meadow Trailheads.
Pacific Creek Alternative 2 would authorize 4.2 river miles of Pacific Creek for guided day-use bank fishing. Nine river access points would be available for guided fishing parties; this is a density of 0.5 river miles per access point.
Recreational ORV Because the guided bank fishing would be restricted to day use, this alternative would not impact recreationists seeking dispersed camping or use of the campground. The reason for this is because
16 See footnote 9 for more information on hooking mortality rates. 17 D. Miller, Fisheries Biologist, WGFD, personal communication with Morgan Trieger, Biologist, EMPSi, August 4, 2017.
September 2017 29 Guided Bank Fishing there would be no change in crowding or competing for camping sites by implementing this alternative.
Due to the season of use restrictions, Alternative 2 would avoid any conflicts between hunters and guided fishing parties; however, there would be a slight decrease in the quality of recreation opportunities, including for non-guided fishing parties. This would be due to perceptions of increased crowding that may occur from the presence of up to nine guided fishing parties per day along Pacific Creek.
The density of access sites is not as low as that of Blackrock Creek or the Buffalo Fork; nevertheless, the half-mile density would still allow for guided and non-guided fishing parties to maintain a sense of solitude from each other. This would come about by providing sufficient distance between groups to avoid the sight and sounds of other groups.
Ecological/Wildlife ORV No new acres of surface would be disturbed, because parking and access would be restricted to existing access points; nevertheless, the increase in service days and available river miles would minimally impact the wildlife from additional guided fishing parties along the river segment. There could be short-term impacts on wildlife movement and the natural behaviors of individual wildlife, individual plants could be trampled by guided fishing parties, and guided fishing parties could serve as additional vectors for the spread of noxious weeds. However, the ORV of the wildlife corridor, its relatively pristine condition, and its vegetation diversity would not be notably diminished by the quantity of foot traffic under this alternative. Additionally, in substantial portions of the river segment, the density of access points would allow for wildlife and vegetation to remain undisturbed by guided fishing parties.
Fishery ORV The increased fishing pressure that would accompany these service days would minimally impact the native fish species. This includes the fine spotted Snake River cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Pacific Creek. Some degree of fish mortality would occur. This would happen despite the skill and knowledge of the permitted outfitter-guides, the application of best handling techniques for fish, and the catch-and-release requirement for native cutthroat trout. Current research suggests an unintended mortality rate of 0.3 to 3 percent of cutthroat trout (Schill et al. 1986).18 Despite this, the fishery in Pacific Creek is robust enough to sustain such losses.19
Visitor Capacity Estimate The CRMP does not provide a visitor capacity estimate for river or day use on Pacific Creek; it estimates only overnight use. This is not applicable to this proposal, because no overnight use would be authorized; therefore, implementing this alternative would not impact the Forest Service’s ability to manage use within the overnight use capacity estimate identified in the CRMP.
Cumulative Impacts Implementing this alternative would increase opportunities for guided day-use bank fishing beyond its existing authorization. The associated impacts would also increase, but they would be minimized by the alternative’s design, such as limits on service days and authorized access points.
18 See footnote 9 for more information on hooking mortality rates. 19 D. Miller, Fisheries Biologist, WGFD, personal communication with Morgan Trieger, Biologist, EMPSi, August 4, 2017.
30 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Implementing the alternative would add to the impact of the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District. 5.4 Fisheries
5.4.1 Scope of Analysis The following issues were identified for analysis:
• Concern that increased use would result in more stress on the fishery, which is already stressed from climate change • Concern about overfishing and potential degradation of fish habitat, including introducing AIS and disease
For these issues, the following indicators will be used to quantitatively measure the impact of implementing the alternatives being considered for detailed analysis:
• Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors • Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing • Amount of new surface disturbance
5.4.2 Affected Environment
Federally Listed Species In the project area, there are no aquatic threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitat for aquatic threatened or endangered species.
Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are designated by the Forest Service Regional Forester and are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act. Two sensitive fish species occur in the proposed project area: Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii behnkei) and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (O. c. bouvieri; ) (hereafter referred to collectively as cutthroat trout, unless otherwise noted).
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii behnkei) The Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout is a Region 4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species and BTNF MIS. In a review of candidate species for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA in 1994, the USFWS determined that proposing to list the species as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate but that persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support the proposed rules (59 Federal Register 58982).
The Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout is derived from Yellowstone cutthroat trout; these two species are presently genetically indistinguishable. Some authors consider Snake River fine- spotted cutthroat trout as a morphological variant of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, whereas others consider it a valid subspecies (Behnke 2002). The Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout is morphologically distinct from Yellowstone cutthroat trout; this is based primarily on morphology rather than geographic isolation (Van Kirk et al. 2006). Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout can be distinguished from Yellowstone and other varieties of cutthroat trout by the profuse
September 2017 31 Guided Bank Fishing distribution of small spots on body and dorsal, adipose, and caudal fins (Behnke 2002; Page and Burr 2011).
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout is found within the historic range of the Yellowstone cutthroat trout: the Upper Snake River (and tributary streams downstream of and including Gros Ventre River), between Palisades Reservoir and Jackson Lake; Wyoming and Idaho (Behnke 2002; Page and Burr 2011).
Typical of most trout, Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout require relatively cool, well- oxygenated water and the presence of clean, well-sorted gravel, with minimal fine sediment for successful spawning. Optimal stream habitat is characterized by clear, cold, relatively silt-free water, with rocky substrate and an approximately even riffle-to-pool ratio.
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout generally spawn in clear, cold, shallow riffles of small streams soon after ice melts in the spring. They usually spawn in gravel stream riffles, where the female digs a nest (redd) in the gravel. The initiation of spawning is influenced by water temperature, increased water discharge from runoff, elevation, and latitude (Moyle 1976).
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout occur in Buffalo Fork, Blackrock Creek, and Pacific Creek in the proposed project area (USFS 2014; WYNDD GIS 2017).
Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) The Yellowstone cutthroat trout is a Region 4 Regional Forester’s sensitive species BTNF MIS. In a review of candidate species for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA in 2001, the USFWS determined that proposing to list it as endangered or threatened was not warranted (71 Federal Register 8818).
Yellowstone cutthroat trout are widely distributed within their historic range in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. On the BTNF, Yellowstone cutthroat trout are found throughout their original range in the upper Snake River, above Palisades Dam (Van Kirk and Benjamin 2001). These populations contain both historical and currently occupied habitat and encompass the headwaters of the Snake River, Gros Ventre River, Greys-Hoback River, and Salt River watersheds. In the upper Snake River drainage and in tributaries of the Yellowstone River, downstream of Yellowstone Park, this subspecies has been largely replaced by nonnative or hybrid trout (Behnke 2002).
Typical of most trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout require relatively cool, well-oxygenated water and the presence of clean, well-sorted gravel, with minimal fine sediment for successful spawning. Optimal stream habitat is characterized by clear, cold, relatively silt-free water, with rocky substrate and an approximately even riffle-to-pool ratio.
Spawning streams generally are perennial, with groundwater- and snow-fed water sources, and a gradient usually less than 3 percent; some spawning in intermittent streams does occur (Gresswell 1995). Spawning sites generally have gravel 12–85 millimeters in diameter, a water depth of about 9–30 centimeters, and a water velocity of 14–73 centimeters per second (Gresswell 1995). Yellowstone cutthroat trout usually spawn in the stream where they were hatched.
Yellowstone cutthroat trout occur in Buffalo Fork, Blackrock Creek, and Pacific Creek in the proposed project area (USFS 2014; WYNDD GIS 2017).
32 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
5.4.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to the number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors, nor the miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing. There would be no new surface disturbance authorized.
Because there would be no changes to these indicators under Alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on cutthroat trout. Native cutthroat trout fisheries would not experience increased stress from increased levels of guided-fishing. The fisheries would not be subject to increased risk of habitat degradation from introducing AIS or disease.
Cumulative Impacts Under Alternative 1, guided day-use bank fishing would continue at 15 service days or fewer per year. Alternative 1 would not alter the existing impacts associated with those 15 service days, which are limited in intensity, compared with the estimated 154,185 visitors to the BTNF who participated in fishing in 2013 (USFS 2013). Additionally, catch quotas, season dates, and permit requirements administered by the WGFD would remain in effect.
There would be additional impacts on fisheries resources from the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District, as well as from nonindigenous fish species, the potential for AIS introduction and spread, habitat degradation, and angling injury or stress to native cutthroat trout. These impacts are discussed below.
Impacts from nonindigenous fish species The presence of nonindigenous salmonids20 is a major threat to cutthroat trout (Young 1995; Dunham et al. 2002; Gresswell 2009). In western North America, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown trout (Salmo trutta) are the most widespread nonindigenous salmonid species (Fuller et al. 1999). Brook trout and brown trout are common in the upper Snake River watershed and tributaries (USGS 2017). Rainbow trout were historically widely stocked in many lakes and streams across the BTNF (USFS 1990). These species occur in proposed project area streams.
Nonindigenous trout may coexist with native cutthroat populations at low population densities with minimal impacts on the native populations; however, under certain environmental conditions, such as warm temperatures or low spring runoff, nonindigenous trout can thrive and often become the dominant trout species in the stream. Once this shift has occurred, it is unlikely to be reversed without a substantial management effort.
Hybridization resulting from introductions of rainbow trout and other nonindigenous trout is a ubiquitous cause of the decline and extirpation of cutthroat trout subspecies (Allendorf and Leary 1988), including Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Kruse et al. 2000). Further, competition with nonindigenous trout can reduce the feeding efficiency and growth of cutthroat trout and increase mortality (Thomas 1996; McMahon et al. 2007). Generally, nonindigenous trout are piscivorous,21 and predation on native cutthroat trout is widely assumed to be one of the reasons they have successfully replaced native cutthroat trout in many areas (Kruse et al. 2000; Quist and Hubert 2005).
20 Fish in the salmon family, Salmonidae. 21 Fish-eating; feeding on fish
September 2017 33 Guided Bank Fishing
Under Alternative 1, cutthroat trout in the proposed project area streams would continue to be affected by nonindigenous fish species. Impacts on cutthroat trout may include declines from hybridization with nonindigenous trout, competition for resources, and mortality from predation. These factors have likely historically affected native cutthroat trout in proposed project area streams; this is because of rainbow trout and other nonindigenous trout species being introduced to the region.
Impacts from AIS Cutthroat trout are susceptible to whirling disease, a condition caused by the nonnative Myxobolus cerebralis parasite. The disease is responsible for severe declines in wild trout populations in the Intermountain West. The parasite attacks cranial and skeletal cartilage of young trout, and, at high infection rates, produces the namesake “whirling” behavior, cranial and skeletal deformities, blackened tails, and high mortality (Baldwin et al. 2000; Ryce et al. 2004). This ultimately leads to sharp declines in survival and recruitment22 (Nehring 2008; McMahon et al. 2010).
Factors that can increase the risk of whirling disease are as follows:
• An abundance of fine sediments, which is favored habitat for an intermediate invertebrate parasite host (Sandell 2000) • Relatively warm water temperatures of 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 15 degrees Celsius; El-Matbouli et al. 1999; Baldwin et al. 2000) • Low flows (Hallett and Bartholomew 2008) • Human-caused disturbances that increase sedimentation, thereby increasing the density of the intermediate invertebrate parasite host (Granath et al. 2007) • The presence of disease-resistant brown trout, which serve as an infection reservoir for sustained parasite production (Nehring 2008)
Under Alternative 1, cutthroat trout in the proposed project area streams would continue to be affected by the potential for introduction of AIS, including from the parasite that causes whirling disease. While this parasite can be spread naturally by the movement of infected fish, human activities can also spread the parasite. These activities can include illegal fish stocking or movement and the movement of water or sediments containing the parasite (Steinbach Elwell et al. 2009). Because the parasite causing whirling disease is present in Yellowstone Lake and other regional waters (Koel et al. 2006), the potential for movement or introduction into the proposed project area streams is not discountable under Alternative 1.
Impacts from habitat degradation Sediment deposition into cutthroat trout habitat can result in negative impacts. Localized sediment deposition can occur from soil erosion mobilizing sediment, from streambank instability, and from the loss of riparian vegetation and resultant soil compaction or loss. Where sedimentation is severe enough, impacts on fish behavior could result, such as causing the fish to avoid turbid water (Bisson and Bilby 1982) and altering or impairing foraging and predation (Gregory 1993; Gregory and Northcote 1993; Vogel and Beauchamp 1999; Al Shaw and Richardson 2001).
22 Natural population increase as young fish grow and immigrants arrive.
34 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Suspended sediments can also impact fish physiology by causing gill trauma (Berg and Northcote 1985) and increased stress levels (Redding et al. 1987). Impaired foraging ability can lead to reduced growth and survival (Al Shaw and Richardson 2001). However, sediment concentration sufficient to cause mortality would only be achieved in experimental situations (Lake and Hinch 1999)). Sediment deposition on stream substrates can result in the loss of spawning gravels (Platts et al. 1989) and habitat complexity (McIntosh et al. 2000).
Under Alternative 1, cutthroat trout would continue to be affected by habitat degradation, resulting from day-use bank fishing; however, the severity of impacts would be limited, because these activities generally do not mobilize large amounts of sediment or remove large amounts of riparian vegetation.
Some localized sediment deposition into streams can be expected as anglers walk on streambanks; minor soil shearing may occur in these situations. Anglers may also mobilize sediment already on the stream substrate during wading. Anglers accessing the streambank from adjacent uplands may trample vegetation, leading to localized losses of herbaceous riparian vegetation.
Under Alternative 1, cutthroat trout would continue to be affected by habitat degradation, resulting from long-term climatic changes. These impacts may be one of the greatest threats to cutthroat trout, because impacts would exacerbate other negative impacts from nonindigenous species, from disease, and from habitat degradation (Gresswell 2009).
Changes in maximum summer temperatures and minimum winter temperatures would affect stream temperatures (Keleher and Rahel 1996). As a result, habitat for cold-water species, such as cutthroat trout, may be shifted up in elevation and north in latitude. Keleher and Rahel (1996) predicted occupied length of Wyoming trout streams would be reduced by between 7.5 and 43.3 percent under different warming scenarios.
Other factors associated with long-term climatic changes are anticipated to affect cutthroat trout habitat. Williams et al. (2007) predicated that small, isolated cutthroat populations would be affected the most by the increased prevalence of wildfire, summer temperatures, and winter flooding, particularly those populations at lower elevations. Further, the expansion of nonindigenous trout species into formerly unsuitable habitat may be accelerated, increasing the risk of hybridization (Muhlfeld et al. 2017).
Impacts from angling and angling pressure Population declines have been attributed to Yellowstone cutthroat trout being overharvested in their historical range (Binns 1977; Hadley 1984; Gresswell and Varley 1988). Schill et al. (1986) found that individuals in the Yellowstone River in Yellowstone National Park were captured an average of 9.7 times during the 108-day angling season; many tagged Yellowstone cutthroat trout were captured two or three times in a single day. Vulnerability to angling can lead to declines, if unregulated; however, restrictive conservation regulations to manage native cutthroat trout are in place on the BTNF.
