Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region

Bighorn NVIRONMENTAL SSESSMENT National Forest E A FOR THE

CRATER RIDGE VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT PROJECT

MEDICINE WHEEL RANGER DISTRICT

July 2015

Data Accuracy – The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS product for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more information, contact: Bighorn National Forest, 2013 Eastside 2nd Street, Sheridan, WY 82801; (307) 674-2600.

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

Table of Contents

Summary Table 1 List of Acronyms and Definitions of Road Terms Used in the Document 2 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 3 Introduction 3 Proposed Action 3 Location 4 Purpose and Need 4 Decision Framework 6 Results of Public Involvement 6 Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives 14 No Action Alternative, continue current management 14 Alternative 1, vegetation management and FSR 112 closed at point 1 14 Alternative 2, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 2 16 Alternative 3, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 3 17 Design Features for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 17 Monitoring 22 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 23 Key Issue 1 – Elk Security 24 Key Issue 2 – Recreation Opportunities 26 Key Issue 3 – Roadless Characteristics 28 Non-key Issue 1: Soils, Water Quality, and Fisheries 36 Non-key Issue 2: Landscape Aesthetics/Scenic Integrity 42 Non-Key Issue 3: Wildlife 47 Non-Key Issue 4: Forest Regeneration 61 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations 67 Chapter 4 – Coordination and Consultation 68 Preparers and Contributors 68 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 69 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 71 Appendix A – Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) Design Criteria Applicable to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 75

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Map of project area and proposed actions under alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 7 Figure 2. Analysis area boundary for recreation effects. 27 Figure 3. Crater Ridge project area and the Little Bighorn Roadless Area. 29 Figure 4. Portion of the Crater Ridge project area in the RACR inventory boundary. 33 Figure 5. Analysis area for landscape aesthetics and scenic integrity. 42

Table 1. Key and non-key issues identified for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project and analyzed in chapter 3. 8 Table 2. Proposed timber treatments by unit for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. 14 Table 3. Proposed actions for existing Forest Service roads under the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. 15 Table 4. Design features for alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 17 Table 5. Monitoring to be conducted for the proposed action 22 Table 6. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the effects analysis. 23 Table 7. Effects of the alternatives on existing elk security in the project area and immediate vicinity. 25 Table 8. Comparison of the effects of closing FSR 112 by alternative. 28 Table 9. Roadless characteristics and their condition in the project area. 30 Table 10. Soil types in the project area and their limitations to timber harvest and regeneration. 37 Table 11. Past, present, and foreseeably activities in the project area that have the potential to effect soil, water quality, and fish resources. 39 Table 12. Existing scenic integrity in the project area. 43 Table 13. Desired scenic integrity in the project area. 44 Table 14. Difference between existing and desired scenic integrity in the project area. 44 Table 15. Wildlife species – summary of status on Forest and affected environment 49 Table 16. Species Distribution of the pre-harvest and post-harvest regeneration. 63 Table 17. Timing of reforestation after the 1990’s group selection harvests. Data from the 52 reforestation plots taken in 2014 64 Table 18. Comparison of group selection regeneration design criteria between 1990’s harvest and current proposal 65

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

SUMMARY TABLE

What actions are The Bighorn National Forest is proposing approximately 900 acres of proposed? commercial timber harvest in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands using group selection, single tree selection, and shelterwood harvest methods. In addition, Forest Service Road (FSR) 112 would be gated at one of three points (see map on page 7) and closed year-round to motorized vehicles. Why? The purpose of the project is to improve forest health and resilience in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands by improving species diversity and managing stand densities, to offer commercial forest products, and to increase existing elk security. What other actions None. would meet the same need? What would it mean The current species distribution (more subalpine fir than other spe- to not meet the cies) would not change unless there was a fire, blowdown, or in- need? sect/disease epidemic. Existing stands would become less resistant to insects and disease. No commercial timber would be made available, and existing elk security would not change. What factors will be The environmental assessment did not identify any significant envi- used when making ronmental effects from the proposed action. Any adverse environmen- the decision between tal effects of the proposed action are weighed against the benefit of alternatives? improved forest health and vegetation conditions and the increase in existing elk security. Are there any ways Design features (see table 4) would mitigate adverse effects. to mitigate adverse effects? What monitoring is Pretreatment and during treatment: Monitor protection of cultural re- required? sources, scenic integrity, and sediment control near Cub Creek. Post treatment: Determine down dead woody fuel loading; monitor new invasive species occurrences, changes in scenic integrity, reforestation in final harvest units, protection for raptor nests; and, inspect road closure gates, assess incidences of blowdown.

Medicine Wheel Ranger District Bighorn National Forest

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS OF ROAD TERMS USED IN THE DOCUMENT EA – environmental assessment Decommission – permanently removes a road or portions of a road from the Forest NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act Service road system. The roads in the Crater EIS – environmental impact statement Ridge project area would be decommis- FEIS – final environmental impact statement sioned by removing culvert(s), ripping the roadbed to a depth of 8 inches, applying RACR – Roadless Area Conservation Rule grass seed to the area, and scattering FSR – Forest Service road wood/rock debris onto the road for a sight MIS – management indicator species distance. SOPA – schedule of proposed actions Prehaul maintenance – normally includes the surface blading of a lightly rutted road, NOPA – notice of proposed action rebuilding existing drainage structures and ID team – interdisciplinary team in some cases the removal of vegetation from the roadbed. C&H – cattle and horse Reconditioning – includes such items as NFS – national forest system surface blading of the road surface, plating USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over rocky areas with soil or aggregate, re- WYNDD – Wyoming Natural Diversity Da- building existing drainage structures or if tabase needed the construction of new features (rolling dips, culverts, etc.). Reconditioning CFR – code of federal regulations is used to address heavier maintenance than SHPO – state historic preservation office what is expected with prehaul maintenance. Closed road – means a road is not open for Temporary road – a short-term transporta- general public use. Closed roads are nor- tion facility developed and operated for a mally physically closed by means of a road limited period of time. It will cease to exist closure gate, rock barriers, soil mounds or as a transportation facility after the purpose logs. In some cases, closed roads are only for which it was constructed is completed posted as being closed with a sign or post on and occupied land is reclaimed and managed the ground. A closed road is not shown on for natural resource purposes. the forest map or the motor vehicle use map.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Introduction The Medicine Wheel Ranger District has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EA discloses environmental consequences of the no action alternative and three action alternatives. It provides sufficient evidence to determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared or whether a finding of no significant impact is appropriate. Additional documentation, including more detailed analysis of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Medicine Wheel Ranger District Office. This EA also incorpo- rates by reference the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Forest Plan FEIS) for the Re- vised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Bighorn National Forest. The District Ranger signed a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) on September 24, 2013. It was subsequently appealed and the DN/FONSI was withdrawn. This project is essentially the same action, with additional actions and analysis related to forest regeneration. A separate public comment period was made available for this decision.

Proposed Action The following information is a summary of more detailed discussion in chapter 2. Vegetation management activities in the Crater Ridge area would include approximately 900 acres of commercial timber harvest in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands. Products other than large-diameter logs would be made available, including posts and poles, and the following silvicultural harvest methods would be used: group selection, single tree selection, and shelterwood. Assurance of adequate restocking within five years after harvest is a focus of the project design. Design features including slash treatments; unit orientation and size; maximizing post- harvest shade and moisture; and, if necessary, fill-in planting, among other actions, are incorporated to assure regeneration. Harvested trees would be whole-tree skidded to landings. Residual slash at the landings would be burned within two years of harvest unit completion. Any incidental tree tops and limbs left in the woods would be lopped and scattered to a depth of less than 24 inches. Tim- ber is expected to be offered for sale in about 2017. The primary transportation system is in place for the vegetation treatments; no new permanent roads are proposed. Forest Service Road (FSR) 112 would be gated at one of three points and closed year-round to motorized vehicles (see figure 1 on page 7). Actual location

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

of the gate will be determined on the ground to ensure the location is suitable for effective closure. Approximately 5 miles of temporary roads are proposed for construction to access units. Lo- cations would be approved by the Forest Service and roads would be decommissioned when no longer needed for project work. No new temporary roads would be constructed in the part of the project area that is within the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) boundary. The same temporary roads used during the previous Crater Ridge timber sale (1989 to 1995) would be used for this project.

Location The Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project area encompasses approximately 4,600 acres of the Medicine Wheel Ranger District on the Bighorn National Forest (see map on page 7). It is located in the Crater Ridge area near the headwaters of the West Fork of the Lit- tle Bighorn River between the Cub Creek and Mann Creek drainages. The legal description of the project area is Township 57 North, Range 90 West, sections 7, 8, 17, and 18 and Township 57 North, Range 91 West, sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Approximately 1,200 acres of the project area are within the 2001 RACR boundary. The project area also has 2.7 miles of existing road within the RACR boundary. The roadless characteristics of the area have been substantially altered by the existing 2.7 miles of road and the previous (1989 to 1995) Crater Ridge timber sale. Most of the project area is in the 5.11 Forest Vegetation Emphasis management area (MA). Approximately 13 acres near the intersection of FSRs 11 and 111 are in MA 5.4 Plant and Wildlife Habitat. None of the vegetation treatment units are in MA 5.4.

Purpose and Need The primary purpose of the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project is to improve forest health and resilience in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands by improving species diversity and managing stand densities. This would be accomplished by commercially harvesting timber. Currently the project area has more subalpine fir relative to other species in the stands. Thin- ning the density of the stands would favor Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine which are less tolerant of shade than subalpine fir. Establishing more spruce and pine would increase species diversity, size classes, and age classes on the landscape and increase resilience and resistance to natural disturbances. This meets the following forest plan direction: “Design management practices that maintain a mosaic of vegetative composition and structure emulating natural processes, patterns, scale, effect, and distribution of community types, age, and structure classes.” (Forest Plan chapter 1, goal 1, objective 1c, strategy 1).

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

“Forest vegetation on suited lands is managed to provide an even distribution of age classes.” (Forest Plan chapter 2, management area 5.11 desired condition for vegetation/habitat). “Openings in the forest canopy are created to provide for a wide range of structural stages as well as for the production of wood fiber.” (Forest Plan chapter 2, management area 5.11 desired condition for timber).

Another purpose of the project is to offer commercial forest products from the Bighorn Na- tional Forest to meet the following direction in the Forest Plan: “Annually offer a reliable level of forest products (sawtimber, posts and poles, Christmas trees, and fuelwood) on Forest lands.” (Forest Plan chapter 1, goal 2, objective 2c, timber strategy 1f)

There is an opportunity to increase elk security by closing part of FSR 112 with a gate. There are three different closure options, each of which would increase the acres of elk security. This is consistent with the following Forest Plan direction: “Maintain or increase the amount of elk (MIS) security areas at the forestwide scale. Current level is 47% of potential. Assess availability of security areas at the geographic area scale and incorporate security area analysis into travel and vegetation project management decisions to increase availability, where feasible.” (Forest Plan chapter 1, goal 1, objective 1b, strategy 6) Closing part of FSR 112 and decommissioning parts of closed roads also meets the following Forest Plan direction (Forest Plan infrastructure-travelways standard 1) by permanently removing parts of the roads from the Forest Service road system. 1. Manage forest system roads and trails using the following criteria: a. Use shall conform with forest plan and road/trail management objectives. b. System roads and trails shall serve an existing or identified use or public need. c. Close or decommission route if: i. Unacceptable damage will likely occur to soil, wildlife, flora cultural, aquatic, or other resources. ii. Financing or partnerships are not available to perform critical maintenance.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Decision Framework Based on the analysis and environmental effects disclosed in this EA, the responsible official will decide the following: ♦ Whether to implement vegetation treatments in the identified areas, and if so, where and using which silvicultural systems. ♦ Whether to close FSR 112 at point 1, 2, or 3 as shown on the map on page 7. This would increase existing elk security and reduce the road maintenance backlog. ♦ Whether to decommission parts of closed roads to reduce the likelihood of resource damage.

Results of Public Involvement The project has been on the forest’s schedule of proposed actions (SOPA). A notice of proposed action (NOPA) was sent more than 80 individuals, tribes, organizations, federal and state agencies, and local governments. The legal notice for the Notice of Proposed Action was published in the newspaper of record on April 25, 2014, and a 30-day comment period followed. The NOPA indicated that this decision is subject to the 36 CFR 219 Subpart B Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process. Seven individuals or organizations commented during the 30-day comment period. The interdisciplinary team (ID team) developed a list of issues/concerns to address using the comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes. All comments received through scoping and the public involvement processes were considered in developing the issues, refining the proposed action, and developing the alternatives.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Figure 1. Map of project area and proposed actions under alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Issue development The ID team identified preliminary issues prior to public comment, based on a combination of on-the-ground experience and review of previous planning documents for the project area. Additional issues surfaced as the ID team reviewed and considered the scoping comments. Issues were separated into two categories: key and non-key. The table below contains the concerns and issues developed and considered in the analyses; no other concerns or issues were raised. Key issues drove alternative development. They are discussed, and effects to them are disclosed, in chapter 3. Non-key issues have some cause-and-effect relationship and are of concern to the public, but they did not drive alternative development. Effects to four non-key issues are disclosed in chapter 3: hydrology, soils, and fisheries; scenic integrity; wildlife; and, forest regeneration. Effects to the remaining non-key issues are summarized in the section after table 1. The effects to these non-key issues are not significant because they are either protected by best management practices, standards, and guidelines (livestock grazing, fire, botany, and invasive species); or, they are protected by the legal procedures surrounding that resource (cultural resources); or, an effects disclosure is shown (economics, air quality, and climate change). Full discussions are available in the specialist reports on file in the project record. Table 1. Key and non-key issues identified for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project and analyzed in chapter 3. Issue Indicator(s) and Disposition Key Issue 1: Elk security . Acres of vegetation management. Vegetation management activities and road man- . Miles of closed road. agement may affect potential and existing elk se- . Miles of temporary road construction. curity acres. . Changes in acres of elk security cover. Effects of the alternatives on elk security are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA. Key Issue 2: Recreation opportunities . Change from motorized to nonmotorized Year-round closure of Forest Service Road 112 to recreation opportunities. motorized vehicles at any of the proposed closure Effects of the alternatives on recreation oppor- points will affect recreation opportunities. tunities are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Issue Indicator(s) and Disposition Key Issue 3: Roadless characteristics Estimated change, if any, in the following Vegetation management activities in the 2001 roadless values or characteristics: roadless area may impact roadless characteris- . High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and tics. air. . Diversity of plant and animal communities. . Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. . Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation. . Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Effects of the alternatives on roadless characteristics are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA. Non-key Issue 1: Hydrology, soils, and . Acres of vegetation management. fisheries . Miles of road (temporary road construction, Vegetation management and associated road decommissioned roads, closed roads, and management activities may impact fisheries, hy- open roads). drologic, and soils resources. Potential effects . Number of road-stream crossings decom- include soil compaction and displacement, ero- missioned. sion and sedimentation into waterbodies, and changes in the hydrologic cycle. Associated im- Effects of the alternatives are disclosed in pacts include aquatic habitat degradation and chapter 3 of the EA. risks to Yellowstone cutthroat trout, a Region 2 sensitive species, found immediately downstream of the project area. Non-key Issue 2: Scenic integrity Estimated changes in scenic integrity level Vegetation management and associated woody compared to the scenic integrity objective in debris may affect the scenic integrity and desired the Forest Plan. landscape character in the project area. . Changes to existing scenic integrity level. . Anticipated number of landings along FSR 108 and FSR 112. . Duration of slash piles. . Changes in crown cover. . Number, type of openings in forested vegetation (landings, patch cut areas). . Relation of management activities to existing and desired landscape character. Effects of the alternatives on scenic integrity are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Issue Indicator(s) and Disposition Non-key Issue 3: Wildlife Effects on wildlife species as determined in the Vegetation management and road management biological evaluation or identified in the may impact wildlife and their habitat. Species of biological assessment. These effects are local concern, management indicator species disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA. (MIS), threatened, endangered or USFS Region 2 sensitive (TES) species were considered. Non-key Issue 4: Forest Regeneration A finding of such assurance by a certified The National Forest Management Act (1976) silviculturist. This topic was the subject of requires that there is assurance that National several field trips during the summer of 2014, Forest System lands where timber harvest is including field surveys. Documentation of the conducted for timber production purposes can be assurance is summarized in chapter 3 of the adequately restocked within five years after EA and elsewhere in the project record. harvest.

Non-key Issue 5: Livestock management Vegetation management activities may temporarily impact livestock grazing permittees and the management of their livestock. This includes the duration of time needed before grazing can occur in the treated areas, impacts of new and modified roads, impacts on range improvements, and economic impacts on livestock managers. Economic impacts from increased livestock management are discussed below under Non-key Issue 5: Economics. Under the no action alternative, there would be no potential for increased available forage areas to improve livestock distribution. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, timber harvest activities could improve available transito- ry/secondary forage areas improving livestock distribution until the vegetation transitions back to a timber dominant habitat type. Livestock use of skid trails and temporary or existing roads would increase access to harvest units not normally accessed by livestock.

Non-key Issue 6: Invasive plants Vegetation management activities may increase the introduction and spread of noxious weeds due to ground-disturbing activities associated with the project. Under the no action alternative, there would be no harvest-related ground disturbance or potential increase in invasive plant infestations. Current invasive plant infestations would fluc- tuate in response to existing management activities or disturbances in the area. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, harvest activities along with temporary road construction, road decommissioning, and landings would create ground disturbance and could introduce invasive species.

