Roads and Trails Environmental Assessment

Home , Sacagawea Peak, The Sphinx (Wyoming), Twin Peaks (Wyoming)

Environmental Assessment

GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST ROAD AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

USDA Forest Service Gallatin National Forest Montana

February, 2009

Responsible Official: Mary Erickson Forest Supervisor

For Further Information, Contact: Steve Christiansen, Project Leader Gallatin National Forest P.O. Box 130 Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 587-6701

“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 USDAs 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.”

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail Projects Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

PAGE CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1

Introduction 1-1

General Location and Geographic Setting 1-1

Proposed Action 1-2

Need and Purpose 1-2

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES 2-1

Introduction 2-1

Scoping and Issue Identification 2-1

The Alternative Development Process 2-1

Alternatives Studied in Detail 2-2

Alternative 1 – The Proposed Action 2-2

Emigrant Gulch Area 2-2 Gardiner Basin Area 2-2 Suce Creek Area 2-2 Bangtails Area 2-3 Bridger Ridge Area 2-4 Fairy Lake Area 2-4 Johnson Canyon Area 2-5 Cooke City Area 2-6 Deer Creeks Area 2-7 Shields River Area 2-8 Smith Creek Area 2-8 Bozeman Creek Area 2-9 Gallatin Roaded Area 2-9 Hyalite Area 2-11 North Dry Area 2-12 Cutler Lake Area 2-12 Rock/Tom Miner Area 2-12 Trail Creek/Bear Canyon Area 2-13 Hebgen Basin Area 2-14 Lionhead Area 2-14 Mile Creek Area 2-15 Pika Point Area 2-16 Sage Creek Area 2-16 Pole Gulch Area 2-16 West Pine Area 2-16

Altenative 1 (Cont.) – Authorized Work Description 2-17

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Standard Operating Procedures 2-20

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Additional Applicable Mitigation 2-22

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Monitoring 2-23

Alternative 2 – No Action 2-24

Alternatives Considered but not Given Detailed Study 2-24

Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 2-24

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction 3-1

BIODIVERSITY 3-2 FISHERIES 3-20 GENERAL WILDLIFE 3-27 GRIZZLY BEAR 3-45 INVASIVE WEEDS 3-77 LYNX 3-81 MIGRATORY BIRDS 3-93 ROADLESS 3-99 WATER QUALITY 3-105 WOLVERINE 3-115 RARE PLANTS 3-121 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES 3-126 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 3-138

CHAPTER 4 – PREPARATION AND CONSULTATION 4-1

The Public Involvement Process 4-1

Consultation 4-1

Preparation 4-1

References 4-3

APPENDIX A – Response to Comments A-1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the potential environmental consequences of a Forest Service proposal for improvement work on certain Gallatin National Forest roads and trails. The work being proposed is one phase of implementing the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan) which established the opportunities to be provided for public recreation use and access on the Forest’s road and trail system (See Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision, October 2006). The Travel Plan specified the types of uses to be allowed and managed for on each road and trail including passenger car pleasure driving, high clearance vehicle use, ATV use, motorcycle use, biking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, hiking, skiing and snowshoeing. The improvement work now being proposed is designed to provide adequate facilities to accommodate the designated uses and provide for other resource protection.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA provisions (40 CFR 1500), the Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220) as well as applicable Forest Service manuals, handbooks and other higher-level direction. This EA serves to: (a) Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1508.9(a)). (b) Aid in informing the decision process and in complying with NEPA should it be found that an EIS is not necessary (id.).

General Location and Geographic Setting

The Gallatin National Forest contains approximately 1.8 million acres of National Forest System land and is located along the northern and western boundaries of Yellowstone National Park in southwest Montana (See Figure 1.1). The Forest spans portions of Madison, Gallatin, Park, Meagher, Sweet Grass and Carbon Counties. Offices are located in the cities of Bozeman, Livingston, Big Timber, Gardiner and West Yellowstone. The Gallatin National Forest includes lands in the Bridger, Bangtail, Crazy, Absaroka, Beartooth, Gallatin, Henry’s Lake and Madison Mountain Ranges. Major rivers include the Gallatin, Madison and Yellowstone Rivers.

Included in the Gallatin National Forest are the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area and the Absaroka- Beartooth Wilderness Area covering approximately 716,000 acres. Also included are the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area (approximately 37,000 acres) and the Hyalite/Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area (approximately 155,000 acres). In addition to these areas, approximately 704,000 acres of National Forest land have been inventoried as roadless. The remaining Forest lands have been mostly roaded and developed for mineral entry and timber production.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 1-6 Proposed Action

The U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, is proposing the following work to as part of implementation of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan:

1. Construction of the new trail connectors identified in the Travel Plan designed to create loop opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes. 2. Construction of other trail segments to accommodate the non-motorized and winter opportunities (both snowmobiling and skiing) targeted to be provided by the Travel Plan. 3. Reconstruction of existing roads and trails to accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan (e.g. reconstructing a single track trail so that it can accommodate ATVs). 4. Construction and reconstruction of trailheads and parking facilities needed to accommodate user demand. 5. Surfacing of high priority roads and replacement of culverts to facilitate aquatic organism passage. 6. Restoration and stabilization of certain excess roads not designated for motorized use by the Travel Plan.