Cutthroat trout can experience angler-caused mortality even when catch-and-release regulations are in place; this is known as hooking mortality. Factors that may affect survival of hooked-and- released fish are water temperature, hooking site, fish size (Wydoski 1977), fish species, experimental handling and holding procedures, length of playing time (Schill et al. 1986), and hook type (High and Meyer 2014). A study of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone River found hooking mortality rates of 0.3 to 3 percent; this rate increased with the number of
September 2017 35 Guided Bank Fishing times a fish was recaptured in a season (Schill et al. 1986). A study of hooking mortality of Lahontan cutthroat trout (O. c. henshawi) in the Sierra Nevada Range in California found that water temperature affected hooking mortality more than other tested factors (Titus and Vanicek 1988).23
Angling, particularly wading, can crush eggs and fry24 (Roberts and White 1992). It can disturb or destroy spawning redds if anglers traverse spawning areas; however, other studies have found this this effect is relatively limited (Kelly 1993).
Under Alternative 1, day-use anglers would continue to fish for native cutthroat trout in the proposed project area streams. Impacts of angling pressure, hooking mortality, limited mortality of eggs and fry, and redd disturbance would continue.
5.4.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 2, approximately 31.5 river-miles of potential native cutthroat trout habitat would be authorized for guided day-use bank fishing on non-wilderness portions of the District. This represents approximately 22 percent of the 142.4 total miles of named, non-wilderness rivers in the District (USFS GIS 2017).
In consideration of streams on wilderness portions of the District, the amount of potential native cutthroat habitat that would be authorized for guided day-use bank fishing is approximately 4.7 percent of the 677 total miles of named rivers (USFS GIS 2017).
While not all of these river-miles provide habitat for native cutthroat trout, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of this available habitat on the District is substantially greater than the 31.5 river-miles proposed for guided day-use bank fishing under Alternative 2. In this context, the direct and indirect impacts of authorizing guided day-use bank fishing are described below.
Under Alternative 2, the anticipated increased level of use would mean that there is additional opportunity for AIS introductions into project area streams. In order to minimize or prevent this impact, guided day-use bank fishing outfitter-guides would be required to follow best practices for preventing AIS introduction and spread. Under the SUP, the Forest Service would incorporate a robust set of best practices into outfitter-guide operating plans. Practices may vary by guide, based on those proposed in each of their individual application, but common best practices would include decontaminating boots, waders, and other fishing gear using recognized methods, such as freezing or disinfecting them. This would mean that the potential for impacts from AIS introduction and spread would not substantially increase, compared with Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, the increased use levels would mean that there is additional opportunity for riparian vegetation loss and sediment mobilization into native cutthroat habitat. This would be the result of additional anglers accessing fishing locations. In order to minimize this impact, guided day-use bank fishing outfitter-guides would be required to follow restrictive parking and access regulations. All guided day-use bank fishing parties would be required to park on existing roads and pullouts, in accordance with the Jackson and Blackrock Districts Motor Vehicle Use Map. They would be required to access stream reaches via authorized, designated access points. Restricting parking and access points would minimize vegetation trampling and sediment
23 See footnote 9 for more information on hooking mortality rates. 24 Young fish, especially those that are newly hatched.
36 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest mobilization. This would come about by restricting the areas where it occurs to areas relatively near designated access points.
Further, this parking and access restriction would allow Forest Service personnel to more easily monitor parking and access areas. If monitoring shows erosion or other potential means of stream sedimentation, such as weed infestations, become problematic, management could correct the situation.
Under Alternative 2, outfitter-guides would be able to instruct and educate clients on best practices for preventing vegetation loss and sediment mobilization. One example of this is choosing appropriate stream ingress and egress routes to minimize soil erosion and vegetation trampling on streambanks. This would help prevent substantial increases in sediment mobilization from foot access and wading, compared with Alternative 1.
No new roads, trails, or other infrastructure requiring surface disturbance or vegetation removal is proposed under Alternative 2. Preventing new surface disturbance would also prevent the potential for sedimentation into cutthroat trout habitat from upland soil disturbance. This would maintain habitat quality.
Under Alternative 2, the increased use levels would mean that impacts on native cutthroat trout from angling and angling pressure would be increased, compared with Alternative 1. Increased angling pressure would contribute to additional stress on the native cutthroat trout fisheries in the project area river segments; however, native cutthroat trout fisheries in the proposed project area are robust and resilient enough to be able to withstand potential added angling pressure and stress resulting from increased use levels under Alternative 2.25
In order to minimize impacts from increased angling and angling pressure under Alternative 2, guided day-use bank fishing outfitter-guides would be required to follow best practices for minimizing fish stress and mortality. A robust set of best practices would be incorporated into outfitter-guide operating plans under the SUP. Practices may vary by guide, based on practices proposed in each application; nevertheless, common best practices would include the following:
• Catch-and-release for native cutthroat • Minimal impact barbless hooks • Industry standard procedures for handling, thereby minimizing out-of-water time • A proper release technique for landed cutthroat trout
Incorporating best practices would mean that potential impacts from angling and stress would not substantially increase, compared with Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, in addition to best practices, all outfitter-guides would be required to conform to applicable WGFD fishing regulations for all fisheries. Such regulations are season of use, gear restrictions, and catch limits and sizes for catch-and-keep species. Conforming to WGFD regulations would further reduce the potential for angling and stress-related impacts on native cutthroat trout.
25 D. Miller, Fisheries Biologist, WGFD, personal communication with Morgan Trieger, Biologist, EMPSi, August 4, 2017.
September 2017 37 Guided Bank Fishing
Also, under Alterative 2, outfitter-guides would educate clients on other angling techniques to minimize impacts from angling and angling pressure on native cutthroat redds, eggs, and fry. These techniques could include identifying and avoiding wading over redds and avoiding or minimizing fishing on redds for cutthroat trout. These measures would further reduce the potential impacts from increased angling and angling pressure.
Increasing the number of service days available for guided day-use bank fishing under Alternative 2 would mean additional anglers would use the project area river segments. Because of this, it is likely that more nonindigenous fish would be caught and removed from these segments, compared with Alternative 1. Removing nonindigenous fish from the project area river segments would have a beneficial impact on native cutthroat trout. This is because there would be fewer nonindigenous fish in the river segments to hybridize with, compete for resources with, prey on, or transmit diseases to native cutthroat trout. WGFD possession limits and season dates for nonindigenous fish would be in effect under Alternative 2.
Cumulative Impacts Under Alternative 2, the cumulative impacts described under Alternative 1 would continue to affect native cutthroat fisheries in the project area river segments. These include the impacts on native cutthroat trout from nonindigenous fish species, AIS introduction and spread, habitat degradation, including from long-term climatic changes, and the impacts of the growing trend in non-guided day-use fishing on the District.
Implementing Alternative 2 would add to these impacts by increasing opportunities for guided day-use bank fishing beyond the existing authorization for the activity. The associated impacts on native cutthroat trout fisheries from increased use levels could increase; however, the alternative’s design would minimize or avoid these impacts. Examples are using best practices for handling native fish and minimizing fish stress, preventing AIS introductions, adhering to limits on service days, using authorized parking and access points, and minimizing habitat disturbance from sedimentation and vegetation trampling. 5.5 Wildlife
5.5.1 Scope of Analysis The following issues were identified for analysis:
• Concern that increased use will stress wildlife populations, including peregrine falcons, other raptors, and moose • Concern that increased use will increase the potential for grizzly bear/human encounters
For these issues, the following indicators will be used to quantitatively measure the impact of implementing the alternatives being considered for detailed analysis:
• Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors • Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing • Acres of Canada lynx critical habitat and lynx analysis units (LAU) affected • Acres of WGFD-delineated bighorn sheep and moose habitat affected • Amount of new surface disturbance
38 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
5.5.2 Affected Environment
Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail This analysis addresses the impacts on wildlife species in four categories:
• Threatened, endangered, and proposed species listed under the ESA • Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species • Migratory birds • Other species analyzed due to identified concerns
Species presence in the project area was estimated from recent surveys and sightings conducted by BTNF staff and from geospatial and distribution data from the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) and WGFD.
All wildlife species included in Table 4, Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail, were considered for analysis in this report. To determine species to be analyzed in detail, the Forest initially considered all Region 4 sensitive species. Retained for analysis were those species that have been observed within a 0.25-mile buffer of the project area rivers or those in habitat that is typical of the project area rivers. In summary, for species analyzed in detail, there is evidence of the presence of individuals or suitable habitat in the analysis area that could be affected by proposed project actions.
Table 4. Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail
Species Habitat Species Present in the Present in the Species Species Status1 Project Area? Project Area? Canada lynx FT Yes. This species has Yes. Lynx canadensis been documented in the Blackrock Creek corridor. Canada lynx critical Designated All 31.5 miles of rivers and 9,900 acres within a habitat 0.25-mile buffer of rivers are designated critical habitat. Grizzly bear N/A2 Yes. Yes. Ursus arctos horribilis Western yellow-billed FT No. No. Suitable habitat is cuckoo not present along Coccyzus americanus proposed project area streams. Western yellow-billed Proposed No proposed critical habitat occurs in or near cuckoo critical habitat proposed project area streams.
September 2017 39 Guided Bank Fishing
Table 4. Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail
Species Habitat Species Present in the Present in the Species Species Status1 Project Area? Project Area? North American FP Present in the Upper Yes. wolverine Snake River, Pacific Gulo gulo Creek, and Buffalo Fork watersheds. Common loon FS Sensitive Potential to be present. Limited habitat may Gavia immer be present in relatively still oxbows, ponds, or other still waters. Trumpeter swan FS Sensitive Yes. Yes. Nesting habitat Cygnus buccinators is present in natural wetland areas in the Buffalo Fork corridor. Harlequin duck FS Sensitive Potential to be present. Yes. Suitable Histrionicus histrionicus breeding habitat is present along project area streams, but use is limited. Bald eagle FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Suitable nesting Haliaeetus been documented in the and wintering leucocephalus Blackrock, Buffalo Fork, opportunities are and Pacific Creek present. corridors. Northern goshawk FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Accipiter gentilis been documented in the Blackrock, Buffalo Fork, and Pacific Creek corridors. Peregrine falcon FS Sensitive Potential to be present. Suitable nesting Falco peregrinus habitat is present downstream of the proposed project area in the Spread Creek corridor. Foraging habitat is present in the proposed project area. Greater sage-grouse FS Sensitive No. No. Suitable habitat is Centrocercus not present in the urophasianus proposed project area.
40 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Table 4. Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail
Species Habitat Species Present in the Present in the Species Species Status1 Project Area? Project Area? Flammulated owl FS Sensitive No. No. Suitable habitat is Psiloscops [Otus] not present in the flammeolus proposed project area. Great gray owl FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Strix nebulosa been documented in the Blackrock and Pacific Creek corridors. Boreal owl FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Aegolius funereus been documented in the Buffalo Fork corridor. Northern three-toed FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. woodpecker been documented in the Picoides tridactylus Pacific Creek corridor. Bighorn sheep FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Bighorn sheep herd Ovis canadensis been documented in the unit boundaries and Pacific Creek corridor. seasonal range overlap with portions of the proposed project area. Fisher FS Sensitive No. No. Suitable habitat is Pekania pennanti not present along proposed project area streams. Spotted bat FS Sensitive No. No. Suitable habitat is Euderma maculatum not present along proposed project area streams. Townsend’s big-eared FS Sensitive No. No. Suitable habitat is bat not present along Corynorhinus proposed project area townsendii streams. Columbia spotted frog FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Rana luteiuentris been documented in all proposed project area stream corridors. Boreal toad FS Sensitive Yes. This species has Yes. Anaxyrus boreas been documented in all proposed project area stream corridors.
September 2017 41 Guided Bank Fishing
Table 4. Wildlife Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail
Species Habitat Species Present in the Present in the Species Species Status1 Project Area? Project Area? Native ungulates (Moose N/A Yes. Herd unit boundaries, [Alces americanus], elk crucial ranges, [Cervus canadensis], parturition areas, and Mule deer [Odocoileus seasonal ranges hemionus], and overlap with portions pronghorn [Antilocapra of the proposed americana]) project area. Sources: USFWS GIS 2017; WYNDD GIS 2017; WGFD GIS 2017; USFS GIS 2017 1 Status Codes: FE = Federally listed endangered FT = Federally listed threatened FP = Proposed for federal listing FS Sensitive = Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species 2 The Greater Yellowstone Area Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bear was delisted from the ESA on July 31, 2017. This species has not been designated as Region 4 Sensitive by the Regional Forester. As a result, this species currently has no special status on the BTNF.
Federally Listed Species A list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species and proposed or designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species that may occur in the proposed project area was obtained through coordination with the Forest Service wildlife biologist.
Canada lynx In 2000, Canada lynx received protection as a threatened species under the ESA. In the continental United States, Canada lynx occur in north-central Washington, northwestern Montana, northeastern Minnesota, northern Maine, and the Greater Yellowstone Area (portions of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho). There is also a reintroduced lynx population in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction provides the principal guidance for lynx management on the BTNF (USFS 2007a).
Critical habitat for Canada lynx was designated in 2006; it was revised in 2009 and again in 2014 to reflect the current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat (79 Federal Register, Number 177). Critical habitat in the project area is part of critical habitat Unit 5: Greater Yellowstone Area. This unit includes portions of Carbon, Gallatin, Park, Stillwater, and Sweetgrass Counties in Montana, and Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton Counties in Wyoming. The entire Blackrock Ranger District is considered Canada lynx critical habitat (USFWS GIS 2017); therefore, all 31.5 miles of project area streams (9,900 acres) in the District are in critical habitat (USFWS GIS 2017; USFS GIS 2017).
LAUs and lynx habitat on the BTNF were identified in 2001, in accordance with the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000). The proposed project area occurs
42 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest in the LAUs. Portions of all streams in the proposed project area are in at least one LAU; LAUs in the action area are the Buffalo Fork Middle and Buffalo Fork West, Spread Creek East and Spread Creek West, and Pacific Creek West. Approximately 5,700 acres of the 9,900 acres (58 percent) in the stream corridors are mapped as lynx habitat by Ruediger et al. (2000; USFS GIS 2017).
Lynx generally require cool and moist coniferous forests with cold, snowy winters and abundant snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). Primary vegetation in lynx habitat is lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). Lynx are extremely mobile and will occasionally move across and be recorded in unsuitable habitats, even including shrublands and true grasslands. Foraging areas for lynx are largely determined by snowshoe hare habitat and density. Dens require the large downed timber more typically found in mature forests or recently burned stands. Coarse woody debris protects kittens from predators and provides thermal cover (Meaney and Beauvais 2004).
North American wolverine On February 4, 2013, the USFWS proposed listing the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA (78 Federal Register, Number 23). On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew the proposed threatened listing status (79 Federal Register, Number 156). On October 18, 2016, the USFWS reopened the public comment period on the proposed threatened listing rule (81 Federal Register, Number 201). The species’ current status is proposed.