Non-key Issue 7: Economics Vegetation and road management may have economic impacts to other resources.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

There would be no economic effect from closing FSR 112 at points 1, 2, or 3. This is because the minimal number of motorized recreationists currently using the roads could find motorized recreations opportunities in other locations. There would also be some offset due to an increase in nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in a short-term increase in management cost for the livestock grazing permittee. During harvest activities, livestock would be displaced in three pastures. This would require more time riding/herding to make sure cattle are in the correct pasture. Current management cost per day was calculated at $38/day, and livestock are in the three pastures roughly 43 days of the total 78 day season of use. There is also potential for approximately ¼ mile of drift fence to be constructed if natural timber barriers are removed as a result of the project. This would increase annual maintenance cost of that segment of fence. The estimated cost for the ¼ mile of fence is $100 a year. At least one commenter asked if “…the financial cost of this project offset by its benefits.” Therefore, a financial efficiency analysis was conducted for the sale, details of which are included in the project record. Financial efficiency considers the revenues and costs of the proposed action from the standpoint of the agency. Using a very conservative projected advertised stumpage rate of $3/CCF, the present net value is calculated at -$44,864. Based on the most recent timber sale bid experience on the Bighorn NF (Poison Stewardship and Babi- one Stewardship), it is very likely that a substantial bid premium will be realized. Essential reforestation will be covered in the minimum advertised rate so that adequate funding will be available to assure that National Forest Management Act reforestation requirements will be met for alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Non-key Issue 8: Botany Vegetation management and road management may impact sensitive plant species and their habitat. Sensitive plant species (Hall’s fescue, Cary’s beardtongue, wooly twinpod, and tranquil goldenweed) would not be affected by continuing current management because no activities would take place. The same is true for the other plant species of concern in the project area: aromatic pussytoes, low fleabane, Watson’s prickly-phlox, sheathed musineon, white larchleaf beard-tongue, wooly prince’s plume, soft aster. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there is little likelihood of effects to the following plant species of concern due to their habitat preferences: Cary’s beardtongue, wooly twinpod, aromatic pussytoes, low fleabane, Watson’s prickly-phlox, white larchleaf beard-tongue, and wooly prince’s plume. Hall’s fescue would not be affected because it is likely not found on the forest (Fertig 2002a). Prehaul road maintenance would reduce sedimentation and the likelihood of impacts to tranquil goldenweed. Potential impacts to sheathed musineon and soft aster would be mitigated by avoiding the high quality openings in units 4 and 6 and by not locating landings in the meadow habitat preferred by these species.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Non-key Issue 9: Fire and fuels management Vegetation and road management activities may adversely impact fuel loading and potential for large-scale wildland fire. The no action alternative would not reduce fire behavior on any acres. Forested stands in the project area would become more susceptible to crown fire. Fire suppression would be more difficult and dangerous because fire behavior would be more extreme making fires more resistant to control. Vegetation treatments in alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would change fire behavior by decreasing canopy bulk density and increasing canopy base height. This would decrease the likelihood of torching trees and crown fires. It would also make fire suppression safer and more effective. Non-key Issue 10: Cultural resources

Vegetation and road management activities may disturb cultural resources. The area has been adequately surveyed and evaluated for cultural resources and it is determined that no historic or prehistoric properties will be affected by this undertaking. The project area was previously surveyed and the determination was concurred on by SHPO. Cultur- al survey data is summarized in the cultural resource reports conducted for the previous projects undertaken within the boundaries of this proposed project. Non-key Issue 11: Air Quality

Dust and vehicle emissions from vehicles and logging equipment operating to, on, and from the sale will affect air quality. In addition, smoke will be created by burning the landing slash piles.

The effects to air quality are not significant because:

• This is a small project covering just over 900 harvested acres out of a 1.1 million acre National Forest. There are no large population centers with concentrated air pollution centers in north-central Wyoming. • There is no broadcast burning planned, and while there will be slash piles burned, this effect is of short duration, and appropriate coordination will occur with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. • The system roads are already in place. • The logging is estimated to take place over a 2-4 year period. The majority of the vehicle emissions will occur during this short period. The post-sale silvicultural treatments will occur over several years following the timber sale, but will involve primarily pick-up sized trucks. There will be some dust created from traffic on the roads. This impact is clearly less than significant because the effect is of short duration, and rain/snow will wash the dust off of plants.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Non-key Issue 12: Climate Change

The Crater Ridge analysis followed draft Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts. (December 2014) The Crater Ridge project will not generate sufficient carbon emissions to meet the CEQ threshold for quantitative emissions analysis. Concerning the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action, the actions under this decision will be completed within about 5-7 years. The amount of ‘climate change’ that will occur over that period of time is within the natural weather perturbations that occur on an annual basis, so there is no change to the effects analysis disclosed in the EA due to climate change. The effects of climate change will be realized in potential future entries, which will be subject to future site- specific NEPA analysis and decision.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

No Action Alternative, continue current management For this project, the no action alternative means no changes from present management. Cur- rent activities and uses would continue, and no timber harvest, road closure, or road decommissioning would be implemented.

Alternative 1, vegetation management and FSR 112 closed at point 1 Timber Treatments: Vegetation management would be implemented on approximately 900 acres using the harvest methods shown in table 2. The definition of each treatment is listed below the table. Table 2. Proposed timber treatments by unit for the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. Unit Number Approx. Acres Proposed Treatments 1 50 Group selection 2 112 Single tree selection 3 45 Shelterwood 4 46 Shelterwood 5 124 Group selection 6 110 Single tree selection 7 320 Group selection 8 102 Single tree selection

In group selection units, 20% of the stand would be removed, leaving approximately 2-acre openings. The goal is to open the stands to establish regeneration of Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine and recruit a new size and age class in the stands. Single-tree selection would remove approximately 25% of the stand density. The smallest diameter to be removed would be 5 inches. The goal is to have multiple size and age classes intermingling on the same site by having more small-diameter trees per acre than large- diameter trees. Any tree larger than 25 inches in diameter would be removed. In the units with shelterwood harvest, trees in commercial size classes (5 inches and larger) would be thinned. The goal of shelterwood harvest is establishing more Engelmann spruce and lodgepole seedlings while improving the growth and vigor of the stand. This thinning would also target diseased and insect-infested trees.

Slash Treatment: Harvested trees would be whole-tree skidded to landings. Residual slash at the landings would be burned within two years of harvest unit completion. Any incidental tree tops and limbs left in the woods would be lopped and scattered to a depth of less than 24 inches.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Forest Regeneration: Regeneration harvests and reforestation practices for this sale are designed to assure that lands are satisfactorily restocked within five years of final harvest. On Crater Ridge, the selection system harvests are considered final harvests. Definitions for satisfactory restocked are found in the Forest Plan, Forest Service Manual 2670, the reforestation report, and will be implemented through the silvicultural prescription. Design features are included to assure National Forest Management Act (NFMA) restocking standards will be met.

Advanced regeneration that meet the criteria of Forest Plan silviculture standard 3 will be used, along with seedlings established post-harvest, to achieve NFMA 5 year restocking requirements. Contractual provisions such as designated skid trails and protection of residual will be used to protect advanced regeneration.

Roads: The primary transportation system is in place for the vegetation treatments; no new permanent roads are proposed. The existing roads and proposed actions are described in table 3. FSR 112 would be gated at approximately point 1 and closed year-round to motorized vehicles (see figure 1 on page 7). FSR 112 behind the gate would remain on the transportation system as a level 1 road. Actual location of the gate will be determined on the ground to ensure the location is suitable for effective closure. The gate would be installed when the road work is done prior to the sale and closed after road is no longer being used for the sale. This closure point would result in approximately 3.0 miles of new road closure. Closing the road at point 1 would increase elk security by approximately 976 acres. FSR 042111 would be effectively closed behind the new gate on FSR 112. Table 3. Proposed actions for existing Forest Service roads under the Crater Ridge vegetation management project. Road # and Name Miles Proposed Action 108 – Crater Ridge 4.5 The first 1.9 miles of this road are currently open and would remain open after its use for this project. After use, the section from the road closure gate (milepost 1.9) to the stock tank (milepost 2.8) would remain closed by use of the gate. The last 1.7 miles of this road would be decommissioned. This road would receive prehaul maintenance prior to its use. No road construction or reconstruction will be needed. 112 – Crater Ridge 4.0 The entire length of this road is currently open. After its use Springs for this sale a road closure gate would be installed at Point 1 which would close the last 3.0 miles of this road. This road would require maintenance before being utilized for the sale. No road construction or reconstruction will be needed.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Road # and Name Miles Proposed Action 043114 – Cub Creek 1.4 This road is currently closed with a road closure gate. After Spur D its use, the first 1.1 miles would remain closed by use of the existing gate. The last 0.3 mile portion of this road would be decommissioned. This road could be used as is with no maintenance being required. 043113 – Cub Creek 0.7 This road is currently closed with a road closure gate. After Spur B its use, the first 0.5 miles would remained closed by use of the existing gate. The last 0.3 mile portion of this road would be decommissioned. This road could be used as is with no maintenance being required. 043112 Cub Creek 0.3 The existing gate would be removed, and the road would be Spur A decommissioned. 042111 – Deb Lane 1.0 This road is currently closed (posted on the ground). After its use, the last 0.4 miles of this road would be decommissioned. The remainder of the road would be physically closed with the gate that is installed on FSR 112. This road would receive prehaul maintenance prior to its use. No road construction or reconstruction will be needed.

Approximately 5 miles of temporary roads are proposed for construction to access units. Lo- cations would be approved by the Forest Service and decommissioned (effectively closed) when no longer needed for project work. No new temporary roads would be constructed in the project area within the 2001 RACR boundary. The same temporary road locations used during the previous commercial entry (Crater Ridge timber sale1989 to 1995) would be used for this project and the roads would be decommissioned after use. Some road maintenance will be required, but no road construction or reconstruction will take place in the inventoried roadless area. Road maintenance is not prohibited under the 2001 RACR. All timber harvest and associated treatments, and the road management actions, will take place in the ‘summer and fall’, which in this area is generally from late June/early July thru about October. US 14A is closed from about mid-November to late May, and therefore winter operations are not feasible. Spot snowplowing of Forest Roads north of US 14A may be needed for potential fill-in planting, as there may be drifts that prevent vehicle access when US 14A is reopened and the units would have favorable planting conditions.

Alternative 2, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 2 The vegetation management actions (timber harvest, regeneration actions, and slash treatments) are the same as alternative 1 (see discussion and tables 2 and 3 above). FSR 112 would be gated at approximately point 2 and closed year-round to motorized vehicles. FSR 112 behind the gate would remain on the transportation system as a level 1 road. Actual location of the gate would be determined on the ground to ensure the location is an 16

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project effective closure point. The gate would be installed when the road work is done prior to the sale and closed after road is no longer being used for the sale. This closure point would result in approximately 1.7 miles of new road closure. Closing the road at point 2 would increase elk security by approximately 680 acres. FSR 042111 would be effectively closed behind the new gate on FSR 112.

Alternative 3, vegetation management and FSR112 closed at point 3 The vegetation management actions (timber harvest, regeneration actions, and slash treatments) are the same as alternative 1 (see discussion and tables 2 and 3 above). FSR 112 would be gated at approximately point 3 and closed year-round to motorized vehicles. FSR 112 behind the gate would remain on the transportation system as a level 1 road. Actual location of the gate would be determined on the ground to ensure the location is an effective closure point. The gate would be installed when the road work is done prior to the sale and closed after road is no longer being used for the sale. This closure point would result in approximately 1.0 miles of new road closure. Closing the road at point 3 would increase elk security by approximately 419 acres. Depending on the exact location of closure point 3, FSR 042111 may be effectively closed behind the new gate on FSR 112 or posted as closed with a sign.

Design Features for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The following design features would be incorporated into alternatives 1, 2, and 3. These design features were developed by the ID team and approved by the district ranger. The specialists considered them in their effects analyses. Some specialist reports contain additional or different design features which are not shown in the following table. A document that discloses the design feature effectiveness, implementation, and monitoring is included in the project record. Table 4. Design features for alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Hydrology, Soils, and Fish 1. Incorporate appropriate design criteria from the Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) as shown in appendix A. The direction below is a priority for implementation. WCPH 11.2 a. Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity are not increased. WCPH 11.2 b. Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period. Cover treatment units, decommissioned temporary roads, and skid trails with slash material to maintain organic ground cover so that pedestals, rills and surface runoff are not increased. Scarify and seed existing closed roads that are decommissioned. WCPH 12.1.a. Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream reach.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

All streams and riparian zones will be buffered at least 100 feet from any harvest unit boundary. WCPH 12.1.b. Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any riparian or wetland vegetation community. Harvest operations will be kept out of riparian and wetland vegetation communities. Harvest design includes buffers of at least 100 feet from the outside edge of riparian/wetland vegetation communities. WCPH 12.1.e. Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the WIZ and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion. For this project, examples of concentrated-use sites include skid trails, landings, burn piles, temporary roads, and trails. WCPH 12.1.n. Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability when restoring damaged stream banks. Streambank restoration would occur when road-stream crossings are decommissioned (i.e. culverts and fords are restored to natural conditions). A hydrologist/fish biologist should be on-site during implementation to restore streambanks and ensure that natural stabilization processes are used that maintain the stream’s natural geomorphology (width, depth, slope, pattern, and streambed material). WCPH 13.1.b. Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply travel restrictions if necessary. This will be included in the timber harvest operating plan. WCPH 13.1.f. Use existing roads unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability. For this project, existing roads will be used for harvest operation (this includes open roads and existing temporary roads that were not decommissioned after the last harvest) unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. WCPH 14.1.b. Operate heavy equipment only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3 mm threads without breaking or crumbling. This would be incorporated into the contract authorizing these activities and would help minimize detrimental effects to soils. 2. Ensure sedimentation control in units 3 and 5 near Cub Creek and the effected YCT habitat downstream. 3. If streams, wetlands, or other waterbodies are identified within the contract boundary during unit layout/project implementation, establish an appropriate water influence zone (WIZ) buffer through consultation with the forest hydrologists or fish biologist. 4. When possible, leave newly constructed temporary roads in place for no longer than one season (avoiding spring snowmelt if possible) to reduce erosion and sedimentation to waterbodies and fish habitat and to prevent undesired use and harassment of wildlife. 5. If the project does not sell in a timely fashion, close and decommission roads and road- stream crossings (as described under the proposed action) within five years. 6. Design harvest units and road construction/maintenance to minimize soil disturbance.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

7. Prescribe adequate road drainage and buffering for roads in the WIZ.

Scenery/Landscape Aesthetics 8. Unit 8 will have no decking or processing of material within 300 feet of the FSR 108. 9. If burn piles in the immediate foreground of concern level one or two travel routes cannot be avoided, plan for additional clean-up. Burying or scattering remaining debris and ongoing weed management would be examples. Concern level one routes are Crater Ridge Spring Road (FSR 112) and Crater Ridge Road (FSR 108) between Marble Quarry Road (FSR 111) and the intersection with Crater Ridge Spring Road (FSR 112). Marble Quarry Road is a concern level two route. 10. Maintain open grown, full crown trees at most or many forest edges when viewed from concern level one and two travel routes. 11. Minimize down woody debris attributed to past or current harvest activity, particularly in foreground views while being consistent with design feature 42. 12. Blend temporary roads and skid trails visually into the surrounding vegetation and terrain when management activities are complete. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive: Wildlife and Plants 13. The following would apply if an active raptor nest is found: Protect known raptor nest sites by using the ID team to identify appropriate nest stand, and post fledging family area temporal and spatial restrictions. Use spatial and temporal restrictions as necessary based on species-specific requirements for timing, intensity, and duration of proposed management activity, activity type, and surrounding vegetative and topographical elements. Use Guidelines for Raptor Protection (USFWS 2002) to establish spatial and temporal buffers for active nests. Forest vegetative manipulation within known nesting territories should be designed to maintain or improve desired nesting and foraging habitat. Consult goshawk management recommendations (Reynolds 1992) when designing or implementing projects in habitat for northern goshawk. (Forest Plan wildlife guideline 1) Timber contract clause B6.24 “Protection Measures Needed for Plants, Animals, Cultural Resources, and Cave Resources” provides for this. 14. Make road closures effective through gate placement, rocks, and slash to discourage use. 15. To avoid disturbances to elk calving in the parturition area in unit 7, do not allow project activities, except for fill-in planting, to occur from May 1 to June 15. While, snowmelt typically does not allow access to this area by vehicle until approximately this time period, it is rec- ommended that project activities not commence during this time frame, even if snowmelt occurs early enough to allow access to the site. This will protect soil resources as well. The exception for fill-in planting is due to the fact that favorable planting conditions for this site occur over a relatively narrow timeframe, and in the event that window would occur prior to June 15 in the year planting is scheduled, the planting need would supersede the timing restriction for elk calving. 16. To protect sheathed musineon and soft aster, do not locate landings in the meadow habitat preferred by these species. Livestock Grazing 17. Repair all improvements that are damaged during logging operations or road construction back to their pre damaged condition. 18. While livestock are in the unit, close any gates upon entering/leaving.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

19. Build drift fence in unit 7, extending from the existing pasture division fence #306-01A northeast approximately ¼ mile, if natural timber barriers are removed that will allow livestock to drift from the designated pasture. To be determined by the ID team post-harvest activities. If drift fence is needed in unit 7 for livestock management post-harvest, design it to be wildlife friendly per the following Forest Plan direction: When constructing or rebuilding fences, design them for passage by wildlife unless the purpose is to exclude wildlife. (Forest Plan rangeland improvement and maintenance standard 3) Design and build structures such as fences, roads, and canals, so they do not create un- necessary or unreasonable barriers, disruptions, or hazards to wildlife, and to minimize habitat fragmentation. (Forest Plan wildlife guideline 7) 20. Coordinate with the rangeland specialist to assure communication with the permittee occurs prior to the project implementation to avoid conflicts with allotment management. Invasive Species 21. Integrate weed treatment and prevention into the project implementation. 22. Drive log trucks and crew or personal vehicles on designated roads only, and park vehicles next to designated roads to decrease the spread of invasive species, since these vehicles are not being inspected. 23. Use pre-determined weed free areas as staging areas when possible. Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed seed germination and establishment, when possible. 24. Slash pile locations and the burned areas will be monitored for noxious weed infestations for up to 3-5 years after the burning and treatment should occur where needed. 25. Use standard timber sale provisions, such as WO-C/CT 6.36, to ensure appropriate equipment cleaning. 26. Treat weeds in road decommissioning and reclamation areas before roads are made impassable. 27. Continue to monitor and treat weed infestations under the Bighorn National Forest 1998 Noxious Weed EA and forest invasive species action plan. Fire and Fuels 28. Limit residual fuels from vegetation management activities to less than 16 tons per acre. This will be accomplished by whole tree yarding, lopping and scattering activity slash to 24” or less, and permitting personal use firewood collection along open Forest Roads. 29. Locate slash piles to be burned at least 14 to 20 feet from residual trees depending on size of the piles. 30. Close FSR 112 with a road closure gate to allow access for fire suppression. 31. If blowdown occurs in treatment areas within 5 years of implementation, the downed trees may be slashed, piled, and burned if deemed necessary. Cultural Resources 32. If cultural resources are found during operations, work will desist and the cultural resource specialist will be contacted. 33. The cultural resource specialist will inspect temporary road locations prior to installation.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Roads 34. For public safety, close timber sale roads (temporary, level 1, and level 2) to the public as necessary during hauling or maintenance activities. This includes all roads within harvest units. 35. Design road closure points with adequate space for vehicles pulling campers to turn around. 36. Install closure gates that are consistent with direction in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).1 For example, gate arms shall be fully retroreflectorized on both sides and have vertical stripes alternately red and white at 16-inch intervals measured horizontally. 37. Install signs on the road closure gates describing the types of activities allowed in the area beyond the closure gate (for example, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). Forest Vegetation 38. Groups located in units with group selection treatments will be designed no greater than 3 tree heights in width to provide for favorable seed dispersal and seedling establishment and to decrease windthrow impacts. 39. Groups will also be designed to follow contours and blend in with the landscape to follow all Forest Plan guidelines and in order to mitigate high water velocity from heavy rain runoff. 40. All Engelmann spruce cut and decked for removal will be hauled by the following October from when it was harvested. 41. Slash piles consisting of size specifications favorable for spruce beetle outbreak will be burned within two years of piling. 42. On forest sites, retain snags and coarse woody debris in accordance with the average minimums specified below. Retain largest diameter snags possible. Leave 7 to 16 tons/ac coarse woody debris, 3-inch diameter or larger at the large end, well distributed over 10 acres. Consider leaving islands of snags in all stages of decay and green snag recruitment trees to meet these needs (Forest Plan biodiversity guideline 10)

Snags Downed logs Min. Cover type Density per Min. diameter Min. # per diameter Min height 100 acres and length acre Lodgepole 8 in. 400 25 ft. 6 in. and 8 ft. 50 Spruce-fir 12 in. 600 30 ft. 12 in. and 8 ft. 50

43. Fill-in planting of Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine and/or limber pine may be required to achieve NFMA 5 year restocking certification. The need for this will be determined through post-sale reforestation surveys. 44. Advanced regeneration (defined in the regeneration report) will be protected during harvest operations. Trees that meet the definition of acceptable advance regeneration will be included in the 5 year regeneration count.