Generally, the work would be scheduled to be performed over a 5 year period beginning in 2009 and is located in various locations across the Forest. More specific information on the location of individual projects can be found under the description of alternatives in Chapter 2 of this EA.

Need and Purpose

Need for Road and Trail Work

The proposed improvement work to be done on Gallatin National Forest roads and trails includes construction and reconstruction of trails; construction of trailheads and parking facilities; reconstruction of roads, and restoration and stabilization of closed roads, all of which are designed to meet the desired conditions identified by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision, 10/2006). The Travel Plan specified the types of uses to be allowed and managed for on each road and trail including passenger car pleasure driving, high clearance vehicle use, ATV use, motorcycle use, biking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, hiking, skiing and snowshoeing. There is now a need to provide adequate facilities to accommodate the designated uses while maintaining resource protection, and to restore and stabilize existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs. A more specific description of the need follows.

New Trail Construction

The Travel Plan identified some new trails but defined them on the decision maps as general corridors between two endpoints. In other words, the actual trails don’t yet exist. The location on- the-ground and the construction design standards for the routes now need to be determined to provide the trail facility that will accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 1-7 Trail Reconstruction

Some existing trails were identified for ATV use by the Travel Plan but the trail facilities themselves are currently inadequate to safely accommodate this use. Therefore, reconstruction of these trails is needed. For example, where the existing tread is too narrow, additional width needs to be constructed. Where the clearing limits are too tight, additional vegetation needs to be removed. Where grades are steep and excessive tread erosion is occurring, relocation is needed to relax the grade. At stream crossings, trail bridges or hardened fords may be needed to protect stream courses.

Road Reconstruction

Most open roads on the Gallatin National Forest were constructed for logging traffic so their geometry is generally satisfactory. However, some entry roads to the Forest and roads to major destinations need to be hardened (e.g. graveled) to accommodate the use and minimize erosion. Some roads also need additional features such as turnouts, turnarounds at gates, and dispersed recreational roadside parking.

Construction of Trailheads/Parking Areas

Where a trail leaves the road system, a parking facility is necessary to keep users from parking along the roads, parking in private driveways, and from parking in front of gates. The amount of parking needed is determined by the anticipated volume and type of vehicle on a normal recreational day, a summer Saturday for instance. Because the Travel Plan changed some use patterns, additional trailheads are needed, and for some existing facilities, the capacity needs to be increased. This is particularly true for trailheads where users typically bring vehicles with trailers, such as for stock, ATV’s and snowmobiles.

Road Restoration, Stabilization and Decommissioning

As a result of the Travel Plan decision, there are a number of existing roads that are not designated for public or routine administrative travel. These roads are to be effectively closed and therefore will not receive the level of periodic maintenance that occurs on open roads. Therefore these roads need to be restored and stabilized such that sediment production from road surfaces and cut and fill slopes is minimized, historic hydrologic function is returned and vegetation is encouraged. For roads that are not needed for the long-term management of the Forest, decommissioning is needed to permanently remove the road from the system.

Purpose for Road and Trail Work

Given the need for action described above the purpose for the proposed road and trail work can be summarized as follows:

1) The purpose of constructing and reconstructing trails is to provide the trail facilities necessary to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision, 10/2006).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 1-8 2) The purpose of reconstructing roads is to; (a) harden the surface to accommodate vehicle use and minimize erosion, and (b) to provide the turnouts, turnarounds and roadside parking needed for safe, uncongested ingress and egress into the Forest. 3) The purpose of constructing trailheads/parking areas is to provide places for the public to load, unload and leave vehicles while using Gallatin National Forest trails. 4) The purpose of restoring, stabilizing and decommissioning excess roads is to restore hydrologic function and minimize sedimentation from cut and fill slopes and road surfaces.

Decisions to be Made

The primary purpose of preparing an environmental assessment (EA) is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.9(a)). If it is determined that an EIS is not necessary, then the Responsible Official shall prepare a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI), which completes Forest Service compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Once NEPA compliance is completed then the Responsible Official will prepare a Decision Notice to document the decisions on the proposals discussed above. More specifically, decisions that are to be made are as follows:

1) To decide whether to construct and reconstruct trails where needed to accommodate the uses designated through the Travel Plan, and if so, in what location and with what stipulations. 2) To decide whether to reconstruct certain roads to accommodate use and minimize erosion, and if so, with what stipulations. 3) To decide whether to construct new and expanded trailhead/parking facilities and if so, with what stipulations. 4) To decide whether to restore, stabilize and decommission roads in excess of administrative, recreational and access needs and if so, with what stipulations.