This species occurs at low density in the Rocky Mountains. Here, wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological aspects of habitat, but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep, persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010). This species' requirement for cold, snowy conditions means that in the southern portion of its range where ambient temperatures are warmest (like Wyoming), wolverines occur principally at high (over 8,000 feet) elevations (Murphy et al. 2011).
The North American wolverine is typically associated with remote, undisturbed, and mountainous wilderness of colder climates, at higher latitudes and altitudes. Wolverine year-round habitat use takes place almost entirely within the area defined by deep, persistent spring snow. This is likely related to the wolverine’s need for deep snow during the denning period. No records exist of wolverines denning anywhere but in snow, despite the wide availability of snow-free denning opportunities within the species’ range (Copeland et al. 2010; Murphy et al. 2011).
Wolverines usually co-occur with large populations of several ungulate species, such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis), and an array of large primary predators, such as mountain lion (Puma concolor) and gray wolf (Canis lupus). Ungulates26 are the ultimate source of the carrion that wolverines depend on, and primary predators kill ungulates, which become carrion. Snow cover of dens protects kits from predation (Beauvais and Johnson 2004).
The project area has riparian habitat, is bordered by boreal and coniferous mountain forest, and has snow cover during winter months. It likely provides some habitat for wolverine, primarily for foraging and movement. Wolverine tracks were observed in the Buffalo Fork corridor in March 1997, during a WGFD forest carnivore survey (WYNDD GIS 2017). The tracks were observed in a habitat of mixed conifer (Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii], lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce)/aspen forest, with some (20 percent) component of open meadows and riparian
26 Hoofed mammals
September 2017 43 Guided Bank Fishing vegetation, in the vicinity of Turpin Meadow. Wolverines currently reside in the Upper Snake River, Pacific Creek, and Buffalo River watersheds (Murphy et al. 2011).
Forest Service Sensitive Species The Forest Service Regional Forester designates sensitive species, which are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act.
Common loon In Wyoming, the common loon is known to breed in the vicinity of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Common loons use freshwater lakes and ponds. The species prefers lakes with clear water and numerous small islands, which it uses for nesting. It generally avoids streams but may use oxbows with minimal current. Its diet is primarily live fish, though amphibian and invertebrate prey may be taken at some locations (Wickens et al., no date a). The common loon is very sensitive to human disturbance. Recreation such as boating, hiking, and fishing may cause nest abandonment or failure (WYFD 2017).
Common loons are known to breed at Arizona Lake, on the wilderness portion of the Blackrock Ranger District on the boundary with Grand Teton National Park (Spagnuolo 2015). Potentially suitable breeding habitat is present in the proposed project area, particularly in relatively still oxbow channel segments. The common loon may also be present in the proposed project area during migration.
Trumpeter swan The trumpeter swan is a long-lived, social species, conspicuous by its large size, all-white plumage, and trumpet-like call. Most of the trumpeter swans in the Yellowstone population, which includes those in the BTNF, are probably year-round residents (Travsky and Beauvais 2004a; Patla et al., no date a). Across their breeding range trumpeter swans nest in clear, quiet, ponded water bodies, such as ponds, lakes, marshes, and sloughs, with relatively static levels (i.e., no substantial seasonal fluctuation), no obvious currents or constant wave action, and shallow margins that allow considerable digging and foraging for submerged parts of aquatic plants, such as roots and tubers. Approximately 140 to 154 ice-free days are needed to complete a breeding cycle (Travsky and Beauvais 2004a).
Suitable breeding habitat for trumpeter swans is present in the proposed project area along portions of the Buffalo Fork.
Harlequin duck Harlequin duck may be found in Wyoming during the breeding season; during winter, this population migrates to the Pacific Ocean. In the breeding season, harlequin duck uses fast- flowing streams in subalpine habitats. Though habitat preference differs across the species’ range, habitat characteristics are clear and clean water of low acidity, braided or multi-channel streams with islands, a rocky substrate, and relatively high stream gradients with rapidly flowing and cascading waters.27 In Grand Teton National Park, Harlequin duck occurs along streams with a mean gradient of 3 percent with dense, shrubby vegetation lining the banks (Wallen 1987). In breeding habitat, harlequin duck feeds on aquatic insects and fish roe (Patla et al., no date b). Human recreation, including hiking, fishing, and boating, may cause harlequin duck to abandon
27 Telephone conversation between Morgan Trieger, EMPSi, and Kerry Murphy, Bridger-Teton National Forest, August 4, 2017.
44 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest breeding sites (Wiggins 2005). Density and stability of populations may be negatively correlated with raptor nesting density along river corridors (Heath et al 2006) and low-water conditions (Oakleaf and Patla 2013).
Suitable breeding habitat for harlequin duck may be present in proposed project area streams. However, breeding use in the proposed project area is limited. Aerial surveys on WGFD- designated monitoring streams in Grand Teton National Park and wilderness portions of the BTNF have been conducted in 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2012 (Oakleaf and Patla 2013). The WGFD estimates that half of the breeding population is present in designated monitoring streams, and that non-designated streams in the southern portion of the BTNF only see low-density, erratic breeding use. Harlequin duck may be more likely to use project area streams for foraging during the early season while preferred, higher-elevation habitat is snowbound.28
Bald eagle Bald eagle typically nests in tall trees or on cliffs, within several hundred feet of large water bodies. In Wyoming, groves of mature cottonwoods (Populus spp.) along streams and rivers are typical bald eagle nesting habitat. It also uses tall, riverside conifers for nesting. Alternate nests are commonly found within, or in close proximity to, the stand containing the nest. Bald eagles with access to open water or alternate food sources near their nesting territories may not migrate in winter; adult bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone area do not migrate. However, many eagles in other portions of the state migrate southward to areas with available prey. Most wintering bald eagles are found near open water, where they feed on fish and waterfowl, often taking those that are dead or injured (Travsky and Beauvais 2004b).
Bald eagles have been documented along the proposed project area stream corridors. Cottonwood riparian forest along the Buffalo Fork and other stream segments provide suitable nesting and wintering opportunities. Bald eagles consistently nest and winter in cottonwood riparian forest along the Buffalo Fork in the project area, in the vicinity of the Heart Six Guest Ranch.29
Northern goshawk Northern goshawk is a raptor of temperate forests and woodlands. In Wyoming, northern goshawk is a resident breeder and short distance migrant. Nests can be in deciduous or coniferous trees; nest sites tend to be in stands of relatively large timber, with an open understory and high canopy cover. Forest understory must be open enough for efficient foraging for avian and mammalian prey; stands of young, dense forest are not suitable (Smith and Keinath 2004). Northern goshawk has been documented along the proposed project area stream corridors.
Peregrine falcon Wyoming, especially the northwestern portion of the state, is part of the broad western distribution of the species, which extends from Mexico north into Canada. Peregrine falcons breed in a large portion of the state. In Wyoming, courtship occurs from early April to early May, and fledging is completed by late July. During winter, peregrine falcons either overwinter in Wyoming or migrate to Central and South America. Peregrine falcons are habitat generalists, using a wide variety of natural habitats and urban areas for nesting and foraging. In Wyoming, the species typically requires cliffs for nest sites and open areas for foraging. Its diet mainly consists of other birds, and other food items include bats, squirrels, small mammals, amphibians, fish, and
28 Ibid. 29 Ibid.
September 2017 45 Guided Bank Fishing insects (Orabona et al., no date). Peregrine falcons are known to nest in cliff habitats associated with the Spread Creek canyon, downstream of the proposed project area.
Great gray owl In Wyoming, great gray owl is a resident species that uses mature deciduous and coniferous forest stands during the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. In Wyoming, the species has been found in forests of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and cottonwood (P. angustifolia)/spruce (Picea spp.) woodlands. Nests are generally close to foraging habitat, which includes clearings, such as wet meadows and clear-cut areas. Great gray owl feeds on small mammals, especially small rodents, like pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) and voles (Microtus spp.; Wickens et al., no date b). This species has been documented in the Blackrock and Pacific Creek corridors.
Boreal owl Boreal owl is a resident species in Wyoming associated with mature and old-growth forests. The species occurs in old-growth and mature subalpine forests dominated by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. Mixed spruce-fir/mature lodgepole pine forests also are used. The species requires tree cavities for nesting. The primary food items are small mammals, particularly red- backed vole (Myodes spp.) and voles in the genus Microtus. Occasionally, larger small mammals are taken, as well as amphibians, birds, and insects (Wickens et al., no date c). This species has been documented in the Buffalo Fork corridor.
Northern three-toed woodpecker This species is a resident in Wyoming, where it is restricted to mature, fire-regulated, boreal and coniferous forests. These areas include the combination of decadent trees, snags, and fallen logs the species requires. In Wyoming, habitat is mature forests, dominated by spruce, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and lodgepole pine. Generally, the species is considered uncommon to rare in these habitats; however, local increases may occur in response to beetle outbreaks and fires. These beetle-killed and burned trees, as well as decadent trees, snags, and dead wood, provide abundant wood-boring beetle larvae, which the woodpecker depends on. Prey is primarily larvae of wood-boring beetles, such as those in the Cerambycidae and Buprestidae families, engraver beetles (e.g., Ips spp.), and mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae). This species has been documented in the Pacific Creek corridor.
Bighorn sheep Bighorn sheep are year-round residents of Wyoming. They evolved in semi-open, high visibility habitats, near rocky escape terrain that allow efficient foraging, enhanced predator detection, and opportunities to evade them. During summer in northwest Wyoming, they use alpine tundra and areas of associated rocky escape terrain. In winter, they use lower elevation, grassy benches and southerly slopes. Some herds or population segments wintering on wind-swept ridges at high elevations (McWhirter and Beauvais, no date).
Portions of two bighorn sheep herds overlap the proposed project area. The Absaroka herd encompasses approximately 5,000 acres of the proposed project area, including portions of Blackrock Creek, Buffalo Fork, and Pacific Creek, while the Jackson herd encompasses approximately 4,900 acres comprised of portions of Blackrock Creek, Buffalo Fork, and Spread Creek (WGFD GIS 2017).
46 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Bighorn sheep seasonal habitat, as delineated by the WGFD, is also present in the proposed project area. The Blackrock Creek and Buffalo Fork corridors provide both spring/summer/fall and yearlong habitat, while the Spread Creek corridor provides spring/summer/fall habitat, and the Pacific Creek corridor provides yearlong habitat (WGFD GIS 2017).
Columbia spotted frog Columbia spotted frog both breeds and overwinters at aquatic sites, so populations are in the general vicinity of ponds, lakes, springs, and streams. Breeding areas are stagnant or slow- moving water, with shallow areas in ponds, marshes, stream oxbows, and small springs, and along the margins of lakes and slow-flowing streams. Emergent and aquatic vegetation are usually present. Wintering habitat may include ponds, streams, under streambanks, springs, beaver dams, and underground areas associated with water bodies. All such sites must have above freezing temperatures, be moist or wet, and be well oxygenated. Spotted frogs are widespread and common on the northern districts of the Forest (Patla and Keinath 2004). This species has been documented in all stream corridors in the proposed project area.
Boreal toad In Wyoming, boreal toads use wet habitats in foothills, montane, and subalpine areas, seldom far from water. They can be found in all riparian habitat types, including marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, glacial kettle ponds, and lakes. Breeding habitats typically include shallow water of less than 8 inches, edges of ponds and lakes, stream and river edges where there is slow- moving water, and other aquatic areas. Terrestrial habitats occupied by boreal toads after breeding during the summer and fall are a diversity of forested and non-forested wet and dry areas. In early fall, adults and young of the year migrate to hibernacula in terrestrial habitat, which are typically burrows of other animals, such as rodents and squirrels, where the toads overwinter (McGee and Keinath 2004). This species has been documented in all stream corridors in the proposed project area.
Migratory Birds The three most referenced groups of migratory birds are waterfowl, raptors, and neo-tropical migrants.30
Migratory birds, including raptors, and any active nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is prohibited under the MBTA. The regulatory definition of take under the MBTA means to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” In Wyoming, most birds except for European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove (pigeon [Columba livia]), and pheasant species are protected under the MBTA (16 USC, Sections 703–712). Additionally, Executive Order (EO) 13186 directs federal agencies to take certain actions to implement the MBTA (66 Federal Register, Number 3853).
In December 2008, the Forest Service and the USFWS signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote the conservation of migratory birds (USFS and USFWS 2008). In accordance with the EO and the MOU, the Forest Service will ensure that environmental analyses of its
30 Neo-tropical migrants are birds that breed in the northern latitudes of North America but winter from Mexico to South America.
September 2017 47 Guided Bank Fishing actions required by the National Environmental Policy Act evaluate the impacts of actions and agency plans on migratory birds.
Birds of conservation concern are identified and defined in the MOU as those USFWS-listed migratory and nonmigratory birds of the United States and its territories that are of conservation concern. The list is published and maintained by the USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS 2008). The BTNF is in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (Region 10; see Table 5, below). Birds of conservation concern that have been observed in or near the project area river corridors are depicted in bold in the table.
Table 5. Bird Conservation Region 10 Birds of Conservation Concern* Bald eagle Williamson’s sapsucker Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sphyrapicus thyroideus Swainson’s hawk White-headed woodpecker Buteo swainsoni Picoides albolarvatus Ferruginous hawk Olive-sided flycatcher B. regalis Contopus cooperi Peregrine falcon Willow flycatcher Falco peregrinus Empidonax traillii Upland sandpiper Loggerhead shrike Bartramia longicauda Lanius ludovicianus Long-billed curlew Sage thrasher Numenius americanus Oreoscoptes montanus Western yellow-billed cuckoo Brewer’s sparrow Coccyzus americanus Spizella breweri Flammulated owl Sage sparrow Psiloscops [Otus] flammeolus Artemisiospiza nevadensis Black swift McCown’s longspur Cypseloides niger Rhynchophanes mccownii Calliope hummingbird Black rosy-finch Selasphorus calliope Leucosticte atrata Lewis’ woodpecker Cassin’s finch Melanerpes lewis Haemorhous cassinii Source: USFWS 2008; WYNDD GIS 2017 *The proposed project area is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for all Region 10 Birds of Conservation Concern. Species documented in or near the project area are depicted in bold in the table.
Region 10 Birds of Conservation Concern that could occur within the project area based on the habitats present include Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Calliope hummingbird (Selasphorus calliope), Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), and Cassin’s finch (Haemorhous cassinii).
48 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Additional migratory birds that have been documented in the project area river corridors include Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) (WYNDD GIS 2017).
Other Species Analyzed
Grizzly bear In 1975, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states received protection as a threatened species under the ESA. On July 31, 2017, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bear, which includes bears in the project area, was delisted due to recovery. The Regional Forester has not included grizzly bear on the Region 4 sensitive species list. Currently, this species has no special status on the BTNF. However, current management direction for this species on the forest follows the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (USFWS 2016). This document provides the best available science concerning grizzly bear management in the region.