1 MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public traffic (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/).

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Monitoring Table 5. Monitoring to be conducted for the proposed action Monitoring Objective Monitoring Item Monitoring Type Frequency Keep activity fuels under Determine down dead Brown’s transects Post treatment 16 tons per acre. woody fuel loading and/or ocular estimates using photo series. Verify that road closures Inspect closed roads for Ocular Post harvest (gates, rocks, and slash) signs of vehicle traffic are effective Effects on landscape Change in SIO and Ocular Before and after aesthetics landscape character project is implemented. Detect new noxious and Number of new Ocular Annually 3-5 years invasive species infesta- populations after project is tions in slash piles loca- completed. tions and burned areas Protect cultural resources Verify that the design Ocular During project feature for protection is being followed. Protect known raptor Verify that design criteria Ocular During layout and nests (buffers and timing) are harvest being implemented Manage fuel loading Inspect thinned units for Ocular Post harvest evidence of blowdown Assure NFMA 5 year re- Reforestation surveys Plot or Ocular First and third stocking year following harvest. Addition- al survival surveys if fill-in planting required.

This monitoring is in addition to Forest Plan required monitoring. All monitoring is the re- sponsibility of the Forest Service.

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Close roads without timber harvest: One public commenter suggested “…you could close the road without the associated logging, which appears the best outcome for elk security.” This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it does not meet the primary purpose of improving “…forest health and resilience in mixed conifer and spruce-fir stands by improving species diversity and managing stand densities.” Nor does it meet the purpose of providing commercial forest products from the Bighorn NF.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Alternative timber harvest prescriptions: The silvicultural prescriptions/diagnoses developed for the stands proposed for harvest include alternative harvest prescriptions. However, since this is the continuation of a previous harvest, with adaptive modifications made to improve the probability of regeneration success, there was not a need to consider different prescriptions as a separate alternative analyzed in detail in the EA.

Alternative travel management prescriptions: One commenter suggested closing the roads at different locations, and/or designating motorized trails on some or all of the closed roads. This input was known to the ID team and the District Ranger when the alternatives were developed. Concerning the motorized trails, the Forest has limited resources to maintain and patrol the current ATV trail system. Patrol of new trails would be especially prob- lematic in the Crater Ridge area, which is very remote and a low priority for Forest Service personnel presence.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The environmental impacts of the no action alternative and alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are described below. The environmental analysis focuses on the issues listed in table 1. More information is available in the specialist reports on file in the project record. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analyses are listed in the following table. The spatial and temporal boundaries for the effects analyses vary by resource. Most specialists used the project area boundary for their analysis. If a different boundary was used, it is noted in the effects analysis discussion for that resource. Natural disturbance events (e.g., wildfire) were not included in the table because they are not human-caused activities. These events are included in the affected environment section because they created the existing conditions for many resources. Table 6. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the effects analysis. Activity Location in project Description area Timber sales 1980s: Lodge Grass and Boyd Ridge timber sales 1990s: Crater Ridge timber sale, Lick and Leaky salvage sales (blowdown on Boyd Ridge) Past actions Fuels reduction and Little Horn area Planned fuels reduction and prescribed burning prescribed burning as part of the Big 6 livestock grazing decision. Future actions Invasive plant Spot treatments (herbicides, manual or treatments mechanical) of invasive plants occur throughout the project area. Past, present, reasonably foreseeable future action

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Activity Location in project Description area Livestock grazing Red Springs C&H Grazing is implemented through the 2011 Big 6 allotment livestock grazing decision, which includes improvement activities. Past, present, reasonably foreseeable future action Road decommission, Throughout the Regular maintenance activities include surface maintenance, and project area blading, drainage work and gravel replacement reconstruction on level 3 forest roads. Routine maintenance includes cleaning and rebuilding drainage structures on level 2 forest roads. All of these activities can cause erosion and sedimentation. Past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions Outfitter and guide Throughout the Present activities are hunting, fishing, activities project area horseback riding, and snowmobiling. Future activities may include ATV and SUV tours, backpacking, and mountain biking. Past, present, reasonably foreseeable future action Cub Creek off-site Near/downstream of Development of a water source (using pipeline water the Cub Creek cow and tank) to draw domestic livestock away from camp directly watering in Cub Creek. Likely to be built in 2015 or 2016. Reasonably foreseeable future action Dispersed recreation Throughout the Fishing, hiking, driving for pleasure, skiing, project area hunting, and OHV use. OHV use includes ATVs, motorbikes and snowmobiles. Past, present, reasonably foreseeable future action

Key Issue 1 – Elk Security

Affected Environment Within the project area, there are 653 acres of potential elk security cover and no existing security cover. None of the potential security cover is within any harvest units. There is an open road (FSR 112) through the project area that keeps some potential from becoming existing elk security. In addition, ineffective closure and unauthorized use of FSR 108 compro- mises the potential elk security in the area. The Forest Plan defines existing elk security areas as having the following components: ♦ Forested cover, preferably hiding cover (structural stages 3B, C and 4B, C with 60% or greater canopy cover, or structural stage 5).

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

♦ At least 250 acres in size. ♦ Of non-linear arrangement (not less than 1,200 feet wide). ♦ With no openings within the stand greater than five acres as correlated to stand size (5 acres for 250-acre stands, or approximately 2% of the given stand size, that may be desirable for foraging habitat). ♦ Located greater than one-half mile from any open road (operational maintenance level 2 – 5) or motorized trail. Potential security areas are areas that are not currently existing security, but they could be managed to create existing security, primarily through changes in open road densities or locations of level 2 roads or motorized trails.

Environmental Effects There would be no negative effects to existing elk security from any of the alternatives because there is no existing elk security in the project area.

No Action, continue current management Direct and indirect effects: There would be no shift from potential elk security to existing because current conditions in the project area would not change. Unauthorized motorized use of FSR 108 and FSR 042111 (both closed roads) would continue, and while it is probably an infrequent occurrence, this unauthorized use would displace elk when they are in the area.

Vegetation Treatments and Road Closures under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Direct and indirect effects: None of the proposed harvest treatments under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 occur within potential elk security and therefore they would not affect the linear features, size requirement (250 acres or greater), or % canopy cover in the area. Temporary roads would be constructed in harvest units that do not meet the Forest Plan definition of elk security cover (see above). These roads would be decommissioned after harvest activities so long-term effects would be negligible. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there would be a shift from potential elk security to existing depending on the closure point for FSR 112. The change is shown in the following table. Acres are approximate because the actual closure point may be somewhat different in order to make an effective closure on the ground. Table 7. Effects of the alternatives on existing elk security in the project area and immediate vicinity. Alternative Road closure point Gain in existing elk security 1 FSR 112 closed at point 1 976 acres 2 FSR 112 closed at point 2 680 acres 3 FSR 112 closed at point 3 419 acres

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Cumulative effects: The amount of existing and potential elk security in the project area is a result of past activities. There are no present or reasonably foreseeable future activities (see table 6) in the area that would affect elk security so there are no cumulative effects to elk security under any of the alternatives.

Key Issue 2 – Recreation Opportunities

Affected Environment Visitors can expect motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the project area. Access may be restricted at times by seasonal or year-long road closures. There are currently 5.9 miles of open level 2 roads in the project area; 2.2 miles are available for dispersed camping. There are also several closed roads and a nonmotorized trail: Pumpkin Creek Trail 146. This trail gets little use (mostly hunters in the fall) and has not been maintained for years. Summer use of the area is light due to its remote location, rough roads with no loop opportunities (visitors can only go to the end of FSR 112 and must return via the same route), and lack of vistas, unique geology, or fishing streams. The rough roads don’t allow larger camper trailers so dispersed campers use either tents or truck campers.

Environmental Effects The temporal boundary for the effects analysis is the length of time the FSR 112 would be closed. If the road is opened at any time in the future, motorized versus nonmotorized recreation opportunities would change. The spatial boundary for the effects analysis is the road system north of the intersection of FSRs 133, 14 and 11 ( see figure 2) and a 300-foot corridor on both sides of roads where motor vehicles are allowed to pull off onto for camping and firewood gathering. This larger area was chosen because it is reasonable to assume if a recreation opportunity is lost or changed in one area, recreationists would look for other similar opportunities in the surrounding area. This assumption is probably truer for local users than somebody from out of state or out of the area. The majority of the recreationists who use the project area are from local communities. Currently, there are about 44.5 miles of open maintenance level 2 motorized roads in the analysis area.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Figure 2. Analysis area boundary for recreation effects.

Effects of Continuing Current Management under the No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: With no vegetation treatments and road management, motorized and nonmotorized opportunities in the project area would not change. Previously closed roads would become harder to navigate by nonmotorized users over time. Openings created by past vegetation treatments would grow back in. This would reduce or improve the appeal of the project area depending on the user.

Effects of Closing FSR 112 under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The proposed vegetation treatments would have no effect on motorized versus nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the project area. The effects of closing FSR 112 at point 1 (alternative 1), point 2 (alternative 2), and point 3 (alternative 3) are shown in the following table.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Table 8. Comparison of the effects of closing FSR 112 by alternative. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Length and % of road closed 3 miles (6.7%) 1.7 miles (3.8%) 1 mile (2.2%) (~44.5 miles currently open) Miles available for dispersed 18.33 miles out of 19.4 18.53 miles out of 19.4 18.93 miles out of camping after closure2 total (94.3%) total (95.4%) 19.4 total (97.4%) Potential change in recreation Reduced use in the Reduced use in the Possible slight use project area. project area. reduction in use in Motorized use shifting Motorized use shifting the project area. to other parts of the to other parts of the analysis area. analysis area. Change in motorized versus Increase in Increase in Increase in nonmotorized use nonmotorized nonmotorized nonmotorized opportunities. opportunities opportunities

Cumulative Effects of Continuing Current Management or Implementing Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 The existing motorized and nonmotorized opportunities are a function of past activities in the project area, including past timber sales and Forest Service road/travel management. There are no present or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would affect these opportunities, so there are no cumulative effects.

Key Issue 3 – Roadless Characteristics

Affected Environment Approximately 1,200 acres of the project area fall within Roadless Area B020 – Little Big- horn (see figure 3). This 80,000-acre roadless area was defined in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) and associated maps. The portion of the project area within the Little Bighorn Roadless Area is less than 1.5% of the total roadless area acreage. Management of roadless areas is described in the 2001 RACR. The purpose of the RACR is to protect and conserve inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Inventoried roadless areas are large, relatively undisturbed landscapes that provide clean water, are important to biological diversity, and serve as reference areas for study and research. They are managed to main-

2 The ‘gross’ length of road within the project area that is available to dispersed camping is ~44.5 miles. However, for this analysis, road side areas that were determined to be ‘riparian’ or were over 15% slope were removed from the area ‘available for dispersed camping’. Therefore, the net length of road available for dispersed camping prior to the action alternatives is 19.4 miles.

3 For alternative 1, out of the 3 miles of road closed, only 1.1 miles are available for dispersed camping, using the definition shown in footnote 1. Therefore, the effect shown is the miles of road closed that was available for dispersed camping. Likewise, 0.9 and 0.5 miles of the total mileage closed under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, are actually available for dispsersed camping.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project tain certain roadless characteristics. The roadless characteristics and their current status in the Crater Ridge project area are listed and discussed in the table 9. The portion of the project area within the Little Bighorn Roadless Area was roaded and logged between about 1990 and 1993. The new road construction included both classified forest system roads and temporary roads which were closed after the timber sale. Timber was harvested using group selection regeneration harvests. As a result, the roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in this part of the roadless area. The project area was designated as land suited for timber harvest in the Forest Plan. The 2001 RACR was put into effect after the Forest Plan record of decision was signed.

Figure 3. Crater Ridge project area and the Little Bighorn Roadless Area.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Table 9. Roadless characteristics and their condition in the project area. Roadless Area Characteristic Current Condition in Project Area High quality or undisturbed soil, water, There are no sensitive soil types in the portion of the and air. project area within the roadless area boundary, and the soil was disturbed during the previous harvest entry. There are two intermittent streams. There are no existing road crossings across perennial streams; however there are road crossings on intermittent and ephemeral streams. Diversity of plant and animal Vegetation is spruce/fir is mixed with lodgepole pine, communities Douglas fir, limber pine, and lodgepole pine. Wildlife species in the project area are similar to other areas on the Little Bighorn Roadless Area that contain the spruce/fir and mixed conifer habitats. Habitat for threatened, endangered, Habitat for Canada lynx, a threatened species; the gray proposed, candidate, and sensitive wolf, a non-essential experimental population; and, the species and for those species greater sage-grouse, a candidate species, may be dependent on large, undisturbed areas present in the project area. No critical habitat has been of land designated for Canada lynx, gray wolf, or any other federally listed species on the Bighorn National Forest.

The following Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) sensitive wildlife and plant species are known or suspected to occur in the project area or have potential habitat in the project area: northern goshawk, short-eared owl, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, Brewer’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow, American marten, Townsends’ big-eared bat, spotted bat, fringed-tailed myotis, hoary bat, Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail, Hall’s fescue (plains rough fescue), Cary’s beardtongue, wooly twinpod, and tranquil goldenweed. There is a core conservation population of Yellowstone cutthroat trout found downstream of the project area. Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) class for the Motorized, and Semi-Primitive portion of the project area within the roadless area Motorized classes of dispersed boundary is semi-primitive motorized; however, the recreation existing scenic integrity resulting from past timber harvest makes the ROS more consistent with a roaded modified class. Natural appearing landscapes with high Moderate scenic integrity: 373 acres scenic quality Low scenic integrity: 29 acres Very low scenic integrity: 797 acres

Environmental Effects The spatial boundary for the effects analysis is the Little Bighorn Roadless Area (see figure 3). The temporal boundary for the effects analysis varies. Effects to roadless characteristics

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

due to vegetation management activities may be short-term (while timber management activities are taking place) or long-term (decades to hundreds of years). In areas modified by road improvements or timber treatments, trees and other vegetation eventually grow back and over longer periods, roads eventually regain their natural contour and become mostly unno- ticeable. No primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized areas were inventoried in the project area so there would be no effect under any alternative.

Effects of Continuing Current Management under the No Action Alternative on Roadless Characteristics

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air There would be no direct effects to soil and aquatic resources because road decommissioning, timber harvest, temporary road use, and other associated harvest activities such as slash treatment would not occur. Because no road decommissioning would occur, the current motorized road density would continue to present a risk to soil and water quality. However, because of the small area impacted, lack of road decommissioning would not affect this roadless characteristic in the Little Bighorn Roadless Area.

Diversity of plant and animal communities Lack of vegetation treatment would retain the current composition in the portion of the project area that is within the Little Bighorn roadless area. Spruce/fir is mixed with lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, limber pine. Areas harvested in the 1980s have regenerated to some extent, creating diversity in size and age classes. As discussed in the Threatened, Endangered, Pro- posed, and Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluation, sensitive plant species (Hall’s fescue, Cary’s beardtongue, wooly twinpod, and tranquil goldenweed) would not be affected by continuing current management because no activities would take place. The same is true for the other plant species of concern in the project area: aromatic pussytoes, low fleabane, Watson’s prickly-phlox, sheathed musineon, white larchleaf beard-tongue, wooly prince’s plume, soft aster. Effects to these species are fully discussed in the Species of Local Concern and De- mand Species Specialist Report for plants. As discussed in the Wildlife section of this EA, diverse animal communities would be maintained because most of the species in the project area would be unaffected by the lack of vegetation treatment. Lack of treatment would not affect sage- and grassland-dependent species like greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, and sage sparrow. Species with specific, non-conifer habitat (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail) and habitat generalists (elk, mule deer) would not be affected. Lack of treatment could reduce habitat for some species (northern goshawk, red-breasted nuthatch, red squirrel) as conifer density in the area increases over time. For American marten, habitat would be maintained.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species (TESP), and those species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land Continuing current management would not affect Canada lynx (threatened) because the forest is considered to be unoccupied, and no habitat would be disturbed through the no action alternative. Current management would not affect the gray wolf, as there would be no effects to habitat and there are no known established packs or dens in the area. As discussed in the Wildlife section of the EA, lack of vegetation treatment would not affect habitat for the following sensitive species: olive-sided flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, Brew- er’s sparrow, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow, American marten, boreal owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail. Continuing current management could reduce foraging habitat for northern goshawk, hoary bat, and fringed myotis. As mentioned above, sensitive plant species would not be affected by continuing current management. Yellowstone cutthroat trout, a sensitive species, inhabit Pumpkin Creek and Mann Creek downstream of the project area. Lack of vegetation management under this alternative would slightly increase the risk of stand replacing wildfire, which could result in increased chance of sedimentation. Water quality effects from the existing road system would not change.

Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation The portion of the project area within the Little Bighorn Roadless Area boundary is currently inventoried as semi-primitive motorized but is not in a predominantly natural appearing state due to past timber management activities (see figure 4). With no vegetation treatments, the area would move toward a more semi-primitive motorized condition (visually). With FSR 112 remaining open, the opportunity for solitude in this part of the project area would remain fairly limited, but there are ample opportunities for solitude elsewhere in the roadless area.

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality If no additional timber treatment occurs, natural processes would eventually restore a natural appearing landscape of high scenic quality; however, the time required is expected to ap- proach 100 years.

Effects of Vegetation Treatments and Closing FSR 112 under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 In general, the vegetation treatments and road management activities would have no effect on the roadless characteristics of the Little Bighorn roadless area. The roadless characteristics were substantially altered by timber harvest and road construction in the early 1990s, and the part of the project area within the roadless area boundary makes up less than 1.5% of the total roadless area acres.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Figure 4. Portion of the Crater Ridge project area in the RACR inventory boundary.

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air Much of the soil in the project area, including the portion in the roadless area, was disturbed during the past timber harvest. The proposed harvest would disturb the soil again by displacement, mixing, compaction, or rutting. The effects are likely to be small, because of implementation of design features, including WCPH direction. In addition, vegetation treatments would occur on a small area compared to the overall roadless area acres. Most of the Little Bighorn roadless area would remain undisturbed and soil productivity would be maintained. Overall water quality in the 80,000-acre roadless area would not be affected by the vegetation treatments and road management activities in alternatives 1, 2, and 3. However, these activities have the potential to affect water quality in three drainages: Pumpkin Creek, Mann Creek, and Cub Creek. Unit 8 is adjacent to the headwaters of Pumpkin Creek. Unit 1 is in the headwaters of Mann Creek. Units 2 and 3 are in the headwaters of Cub Creek and unit 5 is adjacent to a segment of Cub Creek. Timber harvest, temporary road use, and skid trail use is expected to increase sediment availability to water bodies in the short-term. The type and level of effect would vary according to

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

soil properties, method of harvest, and timing of activities. As discussed in the Soils, Water Quality, and Fisheries section of this EA, implementation of design features, including WCPH direction, is expected to maintain water quality within applicable standards and provide for the designated beneficial uses defined by the Wyoming Department of Environmen- tal Quality. Impacts to air quality would be localized, minimal, and of short duration while heavy equipment is in operation and during any post-harvest slash pile burning.

Diversity of plant and animal communities Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have little effect on existing plant and animal communities. However, there could be short-term habitat loss and/or displacement for individuals of the following species: northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, American marten, boreal owl, mule deer, black bear, mountain lion, blue grouse, moose, elk, red-breasted nuthatch and red squirrel. Vegetation treatment under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not affect sage and grassland dependent species like greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow, and Baird’s sparrow. There is little likelihood of effects to the following plant species of concern due to their habitat preferences: Cary’s beardtongue, wooly twinpod, aromatic pussytoes, low fleabane, Wat- son’s prickly-phlox, white larchleaf beard-tongue, and wooly prince’s plume. Hall’s fescue would not be affected because it is likely not found on the Bighorn National Forest (Fertig 2002a). Prehaul road maintenance would reduce the likelihood of impacts to tranquil goldenweed. Potential impacts to sheathed musineon and soft aster would be mitigated by avoiding the high quality openings in units 4 and 6 and not locating landing in the meadow habitat preferred by these species. The potential effects are discussed in more detail in the Wildlife section of the EA and in the specialist reports.

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species (TESP), and those species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land Habitat for Canada lynx, a threatened species; and, the gray wolf, a non-essential experimental population, may be present in the project area. No critical habitat has been designated for Canada lynx, gray wolf, or any other federally listed species on the Bighorn National Forest. The timber harvest and road closure options under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not affect Canada lynx (threatened) because the Forest is considered to be unoccupied. Logging and forest management activities would retain potential habitat for the gray wolf, including its prey. The road closure options would have a very small impact, if any, on the wide ranging gray wolf, due to the small amount of increase in undisturbed areas of land. As noted above, there could be short-term effects to the following sensitive wildlife species: northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, American marten, and boreal owl. The remaining

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

sensitive species in the project area would not be affected by alternatives 1, 2, and 3: olive- sided flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow, American marten, boreal owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail. As noted above, the following sensitive plant species would not be affected – Hall’s fescue, Cary’s beardtongue, and wooly twinpod – and prehaul maintenance would reduce potential for impacts to tranquil goldenweed. Yellowstone cutthroat trout, a sensitive species, inhabit Pumpkin Creek and Mann Creek downstream of the project area. The vegetation management activities would have an ex- tremely small, if any, effect on water quality due to the implementation of design features, including WCPH direction. Vegetation management activities would also decrease the risk of stand replacing wildfire and associated sedimentation. Because the roads to be closed or decommissioned are largely disconnected from the main stems of Pumpkin Creek and Mann Creek, only small decreases in sedimentation are anticipated under the three alternatives.

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation No primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized areas were inventoried in the project area so there would be no effect under any alternative. The portion of the project area within the Lit- tle Bighorn roadless area boundary is currently inventoried as semi-primitive motorized but is not in a predominantly natural appearing state due to past timber management activities.

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality The overall scenic quality in the Little Bighorn roadless area would not be impacted by the vegetation treatments and road management activities in alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The part of the project area within the roadless area is less than 1.5% of the total roadless area acres. There would be localized impacts to scenic quality; however, the portion of the project area within the roadless area boundary does not have high scenic quality. It has been moderately to heavily altered by past timber sales and has low or very low scenic integrity. Implementing alternative 1, 2, or 3 is expected to reduce scenic integrity but continue to meet the criteria for low or very low scenic integrity. Over the long-term, areas mapped with very low scenic integrity are expected to move toward low scenic integrity.

Cumulative Effects to Roadless Characteristics The following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered in the cumulative effects analysis: timber harvest and fuels reduction (1980 to present); fire suppression and prescribed burning; livestock grazing (historic to present); road reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning; and recreation. There would be minimal, if any, cumulative effects to roadless characteristics from the combination of this project and the activities listed above. The activities with the greatest potential for cumulative effects are timber harvest and road construction. There would be no cu-

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

mulative effects from the closure of FSR 112 because there are no other road closures planned in the Little Bighorn Roadless Area. Five timber sales took place in the Little Bighorn Roadless Area from 1984 to 2001, and there are four sales planned for the future beginning in 2019. Treatment units and roads from the past sales are evident in the four previously harvested areas which occur along the edge of the Little Bighorn Roadless Area. The four proposed future sales will take place in previously harvested areas and we expect the effects would be similar to those described for this project. If we assume the project areas for the five previous sales are similar to Crater Ridge – 1,200 acres – with similar impacts, the affected area would be around 7% of the total roadless area acres [(5 future timber sales x 1,200 acres per sale)/80,132 acres in the Little Big- horn Roadless Area]. Tree cutting, sale, or removal of timber in this area is expected to be infrequent. Any effects would be on the perimeter of the roadless area further minimizing the impact on roadless characteristics across the roadless area as a whole. On the scale of the Bighorn National Forest, about 120,000 forested acres (of the nearly 700,000 forest acres) are suited for timber harvest, and are outside of RACR roadless areas or meet the exception criteria for previously roaded and logged.

Non-key Issue 1: Soils, Water Quality, and Fisheries Soil, hydrology, and fish resources analyzed in this document are evaluated at two different spatial scales: the project area and the analysis area. The project area is the 4,595 acres that makes up the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project. The analysis area is defined by the West Fork Little Bighorn River 6th-level watershed, encompassing approximately 24,307 acres. A map showing the location of the project area and analysis area is in the Soil/Hydro/Fish Specialist Report.

Affected Environment Soils: There are no soils defined as sensitive in the project area boundary (for example, soils with poor drainage, frequent flooding, frequent mass movements, or a high shrink-swell potential). However, an assessment of aerial photography identified isolated hillslope failures on the steeper, forested slopes that parallel Cub Creek downstream from harvest unit 5. These hillslope failures are primarily found in soil map units 14 and 32, and are located outside of harvest unit boundaries. Approximately 583 acres (12%) of soils in the project area have been impacted by past wildfires. Soil associations in the project area are summarized in the following table. Current soil conditions in the area harvested in the previous Crater Ridge timber sale were documented in the field by Chris Williams, Forest Hydrologist, on August 8, 2014 using the Soil-Disturbance Field Guide (Napper et al., 2009). Soil surface and subsurface conditions were observed in harvest units 3, 6, 7, and 8 to broadly sample soil-disturbance conditions within the Crater Ridge project area. Soil pits were dug in visible skid trails or access roads in units 6, 7, and 8, and one pit was dug in a former landing within unit 3.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Napper et al. (2009) describes four disturbance classes ranging from 0 to 3, with Class 0 being undisturbed and Class 3 being the most severely disturbed. The soil characteristics at the majority of locations visited within the Crater Ridge project area are within Soil Disturbance Class 1. Class 1 disturbance is considered by the silviculturist to be suitable for natural, and, if needed, artificial, regeneration. Table 10. Soil types in the project area and their limitations to timber harvest and regeneration. Map % of project Soil limitations to timber Soil association Acres unit area harvest and regeneration Cloud Peak gravelly silt loam 14 2,654 58% Steep slopes (5 - 45% slopes) Nathrop-Passcreek-Starley 27 931 20% Droughtiness association (2 - 30% slopes) Nathrop Variant-Nielsen- Passcreek association (2 - 35% 28 215 5% Droughtiness slopes) Rock outcrop-Cloud Peak 32 478 10% Steep slopes association (10 - 70% slopes) Starman-Starley association 39 317 7% Droughtiness (2 - 30% slopes) Total - 4,595 - Source: Data derived from GIS analysis of Bighorn National Forest soil map units

Hydrology, water quality, riparian areas and wetlands: The Crater Ridge project area is located at the headwaters of the West Fork Little Bighorn River 6th-level watershed, surrounding the Cub Creek and Mann Creek drainages. There are 14 miles of stream in the project area, including 3 miles of unnamed ephemeral tributary streams. The analysis area includes all or parts of the Crater, Cub, Mann, and Pumpkin Creeks and the West Fork Little Bighorn River watersheds. There are no streams or waterbodies identified in the 2012 Wyoming Water Quality Assess- ment and Impaired Waters List within the West Fork Little Bighorn watershed (WYDEQ 2012). The water quality in the project area is assumed to meet the designated beneficial uses for the majority of the year, with seasonal fluctuations in bacterial concentrations during times of livestock grazing. Riparian areas and wetlands in the West Fork Little Bighorn River watershed have been min- imally altered by past human activity. There is one 0.16 acre freshwater emergent wetland defined by the National Wetlands Inventory within the project area boundary. It is located outside of proposed timber harvest units and associated activities, on the south side of the Mann Creek headwaters. There are 16 total road-stream crossings in the project area, 8 intermittent and 8 ephemeral (BNF GIS roads data). Of the 16 crossings, 3 are located on abandoned roads, 10 are on lev-

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

el 1 roads (closed/no maintenance) and 3 are on level 2 roads (high clearance, maintained). There are no level 3 (passenger car) road-stream crossings in the project area. Trail 146 crosses the intermittent portion of Pumpkin Creek 7 times (INFRA 2004 data). Fisheries: There are no fish species in the project area or immediately downstream, listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Two fish species are on the Re- gional Forester’s sensitive species list: Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouveri) and mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus). The project area is located approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the Pumpkin Creek/West Fork Little Bighorn River Yellowstone cutthroat trout core conservation population.4 This small (approximately 1.2 total stream miles), isolated, and potentially endemic YCT population occurs at the confluence of Pumpkin and Mann Creeks and the beginning of the West Fork Little Bighorn River. Additional Yellowstone cutthroat trout and non-native brown trout occur downstream of the core conservation population, below two existing geologic barriers, and extend 5.5 miles downstream to the confluence with the Little Bighorn River. Mountain sucker are not known to be present in or downstream of the project area in the West Fork Little Bighorn River drainage. Additional information on this species can be found in the fish biological evaluation on file in the project record. Rainbow trout, a forest management indicator species, are not known to be located in the project area or in the West Fork Little Bighorn River watershed. None of the forest demand species have been found in the project area: brook trout, brown trout, and Snake River fine- spotted cutthroat trout. Brown trout are located downstream of the project area in the West Fork Little Bighorn River.

Environmental Effects The spatial boundary for soil, hydrology, and fish resources is the West Fork Little Bighorn River 6th-level watershed that defines the analysis area for these resources. The effects timeframes are specifically defined for fish resources to address any lag time that may exist between timber harvest effects to soils or hydrology, and subsequently to fish populations. The following definitions apply to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis within this document. ♦ Short-term effects refer to those occurring within, or lasting for 1 to 2 generations of fish (5 to 10 years). Rieman and McIntyre (1993) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service matrix of diagnostics/pathways of indicators (USFWS 1998) use this definition.

4 Populations that are naturally reproducing and recruiting and that “contain only YCT genes based on accepted genetic testing protocols or no historical stocking record or presence of non-native hybridizing species.” (RWYCT 2010) 38

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

♦ Long-term effects refer to those occurring after or lasting greater than 10 years. Rieman and Myers (1997) found detection of trend in bull trout populations often required more than 10 years of data. The table below lists the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions used in the cumulative effects analysis for soil, hydrology, and fish resources. Table 11. Past, present, and foreseeably activities in the project area that have the potential to effect soil, water quality, and fish resources. Potential Effects to Resource Activity Soil Water Quality Fish Timber harvest and fuels reduction Compaction, Sedimentation, Sedimentation, (1980 to present) erosion pollutants temperature increase, loss of habitat complexity Wildfire (1970 to present), fire Compaction, Sedimentation, Sedimentation suppression, and prescribed burning erosion nutrient availability Livestock grazing (historic to present) Compaction, Bacteria, Sedimentation, erosion sedimentation habitat alteration Road reconstruction, maintenance, and Compaction, Sedimentation, Sedimentation decommissioning erosion pollutants Recreation uses: OHV use, dispersed Erosion Sedimentation, Sedimentation camping and recreation pollutants

No Action, continue current management Direct and indirect effects: There would be no additional effects to soils in the project area because there would be no harvest activity or temporary road construction. However, there would be greater long-term motorized road density, compared to the action alternatives because FSR 112 would be left open for its entire length and approximately 3 miles of currently closed roads would not be decommissioned. Water quality – Continuing current management (no vegetation management or temporary road construction) would have no negative effects on water quality, as soil disturbance and an increased risk of sediment delivery into waterbodies would not occur. However, a higher year-round motorized road density, compared to the action alternatives, may indirectly affect water quality, as the existing length of FSR 112 would be left open to year-round motorized use and approximately 3 miles of currently closed roads would not be decommissioned, leaving 7 road-stream crossings in place (4 of which are culverts). This results in the potential for soil erosion if stream crossings should fail during future spring runoff events. Water quantity – There would be no negative effect to water yield from continuing current management, as no additional timber harvest, temporary road construction, or associated soil

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District compaction would occur. However, it is assumed that a higher year-round motorized road density could create more risk of changes in timing and flow patterns. Fish – There would be no additional effect to fish within the project area or analysis area watershed from continuing current management. Compared to alternatives 1, 2, and 3, current management has less effect on fish in terms of harvest activity and temporary road construction, but more risk in terms of motorized road density and potential sediment availability to waterbodies from potential road-stream crossing failures.

Alternative 1, vegetation treatment and FSR 112 closed at point 1 Direct and indirect effects: Soil displacement, mixing, compaction, and rutting would occur under alternative 1, even if timber harvest activities occur when soils are dry. The type and level of effect would vary according to soil properties, method of harvest, and timing of activities. Skid trails may indirectly reduce infiltration rates; reduce hydraulic conductivity; reduce pore-size distribution; and reduce microbial number, biomass, and activity. Construction and use of approximately 5 miles of temporary road would have direct effects to soils within the project area, including displacement, rutting, and mixing. Temporary roads may contribute to short- and long-term erosion and sedimentation, but effects would decrease as the roads are scarified a minimum depth of 8 inches to mitigate compaction, covered with slash, and re-vegetate following harvest activity. Using existing roads would reduce overall soil disturbance and ensure proper road decommissioning after project completion. In addition, existing system roads used for harvest would receive prehaul maintenance and/or reconditioning as necessary. Increased traffic levels from logging trucks would increase sediment production from roads. Prehaul maintenance and reconditioning results in short-term sediment availability but provides adequate drainage features to minimize the concentrated flow of water and the associated effects of gullying and erosion during log truck operation. Closing 3.0 miles of FSR 112 would reduce erosion and sediment mobility and the potential for sediment transport into waterbodies as vehicle traffic would no longer continue on this road segment. Road closures and decommissioning under this alternative would reduce the project area road density from 2.2 to 1.8 miles per square mile. Road decommissioning results in short-term soil disturbances during implementation (e.g., ripping the roadbed to a minimum depth of 8 inches to eliminate compaction) but provides a long-term benefit to soils as roads would be seeded, revegetated, and permanently removed from the road system. Water quality: Under alternative 1, timber harvest, temporary road construction, and skid trail use are expected to increase sediment availability to waterbodies over the short-term. However, it is not expected that excessive sediment would mobilize beyond buffer zones surrounding cutting units. A temporary increase in sedimentation to waterbodies should not be quantifiable. Design features (see chapter 2) are expected to maintain water quality within applicable standards and provide for the designated beneficial uses defined by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Examples of design features include leaving vegetation and slash on-site to provide ground cover, locating treatment units outside the water in-

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project fluence zone (WIZ), maintaining adequate WIZ buffer widths, and locating harvested areas on slopes less than 35%. Closing approximately 3.0 miles of currently open road and decommissioning approximately 3.0 miles of existing closed roads and 7 associated road-stream crossings (4 culverts) may result in short-term sedimentation and water quality impacts. However, these actions would benefit water quality over the long-term as soils stabilize and road-stream crossings are no longer at risk of washing out during spring runoff or storm events. Water quantity: Any increase in water quantity would not be detectable because the cumulative area harvest from past sales and this project would be around 12%. Changes in water quantity are not measurable when less than 25% of a watershed is harvested.