Scope of the Decision to be Made

The decisions to be made are limited to those described in the previous section. Decisions regarding the types and seasons of public use of the Gallatin National Forest transportation system (i.e. uses of the roads and trails) were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Record of Decision, 10/2006) and are not being reconsidered in this proposal.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 1-9 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

This chapter of the EA describes the proposed actions identified in Chapter 1 in more detail as well as the “no action” alternative. It also discusses the scoping process, and provides a comparison of the alternatives studied in detail. Scoping and Issue Identification The Scoping Process

The first step in conducting an analysis of a proposed action is to determine what environmental issues should be considered. To do this, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) outlines a process termed “scoping” (40 CFR 1501.7). This is an open process designed to determine the resources potentially affected by the proposed action (i.e. the issues). These issues then become the subjects addressed in an EA to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether there could be significant environmental impacts such that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required (40 CFR 1508.9(a)). The scoping process involves soliciting comments from other agencies, organizations and individuals, as well as early evaluation of the action by Forest Service specialists.

A public opportunity was provided on the road and trail proposals from June 11th through July 18th, 2008. An extension was granted to those requesting it through August 15th, 2008. Seventeen comment letters and emails were received. Forest Service responses to comments received are included in Appendix A of this document.

After public comment was received, the interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists began the analysis process by reviewing the environmental issues addressed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (10/2006) and any additional issues identified in public comment to determine which ones were relevant to this proposed action and therefore should be analyzed and discussed in this EA. The issues identified represent those resources of the Gallatin National Forest that could be adversely or beneficially affected by proposed construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of trails; construction of trailheads and parking facilities; reconstruction of roads, and restoration and stabilization of roads. Chapter 3 of this EA discusses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives to the relevant issues. The Alternative Development Process

This EA addresses projected impacts of two alternatives; the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), and No Action (Alternative 2). These two alternatives were determined to be adequate because; (a) the significance of environmental issues could be minimized through application of mitigation and design features to the Proposed Action, and (b) the effects of other alternatives (i.e. combinations of

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-10

the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives) can be adequately understood through comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. Alternatives Studied in Detail

Alternative 1 – The Proposed Action

Under this Alternative improvement work to be done on Gallatin National Forest roads and trails would include construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of trails; construction of trailheads and parking facilities; reconstruction of roads, and restoration and stabilization of roads, all of which are designed to meet the desired conditions identified by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan. Generally, the work would be scheduled to be performed over a 5 year period beginning in 2009. More specifically, work that would be done is as follows:

Emigrant Gulch Area (Absaroka Mountain Range, Map ABS-1)

In the Emigrant Gulch area the ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike trail from upper Arrastra down to Emigrant Gulch (about 2.5 miles) would be constructed and maintenance would be performed on about 2.0 miles of existing trail (see map ABS-1 at the Gallatin Forest website or on the accompanying CD). This project is designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Mill Creek Travel Planning Area which is to “Provide 1 or 2 ATV/motorcycle loop trails within the area.” This connector route is also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses. (See GNF Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, page II-136, and Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses).

Gardiner Basin Area (Absaroka Mountain Range, Map ABS-2)

In the Gardiner Basin area about 18 miles of cross-country ski trail would be cleared and marked in the Jardine area. Ski trails would begin near the Pine Creek Trailhead and generally run to the northeast using the Bear Creek Road #493, the Ash Mountain Road #6976, and the Darroch Creek Road #6962 (see map ABS-2 at the Gallatin Forest website or on the accompanying CD). The work includes about 3.0 miles of trail reconstruction and 3.0 miles of maintenance. This work is designed to facilitate cross-country skiing opportunities in this area consistent with the route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Gardiner Basin Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, page II-96, and Final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses).

Application Rules from the Grizzly Bear Amendment ROD, p. A-2-5, apply to this project. More specifically, no other projects affecting secure habitat shall be allowed to occur within this bear subunit at the same time this project is being carried out.

Suce Creek Area (Absaroka Mountain Range, Map ABS-3)

In the Suce Creek area a winter parking facility would be constructed for cross-country skiers wishing to use winter routes along the Suce Creek Road #201 and the Baldy Basin Trail #44, outside of Wilderness (see map ABS-3 at the Gallatin Forest website or on the accompanying CD). The parking facility would be designed to accommodate up to 6 vehicles and be located along the

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-11

Suce Creek Road at the National Forest boundary. This work is designed to facilitate access to cross-country skiing opportunities in this area consistent with the route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Mission Creek Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, page II-149, and Final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses).

Bangtails Area (Bridger-Bangtails Mountain Ranges, Map BBG-1)

In the Bangtails area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Jackson Creek, Grouse Creek, Willow Creek, and Bangtail Creek ATV loop trails. Work to be done includes about 5.8 miles of new trail construction, 3.1 miles of trail reconstruction, and 8.2 miles of trail maintenance. These actions, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 49 miles of recreation opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes in the Bangtail Mountains. (Map BBG-1) 2. Resurfacing of the Jackson Creek Road #977 from the county road to the Jackson Creek Trailhead, about 3 miles. Resurfacing involves adding coarse aggregate to improve drivability and reduce sediment production. (Map BBG-1) 3. Construction of about 0.5 miles of motorcycle/mountain bike trail from the Bangtail Divide Trail #504 at the head of Stone Creek in Section 18, T1S, R8E down to the Bishop Park Road #1760. The proposal, in combination with #1 above and suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 49 miles of opportunities for motorcycles and mountain bikes. (Map BBG-1) 4. Construction of two 10 vehicle parking facilities in Sec. 28, T1S, R8E in upper Jackson Creek, and Sec. 25, T1N, R7E in upper Miles Creek for ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers wishing to access Bangtail area loop trails. (Map BBG-1)