Grizzly bears occupy a variety of habitats throughout their range. Occupied grizzly bear habitat in the lower 48 states is characterized by extensive forest cover, often interspersed with grasslands and meadows, and particularly riparian zones. They prefer habitats that provide relative solitude and that support prey and vegetation for food. Home ranges must encompass a complex of habitat types; this is because the animals move among these habitats seasonally to take advantage of various food items as they become available.
Grizzly bears generally begin denning for winter dormancy sometime between late September and late December and emerge from the den between late March and late May. Dens are typically in treeless alpine areas, the forest-alpine ecotone, or, depending on availability, forest sites with stable snow conditions. Sites are most often at middle elevations, where slope and aspect offer protection from prevailing wind and sun exposure (Reed-Eckert et al. 2004).
The proposed project area is in the Buffalo-Spread Creek bear management unit of the Primary Conservation Area identified in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (Figure 2 of USFWS 2016). Grizzly bears are seasonally common in suitable habitats on the Blackrock Ranger District, including in the proposed project area river corridors. Verified reports of females with young have been documented in the Buffalo-Spread Creek unit each year between 2009 and 2014 (USFWS 2016).
Native ungulates Portions of several native ungulate species (i.e., big game) herds managed by the WGFD overlap portions of or the entirety of the proposed project area stream corridors. These include moose (Jackson herd), mule deer (Sublette and Dubois herds), elk (Jackson herd), and pronghorn (Sublette herd; WGFD GIS 2017). These herds use various seasonal and crucial ranges, and parturition areas, within the proposed project area.
These areas, as delineated and defined by the WGFD, provide specialized habitats for big game species during all or parts of the year. For example, spring/summer/fall range is habitat used by animals until the onset of persistent winter conditions. Winter range is used by animals only during persistent winter conditions. Winter/yearlong range is occupied year-round, but a significant influx of animals is common during the winter. Crucial range can describe any habitat
September 2017 49 Guided Bank Fishing type that has been documented as the determining factor in a population's ability to maintain itself at a certain level. Parturition areas are documented birthing areas.
Moose seasonal ranges, including winter/yearlong and spring/summer/fall ranges, overlap with portions of the project area. Crucial habitat for moose is in the Blackrock and Buffalo Fork corridors. Elk parturition areas and crucial winter habitat overlap with portions of Blackrock Creek and Buffalo Fork. The remaining portions of the project area are considered elk spring/summer/fall range. Mule deer winter/yearlong and spring/summer/fall ranges are also present in the proposed project area. No seasonal or crucial ranges for pronghorn overlap with the proposed project area (WGFD GIS 2017).
5.5.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to the number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors, nor the miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing. There would be no new surface disturbance authorized.
Because there would be no changes to these indicators under Alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on wildlife. Wildlife would not experience increased stress from increased levels of guided-fishing. There would not be an increased potential for grizzly bear/human encounters.
Cumulative Impacts Under Alternative 1, guided day-use bank fishing would continue at approximately 15 service days per year. Alternative 1 would not alter the existing impacts associated with those 15 service days, which are limited in intensity, compared to the estimated 154,185 visitors to the BTNF who engaged in fishing in 2013 (USFS 2013).
Additional impacts on wildlife resources would occur from the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District. Although the context and intensity of impacts varies by species, in general, impacts of non-guided bank fishing include disturbance to wildlife species, increased levels of stress, temporary habitat avoidance or abandonment, and the potential for reduced reproductive success. The nature and type of impacts on individual wildlife species from recreation are described in this section in detail, below.
In general, recreation, including day-use bank fishing, can impact wildlife resources. Impacts may occur from human or vehicle presence in wildlife habitat, resulting in direct disturbance to wildlife species. When severe enough, noise disturbance can have a variety of direct behavioral and physiological impacts on wildlife. Examples of this are increased heart rate, changes in metabolism and hormone balance, increased energy expenditure, reduced food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and reduced reproductive success (Radle 2007).
Human presence in grizzly bear habitat may lead to bear/human encounters, particularly if best practices for activities in bear country are not followed.
Vehicle use to access recreation sites may also impact wildlife species. Vehicles using designated roads may collide with wildlife, causing injury or death. Vehicle use may cause increased movement rates and the probability of flight response for nearby wildlife (Wisdom et al. 2004).
50 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
The potential for this impact would be elevated during dawn or dusk, when wildlife activity may be highest.
Vehicles and anglers can transport noxious weed or nonnative invasive plant seeds (Johnson and Carothers 1982; Cole and Marion 1988). Weeds can indirectly impact wildlife by altering habitat. This can reduce cover of native plants, in turn reducing foraging opportunities, or cover or breeding habitat for wildlife species (DiTomaso 2000; Mack et al. 2000). Similarly, anglers can transport pathogens on fishing equipment, if they do not follow best practices for sanitizing equipment after use.
Additional impacts on wildlife resources in the project area would occur from the growing trend in visitor use in the District, particularly from increasing vehicle use. US Highway 26/287, the main travel corridor through the District, had an estimated 955 average daily vehicle trips in 2010 (USFS 2014). In addition to US Highway 26/287, there are also 106.6 miles of Forest Service- designated motor vehicle routes and 11.3 miles of county roads in the District (Forest Service GIS 2017). No use estimates are available for the Forest Service routes or county roads in the District. Together, these routes provide visitors with motorized access in the District. Vehicles using these routes may collide with wildlife, causing injury or death. Vehicle use may cause increased wildlife movement rates and the probability of flight response for nearby wildlife. The potential for this impact would be elevated during dawn or dusk, when wildlife activity may be highest. Further, roads may present barriers to movement for some species, while facilitating movement for other species.
The growing trend in visitor recreational uses in the District and in the project area would also have the potential to impact wildlife resources. Dispersed camping is permitted within 300 feet of the centerline of designated motor vehicle routes; vehicles accessing dispersed camping locations may disturb wildlife. Dispersed camping is a popular activity particularly along Pacific Creek and portions of Buffalo Fork. Noise and human presence at dispersed campsites could cause wildlife to temporarily avoid habitat or alter foraging behavior. When severe enough, noise disturbance can have a variety of direct behavioral and physiological impacts on wildlife. Examples include increased heart rate, changes in metabolism and hormone balance, increased energy expenditure, reduced food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and reduced reproductive success (Radle 2007). Human presence in grizzly bear habitat may lead to bear/human encounters, particularly if best practices for activities in bear country are not followed.
Other past, present, and future actions that may affect wildlife in the project area are wildfire fuels management and livestock grazing. Fuels reduction is planned for the Togwotee Pass area near Blackrock Creek, but outside of the quarter-mile stream corridor. This project will affect less than 250 acres of upland forest. Habitat quality for wildlife species in this area may be temporarily diminished, and species may avoid this area during and after fuels work, until habitat characteristics improve.
Some livestock grazing occurs on private lands in the proposed project area, specifically in the potentially authorized portions of the Buffalo Fork and Blackrock Creek river corridors. Livestock grazing may impact wildlife species. Livestock grazing in riparian areas may result in reduced riparian vegetation cover (Belsky et al. 1999), reducing the amount or quality of habitat for wildlife species. Human presence associated with livestock operations may disturb wildlife, altering foraging or breeding behavior. Where livestock grazing occurs in native ungulate habitat, livestock may compete with ungulates for preferred forage.
September 2017 51 Guided Bank Fishing
One livestock grazing allotment overlaps with a portion of the Buffalo Fork in the project area. Cattle use the allotment from early summer to early fall. Competition for herbaceous forage in uplands, riparian areas, and deciduous shrub communities may occur between cattle and native ungulates in this area, particularly at sites used by livestock grazing operations.
Federally Listed Species
Canada lynx Day-use bank fishing activities could continue to disturb Canada lynx. Disturbance could cause temporary displacement from habitat or disruption of hunting. The potential for vehicle strike from day-use fishing parties exists; however, it is extremely low, due to the limited extent of roads used for access to the project area streams, compared with the overall range and distribution of lynx on the BTNF. In general, the potential for impacts on Canada lynx is very low, because this species is rare in the proposed project region.
Wooded riparian areas may provide travel cover for Canada lynx across otherwise open valley floors (USFS 2007a). Non-guided anglers may trample riparian vegetation, causing localized reductions in movement habitat for lynx. However, the potential for this impact is very low, given the localized nature of trampling (e.g., limited to stream access points) and the amount of available movement habitat in the project area stream corridors.
There is concern about potential negative impacts on Canada lynx from long-term climatic changes, which would continue under Alternative 1. The greater Yellowstone region is predicted to have a warmer and drier climate. This could exacerbate seasonal wildfire patterns and reduce the extent and quality of lynx habitat in the region (McKenzie et al. 2004; Gayton 2008; Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013).
Implementing Alternative 1 would be consistent with the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, a BTNF Forest Plan amendment, because lynx habitat and connectivity would be maintained; no new or expanded development or forest or vegetation management would be conducted.
North American wolverine Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb North American wolverine. Disturbance could temporarily displace wolverines from their habitat or disrupt scavenging; however, the wolverine is a wide-ranging scavenger, capable of large-scale movements. Because of this, potential impacts from localized disturbance are likely discountable. The potential for vehicle strikes from non- guided day-use fishing parties exists but is extremely low. This is due to the limited extent of access roads to the project area streams, compared with the overall range and distribution of wolverine on the BTNF. The potential for impacts is further reduced because most of the proposed project stream corridors are at lower elevations than those typically used by wolverine.
There is concern about potential negative impacts on wolverines from long-term climatic changes, which would continue under Alternative 1. Wolverines require deep snow to den, and persistent spring snow defines the southern extent of their range. The greater Yellowstone region is predicted to have a warmer and drier climate; this could reduce the extent and quality of wolverine habitat if precipitation amount or whether it falls as snow or rain is altered (Copeland et al. 2010; McKelvey et al. 2011).
52 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are designated by the Forest Service Regional Forester and are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act.
Common loon Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb common loons. Though breeding has not been documented in the project area river corridors, there could be suitable breeding habitat in relatively still oxbows or ponds along the Buffalo Fork. The common loon is very sensitive to human disturbance, and recreation such as boating, hiking, and fishing have caused nest abandonment or failure. The types of waters used by loons for breeding are typically not the objective of non-guided bank fishing in the District; nevertheless, anglers traversing it to desired fishing areas may inadvertently disturb common loons in suitable breeding habitat. However, the potential for this impact is very low, given the lack of known breeding habitat in the proposed project area.
Trumpeter swan Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb trumpeter swans during the breeding season. Breeding occurs in at least one location along the Buffalo Fork.31 The types of waters used by trumpeter swans for breeding are typically not the objective of anglers in the District; nevertheless, anglers driving near this habitat or traversing it to reach desired fishing areas along the Buffalo Fork may inadvertently disturb this species in suitable breeding habitat.
Harlequin duck Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb harlequin ducks during the breeding season, where fishing occurs in potentially occupied breeding sites. Fishing and hiking may cause the ducks to abandon breeding sites if breeding is occurring there. Anglers may also use the breeding habitats used by harlequin ducks, for example, stream islands on braided streams and shrubby streamside vegetation. However, the potential for this impact is low because non-wilderness portions of the BTNF likely only see low-density, erratic breeding use (Oakleaf and Patla 2013).
Bald eagle, northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb bald eagles, northern goshawks, and peregrine falcons. This would be the case near nests during the breeding season or in suitable wintering habitat at other times of the year. Human presence near nests may cause nest abandonment, if disturbance thresholds are exceeded, particularly for remote nests. Disturbance may also alter hunting, foraging, or other behavior or increase flight response.
In the Upper Snake Watershed in the Greater Yellowstone area, perching bald eagles tended to have increased flight responses when human recreational activity was within approximately 500 feet (150 meters). Eagles in areas with relatively high human density may become habituated to human presence and tolerant of certain activities more than eagles in areas of low human density (GYBEWG 1996).
31 Trumpeter swans also breed in constructed ponds on the Blackrock Ranger District Administrative Site, however, this location is not accessible to the public and no impacts on trumpeter swans would occur at this location.
September 2017 53 Guided Bank Fishing
Great gray owl and boreal owl Day-use bank fishing would continue to have limited potential to impact great gray owl and boreal owl, which have been documented along multiple segments in the proposed project area. Human presence near day roosts may flush owls, elevating stress levels or increasing flight responses. Reproductive success may be more closely associated with available nesting locations—available old-growth trees, platforms, cavities—and prey availability, than with human presence; anglers would be unlikely to disturb breeding owls because use is concentrated in nonbreeding habitat.
Northern three-toed woodpecker Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb northern three-toed woodpecker in suitable mature conifer forests, next to stream segments in the proposed project area. Fishing in such habitats is rare and is limited to anglers occasionally traversing the area on foot to reach desired fishing locations. Nonetheless, human presence may cause nest abandonment, increased flight response, or altered foraging or other behavior. Because non-guided day-use fishing use of suitable habitat areas is limited, the potential for impacts would be extremely low.
Bighorn sheep Day-use bank fishing in the proposed project area could continue to impact individual bighorn sheep in the Absaroka and Jackson herds. This is because portions of all four segments in the proposed project area contain either spring/summer/fall habitat, yearlong habitat, or both. There is no WGFD-delineated crucial range or parturition32 habitat in the proposed project area.
Impacts would primarily be the potential for disturbing individuals in seasonal or yearlong habitat from recreation, such as from non-guided day-use bank fishing. Disturbance could result in altered foraging behavior or dispersal patterns. Impacts would be temporary; given the amount of available bighorn sheep habitat in the region, disturbance is unlikely.
Timing of disturbance, relative to the life cycle of bighorn sheep, is important. Pregnant or lactating ewes may be the most sensitive to disturbance. Flight responses can be severe when ewes are with lambs. Because there is no crucial or parturition habitat in the proposed project area, such impacts are not expected.
The impacts of long-term climatic changes on bighorn sheep uncertain but would continue under Alternative 1. Loss of conifers from persistent infestations of insects, such as mountain pine beetle, or fires could increase sight lines and forage production. This would have beneficial impacts on bighorn sheep; however, warming could also negatively influence forage quantity and quality on ranges. The impact of warming on the distribution and abundance of important weeds, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), that can alter habitat quality may be especially important for bighorn sheep (McWhirter and Beauvais, no date).
Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad Day-use bank fishing in the proposed project area could continue to impact individual amphibian species, including Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad. Suitable habitat, including breeding habitat, for these species is likely present in all proposed project stream corridors. Impacts would primarily be from anglers inadvertently trampling or crushing eggs, tadpoles, or adults while traversing suitable habitat on foot or wading in streams. During suitable environmental
32 Birthing
54 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest conditions, vehicle use on access roads to bank fishing areas may also impact individual adults that are foraging or dispersing in upland habitats.
Amphibian species may also be impacted under Alternative 1 if day-use bank fishing were to spread the fungal pathogen that causes chytridiomycosis infection (Batrachochytridium dendrobatidis). This infection is a contributing factor to widespread amphibian declines in the western United States. The pathogen may be transported on fishing gear, including boots and waders, if equipment has been used where the pathogen is present and is not properly sanitized afterward. The pathogen was first detected in boreal toads on the Blackrock Ranger District in 2003 (Pilliod et al. 2010) and is likely present in other locations in the BTNF.