Alternative 2, vegetation treatment and FSR112 closed at point 2 Direct and indirect effects: Direct and indirect effects to soil, hydrology, and fish resources are similar to alternative 1. Because this alternative closes fewer road miles than the proposed action (1.7 miles versus 3 miles), long-term benefits from reduced road density would be slightly less.

Alternative 3, vegetation treatment and FSR112 closed at point 3 Direct and indirect effects: Direct and indirect effects to soil, hydrology, and fish resources are similar to alternative 1. Because this alternative closes fewer road miles than alternative 1 (1 mile versus 3 miles), long-term benefits from reduced road density would be slightly less.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives The effects of past timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, road use and maintenance, and recreation in the analysis area have contributed to changes in soil structure, watershed condition, and increased sediment availability to aquatic habitats. Current management would continue under alternative 1, therefore, the effects of past timber harvest, fire operations, livestock grazing, recreation activities, and current motorized road density, use, and maintenance on soil and aquatic resources would remain the same. For alternatives 1, 2, and 3, The cumulative effect of short-term increases in sedimentation to the analysis area watershed resulting from the proposed timber harvest, temporary road construction, skid trail use, road reconditioning, prehaul maintenance, and road and road-stream crossing decommissioning is expected to be minimal if design criteria are followed. Under alternative 1, closing 3 miles of existing open road and decommissioning 3 miles of existing closed roads with 7 associated road-stream crossings would benefit soil, hydrology and fish resources by reducing the long-term risk of sedimentation from roads. Under alternative 2, closing 1.7 miles of existing open road and decommissioning 3 miles of existing closed roads with 7 associated road-stream crossings would benefit soil and aquatic resources by reducing the long-term risk of sedimentation from roads.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Under alternative 3, closing 1 mile of existing open road and decommissioning 3 miles of existing closed roads with 7 associated road-stream crossings would benefit soil and aquatic resources by reducing the long-term risk of sedimentation from roads.

Non-key Issue 2: Landscape Aesthetics/Scenic Integrity

Affected Environment The scenery analysis area is approximately 15,000 acres and includes a ridge dividing the headwaters of the Bucking Mule and Lodge Grass drainages from the Mann, Cub and Pump- kin creek drainages and the ridges extending eastward above Mann, Cub and Pumpkin creeks (see figure 5). Figure 5. Analysis area for landscape aesthetics and scenic integrity.

The valued landscape character of the Bighorn National Forest is based on a “natural- appearing” theme. Landscape character is defined as a combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes in a geographic area that create the socially valued image or aesthetic identity of a place. Features of the valued landscape character are used to evaluate the deviation from a natural appearance – that is the degree of scenic integrity. Existing condition: The valued landscape character in the project area has been altered by roads and logging. Many activities occurred between 1970 and 2000, and there is also evi-

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project dence of earlier activities. Past timber harvest in the analysis area involved a variety of treatments. Some treatment areas are seen in views from the Marble Quarry Road (FSR 111) and the Boyd Ridge Road (FSR 110). However changes in forest stands are subordinate to the characteristic landscape (not very evident) for many travelers on Crater Ridge Road (FSR 108) and Crater Ridge Springs Road (FSR 112) with one exception. Landing sites and woody debris dominates the foreground view at some points. Establishment of a new stand of trees has had limited success at some of these sites. As shown in the following table, the majority of the analysis area (71%) was inventoried with low or very low, scenic integrity which means that landscape appears moderately to heavily altered. Table 12. Existing scenic integrity in the project area. Existing Scenic Integrity Acres Percent of Project Area Low 8,191 55% Moderate 3,224 22% Very Low 2,362 16% Unacceptably Low 1,193 8% Very High 0 0% High 0 0% Total 14,970 100% Source: *2000 inventory data

Desired condition: The desired landscape character is based on naturally occurring patterns of topography and vegetation. Landscape changes occur at a modest scale in time and space that relates to human perception and experience of the landscape. Important aspects of the desired landscape character in the project area would include the following:

♦ Forested patches, including some large trees, maintained in the landscape viewed from concern level one and two travel routes where they are the established vegetation type. ♦ Open grown, full crown trees occur at many or most forest edges. ♦ Groups and stands of large old trees occur in varied areas through time. ♦ Down woody debris created by management activities is minimized in foreground views. In other areas, woody debris does not accumulate to a degree that it dominates the understory or impedes foot travel. ♦ Healthy plant communities are maintained by minimizing soil disturbance and compaction caused by harvest activities or motorized equipment. ♦ Disturbed soils are revegetated with locally adapted native plants. ♦ Temporary or short-term roads and skid trails blend back into the surrounding vegetation and terrain when management activities end.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

♦ Closed roads are obliterated (returned to natural contour) and blend back into the surrounding vegetation and terrain with time. The proposed activities are in an area with a 5.11 prescription emphasizing management of forested vegetation. Under this prescription, scenery would appear slightly altered (moderate scenic integrity objective) in the foreground of concern level 1 and 2 roads but changes would not dominate the natural setting. The desired condition for scenic integrity is shown in the following table. Where naturally occurring forest edges include mature trees with relatively full crowns in the foreground zone, a moderate scenic integrity objective (SIO) applies to the first 300 feet of the forest stand viewed from a concern level 1 or 2 route. Table 13. Desired scenic integrity in the project area. Scenic Integrity Objectives Acres Percent of Project Area Low 7,592 51% Moderate 4,923 33% High 2,455 16% Very High 0 0% Very Low 0 0% Total 14,970 100%

A comparison of the existing and the desired conditions (see table 14) shows most of the scenery analysis area was inventoried below the management area objective for scenic integrity. This makes the current scenic integrity objective rehabilitation.

“ … Rehabilitate existing projects and areas that do not meet the SIOs specified for the area.” (Forest Plan chapter 1, scenery management guideline 3).

Table 14. Difference between existing and desired scenic integrity in the project area. One Level Two Levels Three Levels Four Levels Above SIO At SIO Below SIO Below SIO Below SIO Below SIO 1,261 acres 4,898 acres 6,163 acres 1,687 acres 763 acres 198 acres 8% 33% 41% 11% 5% 1%

Environmental Effects The spatial boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis is the scenery analysis area (figure 5). Effects are considered for several time frames. Immediate effects generally occur during the initial harvest activity and any related follow-up activities such as road decommissioning and burning slash piles which typically last about 5 years. Mid-term effects extend from year 5 up to 30 years after management activities, which relates to a typical adult human experience of the landscape. Long-term effects extend out to 150-250 years, which relates to the time required to replace a mature forest with another mature forest.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Scenic integrity was evaluated as a degree of deviation from a natural-appearing landscape created by human activities or alterations, such as timber harvest and road development. En- vironmental effects were estimated based on deviation from a natural appearance along a continuum from very high to very low scenic integrity. Estimates of environmental consequences were based on site visits, inventory maps; aerial photographs, a general knowledge of the forest, and on information derived from interdisciplinary discussion.

No Action, continue current management Direct and indirect effects: Continuing current management is expected to maintain scenic integrity in the analysis area at existing levels for 5 to 30 years. Some previously clearcut or patch-cut units are moving to higher levels of scenic integrity as crown cover increases. Some temporary nonsystem roads developed, decommissioned, or abandoned would remain as deviations from the natural appearance of the landscape where earthwork and/or compaction inhibits reforestation. Some landings in foreground would continue to have a negative effect on scenic integrity where earthwork, compaction, or burning has resulted in weeds and limited reforestation. Old slash piles and the bones of old burn piles would continue to have a negative effect on scenic integrity in some foreground views. Landscape character would change over the long-term. Continuing current management increases the risk of insect or disease infestations that change the characteristic mature forest patches from green to brown. However, areas of past harvest have reduced some risk and increased diversity at the landscape scale in the analysis area. The risk of a large scale wildfire increases under this alternative as time passes. Fires of this nature could dramatically reduce crown cover and change the existing forested landscape character over the long-term. Cumulative effects: Planned use of prescribed fire for vegetation and fuels management described in the Big Six livestock grazing environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) may increase short- and intermediate-term impacts to scenic integrity. However, these actions could also reduce the long-term risk of wildfire and larger changes to landscape character that are possible under the no action alternative.

Alternative 1, vegetation treatment and FSR 112 closed at point 1 Direct and indirect effects: Implementing alternative 1 is expected to reduce scenic integrity slightly but continue to meet the current condition of low scenic integrity. Low scenic integrity describes an area where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered but changes are visually subordinate to the overall landscape character. In units 1, 2, and 8, the effect would be to reduce crown cover and create small openings in the canopy for the mid-term. Spacing of trees may be more regular and somewhat less natural in appearance. The changes in units 1, 2, and 8 would be expected to meet a moderate SIO when viewed from higher elevations on Boyd Ridge and Marble Quarry roads. In units 8, 3, 4, and 6, changes would include decreased screening by full crowns at the edge of units and views deeper into the forest patches for the mid-term. Spacing of trees would

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

probably be more regular and somewhat less natural in appearance. These units are expected to meet a low SIO when viewed as foreground from the Crater Ridge and Crater Ridge Springs roads. Locating landings on temporary roads outside the immediate foreground of the Crater Ridge Road and the Crater Ridge Springs would minimize the effects on scenic integrity. Some landings in foreground would continue to have a negative effect on scenic integrity if earthwork, compaction, or burning results in weeds and limited reforestation. Old slash piles and the bones of old burn piles would continue to have a negative effect on scenic integrity in some foreground views. Over the long-term, the pattern of repeated entries and partial harvest is expected to increase the diversity of the forested patches in the landscape and reduce the chance of very large scale natural disturbances. While both natural disturbances and resource management activities would continue to alter the landscape, the aesthetic experience is expected to be more consistent over the long-term under alternative 1 than under the no action.

Alternative 2, vegetation treatment and FSR 112 closed at point 2 Direct and indirect effects: Implementing alternative 2 is expected to reduce scenic integrity but continue to meet the criteria for low or very low scenic integrity where that is the current condition for the intermediate time periods. Very low scenic integrity refers to landscapes that appear heavily altered, with changes dominating the landscape character as compared to low scenic integrity where landscapes appear moderately altered and changes are subordinate to the overall character. Alternative 2’s impact on scenic integrity is expected to be greater than that of alternative 1 because FSR 112 would be closed at point 2 (see figure 1). With the road closed at point 2, treatments in part of unit 7 would be within the foreground view and would affect scenic integrity. The anticipated effects for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are the same as in alternative 1. Locating most landings and slash piles away from open forest system roads would minimize visual dominance for many forest users. Closed and decommissioned roads would continue to be visible in the landscape and affect scenic integrity for mid and long time frames. Over the long-term, areas mapped with very low scenic integrity are expected to move toward low scenic integrity. Over the long-term, the pattern of repeated entries and partial harvest is expected to increase age and species diversity of the forested areas in the landscape and reduce the visual impacts of large scale natural disturbances by fire, insects or disease. Over all time scales, alternative 2 is expected to make some change the landscape character by altering vegetation patterns and creating edges associated with landings and temporary roads. While both natural disturbances and resource management activities alter the landscape, the aesthetic experience is expected to be more consistent over the long-term under action alternatives than under the no action alternative.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Alternative 3, vegetation treatment and FSR 112 closed at point 3 Direct and indirect effects: Implementing alternative 3 is expected to reduce scenic integrity but continue to meet the criteria for low or very low scenic integrity where that is the current condition for the intermediate time periods. Alternative 3’s impact on scenic integrity is expected to be greater than that of alternatives 1 and 2 because FSR 112 would be closed at point 3 (see figure 1). With the road closed at point 3, more treatments in unit 7 would be within the foreground view and would affect scenic integrity. The anticipated effects for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are the same as in alternative 1. Locating most landings and slash piles away from open forest system roads would minimize visual dominance for many forest users. Closed and decommissioned roads would continue to be visible in the landscape and affect scenic integrity for mid and long time frames. Over the long-term, areas mapped with very low scenic integrity are expected to move toward low scenic integrity. Over the long-term, the pattern of repeated entries and partial harvest is expected to increase age and species diversity of the forested areas in the landscape and reduce the visual impacts of large scale natural disturbances by fire, insects or disease. Over all time scales, alternative 3 is expected to make some change the landscape character by altering vegetation patterns and creating edges associated with landings and temporary roads. While both natural disturbances and resource management activities alter the landscape, the aesthetic experience is expected to be more consistent over the long term under action alternatives than under the no action alternative

Cumulative Effects under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 Past harvest and landings with woody debris, in combination with the activities proposed under alternative 2, would have a cumulative effect on scenic integrity in intermediate and long time frames. Within the Crater Ridge project area, the cumulative effect is expected to be low scenic integrity where the management activities begin to dominate the characteristic landscape. Planned use of prescribed fire for vegetation and fuels management described in the Big Six Livestock Grazing EIS and ROD, in combination with actions proposed in alternative 1 may increase short and intermediate term impacts to scenic integrity. The scope and timing of the prescribed fire is uncertain so the cumulative effects are also uncertain. Non-system roads include temporary, decommissioned, and abandoned roads in the scenery analysis area. The existing non-system routes, in combination with those to be created under alternative 2, would have a cumulative negative effect on scenic integrity in intermediate and long time frames. Within the Crater Ridge project area, they would tend to keep the area at the low scenic integrity level.

Non-Key Issue 3: Wildlife Project design and analysis for wildlife was conducted for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and for the other emphasis species (Revised Forest Plan Appendix C). These repre-

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

sent rare or management focus species that could potentially inhabit the project area. The forest focused on these emphasis species to analyze effects of activities at the forest scale, and these species are the ones analyzed at the project scale as well, except where updated species lists have been provided through the R2 Regional Forester or the USFWS has a listing update. The disturbances anticipated from this project occur within the scope (extent, timing) of those analyzed in the Revised Plan FEIS.

Of the wildlife MIS listed in the Revised Forest Plan, elk, red squirrel, red-breasted nuthatch, and the Brewer’s sparrow were best suited for use in analyzing effects of this project. The beaver is not known to occur in the project area and thus was not considered. Revised Forest Plan direction for MIS is to “provide ecological conditions and habitat to sustain viable populations” and to “maintain or improve habitat availability and quality when designing projects”. Refer to the wildlife specialist report in the project record for further information on analysis of MIS, existing conditions, and project effects to these and other emphasis species.

Forest Service policy is to protect the habitats of federally listed (threatened or endangered) species, or those proposed and candidate species, from adverse habitat modification or destruction, as well as to protect individual organisms from harm or harassment. The Forest received a list of species from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to consider for projects, dated February 26, 2015. The list included the Canada lynx and the gray wolf. The project does take place within identified Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs); however, lynx are not known to occur in the project area or on the Forest, and the project does not take place in key linkage corridors. Therefore, the determination would be “no effect” to the lynx from any of the alternatives. While gray wolves have been intermittently sighted on the Forest, it is not known if any packs have been established or any dens occur. As the proposed project activities would primarily take place within the summer months, after wolf pups have dispersed (should they occur), there would not likely be any interaction between project disturbances and any wolves that may occur in the project area. Based on a lack of known occurrence and the small scope and extent of this project, the effects determination of this project for the gray wolf would be “no effect” from any of the alternatives.

Forest Service sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester, and comprise a list of species for which viability may be of concern. Surveys for sensitive wildlife species (specifically raptors) occurred for this project. A Biological Evaluation (BE; included in the project record) was prepared for the project to analyze the effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. These findings with their associated determinations are found in the effects section below. Conservation measures were incorporated into project design to mitigate potential adverse effects to potential habitat or species’ occurrences. The determinations made in the Biological Evaluation are tiered to and incorporate the viability and impact analysis contained in the Revised Forest Plan FEIS.

Though effects to individual species varied, the proposed action was not found to lead to a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive species, and was found to have no effect on any threatened or endangered species. The same determination would accompany the no-action alternative, as there would still be habitat changes over time due to insect and disease mortality, and potential disruption of large habitat areas from wildfire.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Affected Environment The following table lists the wildlife species considered in the effects analysis for this project. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, potential effects were evaluated. Species in the shaded rows do not occur or have habitat in the project area and were not analyzed further. Table 15. Wildlife species – summary of status on Forest and affected environment Species Discussion Federally listed species Canada lynx Spruce/fir forest type where snowshoe hares are abundant Lynx canadensis prey. Mature conifer with red squirrel as secondary prey. Threatened Bighorn National Forest is considered to be unoccupied at this time. Greater sage-grouse See discussion below under sensitive species. Centrocercus urophasianus Candidate, analyzed as sensitive Gray wolf This species is a habitat generalist and can be found in a Canus lupus variety of habitats including forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, Non-Essential, Experimental Pop- and grasslands. Ungulates are the typical prey, but wolves ulation will readily scavenge. Beavers are small important prey, but wolves can utilize other smaller mammals, birds, and fish.