The ATV and motorcycle trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects are designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Goal 1, and Objectives 1-1 and 1-2 for the Bangtails Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-15). In summary, this goal and associated objectives are designed to primarily provide opportunities for pleasure driving, ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike use in this area. New trail construction is supported by Objective 1-2 which recognized a need to provide about 5 miles of additional ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike connector routes to create loops. The connector and loop routes are also identified in the route tables for the Bangtails Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-18 and II-19) and are shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

Resurfacing of the Jackson Creek Road is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Goal 4 for the Bangtails Travel Planning Area which is to: “Provide a road and trail system that accommodates traffic consistent with protecting soil and watershed condition.” It also responds to forest-wide Travel Plan Goal D and Objective D-3 (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11) which direct maintenance of a road and trail system to be consistent with Forest Plan goals for water quality, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, threatened and endangered species recovery, and historical resources.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-12

As stated above, the construction of 2 parking areas is designed to accommodate ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers wishing to access Bangtail area loop trails.

Bridger Ridge Area (Bridger-Bangtails Mountain Ranges, Map BBG-2)

In the Bridger Ridge area the Bridger Ridge Hiking Trail #513 would be marked, on the ground, where needed. This trail runs along the ridge of the Bridger Mountains from the “M” at the southern end, to Sacagawea Peak in the north-central part of the Range. Marking activity is designed to help hikers locate and stay on the Bridger Ridge Trail. Hiking is emphasized on this route as identified on the route tables for the West Bridger North and West Bridger South Travel Planning Areas (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-191 and II-195).

Fairy Lake Area (Bridger-Bangtails Mountain Ranges, Maps BBG-3 and BBG-4)

In the Fairy Lake area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction of an ATV connector trail from the Fairy Lake Road #74 (about 1.4 miles) to the Fairy Lake Trail #500. Then maintenance work on about 2 miles of the Fairy Lake Trail from the end of the new construction to the Central Camp Road #6607. This trail shall be routed to avoid wet and unstable areas. (Map BBG-3) 2. Construction of a motorcycle connector trail from the Central Camp Road #6607 to the Upper Brackett Creek Trail #525 (about 2.5 miles). (Map BBG-3) 3. Construction of snowmobile connector trails from the Fairy Lake Road #74 at the Carrol Creek Road #75 and from the Cache Creek Road #1774 to the Fairy Lake Trail #500 (about 4.2 miles). (Map BBG-4) 4. Construction of two trailhead facilities that would accommodate 10 vehicles each. The first, South Bridger Bowl Trailhead would be located in the northeast corner of Sec. 3, T1N, R7E, just south of the Bridger Bowl Ski Area parking lot. The second, Lower Fairy Creek Trailhead would be located in Section 30, T2N, R7E at the junction of the Cache Creek Road #1775. (Map BBG-3) 5. Construction of a trailhead facility that would accommodate 6 vehicles at the junction of the Carrol Creek Road #75 with Fairy Lake Road #74 in Section 24, T2N, R6E. (Map BBG-3) Effectively close and restore 13 miles of excess project roads within the Fairy Lake area using Treatment Types #I-III. (Map BBG-3)

The new ATV and motorcycle trail construction and maintenance projects are designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Fairy Lake Travel Planning Area which is to “Provide 1 to 3 designated ATV and/or motorcycle routes (Travel Plan Decision, page II-67). The connector routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The new snowmobile trail construction projects are designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Objective 2- 2 for the Fairy lake Travel Planning Area which is to “Provide a system of 2 to 4 snowmobile loop trails and a connector route to the Flathead Pass area” (Travel Plan Decision, page II-67). The connector routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-13

The road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11). The work to be done will be on portions of the road system shown as green on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The proposed new trailhead facilities are designed to provide vehicle parking for the public who are using area trails in accordance with the designated uses established by the GNF Travel Plan.

Johnson Canyon Area (Bridger-Bangtails Mountain Ranges, Maps BBG-5 and BBG-6)

In the Johnson Canyon area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction of the upper Johnson Canyon and Johnson to Felix ATV loop connector trails. Work to be done includes about 2.5 miles of new trail construction, and 2.6 miles of trail reconstruction. These trails shall be routed to avoid wet and unstable areas. The proposal, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 11 miles of recreation opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes in the Johnson Canyon area of the north Bridger Mountain Range. (Map BBG-5) 2. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility in Sec. 36, T3N, R5E in Johnson Canyon (just inside the Forest boundary) for ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers wishing to access area loop trails. (Map BBG-5) 3. Resurfacing of the Johnson Canyon Road #6930 from the end of the county road to the Johnson Canyon Trailhead, about 2 miles. Resurfacing involves adding coarse aggregate to improve drivability and reduce sediment production. (Map BBG-5) 4. Construction of a new stock and hiking trail from the Johnson Canyon Trailhead south to the North Cottonwood Trailhead, about 3 miles. (Map BBG-6)

The new ATV trail construction projects are designed to provide the loop opportunities identified in the route tables for the West Bridger North Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II- 190 and II-191). These routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The new parking facility is designed to provide vehicle parking for the public who are using Johnson Canyon and Felix Canyon area trails in accordance with the designated uses established by the GNF Travel Plan.