Amphibians are generally recognized as vulnerable to long-term climatic changes, which would continue under Alternative 1. This may be especially true for rare or sensitive species that are dispersal-limited or that have narrow environmental tolerances. Generally, impacts of climatic changes that are anticipated to affect sensitive amphibians are altered hydroperiods, fluctuating weather conditions, and warmer, drier conditions (Olson and Saenz 2013).
Migratory Birds Day-use bank fishing could continue to impact migratory birds, including birds of conservation concern, in the proposed project area stream corridors. The primary potential impact would be from temporary disturbance. Noise and human presence, especially during the migratory bird breeding season (generally between early March and August), may lead to displacement from suitable habitat. This may lead to reduced breeding or nesting success for individuals. Similar impacts could occur from human presence and disturbance in raptor or waterfowl nesting or foraging areas. Nests could be abandoned if disturbance thresholds are exceeded, particularly in remote areas where there are nests. Disturbance may also alter hunting, foraging, or other behavior or increase flight response.
Implementing Alternative 1 would be consistent with the MBTA and Executive Order 13186. This is because any impacts, as described above, would be inadvertent and of minor intensity. Any impacts would be localized (e.g., limited to stream access points). Further, the amount of potentially affected breeding habitat for migratory birds would be small relative to the total amount of available habitat in the river corridors.
Other Species Analyzed
Grizzly bear Day-use bank fishing could continue to disturb grizzly bears and result in bear/human encounters. This is because grizzly bears are seasonally common in the riparian habitats in the project area stream corridors. Disturbance could cause temporary habitat displacement or disrupt foraging.
Human presence in grizzly bear habitat may lead to bear/human encounters, particularly if best practices for activities in bear country are not followed. Behaviors that may result in bear/human encounters may continue under Alternative 1. These behaviors include improperly storing or processing food, refuse, and animal carcasses and camping or sleeping nearby.
There is a potential for vehicle strike from non-guided day-use fishing parties; however, it is low due to the limited extent of access roads to the project area streams, compared with the overall range and distribution of grizzly bear on the BTNF.
September 2017 55 Guided Bank Fishing
Implementing Alternative 1 would be consistent with the USFWS’s 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, because bear habitat would be maintained; no increase in developed sites, livestock grazing, motorized routes, or other development would occur. Implementing Alternative 1 would not result in an increase in bear/human encounters.
Native ungulates Day-use bank fishing in the proposed project area could continue to impact individual big game species in the herds that overlap the area. This is because portions of all four segments in the proposed project area contain crucial habitat, winter/yearlong habitat, spring/summer/fall habitat, or a combination of these.
Impacts would primarily be from recreationists, such as anglers, inadvertently disturbing individuals in habitat areas due to presence or noise. Disturbance could result in elevated stress levels and altered foraging behavior or dispersal patterns. Impacts would be temporary, lasting the duration of the encounter. Given the amount of habitat that is generally available in the region, animals would likely disperse to nearby habitat to avoid recreationists while they are in the area.
The timing of disturbance relative to the life cycle of the species is important. Because elk have parturition habitat in the proposed project area, impacts on pregnant or lactating elk or young are possible during the parturition period. In extreme circumstances, impacts could result in reproductive failure or abandonment of young, but this level of impact is not expected to occur.
Impacts on big game species using winter range in the project area are not expected from non- guided anglers, because this activity would generally not occur during persistent winter conditions when animals are using the range.
Big game species may also be impacted by vehicle strikes from day-use fishing parties accessing proposed project area streams. The potential for vehicle strikes exists, but it is low due to the limited extent of access roads to the proposed project area streams.
Implementing Alternative 1 would be consistent with the BTNF Habitat Effectiveness Standard, because it would not alter existing motorized or non-motorized vehicle access restrictions or regulations. Current access restrictions and regulations are in compliance with this standard.
5.5.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Impacts
Federally Listed Species
Canada lynx The nature and type of impacts on Canada lynx would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. The potential for impacts would be somewhat elevated, compared with Alternative 1. This is because higher use levels would result from guided day-use bank fishing; however, the potential for impacts on Canada lynx would remain very low because this species is rare in the proposed project region.
Implementing Alternative 2 would be consistent with the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, a BTNF Fore Plan amendment. Lynx habitat and connectivity would be maintained; no new or expanded development or forest or vegetation management is proposed.
56 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
North American wolverine The nature and type of impacts on North American wolverine would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. The potential for impacts would be somewhat elevated, compared with Alternative 1. This is because higher use levels would result from guided day-use bank fishing; however, the potential for impacts would remain very low.
Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are designated by the Forest Service Regional Forester and are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act.
Common loon The nature and type of impacts on common loons would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the potential for impacts from inadvertent disturbance while accessing desired fishing locations may be somewhat increased as levels of use on the Buffalo Fork increase under Alternative 2. Nevertheless, the potential for this impact to occur is still very low, given the lack of known breeding habitat in the proposed project area.
Trumpeter swan The nature and type of impacts on trumpeter swans would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, under Alternative 2, the alternative’s design and application of the Terms and Conditions would mean the potential for impacts (from anglers inadvertently disturbing swans while accessing desired fishing locations along the Buffalo Fork) would be unlikely to increase. Under Alternative 2, outfitter-guides would be made aware of any seasonal nesting locations along the stream segments; outfitter-guides would be required to avoid seasonal nesting locations by an appropriate buffer distance to avoid impacts. This requirement should be incorporated into outfitter-guide operating plans. By incorporating this measure, guides would be able to educate clients on best practices for avoiding impacts on this species, such as avoiding nesting sites and keeping disturbance levels below critical thresholds. No habitat alteration or other similar actions that could diminish nesting or foraging habitat for trumpeter swans would be implemented under Alternative 2.
Harlequin duck The nature and type of impacts on harlequin ducks would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; the potential for impacts and impact intensity from disturbance would be unlikely to substantially increase. Even if the four river segments see increased use under Alternative 2, the potential for impact is low because non-wilderness portions of the BTNF likely only see low- density, erratic breeding use (Oakleaf and Patla 2013). Further, the portion of total stream miles available for guided day-use bank fishing is low (31.5 miles of 142.4 miles, or 22 percent). This is compared with the total amount of stream miles in non-wilderness portions of the District; therefore, guided day-use bank fishing would occur only in a relatively small portion of potential breeding habitat in non-wilderness portions of the District. This means that most potential breeding habitat would see no increased use under this proposal.
Bald eagle, northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon The nature and type of impacts on bald eagle, northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, under Alternative 2, the potential for disturbance to nesting raptor species would be minimized by the alternative’s design and application of the Terms and Conditions. Under Alternative 2, the portion of Spread Creek known to provide breeding habitat for peregrine falcons is not included in the proposed use area; no
September 2017 57 Guided Bank Fishing impacts from guided day-use bank fishing would result on nesting locations of breeding falcons in this area.
In order to avoid or minimize impacts on bald eagles and known nesting territories along the Buffalo Fork project area or other project area streams, outfitter-guides would be required to adhere to avoidance guidelines developed in coordination with the WGFD. Guidelines should be incorporated into outfitter-guide operating plans. Guidelines could include appropriate avoidance buffers or other management measures described by the Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group (GYBEWG 1996) for management of nest site zones and/or USFWS national bald eagle management guidelines (USFWS 2007). Incorporating such measures would minimize potential impacts on nesting locations by keeping disturbance levels below critical thresholds. No alteration of forest habitat, tree removal, or other similar actions that could diminish nesting or foraging habitat for raptor species would be implemented under Alternative 2.
Implementing Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Bald Eagle Nesting Territory Planning Standard, because known nesting locations on the Buffalo Fork are excluded from guided fishing. It would also be consistent with the Peregrine Falcon Disturbance Standard, because known nesting areas on Spread Creek would not be included in the authorized guided bank fishing area to avoid impacts on this nesting area.
Great gray owl and boreal owl The nature and type of impacts on great gray owl and boreal owl would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. The potential for impacts and impact intensity from disturbance would be unlikely to substantially increase under Alternative 2. Even if the four river segments see increased use under Alternative 2, the portion of total stream miles available for guided day- use bank fishing is low (31.5 miles of 142.4 miles, or 22 percent), compared with the total amount of stream miles in non-wilderness portions of the District; therefore, guided day-use bank fishing would occur only in a relatively small portion of potential habitat in non-wilderness portions of the District. This means that most habitat would see no increased use under Alternative 2.
Northern three-toed woodpecker The nature and type of impacts on northern three-toed woodpecker would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. The potential for impacts would be unlikely to substantially increase under Alternative 2. Even if the four river segments see increased use under Alternative 2, the portion of total stream miles available for guided day-use bank fishing is low (31.5 miles of 142.4 miles, or 22 percent). This is compared to the total amount of stream miles in non- wilderness portions of the District; therefore, guided day-use bank fishing would occur only in a relatively small portion of potential habitat in non-wilderness portions of the District. This means that most habitat would see no increased use under Alternative 2.
Bighorn sheep The nature and type of impacts on bighorn sheep would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, under Alternative 2, the potential for impacts from disturbance may be somewhat increased, as levels of use in seasonal or yearlong habitat in the segment corridors increase. Nonetheless, the potential for these impacts is still very low, given the amount of bighorn sheep habitat in the region that would not be subject to guided day-use bank fishing. As under Alternative 1, impact intensity under Alternative 2 would be limited. This is because there is no crucial or parturition habitat in the proposed project area.
58 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Columbia spotted frog and boreal toad The nature and type of impacts on sensitive amphibian species would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, although the potential for impacts from foot travel may be somewhat increased. However, under Alternative 2, the potential for impacts from pathogen spread would be unlikely to increase, compared with Alternative 1, despite anticipated increased use levels. This would come about through the incorporation of the Terms and Conditions described in Section 4.2, including industry standard best practices for preventing the spread of AIS and pathogens into outfitter use permits.
Migratory Birds The nature and type of impacts on migratory birds and birds of conservation concern would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the potential for impacts from disturbance may be somewhat increased. This would be the case as levels of use in breeding or foraging habitat in the segment corridors increase under Alternative 2 because the permitted guiding season of May 1 to October 1 would overlap with the primary nesting and fledgling periods for most species of migratory birds. Nonetheless, the potential for increased impacts is low, given the localized nature of potential impacts and the amount of suitable breeding and foraging habitat in the region that would not be affected by guided day-use bank fishing. Therefore, implementing Alternative 2 would be consistent with the MBTA and Executive Order 13186.
Other Species Analyzed
Grizzly bear The nature and type of impacts on grizzly bears would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the potential for bear/human interactions and for injury or death of grizzly bears from vehicle strikes is unlikely to substantially increase under Alternative 2. This is because authorized guides would educate clients on best practices in bear country, including compliance with Forest food storage regulations outlined in the BTNF Order Number 04-03-330. Outfitter-guides would also educate clients on best practices for preventing vehicle strikes, such as traveling at low to moderate speeds on access roads.
Implementing Alternative 2 would be consistent with the USFWS’s 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, because bear habitat would be maintained; no increase in developed sites, livestock grazing, motorized routes, or other development would occur. Implementing Alternative 2 is unlikely to result in an increase in bear/human encounters, because outfitter-guides would use best practices in bear country as described above.
Native ungulates The nature and type of impacts on big game species would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the potential for impacts from disturbance may be somewhat increased, as levels of use in WGFD-delineated ranges in the proposed project area increase under Alternative 2. Nonetheless, the potential for these impacts is still low, given the amount of range in the region that would not be available for guided day-use bank fishing. As under Alternative 1, impact duration would be temporary, lasting the duration of the encounter. Further, no increase in disturbance to big game on winter range would occur, as the season of use for guided bank fishing ends on October 1.
September 2017 59 Guided Bank Fishing
The potential for injury or death from vehicle strikes under Alternative 2 would be unlikely to substantially increase. This is because under Alternative 2, increased vehicle use from guided fishing party vehicles would be limited. Two vehicle trips per day, to the river and back, could be expected for each guided fishing party. Given the access point restrictions for each river and restrictions on the number of guided parties, this would generate up to 32 additional vehicle trips per day in the District. Existing vehicle trip data is generally not available for designated access routes, but this increase is anticipated to be minor compared with existing vehicle use on these roads.
Implementing Alternative 2 would be consistent with the BTNF Habitat Effectiveness Standard, because it would not alter existing motorized or non-motorized vehicle access restrictions or regulations. Current access restrictions and regulations are in compliance with this standard.
Cumulative Impacts Implementing Alternative 2 would increase opportunities for guided day-use bank fishing beyond the existing authorization for the activity. The associated impacts on wildlife could increase. However, the alternative is designed to minimize those impacts by placing limits on service days, authorizing access points, avoiding raptor nesting areas, and implementing best practices for minimizing bear/human encounters and pathogen spread. Implementing Alternative 2 would add to the impact of the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District.
Under Alternative 2, additional impacts on wildlife resources in the project area would occur from increased vehicle use from guided fishing party vehicles. Two vehicle trips per day, to the river and back, could be expected for each guided fishing party. Given the access point restrictions for each river and restrictions on the number of guided parties, this would generate up to 32 additional vehicle trips per day in the District. Existing vehicle trip data is generally not available for designated access routes, but this increase is anticipated to be minor compared with existing and anticipated future vehicle use given the trend of increasing recreational use in the District. Thus, the cumulative potential for vehicle strike and other impacts associated with vehicle use would only be incrementally increased under Alternative 2.
No improvements, expansions, or other modifications to dispersed camping areas along project area streams are proposed under Alternative 2. However, guided fishing clientele may choose to utilize these areas for camping purposes. This could have a contribution to impacts on wildlife associated with dispersed camping.
The potential for bear/human interactions would continue as a result of the increasing trend in recreational use in the District. However, Alternative 2 would not substantially contribute to increased potential for bear/human interactions. This is because authorized guides would educate clients on best practices in bear country, including compliance with Forest food storage regulations outlined in the BTNF Order Number 04-03-330.
Native ungulates may avoid preferred upland and riparian foraging areas if these areas are used by guided anglers. Where livestock grazing occurs within authorized portions of the Buffalo Fork and Blackrock Creek, Alternative 2 may contribute to cumulative impacts on wildlife species that may be disturbed by livestock grazing or human presence associated with these activities. Further, Alternative 2 may contribute to cumulative impacts on native ungulates already competing for forage resources with livestock in these areas.
60 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
5.6 Botany
5.6.1 Scope of Analysis The following issue was identified for analysis: Concern that increased use in the area could affect the viability of Region 4 threatened and endangered and sensitive species known or suspected on the BTNF, including Teton wire-lettuce (Stephanomeria fluminea).
For the issue identified above, the following indicators will be used to measure the impact accompanying the implementation of the alternatives considered for detailed analysis:
• Number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors • Miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing • Amount of new surface disturbance
5.6.2 Affected Environment This analysis addresses the impacts on threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species in two categories, as follows:
• Threatened, endangered, and proposed species listed under the ESA • Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species and candidate species for federal listing
Species presence in the proposed project area was estimated from recent surveys and sightings conducted by BTNF personnel and from geospatial and distribution data available from the WYNDD and WGFD.