Sensitive species Olive-sided flycatcher Likely occurrences in the project area; no known observations. Contopus cooperi Typically occurs in mature conifer and forages in forest openings or disturbed mature forest conditions using snags on edges of forest openings (Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000). Northern goshawk One was seen flying in project area in 2012, but surveys found Accipiter gentilis no nest sites. Forages in a variety of forested areas and small openings; nests primarily in dense mature conifer forests (Kennedy 2003). American marten Habitat is present and individuals are suspected to occur in Martes americana project area. Marten occur mainly in forests and adjacent vegetation types. Late-successional stands of mesic coniferous forest, especially those with complex structure near the ground, are preferred (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994). Brewer’s sparrow Known occurrences in and adjacent to the project area in Spizella breweri sagebrush habitat. Monitoring indicates a relatively stable population trend since 2002. Occurs in sagebrush habitats and uses early or late shrub stages having an understory of herbaceous vegetation and brushy cover (Page 1999). Greater sage-grouse There is marginal late brood-rearing habitat for sage-grouse in Centrocercus urophasianus the project area but not likely large enough in size to provide adequate cover. No sage grouse are known to occur in the project area. Short-eared owl Potential habitat in the project area but no confirmed Asio flammeus occurrences. This ground-nesting species occurs on the forest in

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Species Discussion meadows/shrub communities. Forages in mosaic sagebrush areas and edges of open areas with grass (Holt and Leasure 1993). Grasshopper sparrow Suitable habitat in the project area, but no known Ammondramus savannarum occurrences. Occurs in grass/sagebrush habitats and prefers larger patches of grassland, usually with few shrubs or trees. Specific preferences vary in different parts of the range (Vickery 1996). Sage sparrow Suspected to occur in lower elevation sagebrush habitats on Amphispiza bellii the forest, but presence on Forest has not been confirmed. Generally prefers semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 1-2 m high (Martin and Carlson 1998). Boreal owl Likely occurs on the forest. The one documented observation Aegolius funereus is not in the project area.Typically associated with old-growth conifer forest types, primarily in spruce-fir and aspen (Hayward and Hayward 1993). Townsend’s big-eared bat Three limestone pits provide possible habitat on west edge of Corynorhinus townsendii project area about 1 mile from the closest harvest unit. However, 2009 surveys did not confirm presence of bats. Project area contains limited potential habitat and no known species occurrences. Forages on insects in a variety of habitats including forested and wet areas; requires suitable roosts in a variety of structures including caves, mines, rocky ledges and overhangs (Schmidt 2003b). Spotted bat Limited habitat in the project area. Prefers to roost in rock Euderma maculatum crevices. Occasionally found in caves and buildings. Cliffs provide optimal roosting habitat (Black and Cosgriff 1999). Fringed myotis Potential roosting habitat in trees in project area. Found at Myotis thysanodes high elevations in spruce habitat and mixed ponderosa pine, spruce and aspen habitat; roosts in a variety of structures including caves, mines, tunnels, snags and buildings (Schmidt 2003a). Day roosts may include underneath bark and inside hollows of tree snags, particularly ponderosa pine and douglas fir in medium stages of decay (Keinath et al. 2004). Hoary bat Potential suitable habitat in project area, but no known Lasiurus cinereus occurrences. Habitat is primarily deciduous and coniferous forests and woodlands. Roost sites are usually in tree foliage 3-5 meters above ground, often at the edge of a clearing and commonly in hedgerow trees. Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail Limited potential habitat possible in Cub Creek at the lowest Orechelix strigosa cooperi portions of the project area. Habitat is currently thought to be associated with forested canyons, in large boulder dominated riparian areas below 8,000 feet. Pygmy mountain snail Limited potential habitat occurs in the project area. Habitat is Oreohelix pygmaea similar to the Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail. Species of local concern, demand species, management indicator species, Partners In Flight priority species/USFWS birds of conservation concern Swainson’s hawk Possible. No known occurrences in project area meadows. No effect to habitat as the project would not alter meadow, or associated riparian habitat.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Species Discussion Great gray owl Potential habitat in project area (snags on edge of meadows and old growth). One known occurrence in project area in 2014. Pygmy nuthatch Potential habitat in project area (snags on edge of meadows and old growth). No known occurrences in the project area. Calliope humming-bird Potential habitat in project area but no known occurrences. Golden-crowned kinglet Potential habitat in project area but no known occurrences. Three-toed woodpecker Potential habitat in project area but no known occurrences. Mule deer Known and widespread occurences on forest. Population below Wyoming Game and Fish Department desired herd objective levels, but appears stable. Moose Known and widespread occurences on forest. Wyoming Game and Fish Department believe numbers have declined in recent years. Black bear Known and widespread occurrences on forest. Mountain lion Known and widespread occurrences on forest. Blue grouse Known in the project area. Widespread population on the forest. Merriam’s turkey In 2012, turkeys were observed several times in project area. There is no ponderosa pine habitat present but lodgepole pine is found in units 5, 6, 7. Cassin’s Finch Prefers open coniferous forests. Potential habitat but no known occurrences in project area. Known occurrences on the forest. Williamson Sapsucker Possible habitat in project area, but no known occurrences. Adequate snags in project area to be retained. Elk Elk use the project area primarily as parturition, transitional, and summer range. There is no crucial elk winter range. Red-breasted nuthatch Found in the project area. May favor old growth conditions in the forest due to the provision for snags in this structural stage. Red squirrel Abundant in the project area. May favor old growth conditions in the forest due to the provision for snags and coarse woody debris in this structural stage.

Species that do not occur or have habitat in the project area and were not analyzed further American peregrine falcon North American wolverine Water vole Northern harrier Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Northern leopard frog Flammulated owl Harlequin duck Columbia spotted frog Lewis’ woodpecker Bald eagle Wood frog Long-eared myotis Ruffed grouse Loggerhead shrike Common loon Gray partridge Plains sharp-tailed grouse Beaver McCown’s longspur Chukar partridge Mountain plover Ferruginous hawk Wilson’s phalarope Trumpeter swan Long-billed curlew Franklin’s gull

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Species that do not occur or have habitat in the project area and were not analyzed further Upland sandpiper Black tern Burrowing owl Golden eagle Baird’s sparrow Forster’s tern Burrowing owl American bittern Columbia sharp-tailed grouse Black rosy finch Pinyon jay Red-headed woodpecker Sage thrasher Willow flycatcher

Environmental Effects

Direct/Indirect Effects

Direct effects are those that alter habitat and would be considered long term. Indirect effects would be associated with disturbances to wildlife through harvest activities and would be considered short term in terms of displacement and duration. Indirect effects would include human presence including temporary road use (vehicles, dust, noise) and other disturbances.

Cumulative Effects The analysis of the cumulative effects found below is bounded geographically by the Little Bighorn Geographic area, unless stated otherwise, and temporally by management activities of about 30 years in the past to 10-15 years into the future. For the purpose of this project, short term effects are defined as occurring within or lasting five years or less. Long term effects are those occurring after or lasting greater than five years. This provides the baseline on which this project is considered to add cumulatively to all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. The following activities were considered relevant to the wildlife resource: timber sales; fuels reduction and prescribed burning; wildfire, fire suppression; domestic livestock grazing; noxious weed treatments; road reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning; and dispersed recreation (includes dispersed recreation and OHV use). These activities have the potential to affect wildlife resources through changes to wildlife habitat, forage availability, and displacement of species through human activities. The invasives specialist report shows that there is an increased risk of additional populations because of likely invasives species habitat creation through the proposed action. Increased invasive populations ‘take the place’ of desired habitat for native wildlife species. This is considered to be a small effect because of the “… ongoing treatment and early detection rapid response (EDRR) to invasive species and specific design features the potential spread of known infestations or the establishment of new infestations is minimized.” (Invasives specialist report) In terms of regeneration, stocking surveys in 2014 showed that the minimum legal requirements of 150 trees per acre were met in the first Crater Ridge entry in the early 1990’s. This

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

was through both advanced regeneration and 5 years post-harvest regeneration. This information is found in the silvicultural specialist report, reforestation report, and Silvicultural Findings of Compliance which are part of the project record and are incorporated by reference in the BE. Sufficient natural regeneration is expected to occur to meet the restocking requirements, which also includes advanced regeneration per Design Feature #44.

Effects Common to All Alternatives Canada lynx: The determination for Canada lynx would be no effect from any of the alternatives. The Bighorn National Forest is considered to be unoccupied by Canada lynx. There- fore, there would be no effects from any of the alternatives. The project would not create a disruption of any known linkage habitats in terms of cumulative effects. Gray Wolf: The determination for gray wolf would be no effect from any of the alternatives. While wolves have been intermittently sighted on the Bighorn NF, it is not known if any packs have been established or any dens occur. Based on a lack of known occurrence and the small scope and extent of this project there would be no effects from any of the alternatives. As the proposed project activities would primarily take place within the summer months, after wolf pups have dispersed (should they occur), there would not likely be any interaction between project disturbances and any wolves that may occur in the project area.

Effects from Continuing Current Management under the No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects from the No Action Alternative Sensititive Species Olive-sided flycatcher: Lack of vegetation treatment would not affect existing suitable habitat for this species in the short-term. There is a moderate to high risk rating for a spruce beetle outbreak in the project area. Long-term, this could create more snags and greater diversity in structural stage distribution in forested stands through tree mortality, both of which would be a benefit to the olive sided flycatcher. Northern goshawk: No vegetation treatment would cause some loss of open foraging habitat as trees become more dense. Most closed-canopy nest stands would not be impacted. Dense forest conditions would increase some prey species (squirrels) and decrease others (chipmunks and flickers). There is a moderate to high risk of a spruce beetle outbreak in the project area. This could increase habitat diversity over the long-term. American marten: Lack of vegetation treatment would benefit marten by maintaining existing suitable habitat in the short-term. There is a moderate to high risk rating for a spruce beetle outbreak in the area. This would result in the loss of suitable habitat in mature/overmature Douglas-fir forest. However, there is suitable habitat in mature spruce/fir, lodgepole pine, and limber pine distributed throughout the geographic area.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Greater sage-grouse: Lack of vegetation treatment would not affect the sagebrush habitat on which this species depends. There is marginal, late-brood-rearing habitat in the project area but not likely large enough in size to provide adequate cover. No sage-grouse are known to occur in the project area. Brewer’s sparrow, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow: Effects and determination the same as for greater sage-grouse. Boreal owl: In the short-term, lack of treatment would not affect habitat for this species. Ex- isting old, degrading stands of trees with high percentages of subalpine fir species would be retained. There is a moderate to high risk rating for a spruce beetle outbreak in the project area. Over the long-term, this could create greater structural stage distribution in forested stands through tree mortality, but at a scale greater than the action alternatives if the outbreak is large. Townsend’s big-eared bat: The lack of vegetation treatment and road management would not affect the limited potential habitat for this species, including the three limestone pits on the west edge of the project area. Spotted bat: Effects and determination are similar to those described for Townsend’s big- eared bat. Hoary bat, fringed myotis: Lack of timber harvest could reduce foraging habitat as pine stand density increases and pines encroach into meadow and riparian areas. Potential mountain pine beetle activity is greater under this alternative which could be a benefit by increasing snags. There is also the potential for increased wildfire which could increase snags but cause mortality. Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail: The lack of vegetation treatment and road management would not affect the limited potential habitat for these snails. Determination for the no action alternative for all the sensitive species listed above is “no impact.” SOLC, Demand Species, MIS Swainson’s hawk, great gray owl, pygmy nuthatch, calliope humming-bird, golden- crowned kinglet, three-toed woodpecker, Cassin’s finch, Williamson’s sapsucker, elk, mule deer, moose, black bear, mountain lion, blue grouse, Merriam’s turkey: The no action alternative would have no effects to these species beyond those occurring at present. Red-breasted nuthatch, red squirrel: With no vegetation management, old, degrading stands of trees with high percentages of subalpine fir species would be retained. For the long- term, potential habitat in the project area could be affected by insect and disease, as there is a moderate to high risk rating for a spruce beetle outbreak in the project area. Risk of wildfire would also increase. Stand replacing fire and mountain pine beetle infestation could potentially destroy some habitat.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Cumulative Effects from the No Action Alternative

There would be no cumulative effects under the no action alternative because no vegetation or road management activities would take place. Existing impacts from timber sales; fuels reduction and prescribed burning; domestic livestock grazing; invasive plant treatments; Out- fitter and Guide activities: and dispersed recreation (includes dispersed recreation and OHV use hunting, fishing, OHV use) would continue to affect wildlife resources through changes to wildlife habitat, forage availability, and displacement of species through human activities. The natural processes of succession, insects and disease, and wildfire will continue to shape the existing landscape, and the no action alternative of not harvesting 909 acres within the 97,852 forested acres in the Little Horn Geographic area would be incalculable should a large scale disturbance occur.

Effects from Implementing Alternative 1, 2, or 3

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

Sensitive Species Northern goshawk: Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not adversely affect mature conifer habitat for this species. The amount of spruce-fir harvested would not exceed the 15% guideline for old-growth retention in the geographic area. Following harvest, there would be an increase in open foraging habitat. Harvest activities could cause short-term displacement of foraging goshawks. Logging that results in fragmented forest stands also provides suitable nesting habitat for great-horned owls (Knowles and Knowles 2010) and red-tailed hawks (Dykstra 1996). Both of these species were seen in 2012 in the project area and are known to kill goshawks and occupy goshawk nests. Temporary road use may lead to short-term displacement or cause nest abandonment if an active nest is present. Closure of a portion of FSR 112 would reduce the potential disturbance associated with motor vehicle use. Burning of slash piles is not expected to impact northern goshawks because it is a short-duration activity – 6 to 8 days. The determination is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Olive-sided flycatcher: Some incidental loss of snag habitat would result from the timber harvest activities. Snag loss during the nesting season – June to mid-July – would result in mortality or displacement of some individuals. Openings created by harvest may create some habitat for this species (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). The effects of temporary roads, burning of slash piles, and closure of a portion of FSR 112 would be similar to those described for the goshawk. The determination is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. American marten: Harvest is not planned in riparian areas which provide the most likely habitat for this species. Potential human disturbance should not occur during key breeding

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

season or near key habitat. There would be some loss of the primary prey species, red squirrel. The effects of temporary roads, burning of slash piles, and closure of a portion of FSR 112 would be similar to those described for the goshawk. The determination is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Greater sage-grouse: No sagebrush habitat is expected to be physically disturbed through any harvest activities (i.e. road building, piling, yarding) nor is any within treatment units. FSR 112 does not go through any potential habitat so there would be no effects from any closure of this road. An existing temporary road (FSR 108) goes through some marginal habitat. The road will be closed via a gate on the west end but not decommissioned through the marginal habitat and will be decommissioned east of the marginal habitat. The determination is no impact. Brewer’s sparrow (sensitive and MIS), short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow: Effects and determination the same as for greater sage-grouse. The determination is no impact. Boreal owl: Effects would be similar to those described for northern goshawk. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not adversely affect mature conifer habitat for this species. The amount of spruce-fir harvested would not exceed the 15% guideline for old-growth retention in the geographic area. Harvest activities could cause short-term displacement of foraging owls. Tem- porary road use could cause displacement or nest abandonment. Long-term, timber harvest would increase structural stages which would provide diverse habitat. The determination is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Townsend’s big-eared bat: Harvest activities and road management would have no effect on potential habitat. There is limited potential habitat in the project area and no known species occurrences. Three limestone pits possible habitat on west edge of project area about 1 mile from the closest harvest unit, but 2009 surveys did not confirm presence of bats. The pits are adjacent to a well-established public road. Project activities would have no effect on the potential habitat in the limestone pits due to their distance from project activities. The determination is no impact. Spotted bat: Effects and determination are similar to those described for Townsend’s big- eared bat. The determination is no impact. Hoary bat, fringed myotis: Some incidental loss of snag habitat would occur. Harvest activities could remove roost trees; however adequate roost trees occur in the adjacent matrix and geographic area. Vehicle traffic could temporarily displace roosting individuals through loss of day roosts or maternity roost habitat. Timber harvest would also create more open pine habitat which would increase foraging and roosting habitat for these species. The effects of temporary roads, burning of slash piles, and closure of a portion of FSR 112 would be similar to those shown for the goshawk.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail: The proposed vegetation treatments and road management would not affect habitat for these snails. Adequate riparian buffers exist, and no harvest activities are within any potential habitat due to the steepness of slopes. The determination is no impact. SOLC, Demand Species, MIS Swainson’s hawk: There would be no effects to habitat because the project would not alter meadow, or associated riparian habitat. This is not a forest-dependent species. Great gray owl, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson’s sapsucker: Project activities (skidding and safe felling) would result in small losses of snags. Some mature conifer is targeted for removal. However, an abundance of snags occur in the project area, and there is abundant mature conifer left in the geographic area. Calliope humming-bird: There would be no direct/indirect effects to riparian or meadow from mechanical harvest due to riparian protection zone. Mechanical harvest would affect conifer habitat; however, the effects would be limited in extent and timing over the project area. Adequate suitable habitat surrounds the project area. Cassin’s finch: Prefers open coniferous forests which suggests that selective logging activities may potentially improve habitat (Hahn, 1996). Vegetation management activities could improve habitat for this species through creation of openings. Golden-crowned kinglet, three-toed woodpecker: Vegetation management activities would have direct effects to spruce-fir with old growth characteristics; however, there is ample suitable habitat surrounding the project area. Mule deer: Mechanical harvest would affect habitat; however, effects would be similar to natural disturbance processes and would maintain habitat through time for this habitat generalist. Project activities (harvest, temporary roads, logging traffic, etc.) may temporarily displace deer from localized areas. Effective closure of a portion of FSR 112 in any action alternative would decrease disturbance from vehicle traffic. Black bear, mountain lion, blue grouse: Effects would be similar to those described for mule deer. Moose: Spruce-fir (winter) habitats would be altered through harvest activities. Short-term effects would be temporary displacement of local moose, but long-term effects are expected to be beneficial in terms of better cover quality and forage availability in openings created by harvest activities. Merriam’s turkey: Lodgepole pine would be expected to be retained in units 5, 6, 7 in small amounts. If turkeys are using roost trees in area, they are likely using mature Douglas fir. However, the vegetation management activities are not expected to result in a measurable change in the population due to other suitable habitat present within the geographic area. This is not a typical area for Merriam’s turkey to be found as a permanent resident.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Elk: The planned mechanical harvest would reduce hiding cover; however, the improved diversity in age class structure should better maintain this habitat over time and the quality of hiding cover would return as conifers regenerate. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) identified one parturition area in the project area. Design features for seasonal operating restrictions would be applied to mitigate potential disruption during elk calving season. If post-harvest fill-in planting is necessary, favorable planting conditions occur over a relatively narrow timeframe in this area, and that window could occur prior to June 15th. If any elk are calving in the area or newborn elk calves are present, they could be disturbed through vehicle access and human activities, and be displaced to other areas and the extra stresses to the young calves and cows could impact some individuals. Prescribed burning of slash piles would occur in the fall after adequate snowfall, and would not affect calving since elk calve in the spring. Burning of slash piles could also temporarily displace elk but it is not anticipated to have any measurable effects, since the burning is expected to be only 6-8 days in duration. Construction and use of temporary roads and use of closed roads could temporarily displace elk. Temporary roads would also increase fragmentation; however, the roads would be decommissioned after harvest activities so long-term effects would be negligible. Portions of closed roads would also be decommissioned after use, so measurable effects are not anticipated as most of the roads are presently closed with gates and the closures are effective. Red-breasted nuthatch: Vegetation treatment would change the mature conditions to more open conditions in the treated stands. Adequate old growth would be retained as required by the Forest Plan. Harvest activities could cause temporary short term displacement of birds in the area. Nuthatches are not known to be sensitive to edge or fragmentation issues, including effects of roads or timber harvest (USDA, 2010). Timber harvest could disturb or remove snags that could potentially contain a nest. This would not be widespread, and snags would be retained in untreated areas. Red squirrel: Effects to red squirrel habitat would be similar to those described for the red- breasted nuthatch. Harvest activities would remove some habitat and permanently displace some squirrels. Some of these individuals would not survive the winter due to loss of food caches.