Resurfacing of the Johnson Canyon Road is responsive to forest-wide Travel Plan Goal D and Objective D-3 (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11) which direct maintenance of a road and trail system to be consistent with Forest Plan goals for water quality, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, threatened and endangered species recovery, and historical resources.

The construction of the Johnson Canyon/North Cottonwood stock and hiking trail is designed to provide a non-motorized connector route between Johnson Canyon and the North Cottonwood Creek area, consistent with GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-3 for the West Bridger North Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-187). Currently there is no National Forest System

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-14

trail connecting the Johnson Canyon area with the trail system to the south in the Bridger Mountain Range.

Cooke City Area (Beartooth Mountains, Maps BTH-1 and BTH-2)

In the Cooke City area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Cooke City area ATV trails. Work to be done includes construction of the Henderson Mountain Connector Trail, about 0.2 miles; reconstruction of the Miller Creek loop trails; about 2.1 miles, and 6.0 miles of trail maintenance/improvement work. The proposal, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 23 miles of recreation opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes in the Cooke City area. (Map BTH-2) The construction and reconstruction of the Upper Miller Creek motorized trail loops leads to a permanent decrease in secure habitat. The Application rules for Permanent decreases below indicate that: A project may permanently change secure habitat if secure habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent technology) is replaced in the same Bear Management Unit subunit. Therefore project roads in the area must be effectively closed to motorized traffic prior to, or simultaneously with building this new route.

2. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility just off the beginning of the Lake Abundance Road #3219 for multiple uses of areas to the north. (Map BTH-1)

3. Establishment, clearing and marking of Woody Creek area ski trails including about 2.1 miles of trail reconstruction and 1.2 miles of trail maintenance. Once completed, the Woody Creek area would provide about 6.7 miles of ski/snowshoe opportunity. (Map BTH-2)

The new ATV trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects are designed to provide the connector and loop opportunities identified in the route tables for the Cooke City Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-49 and II-50). These routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses. The summer recreation use goal for this travel planning area is to emphasize regulated motorized/mountain bike use to the north of Highway 212 (id. page II-46).

The new parking facility is designed to provide vehicle parking for the public who are using the roads, trails and area to the north of Daisy Pass in accordance with the designated uses established by the GNF Travel Plan.

The establishment of Woody Creek area ski trails is consistent with Cooke City Travel Planning Area Goal 2 (Travel Plan Decision, page II-46) for winter recreation which emphasizes cross- country skiing opportunities south of Highway 212. It is also consistent with the route-by-route

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-15

management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Cooke City Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, page II-51, and Final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses).

The projects in the Cooke City area shall be coordinated so that multiple projects are not occurring at the same time in the Lamar #1 grizzly bear subunit under the Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Conservation (Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment #27, April 2006).

Deer Creeks Area (Beartooth Mountains, Maps BTH-3 and BTH-4)

In the Deer Creeks area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction of the Wepler connector trail (about 0.8 miles) between the Wepler Road #2551 and the Lodgepole Trail #124 in Section 23, T3S, R14E to accommodate motorcycle, mountain bike, foot and stock use. (Map BTH-3) 2. Maintenance work on the entire motorcycle trail system within the Deer Creeks area to correct any safety issues (about 4.0 miles of work out of the 20 miles of opportunity provided). (Map BTH-3) 3. Construction of a 6 vehicle parking facility (trailhead) along the North Fork of Derby Gulch Road in Sec. 33, T2S, R15E for ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers wishing to use area loop trails. (Map BTH-4) 4. Construction of the following ATV connector trails (about 24 miles total): Tie Cutter Gulch (from the end of the West Bridger Road #448 over Tie Cutter Gulch and down into Deer Creek); North Fork to Tie Cutter (from the new trailhead on the North Fork of the Derby Gulch Road to the Derby Mountain Trail #126 in the center of Sec. 35, T2S, R15E), and upper Derby ATV connector trails (Sections 9, 10, 15 and 16, T3S, R15E). (Map BTH-4) 5. Reconstruction of the ATV portion of the Derby Mountain Trail #126 (from the center of Sec. 35, T2S, R15E to the north line of Sec. 9, T3S, R15E). (Map BTH-4)

The new ATV, motorcycle trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects are designed to provide the connector and loop opportunities identified in the route tables for the Deer Creeks Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-58). These routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The new parking facility is designed to provide vehicle parking primarily for motorized users wanting to use the loop trail system that begins off of the North Fork of Derby Gulch Road.

Porcupine Area (Crazy Mountain Range, Map CRZ-1)

In the Porcupine area portions of the Porcupine-Lowline Trail #267 between the Ibex and Porcupine trailheads would be relocated to correspond with final rights-of-way. Some portions of the trail may be shifted onto National Forest land to the east. Currently, the trail passes through large portions of private lands with fences, gates, past harvest and road building and needs to be remarked and reconstructed. Under the decision for the Gallatin Travel Plan this trail is to provide opportunities for motorcycle, mountain bike, stock and foot use (Travel Plan Decision, page II-111).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-16

Work would involve about 5.2 miles of new trail construction, 2.6 miles of reconstruction and 3.0 miles of maintenance.