Species included in Table 6, Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail, were considered for analysis in this report. To determine species to be analyzed in detail, the Forest initially considered all Region 4 sensitive species. Species limited to elevational ranges substantially outside that of the proposed project area (such as high alpine species) were excluded from further analysis, as noted in the table.
Of the remaining species, those that have been observed within a quarter-mile buffer of the proposed project area rivers, or those that occur in habitat typical of the proposed project area rivers, were retained for further detailed analysis. These species are noted in Table 6.
In summary, for species analyzed in detail, there is evidence of their presence or of suitable habitat, or both, in the project area that could be affected by proposed project actions.
September 2017 61 Guided Bank Fishing
Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail
Table 6. Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail Species Present in the Species Habitat Present in Species Species Status1 Project Area? the Project Area? Pink agoseris FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been Agoseris documented in the project lackschewitzii area, but suitable habitat exists in wet meadows. Sweet-flowered FS Sensitive No. No. Project area lacks suitable rock jasmine rocky ridge-crests, slopes, Androsace outcrop, stabilized talus, and chamaejasme ssp. rocky meadow habitat. carinata Associated vegetation, including low-growing cushion vegetation, juniper (Juniperus spp.), and bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) not present. Soft aster FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been Aster mollis documented in the project area, but suitable habitat exists in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe and grasslands, meadows, limestone outcrops, and woodland edges. Meadow FS Sensitive No. No. The species’ elevation milkvetch range is outside of the Astragalus elevation range of the project diversifolius var. area. Suitable habitat of diversifolius alkaline meadows and swales in sagebrush steppe vegetation is not present in the project area. Starveling FS Sensitive No. No. Project area lacks suitable milkvetch barren shale soils required by A. jejunus var. this species. jejunus Payson’s FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been milkvetch documented in the project A. paysonii area but suitable habitat exists in sandy soils in disturbed areas, such as recovering burns, clear cuts, road cuts, and blown down forest.
62 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Table 6. Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail Species Present in the Species Habitat Present in Species Species Status1 Project Area? the Project Area? Scalloped FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been moonwort documented in the project Botrychium area, but suitable habitat crenulatum exists in wet areas in forested habitat. Peculiar FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been moonwort documented in the project B. paradoxum area, but suitable habitat exists at willow thicket margins, streambanks, and wetland margins in open valley bottoms. Seaside sedge FS Sensitive No. No. The species’ elevation Carex range is outside of the incurviformis elevation range of the project area. Black-and-purple FS Sensitive No. No. Elevation range occupied sedge by the species is outside of C. luzulina var. the elevation range of the atropurpurea project area. Wyoming FS Sensitive Yes. Observed in the Yes. Species has been tansymustard Blackrock Creek documented in the project Descurainia corridor. area. incana ssp. incana Rockcress draba FS Sensitive No. No. Project area lacks suitable Draba densifolia rocky alpine meadow, slope, var. apiculata summit, talus, and tundra habitats required by this species. Narrowleaf FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been goldenweed documented in the project Ericameria area, but suitable habitat discoidea var. exists on sandy gravel bars linearis and shores. Wooly daisy FS Sensitive No. No. Elevation range occupied Erigeron lanatus by the species is outside of the elevation range of the project area.
September 2017 63 Guided Bank Fishing
Table 6. Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail Species Present in the Species Habitat Present in Species Species Status1 Project Area? the Project Area? Payson’s FS Sensitive Yes. Observed in the Yes. Suitable habitat exists on bladderpod Buffalo Fork corridor. rocky floodplains and dried Lesquerella stream channels with low paysonii vegetative cover. Threerank FS Sensitive No. No. Lower end of elevation humpmoss range occupied by this moss Meesia triquetra is above the highest end of the elevation range of the project area; however, elevation range occupied by the species may change as additional observations are made.2 Even so, suitable rich fen habitat is not likely to be present in the project area. Naked-stemmed FS Sensitive No. No. Elevation range occupied parrya by the species is outside of Parrya nudicaulis the elevation range of the project area. Creeping twinpod FS Sensitive No. No. Project area lacks the Physaria suitable barren, calcareous, integrifolia var. rocky hills and slopes monticola required by this species. Whitebark pine FC No. No. This species occupies Pinus albicaulis montane forests on thin, FS Sensitive rocky, cold soils at or near the timberline. Such habitat is not present in the project area. Quaking aspen LRMP Yes. Observed in Yes. Aspen woodland is Populus numerous locations present in numerous locations tremuloides throughout the project in the proposed project area. area. Greenland FS Sensitive Potentially present. Yes. Species has not been primrose documented in the project Primula area, but suitable habitat egaliksensis exists in wet meadows and montane fens. Weber’s FS Sensitive No. No. Elevation range occupied saussurea by the species is outside of Saussurea weberi the elevation range of the project area.
64 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Table 6. Botanic Species Considered and Analyzed in Detail Species Present in the Species Habitat Present in Species Species Status1 Project Area? the Project Area? Teton wire- FS Sensitive Yes. Observed in the Yes. Species has been lettuce Blackrock Creek and documented on sand, gravel, Stephanomeria Pacific Creek corridors. and cobblestone bars on fluminea Blackrock Creek and Pacific Creek. Sources: Rocky Mountain Herbarium GIS 2017; WYNDD GIS 2017; USFS GIS 2017 1 Status Codes: FE = Federally listed endangered FT = Federally listed threatened FC = Federal candidate for listing FP = Proposed for federal listing FS Sensitive = Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species LRMP = Species with management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plan 2 Martina Keil, Forest Service, personal communication via email with Morgan Trieger, EMPSi biologist, on July 10, 2017, regarding Guided Fishing NEPA – request for input.
No impacts are anticipated from the proposed project on those species that have not been observed in the proposed project area and either occur outside of the elevation range of the proposed project or lack suitable habitat there. Species meeting these criteria are not analyzed in detail, as follows:
• Sweet-flowered rock jasmine • Meadow milkvetch • Starveling milkvetch • Seaside sedge • Black-and-purple sedge • Rockcress draba • Wooly daisy • Threerank humpmoss • Naked-stemmed parrya • Creeping twinpod • Whitebark pine • Weber’s saussurea
Federally Listed Species In the project area, there are no threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant species or proposed or designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant species.
September 2017 65 Guided Bank Fishing
Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are designated by the USDA Forest Service Regional Forester (Forest Service Manual 2670) and are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act.
Pink agoseris Pink agoseris is a taprooted perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Flower heads resemble those of the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale); they are solitary at the ends of the stems and are composed entirely of deep pink to light purple ray flowers, from 15 to 20 millimeters long. It grows in subalpine wet meadows, where soils are saturated throughout the growing season. Wyoming populations occur between 8,500 and 10,600 feet elevation. This species flowers from late July to early August and fruits in late August (MNHP 2017). Suitable habitat may be present in wet meadows in the project area, especially where braided river channels flow through meadows and willow (Salix spp.) bottom habitat exists.
Soft aster Soft aster is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It grows in deep, calcareous soils in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe and grasslands, mountain meadows, limestone outcrops, and edges of quaking aspen or pine (Pinus spp.) woodlands, between 6,400 and 8,500 feet elevation. It blooms from July to September (NatureServe 2017a). Suitable habitat for this species may be present in the project area, particularly in transitional areas where aspen woodlands or pine forest meet riparian vegetation.
Payson’s milkvetch Payson’s milkvetch is an upright, multi-stemmed, perennial herb in the pea family (Fabaceae). It grows in sandy soils with a low cover of forbs and grasses, in disturbed areas, such as recovering burns, clear cuts, road cuts, and blown down forest, from 5,800 to 9,600 feet elevation. It flowers from June to August (Fertig 2008a). Suitable habitat for this species may be present in the project area, particularly in areas that have been disturbed by burns and blow downs or along old road margins. It is unlikely to be present along active road shoulders; this is because these areas are regularly disturbed by maintenance activities, such as grading and mowing for vegetation and weed control.
Scalloped moonwort Scalloped moonwort is a perennial fern relative in the adder’s-tongue family (Ophioglossaceae). It occupies moist, open montane habitats, including damp meadows, boggy areas and marshes, and wet areas in Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) forests (Fertig 2001). Suitable habitat for this species may be present in wet meadows and other wet areas in Engelmann spruce forest in the project area.
Peculiar moonwort Scalloped moonwort is a perennial fern relative in the adder’s-tongue family (Ophioglossaceae). It is found in open, moist meadows or in spruce (Picea spp.), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and wet western red cedar (Thuja plicata) forests. Wyoming populations occur at willow thicket margins, stream banks and wetland margins in open valley bottoms and headwaters, and in openings in lodgepole pine woodland (Heidel and Fertig 2015). Suitable habitat for this species may be present in wet willow bottom meadows and other wet areas in lodgepole pine forest in the project area.
66 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Wyoming tansymustard Wyoming tansymustard is a multiple-stemmed biennial or short-lived perennial herb in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). This species has been observed the Blackrock Creek corridor (Rocky Mountain Herbarium GIS 2017). It grows in sandy soils at the base of cliffs of volcanic breccia or sandstone, under slight overhangs, in cavities, or on ledges between 7,700 and 10,500 feet elevation (Fertig 2000a). Suitable habitat for this species is present in portions of the proposed project area in rocky areas; however, given the habitat needs for this species, it is not likely to be located in streamside areas or riparian vegetation where streambank fishing occurs.
Narrowleaf goldenweed Narrowleaf goldenweed is a woody shrub in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). In Wyoming, it grows on dry, clay-rich or cobblestone terraces above large streams. It also is found on sandy gravel bars and shores and at the ecotone33 of sagebrush and lodgepole pine stands, from 7,700 to 10,300 feet elevation. It flowers and fruits from July to September (Fertig 2000b). Suitable habitat for this species is likely present along streams in the project area, especially on floodplain terraces, gravel bars, and shores.
Payson’s bladderpod Payson’s bladderpod is a perennial herb in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). It grows on windswept, gravelly, calcareous ridge crests, semi-open slopes, and rocky floodplains with low vegetation cover. Populations also occur on talus slopes, disturbed roadsides, dried stream channels, rocky clearings in conifer forests, and travertine outcrops, between 5,500 and 10,600 feet elevation (Fertig 2008b). This species has been historically documented in the proposed project area. Several observations were made in the 1940s, from Turpin Meadows, east of Moran, along the Buffalo Fork (WYNDD GIS 2017). Suitable habitat may still exist in the vicinity of Turpin Meadows or elsewhere in the proposed project area.
Greenland primrose Greenland primrose is a perennial herb in the primrose family (Primulaceae). It grows in wet meadows along waterways and in montane fens, often on relatively dry hummocky terrain, from 6,500 to 8,000 feet elevation. It flowers from May to July (Fertig 2000c). Suitable habitat for this species may be present in wet meadows along streams in the project area.
Teton wire-lettuce Teton wire-lettuce is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It grows on sand, gravel, and cobblestone bars along large streams and rivers, between 6,360 and 7,800 feet elevation. It flowers from late July to September (Fertig 2004). Teton wire-lettuce has been documented in numerous locations in Pacific Creek from surveys conducted in 1987 and 2003. Approximately 300 individuals were documented in six subpopulations. Plants were growing on sand and gravel bars near Wilderness Ranch with willows, horsetail (Equisetum arvense), yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officinalis), white locoweed (Oxytropis sericea), and other herbaceous species occurring on the floodplain.
At Blackrock Creek, surveys in 2003 detected approximately 200 individuals growing on gravel bars near the Blackrock ranger station, with narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), hairy false goldenaster (Heterotheca depressa), shrubby willowherb (Epilobium suffruticosum), and
33 A transition zone between biological communities.
September 2017 67 Guided Bank Fishing
American licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota; WYNDD GIS 2017). Suitable habitat also may occur in other stream corridors in the proposed project area.
Species with Management Direction in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
Quaking aspen Quaking aspen is a deciduous tree in the willow family (Salicaceae). It grows in mixed forests and woodlands and riparian areas; habitat is characterized by low seasonal temperatures, due to high altitudes or northern latitudes, and short growing seasons. It tolerates a wide range of soil conditions, from rocky soils or loamy sands to clay soils. The most favorable soils are porous, loamy soils that have abundant lime and humus. This species is typically clonal, with suckers arising from extensive lateral roots (NatureServe 2017b). There are numerous quaking aspen stands along stream riparian areas in the project area. On the BTNF, there are approximately 157,700 acres of aspen woodlands (USFS 1990).
Noxious Weeds and Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species The Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) maintains a list of designated noxious weeds in the state (WDA 2003). Wyoming noxious weeds that have been observed in the proposed project area are listed in Table 7, Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plant Species. Nonnative invasive plant species are weeds that are not designated as noxious by the WDA.
Nonnative invasive plant species observed in the proposed project area are also listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plant Species Weed Status1 Location in the Project Area Diffuse NW Blackrock Creek—Infestations along US Highway 26 knapweed roadside Centaurea diffusa Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows Trailhead and along Buffalo Valley Road Field bindweed NW Blackrock Creek—Infestations along US Highway 26 Convolvulus roadside arvensis Spread Creek—Along Forest Road 30100 near creek crossing Leafy spurge NW Blackrock Creek—Infestations along US Highway 26 Euphorbia esula roadside Russian NW Blackrock Creek—Infestations along US Highway 26 knapweed roadside Acroptilon repens Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows trailhead Sulfur cinquefoil Nonnative Blackrock Creek—In Forest Service Administrative Potentilla recta Complex and infestations along US Highway 26 roadside Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows trailhead
68 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Table 7. Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plant Species Weed Status1 Location in the Project Area Perennial NW Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows trailhead, at Turpin pepperweed Meadows near Forest Road 30050 bridge Lepidium Pacific Creek—Infestations on both sides of Pacific latifolium Creek near formal campground Scotch thistle NW Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows trailhead Onopordum acanthium St. Johnswort NW Buffalo Fork—Infestation along US Highway 26 Hypericum roadside near Blackrock Ranger Station perforatum Tall buttercup Nonnative Buffalo Fork—Turpin Meadows near Forest Road 30050 Ranunculus acris bridge Whitetop NW Buffalo Fork—At Turpin Meadows trailhead, at Turpin Cardaria draba Meadows near Forest Road 30050 bridge Pacific Creek—Along Pacific Creek Road near formal campground Spread Creek—Along Forest Road 30165 Source: USFS GIS 2017 1 Status Codes: NW = Noxious weed designated by the WDA Nonnative = Nonnative invasive plant species not designated by the WDA
Generally, noxious weeds and nonnative invasive plant species are located in disturbed areas: roadsides, trailheads, campgrounds (formal and informal), and other developed areas.
Other species of noxious weeds are present in the BTNF; these species have the potential to be introduced into the proposed project area. They generally occur in disturbed areas. Some of the more common species are Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa; USFS 1990).
5.6.3 Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to the number of authorized service days for guided day-use bank fishing in the river corridors, nor in the miles of river authorized for guided day-use bank fishing. There would be no new surface disturbance authorized.