Cumulative Effects from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 For the following species, alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not increase cumulative effects above those analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS, to which this analysis is tiered: mule deer, moose, black bear, mountain lion, blue grouse, and Merriam’s turkey. Greater sage-grouse, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, sage sparrow, Swainson’s hawk: There would be no cumulative effects because there would be no vegetation management in the sage/grassland habitats preferred by these species, and the existing temporary road is already in place through the sage meadow. Pre-haul maintenance would occur, but no additional habitat would be disturbed.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat: There would be no cumulative effects from project activities above those already occurring in the area due to distance of project from potential habitat. Great gray owl, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson’s sapsucker: There would be some reduction in habitat (mature conifer) and accidental loss of snags through harvest activities; however, the project area is small and there is ample habitat within the geographic area. Com- bined with effects from past timber sales and fuels reduction and prescribed fires in the Big 6 livestock grazing decision, there would be a minor cumulative reduction in habitat for this species. Adequate suitable habitat remains in the watershed and adjacent to the project area. Golden-crowned kinglet, three-toed woodpecker: There would be some reduction in habitat (spruce-fir with old growth characteristics) through harvest activities, however the project area is small and ample habitat is within the geographic area. Combined with effects from past timber sales and fuels reduction and prescribed fires in the Big 6 livestock grazing decision, there would be a minor cumulative reduction in habitat for this species. Adequate suitable habitat remains in the watershed and adjacent to the project area. Calliope hummingbird: There would be no effects to riparian/meadow habitat through project activities; however, some minor effects to conifer habitat would occur through mecha- nized harvest. Combined with effects from past timber sales and fuels reduction and prescribed fires in the Big 6 livestock grazing decision, there would be a minor cumulative reduction in habitat for this species. Adequate suitable habitat remains in the watershed and adjacent to the project area. Northern goshawk, boreal owl, American marten: Past timber sales and wildfires in the Little Bighorn GA have reduced nesting habitat by removing large trees and decreasing canopy cover. This project would not add to cumulative impacts that would affect habitat for the species. This is such a small-scale project in terms of the geographic area that any cumulative effects would be incalculable and insignificant. There is adequate mature and old growth habitat in the project area and geographic area. Olive-sided flycatcher: This project would not add to cumulative impacts that would affect habitat for the species, because there is adequate mature and old growth habitat in the project area and geographic area and adequate retention of snags and coarse woody debris is expected to occur. Hoary bat, fringed myotis: There are no likely cumulative effects for these species as the amount of forested vegetation being treated annually on the forest is less than 2,000 acres per year. Tree roosts are available across the forest. Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail, pygmy mountain snail: There would be no cumulative effects because no vegetation or road management activities would take place in the habitat preferred by these snails. Brewer’s sparrow: Ongoing cumulative impacts from livestock grazing and recreation use would continue. Potential for introduction of new invasive species, or expansion of existing

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District weeds could occur through harvest activities; however, since there will be no disturbance in the sagebrush habitat type and design features outlined in the Livestock Grazing, Rangeland Vegetation and Invasive Species Specialist Report would reduce the potential for spread, this would not be considered to have a cumulative effect. Population trends at the forestwide scale should not be affected by this project. Any effects from project activities are expected to be incalculable and insignificant. Mule deer, moose: Cumulative effects from noxious weeds may have potential to increase, however design features should prevent this. Elk: Other cumulative effects are not known to be affecting elk use of the area to a significant amount. There are no known remaining potential improvements in the project area or those adjacent to it to further improve elk security habitat. Red-breasted nuthatch: Cumulative effects would include firewood cutting by the public during or following timber sale activities in the project area, though this is expected to be a very limited amount since no new motorized access routes would be created and firewood cutting typically takes place within 300 feet of open roads. In fact, with the proposed closure of FSR 112 at some location on the ground, there could be a benefit but it would be expected to be small in terms of loss of snags through firewood collection since the road is rough and not frequented at present for firewood. Other cumulative effects could also apply, but none are thought to be of significance to affect the overall availability of habitat for this species. Recreation, livestock grazing, or other management practices in forested areas do not typically affect nuthatches. Red squirrel: The cumulative effect of recreational shooting of red squirrels (as they are small game) is not likely to have a significant mortality effect on their populations. In addition, some individual squirrels could die if caches are lost and they do not have adequate time to create new caches prior to the winter, but this is not likely to have a significant mortality effect in terms of their populations either. Population trends at the forestwide scale should not be affected by this project due to the relatively small size of the area being treated.

Summary of Determinations The amount of forested acres being harvested (909 acres) in the project area relative to the remaining forested acres (97,852 acres) in the geographic area is incalculable. Overall, this proposed project should improve conditions for sensitive species and/or their habitat by re- taining some mature tree structure and providing for mixed age classes of forested habitat in the project area over the long term. Harvest openings would create edge which would be beneficial for some species, and early successional forage species would be present as the openings revegetated. Elk security would be created through closing of a portion of FSR#112. The proposed action does not warrant a “no impact” determination for some species, as there would likely be disturbances from construction of temporary roads and mechanical harvest. There may be some short term effects to some species through displacement during harvest activities (dust, noise, etc). There may be some long term effects through

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

changes in habitat for some species, but it is possible these changes could be beneficial to other species. Most of these disturbances would likely be in terms of direct/indirect effects to nesting or denning animals, but this potential is viewed as minimal. The proposed action is considered a benefit over no action due to the greater risk for insects and disease, and potential for large scale wildfires through no action. It is also known that despite planned activities only occurring on designated routes, unauthorized vehicle use off designated routes may also occur, with potential to disturb some individuals or potential habitat for species. However, it can be stated with confidence that the conditions resulting from this project compared to predicted conditions of no action would not cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive species, or a loss of viability in the planning area or range wide. This rationale was used to support the determinations. “No impact” determinations were made largely due to the lack of habitat or no known or potential occurrence of a species in the project area, or areas to be disturbed through management activities. In terms of MIS species, the proposed action would meet the Revised Forest Plan goals and objectives for MIS, and management direction in the Plan.

Non-Key Issue 4: Forest Regeneration

Affected Environment The NFMA five year regeneration issue was a primary contributor to the withdrawal of the 2013 Decision Notice. Since that time a number of activities occurred in order to address that concern, and to determine whether or not an assurance of adequate restocking could be made. Those activities included: • A field trip was held on July 23, 2014 with Rocky Mountain Research Station silvi- culturists Dr. Wayne Shepperd (retired) and Dr. Michael Battaglia, Bighorn NF silvi- culturists, and the Crater Ridge ID team. Copies of Dr. Shepperd’s and Dr. Battaglia’s findings are available in the project record. Dr. Shepperd worked directly with, and co-authored, peer-reviewed papers on Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir regeneration and silviculture with Dr. Robert Alexander. Dr. Alexander and Dr. Shep- perd are considered to be two of the most knowledgeable experts on spruce-fir regeneration and silviculture, and Dr. Battaglia is the ‘next generation’ in that lineage. • Dr. Shepperd and Dr. Battaglia made a number of recommendations to the project design, all of which were incorporated into the action alternatives. Among these items were managing for acceptable advanced regeneration, leaving coarse woody debris in final harvest units for microsites, and use whole-tree harvesting. • Dr. Shepperd and Dr. Battaglia proposed additional quantitative regeneration surveys in the previously cut units in the Crater Ridge project to obtain data on desirable tree stocking by species and size class, numbers of non-stocked plots, trees with evidence

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

of animal damage, and plots with evidence of gopher activity. The results of these surveys are summarized below, and are further discussed in the regeneration report and other documents in the project record. Forest vegetation within the Crater Ridge project area is mainly composed of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands in proposed harvest units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Units 5, 6, and 7 are composed of spruce/fir with a mixed conifer composition. Within these units, spruce/fir is mixed with lodgepole pine, Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), and limber pine. Limestone soils are common within the project area which provides conditions more ideal for the prolif- eration of other species such as subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, limber pine, and Douglas- fir (Hoffman 1976). Lodgepole pine is a component at the lower elevations of the project area and is found within Units 5, 6, and 7. Most of the habitat structural stages (HSS) within the project area consist of the 4B class, intermixed mostly with meadow communities. Habitat structural stages are classifications of vegetative communities and their current stage of vegetative development (Oliver 1996). It should also be mentioned that the northwest part of the project area borders stands burned during the Pumpkin Fire of 1970. Here, spruce fir stands dominate consisting of sapling sized trees with a component of lodgepole pine intermixed. Most of the mature Engelmann spruce in this project area originated approximately 350 – 450 years ago as aged core samples revealed during the stand exam. There are some lodgepole pine and limber pine that have been sampled in the project area between 300 and 375 years of age, though snags of these species found throughout east side of the project area may have established earlier than that. These stands developed from a stand replacing disturbance 450-500 years ago as the oldest trees within the project area were found to be 400-450 years old. The pathways of development may have varied for each of the stands within the project area due to elevation, aspect, slope, species that pioneered post disturbance, limber pine seed cache locations of Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana), locations of small disturbances, etc. The most likely pathway of development for stands such as Units 5, 6, and 7 is that Engel- mann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine all reestablished post disturbance and com- peted together while each species took advantage of the variables that favor their niche to proliferate, yielding stands with remnant lodgepole pine in the overstory with no individuals in the understory that we see today. Meanwhile, Engelmann spruce dominates the dominant and co-dominant strata and subalpine fir dominates the understory. The limestone soils found in the project area enable a decrease in vigor in lodgepole pine when it is in its early development stages allowing spruce and fir to compete effectively (Nesser, 1976). The plant associations for the stands analyzed for this project are Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium scoparium (subalpine fir/ grouse whortleberry) or Abies lasiocarpa/Arnica cordifolia based on the research paper Forest Vegetation of the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming: A Habitat Classification by George Hoffman and Robert Alexander. The break in these two habitat types is somewhere in the middle of the project area where the higher elevation harvest units

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

(1, 2, 3, 4, and 8) are more likely to contain the Arnica understory during its late seral community. The other stands (Units 5, 6, and 7) within the project area are would be more likely to have the Vaccinium understory due to the lower elevations (Hoffman 1976). The Reforestation Report documents the results of 52 plots that were taken in 2014 in the 1990’s harvest group selection units. Dr. Shepperd and Dr. Battaglia described the survey protocol to Forest personnel during the 2014 field trip, including information on how to use bud scars to date seedling establishment. A more complete discussion of the reforestation plot methodology is included in the Reforestation Report. Seedlings on the plots were stratified into 3 groups: 1. Advanced regeneration – seedlings that were present at the time of 1990’s harvest 2. Seedlings that established within the first 5 years following the 1990’s harvest. 3. Seedlings that established 5 years or more after the 1990’s harvest. Table 16 summarizes the species distribution of the pre-harvest and post-harvest regeneration. The relative species distribution of the advanced regeneration shown in Table 17 is consistent with the common stand exam data for the Crater Ridge stands that are displayed in the Forest Vegetation Specialist report. The current understory is dominated by subalpine fir, with minor amounts of Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Table 17 also shows that the post-harvest regeneration has a more even distribution of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, and a minor amount of lodgepole pine. This result is consistent with the shade tolerance of these species – subalpine fir is slightly more shade tolerant than Engelmann spruce. Table 16. Species Distribution of the pre-harvest and post-harvest regeneration. Advanced Regeneration Post-Harvest Regeneration Engelmann Subalpine fir Lodgepole Engelmann Subalpine fir Lodgepole Spruce pine Spruce pine 3% 97% 0% 47% 51% 2%

Table 17 describes the timing of reforestation after the 1990’s group selection harvests with data from the 52 reforestation plots taken in 2014. The first column shows the advanced regeneration present pre-harvest that still exists on the site today. The second column represents seedlings established within the 5-year NFMA window. The third column is the total amount of acceptable regeneration that existed within the 5-year NFMA window, and is the sum of the first two columns. The fourth column shows seedlings that germinated after the 5- year NFMA window. The required minimum number of seedlings for adequate restocking of a final harvest regeneration site in the 2005 Forest Plan is 150 trees per acre (TPA).

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

Table 17. Timing of reforestation after the 1990’s group selection harvests. Data from the 52 reforestation plots taken in 2014 Trees per acre Trees per acre by Trees per acre by Trees per acre by (TPA) by species: species: species: species:

Advanced Regen- Seedlings estab- Advanced Regen + Seedlings estab- eration lished within 5 seedlings established more than 5 years of harvest lished within 5 years after the years of harvest 1990’s harvest

Trees per acre 356 subalpine fir 144 subalpine fir 500 subalpine fir 131 subalpine fir by species 12 Eng. spruce 129 Eng. spruce 141 Eng. Spruce 123 Eng. Spruce 2 lodgepole pine 2 lodgepole pine 7 lodgepole pine Total trees per 368 TPA 275 TPA 6435 TPA 261 TPA acre

Environmental Effects

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cu- mulative Effects Analysis The spatial boundary of the cumulative effects analysis is two recent harvest areas in the vicinity of Crater Ridge, Boyd Ridge and Intermission. The analysis is bounded in time by management activities of the last 20 years to about 5 years into the future. There no currently proposed timber sales in this vicinity. Pictures of Boyd Ridge and Intermission planting, and copies of the planted seedling survival surveys, are included in the project record. The Boyd Ridge area is about 2-3 miles south, and the Intermission fire salvage area is about 7 miles southwest, of the Crater Ridge units.

Effects from Continuing Current Management under the No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects from the No Action Alternative Table 16 (EA page 63) and the Forest Vegetation Simulator projections in the Forest Vegeta- tion specialist report show that subalpine fir would continue to be a very significant portion of the future forest, without some disturbance event such as a fire or insect or disease outbreak. The project objectives for more species diversity would be better met under the action alternatives than under the no-action alternative.

Cumulative Effects from the No Action Alternative There would be no cumulative effects under the no action alternative because no vegetation or road management activities would take place. Reforestation of the 1990’s harvest units will continue to occur, with the seedlings growing over time.

5 This number is slightly different thant the 650 TPA shown in the Reforestation report, and is due to rounding. 64

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Effects from Implementing Alternative 1, 2, or 3

Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are a continuation of silvicultural activities initiated in the early 1990’s. The previous entry consisted primarily of a group selection system, although the 1990’s prescriptions labeled the harvest, incorrectly, as a shelterwood system. Based upon Dr. Shepperd’s and Dr, Battaglia’s recommendations, and a thorough review of the previous regeneration, the project includes several elements that were not included in the 1990’s harvest prescription and implementation. Table 18 compares some of the regeneration design criteria in the group selection units. Table 18. Comparison of group selection regeneration design criteria between 1990’s harvest and current proposal

Design Criteria 1990’s Harvest Proposed Action Group size and Approximately the same Groups located in units with group selection shape as current proposed ac- treatments will be designed no greater than 3 tion tree heights in width to provide for favorable seed dispersal and seedling establishment and to decrease windthrow impacts. Slash Treatment Dozer pile essentially all Whole tree skid harvested merchantable trees within Groups coarse woody debris cut, followed by lop and scatter to less than 24”. Existing coarse woody debris will be left in the groups creating microsites for regeneration. Manage for Not managed for. Some Advanced regeneration (defined in the regenera- Advanced was destroyed in harvest tion report) will be protected during harvest oper- Regeneration and dozer piling. ations. Trees that meet the definition of acceptable advance regeneration will be included in the 5 year regeneration count. Provide for microsite Not managed for. Large- Retain snags and coarse woody debris in ac- within Groups ly put into the dozer piles. cordance with the average minimums specified below. Retain largest diameter snags possible. Leave 7 to 16 tons/ac coarse woody debris, 3- inch diameter or larger at the large end, well distributed over 10 acres. Consider leaving islands of snags in all stages of decay and green snag recruitment trees to meet these needs. Ad- vanced regeneration will also provide microsites. Manage for animal Not managed for. Surveys conducted in 2014 did not indicate this is and rodent damage an issue. This will be surveyed for in 1 and 3 year regeneration surveys. Fill-in planting Not conducted. Following the regeneration survey(s), a determination will be made by a certified silviculturist as to whether or not fill in planting is needed to achieve NFMA, Forest Plan, and prescription requirements.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

The required minimum number of seedlings for adequate restocking of a final harvest regeneration site in the 2005 Forest Plan is 150 TPA for spruce/fir and lodgepole pine. Therefore, even without the design criteria improvements made for this entry (see Table 18), Table 17 (EA page 64) shows that the advanced regeneration alone may be sufficient for achieving minimum stocking rates specified in the Bighorn NF Forest Plan. It is likely that even more advanced regeneration will remain after the proposed harvest because the groups will not be piled. And, additional regeneration occurred within the group selection units since that time. The project silviculturist made a finding that there is assurance that final harvests on lands suitable for timber production can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration harvest. Table 16 (EA page 63) and the Forest Vegetation Simulator projections in the Forest Vegeta- tion specialist report show that subalpine fir would continue to be a significant portion of the future forest without some disturbance. However, Table 16 shows that the relative propor- tion of Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine increased after the 1990’s harvest. That is expected to occur again in the group selection units, as the regeneration environment created favors the more shade intolerant spruce and pine over subalpine fir. The project objectives for more species diversity would be better met under the action alternatives than under the no-action alternative.