Shields River Area (Crazy Mountain Range, Maps CRZ-2 and CRZ-3)

Two projects would be implemented in the Shields River area. The first would be to construct a hiking and stock trail from the Upper Shields River Road #844 to the South Fork of the American Fork Trail #125. This trail would be designed to provide a non-motorized connector route between the Shields River area and the east side of the Crazy Mountains, consistent with GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Shields Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-164). Work to be done includes about 3.3 miles of trail construction, 2.2 miles of reconstruction and 1.6 miles of maintenance. (Map CRZ-2)

The second proposal would be to surface sections of the Shields River Road #844 (from milepost 6 to milepost 20) and the Turkey Creek Road #6634 (entire length) to improve drivability and reduce sediment production, approximately 15.2 miles of work. The Shields River Road is designated by the Gallatin Travel Plan to primarily provide an opportunity for passenger car travel although other uses are also allowed (Travel Plan Decision, page II-167). The Turkey Creek Road is to be managed with an emphasis on providing opportunities for high clearance vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes (id.). This proposal is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Objective 4- 1 for the Shields Travel Planning Area which states: “Repair damage to road and trail system and schedule maintenance to attain conditions that are non-erosive” (Travel Plan Decision, page II-164). It is also responsive to Objective 3-1 for this Travel Planning Area (id., page II-164) which states “reduce contributed sediment from the road and trail system in the upper Shields and Smith Creek watersheds to achieve Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat at 90% of its potential habitat capability”. (Map CRZ-3)

Smith Creek Area (Crazy Mountain Range, Map CRZ-4)

In the Smith Creek area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Bitter Creek, Honey Run, and East Fork ATV loop trails. Work to be done includes about 2.3 miles of new trail construction, 1.3 miles of trail reconstruction, and 10.0 miles of trail maintenance. The project, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 34 miles of recreation opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes in the Smith Creek portion of the Crazy Mountains. (Map CRZ-4) 2. Effectively close and restore 20 miles of excess project roads within the Smith Creek area using Treatment Types #I-III. (Map CRZ-4) 3. Construction of about 0.5 miles of motorcycle/mountain bike trail from near the end of the Sunlight Creek Road #6630 to the Shields Lowline Trail #258 in Section 1, T4N, R10E. The project, in combination with #1 above and suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 49 miles of opportunities for motorcycles and mountain bikes. (Map CRZ-1) 4. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility (trailhead) in Section 31, T6N, R10E, near the start point of the Bitter Creek trails for ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers. (Map CRZ-4)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-17

The ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects are designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Goal 1, and Objectives 1-1 and 1-3 for the Shields Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-164). In summary, this goal and associated objectives are designed to primarily provide opportunities for pleasure driving, ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike use in the Smith Creek area. Objective 1-3 is to restore and designate old roads for motorized opportunities and mountain bike use. The loop routes are also identified in the route tables for the Shields Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-167 and II-169) and are shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

Road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11), and also Objective 3-1 for the Shields Travel Planning Area (id., page II-164) which states “reduce contributed sediment from the road and trail system in the upper Shields and Smith Creek watersheds to achieve Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat at 90% of its potential habitat capability”. The work to be done will be on portions of the road system shown as green on map CRZ-3.

As stated above, the construction of a parking area (trailhead) is designed to accommodate ATV riders, motorcyclists and mountain bikers wishing to access area loop trails.

Bozeman Creek Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Map GAL-1)

In the Bozeman Creek area there would be a trail construction project to connect the mountain bike trails between Sections 5 and 7, T4S, R7E and then performance of general maintenance where needed on the remainder of this loop trail system. The work would include about 0.7 miles of new construction and about 3 miles of maintenance. This project is responsive to Objective 1-3 of the GNF Travel Plan for the Bozeman Creek area which states: “Provide a connector route for mountain bikes across City of Bozeman land in Sec. 5, T4S, R7E” (Travel Plan Decision, page II- 29).

Gallatin Roaded Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Maps GAL-2, GAL-3, GAL-4, GAL-6, and GAL-12)

In the Gallatin Roaded area the following work would be performed:

1. Clearing and marking of the Big Bear Snowmobile Trails. In addition to marking the trails, the work includes about 0.7 miles of new construction and about 1.0 mile of maintenance. The clearing width for a snowmobile trail is 8 feet. (Map GAL-6) 2. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Little Bear, Storm Castle, and Swan Creek ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike loop trails. Work to be done includes about 7.9 miles of new trail construction, 6.2 miles of trail reconstruction, and 15.0 miles of trail maintenance. The project, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 77 miles of recreation opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes in the Gallatin Roaded area. (Map GAL-2)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-18