Because there would be no changes to these indicators under Alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on Region 4 sensitive species known or suspected to be found on the BTNF.
September 2017 69 Guided Bank Fishing
Cumulative Impacts Under Alternative 1, guided day-use bank fishing would continue at 15 service days or fewer per year. Alternative 1 would not alter the existing impacts associated with those 15 service days, which are limited in intensity, compared with the estimated 154,185 visitors to the BTNF who participated in fishing in 2013 (USFS 2013).
Impacts on botanical resources would continue to occur from the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District. In general, impacts of non-guided bank fishing include the potential for mechanical damage as a result of trampling and the potential for habitat degradation due to establishment and spread of weeds by fishing party vehicles, boots, or gear. These impacts are discussed below.
Impacts from trampling Under Alternative 1, all sensitive plant species present or potentially present in the proposed project area could continue to be impacted by human trampling. This is because existing day-use fishing access in proposed project area streams would continue under Alternative 1. The potential for impacts would be greatest where humans access populations of sensitive plants or in suitable habitat for these plant species.
Trampling impacts tend to be concentrated along informal trails, campsites, and other areas where humans travel cross country. Impacts from trampling are generally localized; for instance, Dale and Weaver (1974) found that where established social trails exist, trampling impacts rarely extend more than 6.5 feet from the trail edge.
Trampling impacts occur when humans step on plants, resulting in mechanical damage34 to aboveground or below ground plant parts. Mechanical damage can reduce leaf area, plant height, root area, and reproductive output. Such impacts can alter plant vigor, decrease individual plant survival, and reduce overall plant density or cover.
The relationship between trampling intensity (i.e., the amount of trampling) and trampling impacts is nonlinear; that is, impacts are typically greatest at relatively low levels of trampling. Impacts continue at a lower rate at higher trampling intensities35 (Cole 1987; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Kuss and Hall 1991; Marion and Cole 1996).
Impact intensity can also vary by plant species affected. For instance, plant forms differ in their ability to resist and recover from trampling. Structural characteristics are important in determining which plant species are most resistant to trampling and how quickly they recover (Cole 1995). The characteristics of grass-like plants make them more resistant to trampling impacts than forbs and woody plants (Cole 1993, 1995). All the plant species considered in this analysis are either forbs or woody species, indicating relative susceptibility to trampling impacts.
Impact intensity can also vary by setting and conditions where trampling occurs. Plants growing on slopes are generally more susceptible to trampling impacts than those growing on flat ground. This is because of increased foot-slide on slopes (Weaver and Dale 1978). Similarly, plants that
34 Generally, mechanical damage refers to physical damage inflicted on a plant from trampling. This can be crushing, breaking, and otherwise damaging aboveground or underground plant parts. 35 This can be illustrated by a hypothetical example: When the first few anglers traverse an intact meadow with no informal trails through it, the rate of trampling impacts would be relatively high. As the informal trail tread transitions to compacted soil on which fewer plants grow, increased trail use by anglers would result in fewer trampling impacts because fewer plants now grow there.
70 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest grow in loose, sandy, or cobble soils, such as Teton wire-lettuce, Payson’s bladderpod, and narrowleaf goldenweed, may be at higher risk from trampling impacts. This is because shifting soils from nearby footfalls may shear root structures from a distance; plants would not have to be directly stepped on for impacts to occur.
Meadow and riparian plants are especially susceptible to damage to aboveground and underground structures early in the growing season when soils are wet (Cole 1987). These soils are at higher risk of compaction from trampling, which decreases water infiltration, gas exchange, and plant rooting. In turn, this can decrease plant cover and vigor; therefore, sensitive plants that potentially grow in moist meadow soils in the proposed project area, such as pink agoseris, both moonwort species, and Greenland primrose, may be at higher relative risk from trampling impacts. Conversely, these species may be at a lower risk from trampling impacts. This is because anglers walking cross-country to access fishing locations would generally tend to avoid wet meadow soils, where travel would be difficult.
Sensitive plant species may be more susceptible to trampling impacts if they grow in the areas most frequently used by anglers to access fishing locations. As mentioned above, anglers would likely tend to avoid saturated soils, where travel would be difficult; travel routes would instead be in areas where walking would be relatively easy. Therefore, plants growing on sparsely vegetated floodplains or other open areas near streams may be at the greatest risk for impacts. Examples are Teton wire-lettuce, Payson’s bladderpod (both of which have been observed in the proposed project area), and narrowleaf goldenweed.
Species growing in upland habitats not likely to be traversed by anglers accessing streams would have a lower potential to be impacted by trampling. These species include those that grow in upland sagebrush steppe or forest habitat, like soft aster or Payson’s bladderpod, or those that are closely associated with cliffs or rocky outcrops, like Wyoming tansymustard.
Anglers would also tend to avoid walking through stands of quaking aspen. This is because the clonal rooting habit of this species and resulting dense stand structure would make travel difficult. However, if anglers were to walk in areas where quaking aspens are regenerating, the small woody saplings would be relatively susceptible to mechanical damage from trampling.
Impacts from noxious weeds and nonnative, invasive plant species Under Alternative 1, all sensitive plant species present or potentially present in the proposed project area could continue to be impacted by the establishment and spread of noxious weeds or nonnative, invasive plant species (both hereafter referred to as weeds). This is because existing non-guided day-use fishing access in proposed project area streams would continue under Alternative 1.
Weed establishment and spread can threaten continued viability of sensitive and native plant species populations. Weeds directly outcompete sensitive and native plant species for moisture, light, nutrients, and space. This can result in reduced habitat quality or local extirpation, due to competition.
The probability that weeds will successfully establish depends on weed propagule pressure36 and surface disturbance. In order to become established at a site, weeds must first be introduced. The
36 Propagule pressure, or introduction effort, is a measure of the number of individuals introduced into a region where they are not native (Lockwood et al. 2005; Carlton 1996). Propagules are any plant material used for plant propagation, such as seeds, fruits, and stem or root fragments.
September 2017 71 Guided Bank Fishing more propagules that are introduced, the more likely that weeds will eventually become established (von Holle and Simberloff 2005). Propagules can be transported and introduced on boots, gear, clothing, and vehicles of day-use visitors.
Surface disturbance reduces native plant cover and creates bare soils. Weeds become established by taking advantage of newly created space, light, moisture, and other nutrients in these areas (Richardson and Pysek 2006); therefore, the potential for weed establishment is greatest along roads, trailheads, campsites, and other disturbed areas. Disturbances due to foot traffic can create suitable habitat for weed invasion (D’Antonio et al. 2004).
Natural disturbances, such as floods or herbivory,37 can also facilitate weed establishment and spread by transporting weed propagules and disturbing soils; these processes would continue under Alternative 1.
Weeds may be more effectively managed if newly established populations are detected early, before they develop into widespread infestations. The probability of detection would be higher in areas frequented by Forest Service staff, including on roads, popular access routes, and established and informal campsites.
5.6.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 2, approximately 31.5 miles of river corridors on non-wilderness portions of the District would be authorized for guided day-use fishing. This represents approximately 22 percent of the 142.2 total miles of river corridors on non-wilderness portions of the District (USFS GIS 2017).
When also considering streams on wilderness portions of the District, the amount of river corridors that would be authorized for guided day-use bank fishing is approximately 4.7 percent of the 677 total miles of corridors (USFS GIS 2017).
Not all of the areas in these river corridors are occupied or provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant species; even so, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of available habitat on the District is substantially greater than that available in the 31.5 miles of corridor proposed to be authorized for guided day-use bank fishing under the proposal. Given this context, the direct and indirect impacts of authorizing guided day-use bank fishing on botanical resources are described below.
Impacts from trampling The anticipated increased angling use under Alternative 2 could mean that there is additional opportunity for trampling from anglers accessing fishing locations. The greatest potential for impacts would occur in the areas most frequently used; therefore, sensitive plants growing on sparsely vegetated floodplains or other open areas near streams may be at the greatest risk for impacts; these are Teton wire-lettuce, Payson’s bladderpod (both of which have been observed in the proposed project area), and narrowleaf goldenweed.
The potential for trampling impacts on quaking aspen would be similarly increased under Alternative 2, as a result of anticipated increases in use levels. Impacts would be most likely to
37 The eating of plants.
72 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest affect seedlings or saplings at the edges of established stands. This is because the dense nature of mature stands would tend to discourage travel through them.
For species that grow in habitats not likely to be traversed by anglers accessing fishing locations, potential impacts from trampling would not increase, compared with Alternative 1. This would be the case for plants that grow in perennially wet meadows, uplands relatively far from streams, and cliff or rock outcrop areas. These plants are pink agoseris, both moonwort species, Greenland primrose, soft aster, Payson’s bladderpod, and Wyoming tansymustard.
Under Alternative 2, all guided, day-use, bank fishing outfitter-guides would be required to follow restrictive parking and access regulations. Outfitter-guides would be required to park on existing roads and pullouts, in accordance with the Jackson and Blackrock Districts Motor Vehicle Use Map. They also would have to access stream reaches via authorized, designated access points. Restricting parking and access points would minimize vegetation trampling. This would come about by restricting the areas where fishing parties park and where they fish to areas relatively near designated access points.
No new roads, trails, or other infrastructure requiring surface disturbance or vegetation removal is proposed under Alternative 2. Preventing new surface disturbance would mean there is no potential for directly removing sensitive or native plant species from activities that disturb soils.
Impacts from noxious weeds and nonnative, invasive plant species Increased use levels under Alternative 2 could mean that there is additional opportunity for weed introduction into the proposed project area and the subsequent establishment and spread. Weeds could be introduced via outfitter-guide vehicles or on the boots or equipment of those in guided fishing parties.
To minimize this impact, all guided, day-use, bank fishing outfitter-guides would be required to follow restrictive parking and access regulations under Alternative 2. All new outfitter-guide vehicle operators under Alternative 2 would be required to use designated parking areas and all access to the authorized stream segments would be from designated access areas. Because of this, the potential for increased weed introductions would be greatest in designated parking areas and access routes.
Under Alternative 2, despite the potential for increased weed introductions in the proposed project area, associated impacts on sensitive plant species are not anticipated to substantially increase. That is because, in general, sensitive plant species in the proposed project area do not occur at designated parking and access locations. That is because these areas generally do not provide suitable habitat for these species.
Weeds would be more likely to be detected in designated parking and access points, because these areas are easily monitored by Forest Service staff. As a result, the probability that new introductions would expand to infestations threatening intact habitat for sensitive species is low under Alternative 2. This is because newly established weeds would be detected early and treated before expanding into large infestations.
No new roads, trails, or other infrastructure requiring surface disturbance or vegetation removal is proposed under Alternative 2. Preventing new surface disturbance would limit the opportunity for weed establishment in disturbed areas.
September 2017 73 Guided Bank Fishing
Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts described under Alternative 1 would continue to affect botanical resources in the project area under Alternative 2. This would be consistent with the growing trend in non-guided day-use fishing on the District. These include the impacts of trampling vegetation and habitat degradation from weed establishment and spread.
Implementing Alternative 2 would add to these impacts by increasing the opportunities for guided day-use bank fishing beyond the existing authorization for the activity. The associated impacts on botanical resources associated with increased use levels under Alternative 2 could increase; however, the alternative’s design, such as using authorized parking and access points and proposing no surface disturbance for road, trail, or facility construction, would minimize impacts.
Overall, implementing Alternative 2 would add to the impacts of the growing trend in non-guided fishing in the District.
6. List of Preparers Name Position/Role Forest Service Todd Stiles Blackrock District Ranger (project management; reviewed recreation and WSR specialist reports; reviewed EA) Linda Merigliano Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager (project management) Kerry Murphy Wildlife Biologist Patrick Barry Fisheries Biologist Pam Bode Natural Resources Staff Officer (reviewed fisheries specialist report) Martina Keil Forest Botanist, North Zone Range and Invasive Species Manager David Cernicek Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinator EMPSi Blake Busse Project Manager; Recreation Specialist; Wild and Scenic Rivers Specialist Peter Gower Recreation Specialist Kate Krebs Senior NEPA Specialist; Quality Assurance/Quality Control Morgan Treiger Biologist
74 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
References Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary. 1988. “Conservation and distribution of genetic variation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat trout.” Conservation Biology 2:170–184.
Al Shaw, E., and J. S. Richardson. 2001. “Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and survival.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:2213–2221.
Baldwin, T. J., E. R. Vincent, R. M. Silflow, and D. Stanek. 2000. “Myxobolus cerebralis infection in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) exposed under natural stream conditions.” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigations 12:312–321.
Bartholomew, A., and J. A. Bohnsack. 2005. “A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves.” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:129– 154.
Beauvais, G. P., and L. Johnson. 2004. Species Assessment for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, New York.
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. “Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419–431.
Berg, L., and T. G. Northcote. 1985. “Changes in territorial, gill flaring, and feeding behaviour in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1410–1417.
Binns, N. A. 1977. Present status of indigenous populations of cutthroat trout, Salmo clarkia, in southwest Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Fisheries Technical Bulletin 2, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bisson, P. A., and R. E. Bilby. 1982. “Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371–374.
Carlton, J. T. 1996. “Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology.” Biological Conservation 78:97–106.
Cole, D. N. 1987. “Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest communities and a grassland in western Montana, USA.” Biological Conservation 40:219–244.
_____. 1993. Trampling Effects on Mountain Vegetation in Washington, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Research Paper INT-464. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
_____. 1995. “Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience.” Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215–224.
September 2017 75 Guided Bank Fishing
Cole, D. N., and J. L. Marion. 1988. “Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United States.” Environmental Management 12(1):99–107.
Copeland, J. P., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, et al. 2010. “The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine: Do climatic constraints limit their geographic distribution?” Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:233–246.
Dale, D., and T. Weaver. 1974. “Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of North Rocky Mountain Forests.” Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767–772.
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. “Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management.” Weed Science 48(2):255–265.
Dunham, J. B., S. B. Adams, R. E. Schroeter, and D. C. Novinger. 2002. “Alien invasions in aquatic ecosystems: Toward an understanding of brook trout invasions and potential impacts on inland cutthroat trout in western North America.” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:373-391.
El-Matbouli, M., T. S. McDowell, D. B. Antonio, K. B. Andree, and R. P. Hedrick. 1999. “Effect of water temperature on the development, release and survival of the triactinomyxon stage of Myxobolus cerebralis in its oligochaete host.” International Journal of Parasitology 29:627–641.
Fertig, W. 2000a. State Species Abstract Descurainia torulosa Wyoming tansymustard. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2000b. State Species Abstract Ericameria discoides var. linearis (Haplopappus macronema var. linearis), narrowleaf goldenweed. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2000c. State Species Abstract Primula egaliksensis, Greenland primrose. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2001. State Species Abstract Botrychium crenulatum, crenulate moonwort. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2004. State Species Abstract Stephanomeria fluminea, Teton wire-lettuce. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2008a. State Species Abstract Astragalus paysonii, Payson’s milkvetch. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
_____. 2008b. State Species Abstract Lesquerella paysonii, Payson’s bladderpod. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. “Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States.” American Fisheries Society Special Publication Number 27. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Gayton, D. 2008. Impacts of Climate Change on British Columbia’s Biodiversity: A Literature Review. Forrex Series 23. Forrex Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada.