Cumulative Effects from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Boyd Ridge was harvested in the late 1980’s using 10-25 acre clearcuts, and a substantial blowdown event in the units occurred in the early 1990’s. Planting of the clearcut units occurred in 1997 or 1998, with survival surveys conducted in 1998. Survival of planted seedlings ranged from 44% to 83% in different units. Intermission was a stand replacing fire that occurred in 1988, was salvage logged in 1989, and was planted in 1997. In 1998, the planted seedling survival rate was 94%. Neither Boyd Ridge nor Intermission were group selection units, which creates more favorable conditions for high elevation seedling survival than clearcut and fire salvage, and yet planting was successful. This, combined with the regeneration surveys conducted in 2014 on Crater Ridge, indicate that the fill-in planting provide an assurance of successful regeneration with 5 years of final harvest.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS National Forest Management Act – The proposed action is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and all proposed activities are allowable under the 5.11 management area (MA) prescription (see Forest Plan, chapter 2). There are no activities planned in the small (13 acres) area of MA 5.4 in the project area. Endangered Species Act – Biological evaluations were completed for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive animal species. No threatened and endangered animal species would be affected by the proposed action. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 – Section 106 of the National Historic Preser- vation Act requires that all federal undertakings follow the regulations found at 36 CFR §800 to identify and protect cultural resources that are within the project areas and which may be effected by projects. The Bighorn National Forest will follow the procedures in the pro- grammatic agreement between the forest and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding management of the project area. Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice – Implementation of this project is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effect to minor- ity or low-income populations.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

CHAPTER 4 – COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Preparers and Contributors The following Forest Service employees contributed to this environmental assessment:

Name Position David Hogen Medicine Wheel District Ranger/Responsible Official Laurie Walters-Clark IDT mentor/NEPA for 2013 Decision Notice Deb Lozinski Interdisciplinary team leader for 2013 Decision Notice

Bernie Bornong Interdisciplinary team leader for 2015 Decision Notice Tony Saba Forester/silviculturist Bob Cochran District recreation staff officer Marvin Matthiesen Assistant fire management officer Shawn Heinert District rangeland management specialist Beth Bischoff West zone wildlife biologist Bruce Kjerstad Forest transportation engineer Jonathan Wilson Civil engineering technician Amy Nowakowski Hydrologist/fisheries biologist Bill Matthews Cultural resources specialist Amy Ortner GIS specialist David Anderson Forest analyst Leslie Horsch Writer-editor

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted Scoping documents and/or the notice of proposed action for this project were sent to the following agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Tribes Crow Eastern Shoshone Northern Cheyenne Northern Arapaho

Federal elected officials Senator Barrasso Senator Enzi Congressman Lummis

State legislators Bruce Burns Kathy Coleman Elaine Harvey Ray Peterson John Patton

Federal government Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Cheryl Chatham, Wyoming Capitol City Area Coordinator. USFS R2 regional office Richard Clark, USFS WYDOT liaison

Wyoming state government Office of State Lands and Investments Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan and Wyoming state forestry division Cody regional offices Office of Governor Mead WY DEQ, air and water quality divisions Wyoming Department of Agriculture WY Department of Transportation

Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails

Local government Big Horn County Commissioners City of Sheridan

Sheridan County Commissioners South Big Horn County Conservation District Johnson County Commissioners

Organizations and individuals Dick Artley Nelson Outfitting Bowhunters of Wyoming Wyoming Wilderness Association Wyoming High Country, LLC Big Buck Outfitters, Inc. Little Bighorn Trout Unlimited Brad Jones

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

E.O. Bischoff Ranch Sunlight Ranch Company Gifford Ranch, LLC Tippetts Farm, LLC Schatz Irrev. Living Trust Wyoming Farm Bureau Mike and Susan Barrett Spencer Ellis Larry W. Ellis Andrew McThenia Erika Brotzman Ross Hildebrandt Michael Wells Tom Manolis John Dickerman Waldermar Kucapski S. Brunette Mohammad Alibagheri

Western Watersheds Project Utana, Steve, and Larry Dye

Phil Boice Dana Sander, Northwest Wyoming Off Highway Alliance, Inc.

Dr. Jackie Canterbury, Forest Service Andy Stahl, Forest Service Employees for Employees for Environmental Ethics Environmental Ethics

Steve Brady, Medicine Wheel Coalition

A news release announcing availability of the 2013 and 2015 NOPA was sent to the following media: The Associated Press, Cheyenne, WY Northern Wyoming Daily News, Worland, WY Basin Republican-Rustler, Basin, WY Moorcroft Leader, Moorcroft, WY The Sheridan Press, Sheridan, WY Billings Gazette, Billings, MT Powell Tribune, Powell, WY Buffalo Bulletin, Buffalo, WY News Letter Journal, Newcastle, WY High Plains Sentinel, Wright, WY Casper Star-Tribune, Casper, WY Sundance Times, Sundance, WY WyoFile.com (Online news source) Lovell Chronicle, Lovell, WY Greybull Standard, Greybull, WY Gillette News Record, Gillette, WY Cody Enterprise, Cody, WY KPOW radio, Powell, WY KOTA TV, Rapid City, SD Wyoming public broadcasting (PBS/NPR) K2TV, Billings, MT Basin Radio Network, Gillette, WY Big Horn Radio Network, Cody, WY Big Horn Mountain Radio Network, Buffalo, WY

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site- specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact (40 CFR 1508.27).

CONTEXT One of the primary purposes of forest planning is to allocate areas of the national forest to management prescription areas. The Bighorn National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) allocated the majority of the project area, and entirety of the proposed cutting units, to MA 5.11, forest vegetation emphasis. MA 5.11 includes lands suited for timber harvest. While other areas of the Bighorn National Forest were allocated to emphasize wilderness, nonmotorized recreation, or wildlife habitat, to name a few, this area was allocated to a forest vegetation management emphasis. I find that the Crater Ridge Vege- tation Management (CRVM) project is consistent with the Forest Plan allocated land uses. A portion of the project area is included in the 2001 Roadless Area Conversation Rule (RACR) Little Bighorn Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). However, the portion of the IRA that is affected by the CRVM project includes open, system, roads, and was logged in the early 1990s. About 215 acres of substantially altered IRA is proposed for timber harvest under the selected alternative, and a total of 1,200 acres of the project area is within the 2001 RACR Little Bighorn IRA. The Forest Plan Little Bighorn IRA, which does not include any system roads or previous timber harvest, is over 80,000 acres. A total of 494,703 acres (approximately 45%) of the Bighorn National Forest was characterized as roadless during the Forest Plan analysis. I find that the total amount of substantially altered IRA affected by the CRVM project is insignificant compared to the amount of bona fide IRA that exists in the area and on the Bighorn National Forest. The EA documents that the effects of this project are upon the local area and do not extend to the regional scale. The area is relatively lightly used by the general public compared to many areas of the Bighorn National Forest, and use is primarily during hunting season.

INTENSITY The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Recreation opportunities were identified as a key issue. Concerning recreation opportunities in the roadless area, the setting in the RACR portion of the CRVM where the timber management activities would take place is not predominantly natural appear-

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

ing, provides somewhat limited opportunity for solitude, and does not offer a high degree of challenge and risk in using motorized equipment. The proposed project would not impact the semi-primitive motorized class of dispersed recreation in the area because it is in a roaded modified condition already. There would be decrease in the amount of roaded motorized recreation opportunity due to the closure of three miles of FSR 112, and it is estimated that those users would be displaced to another roaded portion of the Bighorn National Forest. However, that displaced use would be offset to some degree by the increased opportunity for nonmotorized backcountry recreation. I find that the intensity of the selected alternative upon the recreation resource is very small. Elk security was a key issue, and increasing it became a part of the project purpose and need. The selected alternative increases elk security by 976 acres. It also increases the amount of early successional habitat for some wildlife species. On the other hand, snag-dependent and mid- to late-successional species will see a short-term decrease in total habitat. I find that both of these effects are small (less than 1,000 acres of timber harvest) in comparison to the overall amount of forested area in the Little Bighorn IRA which will be dominated by natural successional events. I considered the intensity of the selected alternative on the Roadless Area. Less than 0.3% of the Little Bighorn IRA is affected by the timber harvest, and that area has been substantially altered per the 2001 RACR definition. Less than 0.04% of the roadless area on the Bighorn National Forest is affected. The group selection treatments that will occur in the Little Bighorn IRA do not compel the need for future tree-cutting. Scenic integrity was subject to considerable analysis. The selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan guidelines for scenery management, and would neither increase or decrease overall compliance with the scenic integrity objective. Effects to hydrology, soils, and fisheries were considered in the EA. There are risks to these resources from temporary road construction and logging, including increased sedimentation, soil compaction, and impacts to cutthroat trout habitat. However, successful implementation of the Watershed Conservation Practice Handbook measures included in Appendix A will minimize these risks to acceptable levels. In addition, the closure of three miles of Forest Service Road (FSR) 112 will result in long-term benefits to these resources. I carefully considered the NFMA five-year regeneration requirement, and the issues raised during the comment period. I attended the field trip on July 23, 2014, and got to visit with Dr. Shepperd and Dr. Battaglia. I reviewed the reforestation report, the silviculturist’s specialist report, and the summary documentation in the EA. The 2014 plots showed that more than 150 trees per acre of advanced regeneration remained after the early 1990’s harvest in the group selection units, and that more than 150 trees per acre have regenerated since that time. In addition, a number of design

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

criteria, described in Table 19 of the EA, were included in this silvicultural prescription based upon lessons learned from the previous entry and at the suggestion of Dr. Shepperd and Dr. Battaglia. Because of that, I concur with the project silviculturist’s assurance of regeneration in compliance with the NFMA 5-year requirement. The finding of no significant impact based upon the intensity of the selected alternative is clearly applicable to several of the resources analyzed in the EA. The EA disclosed no impact to cultural resources and found beneficial impacts on fire and fuels management. Rare plants on the Bighorn National Forest primarily occur in habitats that are not forested, so there is little effect on those species. While there is a risk of increasing invasive plants due to the timber harvest activity, there is a decreased risk due to the closure of some open, system roads. In addition, there are seven design features to minimize the likelihood of increasing the amount of invasive plants. There is some increased cost to the livestock grazing permittee’s operation due to thinning of natural barriers in the timber harvest units. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The proposed action will reduce public health and safety hazards associated with wildfire and wildfire suppression. The road system is designed for log truck traffic, and this is a typical use of Forest Service roads. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area because no park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas will be affected by the project. No significant effects on unique characteristics of wetlands, historic or cultural resources were identified. Design features are in place to protect wetlands and historic or cultural resources from potential indirect effects (EA pages 17-21). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The agency has considerable experience with actions like the ones proposed, including the early 1990s Crater Ridge timber sale. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA pages 23 - 67). The proposed timber harvest and thinning treatments are common forest management activities with familiar effects. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. There is no decision about future actions other than those authorized un-

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

der this decision. Silviculture implies future entries, but the decision for future entries will stand on its own several decades from now. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. I reviewed the cumulative effects analyses disclosed in the EA and in the specialist’s reports. I find that the cumulative impacts are not significant (EA pages 23-67). 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed , or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The action will have no effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Histor- ic Places (archeology specialist report, project record). 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the En- dangered Species Act of 1973. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or habitat that has been determined to be critical under the En- dangered Species Act of 1973 (wildlife biological evaluation, plant biological evaluation, fish biological evaluation, all filed in the project record). 10. Whether the action threatens to violate federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate federal, state, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the Forest Plan. After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

___/s/ David Hogen______07/01/2015______David Hogen Date Medicine Wheel District Ranger

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

APPENDIX A – WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES HAND- BOOK (WCPH) DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALTER- NATIVES 1, 2, AND 3 The following table lists design features that are applicable to the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project. They were obtained from the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Prac- tices Handbook, Chapter 10. Management measures and design criteria. Italicized text is an explanation of how the design criteria would be applied for this project. Additional design features to protect aquatic resources are listed in table 4 and in the Soil/Hydro/Fish Specialist Report.

Design criteria from the WCPH that are applicable to alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 11.2 Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff. 1. a. Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site. For this project, treatment units, decommissioned temporary roads, and skid trails would be covered with slash material to maintain organic ground cover so pedestals, rills and surface runoff would not be increased. Existing closed roads that are decommissioned would be scarified and seeded. 1. b. Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Natural regeneration is expected to occur in degraded activity areas. If needed, degraded activity areas would be restored using certified weed-free local plants. 12.1 In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition. 1. a. Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream reach. In degraded systems (that is At-risk or Diminished stream health class), progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period. Harvest design includes buffers of at least 100 feet from the outside edge of riparian area vegetation to the edge of harvest unit boundaries. A field trip with the silviculturist and hydrologist/fish biologist will take place prior to harvest unit layout to ensure adequate sediment control measures to protect Cub Creek which flows downstream to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout core conservation population. No new road-stream crossing will be built or reconstructed on existing roads or newly constructed temporary roads.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

1. c. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. Harvest will be kept out of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, swales, and lakes. If heavy equipment must cross swales or wet areas that were not identified prior to project implementation, a forest hydrologist/fish biologist would be consulted and harvest may be allowed to occur during winter months or when soils are dry, depending on site conditions. 1. e. Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the WIZ if practicable and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion. 1. n. Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability (Rosgen and Proper Functioning Condition processes) when restoring damaged stream banks. Use native vegetation for stream bank stabilization whenever practicable. Streambank restoration would occur when road-stream crossings are decommissioned (i.e. culverts and fords are restored to natural conditions). A hydrologist/fish biologist should be on-site during implementation to restore streambanks and ensure that natural stabilization processes are used that maintain the stream’s natural geomorphology (width, depth, slope, pattern, vegetation, and streambed material). 13.1 Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate. 1. a. Construct roads on ridge tops, stable upper slopes, or wide valley terraces if practicable. Stabilize soils onsite. End-haul soil if full-bench construction is used. Avoid slopes steeper than 70%. 1. b. Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply travel restrictions to protect soil and water. 1. c. Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips and minimize connected disturbed areas. Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion between each stream crossing and at least the nearest cross drain. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 1. d. Construct roads where practicable, with outslope and rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts. 1. e. Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils. Avoid new roads or heavy equipment use on unstable or highly erodible soils. 1. f. Use existing roads unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability. For this project, use existing abandoned roads as temporary roads where feasible. 1. g. Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40% and on moderate to severely burned sustained slopes greater than 30%. Conduct logging to disperse runoff as practicable. 1. h. Designate, construct, and maintain recreational travelways for proper drainage and armor their stream crossings as needed to control sediment.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

1. i. During and following operations on outsloped roads, retain drainage and remove berms on the outside edge except those intentionally constructed for protection of road grade fills. 1. j. Locate and construct log landings in such a way to minimize the amount of excavation needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, treat landings to disperse runoff and prevent surface erosion and encourage revegetation. 13.2 Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands. 1. a. Design all roads, trails, and other soil disturbances to the minimum standard for their use and to "roll" with the terrain as feasible. 1. b. Use filter strips, and sediment traps if needed, to keep all sand-sized sediment on the land and disconnect disturbed soil from streams, lakes, and wetlands. Disperse runoff into filter strips. 1. d. Keep heavy equipment out of filter strips except to do restoration work or build armored stream or lake approaches. Yard logs up out of each filter strip with minimum disturbance of ground cover. 1. f. Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch erosion and failure. 13.3 Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion. 1. a. Do not encroach fills or introduce soil into streams, swales, lakes, or wetlands. 1. b. Properly compact fills and keep woody debris out of them. Revegetate cuts and fills upon final shaping to restore ground cover, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Provide sediment control until erosion control is permanent. 1. c. Do not disturb ditches during maintenance unless needed to restore drainage capacity or repair damage. Do not undercut the cut slope. 1. d. Space cross drains according to road grade and soil type as indicated below: (ex. 01). Do not divert water from one stream to another. 1. e. Empty cross drains onto stable slopes that disperse runoff into filter strips. On soils that may gully, armor outlets to disperse runoff. Tighten cross-drain spacing so gullies are not created. 1. f. Armor rolling dips as needed to prevent rutting damage to the function of the rolling dips. Ensure that road maintenance provides stable surfaces and drainage. 1. g. Where berms must be used, construct and maintain them to protect the road surface, drainage features, and slope integrity while also providing user safety. 1. i. Use the minimum amount of sand, salt, and/or other de-icing substances (Mag- Chloride) as necessary to provide safe winter travel conditions. Design paved roads and parking lots to facilitate sand removal (that is curbs or paved ditches). Use filter strips or other trapping methods to reduce movement of de-icing materials into near-by water bodies. Do not deposit sediment into streams or on streambanks along roads.

Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger District

1. j. During winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during thaws and break-ups. Perform snow removal in such a manner that protects the road and other adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands or streams for snow storage or disposal. Remove snow berms where they result in accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. 1. k. On roads with high/heavy traffic use, require maintenance agreements and/or use of road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements. 13.4 Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage. 1. a. Site-prepare, drain, decompact, revegetate, and close temporary and intermittent use roads and other disturbed sites within one year after use ends. Provide stable drainage that disperses runoff into filter strips and maintains stable fills. Do this work concurrently. Stockpile topsoil where practicable to be used in site restoration. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 1. c. Restore cuts and fills to the original slope contours where practicable and as opportunities arise to re-establish subsurface pathways. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Obtain stormwater (402) discharge permits as required. When this EA was released, stormwater (402) discharge permits are not required for discharge from logging roads. However, there is uncertainty whether a stormwater permit may be required at the time of project implementation. Consult with regulatory agencies to determine permit requirements. 1. d. Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated on-site soil loss and sediment delivery to streams. Restore ground cover using certified native plants as practicable to meet revegetation objectives. Avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 14.1 Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area. 1. a. Restrict roads, landings, skid trails, concentrated-use sites, and similar soil disturbances to designated sites. 1. b. Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3 mm threads without breaking or crumbling. 1. c. Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist. 14.2 Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. 1. a. On soils with surface soil (A-horizon) thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter less than 2%, or effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, retain 80 - 90% of the fine (less than 3 inches in diameter) post treatment logging slash in the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree harvest. Consider need for retention of coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to balance soil quality requirements and fuel loading concerns.

2015 Environmental Assessment for the Crater Ridge Vegetation Management Project

1. b. If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows. 15.1 Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water. 1. b. Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps and areas on gentle upland sites. Mix, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals and containers in State-certified disposal areas. 1. c. Locate temporary labor, spike, logging and fire camps such that surface and subsurface water resources are protected. Consideration should be given to disposal of human waste, wastewater and garbage and other solid wastes. 15.2 Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water. 1. a. Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to ground water. Prepare Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan per the requirements of 40 CFR 112. 1. e. Inspect equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals daily during use period for leaks. If leaks or spills occur, report them and install emergency traps to contain them and clean them up. Refer to FSH 6709.11, chapter 60 for direction on working with hazardous materials. 1. f. Report spills and take appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Contaminated soil and other material shall be removed from NFS lands and disposed of in a manner according to state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 15.3 Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water. 1. a. Favor pesticides with half-lives of 3 months or less when practicable to achieve treatment objectives.. Apply at lowest effective rates as large droplets or pellets. Follow the label directions. Favor selective treatment. Use only aquatic-labeled chemicals in the WIZ.