3. Surfacing (paving to reduce dusting around the Shenango Helibase) of the lower Storm Castle Road #132 from Highway 191 to the lower trailhead parking (about 0.6 miles). (Map GAL-3) 4. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility (trailhead) in Sec. 28, T4S, R4E at the Shenango administrative site (formerly Squaw Creek Ranger Station) for winter/spring users of the Storm Castle Creek drainage (Map GAL-3) 5. Construction of the snowmobile connector route from the Pine Tree Road #6970 to the Swan Creek Trail#186 along Trail #76 (about 1.5 miles of construction). Maintenance of about 1.0 miles of the remainder of the route. The project, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 24 miles of snowmobile trail opportunity. (Map GAL-12) 6. Effectively close and restore 3 miles of excess project roads within the Moose/Tamphery/Swan Creek areas using Treatment Types I-III. (Map GAL-4) 7. Effectively close and restore 25 miles of excess project roads within the Storm Castle, Wilson, and Bear Creek area using Treatment Types I-III. (Map GAL-2)

The clearing and marking of the Big Bear Snowmobile Trail and construction of the snowmobile connector route from the Pine Tree Road to the Swan Creek Trail#186 is responsive to Goal 2 and Objective 2-1 of the GNF Travel Plan for the Gallatin Roaded Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-85). The Travel Plan management emphasis for this area in the winter is to provide groomed and marked routes for snowmobiling. Included routes are also shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses.

The ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects are designed to meet GNF Travel Plan Goal 1, and Objectives 1-1 and 1-2 for the Gallatin Roaded Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-85). In summary, this goal and associated objectives are designed to primarily provide opportunities for pleasure driving, ATV, motorcycle use in this area. Objective 1-2 is to provide an extensive system of ATV/motorcycle loop trails. The loop routes are also identified in the route tables for the Gallatin Roaded Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-90 to II-92) and are shown on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The surfacing of the Storm Castle Road is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Goal 4 for the Gallatin Roaded Travel Planning Area which is to: “Provide a road and trail system that accommodates traffic consistent with protecting soil and watershed condition.” It also responds to forest-wide Travel Plan Goal D and Objective D-3 (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11) which direct maintenance of a road and trail system to be consistent with Forest Plan goals for water quality, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, threatened and endangered species recovery, and historical resources.

As stated above, the construction of a parking area (trailhead) at the Shenango administrative site is designed to accommodate winter users of the Storm Castle Creek drainage. In other words, this will serve as a launch point for snowmobilers, skiers, and snowshoers wishing to travel further up the drainage.

Road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-19 and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11), and also Goal 3 and Objectives 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 for the Gallatin Roaded Travel Planning Area (id., page II-85) In summary this goal and objectives emphasize reducing contributed sediment from the road and trail system to provide habitat for westslope cutthroat trout in the West Fork of Wilson Creek and to provide for beneficial uses in all other streams. The work to be done will be on portions of the road system shown as green on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

Hyalite Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Maps GAL-5, GAL-6, and GAL-13)

In the Hyalite area the following work would be performed:

1. Construction of 4x4 connector roads in the Moser Jumpoff and Langohr areas. Work involves 1.1 miles of new high clearance vehicle road construction to create loops within the existing open road system. (Map GAL-5) 2. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Buckskin and Lick Creek ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike loop trails. Work to be done includes about 1.4 miles of new trail construction, 1 mile of trail reconstruction, and 0.8 miles of trail maintenance. The project, in combination with suitable existing routes, will facilitate approximately 18 miles of recreation opportunity for ATVs, motorcycles, and mountain bikes on this route system. (Map GAL-5) 3. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of Hyalite area ski trails. Work involves about 2 miles of ski trail construction, 5 miles of reconstruction and 15 miles of maintenance. The project, in combination with suitable existing routes will provide 44 miles of cross-country ski trails within the Hyalite drainage. (Map GAL-13) 4. Construction of two six vehicle parking facilities (trailhead) at Wildhorse and Hood Creek Trailheads and expansion of the existing facilities at the Lick Creek and History Rock Trailheads to accommodate about 5 additional vehicles each. (Maps GAL-5 & GAL-13) 5. Effectively close and restore 20 miles of excess project roads within the within the Hyalite area using Treatment Types #I-III. (Map GAL-5) 6. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility at the southern end of Hyalite Reservoir just south of Chisolm campground in Section 23, T4S, R6E, to accommodate fisherman, mountain bikers and other dispersed users away from the campgrounds and Hyalite Road turnouts. (Map GAL-5)

The construction of 4x4 connector roads in the Moser Jumpoff and Langohr areas are designed to create loop opportunities for high-clearance vehicle travel in the Hyalite area, consistent with the route tables for the Hyalite Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-105) and the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

The construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the Buckskin and Lick Creek ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike trails are designed to create loop opportunities for these users in the Hyalite area, consistent with the route tables for the Hyalite Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, pages II-105 and II-106) and the Final Travel Plan decision maps for summer motorized and non-motorized uses.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-20

Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of Hyalite area ski trails is responsive to Hyalite Travel Planning Area Goal 2 and Objective 2-3 (Travel Plan Decision, page II-102) for winter recreation which emphasizes cross-country skiing opportunities. It is also consistent with the route- by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Hyalite Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, pages II-105 to II-107, and the final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses).