76 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Granath, W. O., Jr., M. A. Gilbert, E. J. Wyatt-Pescador, and E. R. Vincent. 2007. “Epizootiology of Myxobolus cerebralis, the causative agent of salmonid whirling disease in the Rock Creek drainage of west-central Montana.” Journal of Parasitology 93:104–119.
Gregory, R. S. 1993. “The effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in turbid laboratory conditions.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241–246.
Gregory, R. S., and T. G. Northcote. 1993. “Surface, planktonic, and benthic foraging by juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in turbid laboratory conditions.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233–240.
Gresswell, R. E. 1995. “Yellowstone cutthroat trout.” In: Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout (M. K. Young, technical editor). USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-256. Pp. 36–54.
_____. 2009. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia bouvieri): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado.
Gresswell, R. E., and J. D. Varley. 1988. “Effects of a century of human influence on the cutthroat trout of Yellowstone Lake.” In: Status and Management of Interior Stocks of Cutthroat Trout (R. E. Gresswell, editor). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 4, Bethesda, Maryland. Pp. 45–52.
GYBEWG (Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group). 1996. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management Plan: 1995 update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group, Wyoming Fish and Game Department, Lander.
Hadley, K. 1984. Status Report on the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Salmo clarki bouvieri) in Montana. Report to Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, Montana.
Hallett, S. L., and J. L. Bartholomew. 2008. “Effects of water flow on the infection dynamics of Myxobolus cerebralis.” Parasitology 135:371–384.
Hammitt, W., and D. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (second edition). John Wiley, New York, New York.
Heath, J. P., G. J. Roberson, and W. A. Montevecchi. 2006. “Population structure of breeding Harlequin Ducks and the influence of predation risk.” Canada Journal of Zoology 84:855-864.
Heidel, B., and W. Fertig. 2015. State Species Abstract Botrychium paradoxum, puzzling moonwort. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie.
High, B., and K. A. Meyer. 2014. “Hooking mortality and landing success using baited circle hooks compared to conventional hook types for stream-dwelling trout.” Northwest Science 88(1):11–22.
Hühn, D., and R. Arlinghaus. 2011. “Determinants of hooking mortality in freshwater recreational fisheries: A quantitative meta-analysis.” American Fisheries Society Symposium 75:141–170.
September 2017 77 Guided Bank Fishing
Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (third edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service, Missoula, Montana. Pp. 1–128.
IWSRCC (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council). 1998. An Introduction to Wild and Scenic Rivers. National Park Service, Washington DC.
Johnson, R. R., and S. W. Carothers. 1982. “Riparian habitats and recreation: Interrelationships and impacts in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain region.” Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 12. September 1982.
Keleher, C. J., and F. J. Rahel. 1996. “Thermal limits to salmonid distributions in the Rocky Mountain region and potential habitat loss due to global warming: A geographic information system (GIS) approach.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:1–13.
Kelly, B. M. 1993. “Ecology of Yellowstone cutthroat trout and evaluation of potential effects of angler wading in the Yellowstone River.” Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.
Koel, T. M., D. L. Mahony, K. L. Kinnan, C. Rasmussen, C. J. Hudson, S. Murcia, and B. L. Kerans. 2006. “Myxobolus cerebralis in native cutthroat trout of the Yellowstone Lake ecosystem.” Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 18:157–175.
Kruse, C. G., W. A. Hubert, and F. J. Rabel. 2000. “Status of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Wyoming waters.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:693–705.
Kuss, F. R., and C. N. Hall. 1991. “Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure.” Environmental Management 15(5):715–727.
Lake, R. G., and S. G. Hinch. 1999. “Acute effects of suspended sediment angularity on juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56:862–867.
Lockwood, J. L., P. Cassey, and T. Blackburn. 2005. “The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(5):223–228.
Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazzaz. 2000. “Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control.” Issues in Ecology 5:1–20.
Marion, J. L., and D. N. Cole. 1996. “Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites.” Ecological Applications 6(2):520–530.
McGee, M., and D. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Boreal Toad (Buro boreas boreas) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, R. F. Thurow, S. E. Clarke, and G. L. Chandler. 2000. “Historical changes in pool habitats in the Columbia River Basin.” Ecological Applications 10:1478– 1496.
78 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
McKelvey, K. S., J. P. Copeland, M. K. Schwartz, J. S. Littell, K. B. Aubry, J. R. Squires, S. A. Parks, et al. 2011. “Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors.” Ecological Applications 21:2882–2897.
McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. “Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation”. Conservation Biology 18:890–902.
McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, F. T. Barrows, J. H. Selong, and R. J. Danehy. 2007. “Temperature and competition between bull trout and brook trout: A test of the elevation refuge hypothesis.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1313–1326.
McMahon, T., J. Robison-Cox, J. Rotella, T. Horton, and B. Kerans. 2010. “Trout population responses to whirling disease epizootics in Montana rivers.” In: “Wild trout X: Conserving wild trout” ( R. F. Carline and C. LoSapio, editors). Wild Trout Symposium, Bozeman, Montana. Pp. 195–202.
McWhirter, D., and G. P. Beauvais. No date. Wyoming Species Account—Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Meaney, C., and G. P. Beauvais. 2004. Species Assessment for Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) in Wyoming. Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
MNHP (Montana Natural Heritage Program). 2017. Pink Agoseris—Agoseris lackschewitzii. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena.
Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Muhlfeld, C. C., R. P. Kovach, R. Al-Chokhachy, S. J. Amish, J. L. Kershner, R. F. Leary, W. H. Lowe, et al. 2017. “Legacy introductions and climatic variation explain spatiotemporal patterns of invasive hybridization in a native trout.” Global Change Biology 1:1–11.
Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, J. Squires, R. M. Inman, M. L. Packila, et al. 2011. Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final Report. YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
NatureServe. 2017a. Symphyotrichum molle—(Rydb.) Nesom. Soft aster. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (web application), Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org.
_____. 2017b. Populus tremuloides—Michx. Quaking Aspen. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org.
Nehring, R. B. 2008. Whirling Disease Investigations. Colorado Division of Wildlife Federal Aid Project F-237-R15. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.
NHD (US Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset) GIS. 2017. GIS data of named streams. Internet website: http://prd-tnm.s3-website-us-west- 2.amazonaws.com/?prefix=StagedProducts/Hydrography/NHD/State/ HighResolution/GDB/.
September 2017 79 Guided Bank Fishing
NPS (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2017. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. Internet website: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/.
Oakleaf, B., and S. Patla. 2013. “Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Inventories in Northwest Wyoming.” In Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal Investigations: Annual Completion Report (A. C. Orabona, editor). Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Pp. 46-55.
Olson, D. H., and D. Saenz. 2013. Climate Change and Amphibians. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Internet website: www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildlife/amphibians/.
Orabona, A. C., M. T. Wickens, I. M. Abernathy, and D. A. Keinath. No date. Wyoming Species Account—Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Orabona, A. C., C. K. Rudd, N. L. Bjornlie, Z. J. Walker, S. M. Patla, and R. J. Oakleaf. 2016. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico. Peterson Field Guides series. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, Massachusetts.
Patla, D. A., and D. A. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
Patla, S. M., M. T. Wickens, D. A. Keinath, and I. M. Abernethy. No date a. Wyoming Species Account—Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Patla, S. M., M. T. Wickens, I. M. Abernethy, and D. A. Keinath. No date b. Wyoming Species Account—Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Pilliod, D. S., E. Muths, R. D. Scherer, P. E. Bartelt, P. S. Corn, B. R. Hossack, B. A. Lambert, et al. 2010. “Effects of Amphibian Chytrid Fungus on Individual Survival Probability in Wild Boreal Toads.” Conservation Biology 24(5):1259-1267.
Platts, W. S., R. J. Torquemada, M. L. McHenry, and C. K. Graham. 1989. “Changes in salmon spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:274–283.
Quist, M. C., and W. A. Hubert. 2005. “Relative effects of biotic and abiotic process: A test of the biotic-abiotic constraining hypothesis as applied to cutthroat trout.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:676–686.
Radle, A. L. 2007. “The effect of noise on wildlife: A literature review.” World Forum for Acoustic Ecology Internet website: http://wfae.proscenia.net/library/ articles/radle_effect_noise_wildlife.pdf.
Redding, J. M., C. B. Schreck, and F. H. Everest. 1987. “Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead exposure to suspended solids.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:737–744.
80 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Reed-Eckert, M., C. Meaney, and G. P. Beauvais. 2004. Species Assessment for Grizzly (Brown) Bear (Ursus arctos) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
Richardson, D. M., and P. Pysek. 2006. “Plant invasions: Merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invisibility.” Progress in Physical Geography 30(3):409– 431.
Roberts, B. C., and R. G. White. 1992. “Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre-emergent fry.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:450–459.
Rocky Mountain Herbarium GIS 2017. GIS data provided by Forest Service staff or online. Internet website: https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php
Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, T. Rinaldi, F. Wahl, F. N. Warren, et al. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI Park Service. Missoula, Montana.
Ryce, E. K., A. V. Zale, and E. MacConnell. 2004. “Effects of fish age and parasite dose on the development of whirling disease in rainbow trout.” Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 59:225–233.
Sandell, T. A. 2000. “A study of Myxobolus cerebralis in the Lostine River, Oregon: Epizootiology, distribution, and implications for resident and anadromous salmonids.” Master of Science in Microbiology thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Schill, D. J., J. S. Griffith, and R. E. Gresswell. 1986. “Hooking mortality of cutthroat trout in a catch-and-release segment of the Yellowstone River, Yellowstone National Park.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:226–232.
Schill, D. J., and R. L. Scarpella. 1997. “Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout fisheries: A social issue.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:873–881.
Smith, H., and D. A. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
Spagnuolo V., C. Brown, J. Fair, M. Kneeland, C. Persico, A. Byrd, and D. Evers. 2015. Wyoming Common Loon (Gavia immer) Summary Report, 2014. Report # 2015-12. Biodiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.
Steinback Elwell, L. C., K. E. Stromberg, E. K. N. Ryce, and J. L. Bartholomew. 2009. Whirling Disease in the United States: A Summary of Progress in Research and Management. Whirling Disease Initiative and Trout Unlimited, Arlington, Virginia.
Taylor, M. J., and K. R. White. 1992. “A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of nonanadromous trout.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:760–767.
Thomas, H. M. 1996. “Competitive interactions between a native and exotic trout species in high mountain streams.” Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
September 2017 81 Guided Bank Fishing
Titus, R. G., and C. D. Vanicek. 1988. “Comparative hooking mortality of lure-caught Lahontan cutthroat trout at Heenan Lake, California.” California Fish and Game 74(4):218–225.
Travsky, A., and G. P. Beauvais. 2004a. Species Assessment for Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
_____. 2004b. Species Assessment for Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Wyoming. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.
USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service). 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.
_____. 2006. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bridger- Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming.
_____. 2007a. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, National Forest in Montana and Parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.
_____. 2007b. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Evaluation. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.
_____. 2008. Activity Participation: Bridger-Teton National Forest. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Internet website: https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ programs/nvum/.
_____. 2012. Outfitter-Guide Needs Assessment & Resource Guidance. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.
_____. 2013. Activity Participation: Bridger-Teton National Forest. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Internet website: https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ programs/nvum/.
_____. 2014. Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River Management Plan. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.
_____. 2016a. Request for Public Comment: Proposal to Offer Guided Fishing Opportunity. Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Moran, Wyoming. March 4, 2016.
_____. 2016b. Guided Fishing Proposal: Summary and Response to Public Comments. Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Moran, Wyoming. September 26, 2016.
USFS GIS. 2017. GIS data provided by Forest Service staff or online. Internet website: https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php.
USFS and USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Washington, DC.
82 September 2017 Blackrock Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest
USFWS. 1983. Grizzly bear recovery plan. USFWS, Missoula, Montana.
_____. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.
_____. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.
_____. 2016. 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana.
USFWS GIS. 2017. GIS data of designated critical habitat. Internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.
USGS (United States Geological Service). 2017. NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Fish. Internet website: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/fish/default.aspx.
Van Kirk, R. W., and L. Benjamin. 2001. “Status and conservation of salmonids in relation to hydrologic integrity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.” Western North American Naturalist. 61:359–374.
Van Kirk, R. W., J. M. Capurso, and M. A. Novak (editors). 2006. “Exploring differences between fine-spotted and large-spotted Yellowstone cutthroat trout.” Symposium Proceedings, Idaho Chapter American Fisheries Society, Boise, Idaho.
Vogel, J. L., and D. A. Beauchamp. “Effects of light, prey size, and turbidity on reaction distances of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56(4):1293–1297. von Holle, B., and D. Simberloff. 2005. “Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure.” Ecology 86(12):3212–3218.
Weaver, T., and D. Dale. 1978. “Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles, and horses in meadows and forests.” Journal of Applied Ecology 15:451–457.
Wallen, R. L. 1987. “Habitat utilization by Harlequin Ducks in Grand Teton National Park.” Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.
WDA (Wyoming Department of Agriculture). 2003. Designated noxious weeds and prohibited noxious weeds (October 20, 2003). Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Cheyenne.
WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2017. State Wildlife Action Plan. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
WGFD GIS. 2017. GIS data of big game habitats and herd units. Internet website: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-in-Wyoming/Geospatial-Data/Big-Game-GIS-Data.
Wickens, M. T., K. A. Hubbard, S. M. Patla, I. M. Abernethy, D. A. Keinath, and V. Spagnuolo. No date a. Wyoming Species Account—Common Loon Gavia immer. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
September 2017 83 Guided Bank Fishing
Wickens, M. T., K. A. Hubbard, S. M. Patla, I. M. Abernethy, and D. A. Keinath. No date b. Wyoming Species Account–Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Wickens, M. T., W. A. Estes-Zumpf, A. C. Orabona, I. M. Abernethy, and D. A. Keinath. No date c. Wyoming Species Account—Boreal Owl Aegolius funerus. WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Wiggins, D. A. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado.
Williams, J. E., A. L. Haak, H. M. Neville, W. T. Colyer, and N. G. Gillespie. 2007. “Climate change and western trout: Strategies for restoring resistance and resilience in native populations.” In: “Sustaining wild trout in a changing world” (R. F. Carline and C. LoSapio, editors). Proceedings of Wild Trout IX Symposium. Joseph Urbani and Associates, Bozeman, Montana. Pp. 236–246.
Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2004. “Effects of off- road recreation on mule deer and elk.” In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, DC.
Wydoski, R. S. 1977. “Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to quality fishery management.” In: “Catch-and-release fishing as a management tool” (R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, editors). Humboldt State University, Aracata, California. Pp. 43-87.
WYNDD (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database) GIS. 2017. GIS data of species observation packages by township. Internet website: http://www.uwyo.edu/ wyndd/_tools/species-by-township.
Young, M. K. (technical editor). 1995. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-256. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
84 September 2017