The construction of parking facilities at the Wildhorse and Hood Creek Trailheads are designed to accommodate users of these trails. Currently there are no adequate parking areas at these trailheads. The expansion of the parking facilities at the Lick Creek and History Rock Trailheads would accommodate increasing use of these trails. The construction of a parking facility at the southern end of the Hyalite Reservoir is designed to accommodate fisherman, mountain bikers and other dispersed users away from the campgrounds and Hyalite Road turnouts.

Road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11). The work to be done will be on portions of the road system shown as green on the Final Travel Plan decision map for summer motorized uses.

North Dry Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Map GAL-7)

In the North Dry area portions of the Eightmile Trail #132 from the lower trailhead to the upper trailhead would be reconstructed. Under the decision for the Gallatin Travel Plan this trail is to provide opportunities for mountain bike, stock and foot use (Travel Plan Decision, page II-204). Work would involve about 2.7 miles of trail reconstruction.

Cutler Lake Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Map SAW-1)

In the Cutler Lake area a parking facility alongside the County Road near Cutler Lake would be constructed and a trail system would be established (maintained) for mountain bike, stock and foot use. Work to be done includes about 1.5 miles of new trail construction, 1.8 miles of trail reconstruction, and 1.8 miles of trail maintenance. This project is consistent with the route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Yankee Jim Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, page II-199, and the final Travel Plan decision map for non- motorized uses).

This project along with any other projects in the Gallatin #3 bear subunit shall be coordinated so that multiple projects are not occurring at the same time in this same subunit under the Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Conservation (Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment #27, April 2006).

Rock/Tom Miner Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Maps GAL-8, GAL-9, and SAW-2)

In the Rock/Tom Miner area the following work would be performed:

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-21

1. Construction of the mountain bike connector trail from the South Rock Creek road to the existing Fisher Wagon Route Trail #276. Work involves 1.3 miles of new construction to create a mountain bike loop opportunity. (Map GAL-8) 2. Construction of a 10 vehicle parking facility on the State land Section 16, T8S, R6E along the Tom Miner Road. (Map SAW-2) 3. Construction of the Lower Sawtooth Stock Trail from the new parking facility to the existing Sawtooth Trail #297. Work involves 3.4 miles of new construction. (Map SAW-2)

4. Effective closure and restoration of 8 miles of excess project roads within the within the Soldier Creek/Twin Peaks road system using Treatment Type #5. (Map GAL-9)

Construction of the mountain bike connector trail is consistent with the route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Tom Miner/Rock Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, page II-185, and the final Travel Plan decision map for non-motorized uses).

The 10 vehicle parking facility along the Tom Miner Road and construction of a new lower Sawtooth Stock Trail is designed to provide a trailhead and designated route of travel to National Forest land at Trail #297.

Closure and restoration of 8 miles of road is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Goal 3 and Objective 3- 1 for the Tom Miner/Rock Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, page II-182). The goal is to maintain a network of open roads and trails that would provide for grizzly bear and other wildlife habitat security.

This project along with any other projects in the Gallatin #3 bear subunit shall be coordinated so that multiple projects are not occurring at the same time in this same subunit and that acres affected does not exceed the allowable acreage for the subunit under the Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Conservation (cite).

Trail Creek/Bear Canyon Area (Gallatin Mountain Range, Maps GAL-10 and GAL-11)

Two projects would be implemented in the Trail Creek/Bear Canyon area. The first would be to construct a hiking and stock trail from the ridge above Bear Lakes to the existing North Trail Creek Trail. This trail would be designed to provide a foot and horse trail connecting the Bear Canyon area to the North Fork of Trail Creek, consistent with GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Bear Canyon Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-20). The route eliminates the need for roaded access through the North Trail Creek private road system. Work to be done includes about 5 miles of trail construction. This trail shall be routed to avoid wet and unstable areas. (Map GAL-11)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-22

The second project would be to construct a non-motorized trail from the Trail Creek County Road to the end of the existing trail at Chestnut Mountain. This trail would be designed to provide a mountain bike, foot and horse trail connecting Chestnut Mountain to Trail Creek, consistent with GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-3 for the Bear Canyon Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-20). Work to be done includes about 4.1 miles of trail construction and 1 mile of trail reconstruction. (Map GAL-10)

Work in this area will be confined to an operating period that runs from July 1st to the end of September thus avoiding working in this identified wildlife corridor during the time of year it is most important for movement (avoiding spring or fall).

Hebgen Basin Area (Henry’s Lake Mountain Range, Maps HEN-1 and HEN-2)

Three projects would be implemented in the Hebgen Basin area. The first would be to clear and mark the Bakers Hole Ski Trail which will run along the Yellowstone Park boundary from West Yellowstone to Bakers Hole Campground. This trail is consistent with and displayed on the final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses. Work to be done includes about 3 miles of trail clearing. (Map HEN-1)

The second project would be to effectively close and restore about 25 miles of excess project roads within the Hebgen Basin area using Treatment Types #I-III. Road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11). (Map HEN-2)

The third project would be to construct about a 0.25 mile ATV route connector segment running parallel to the Madison Arm Road in Sec. 1, T13S, R4E. This project completes an ATV loop opportunity without the safety hazard of mixing ATVs and larger vehicles on the Madison Arm Road. The trail connector is consistent with and displayed on the final Travel Plan decision map for summer uses. (Map HEN-2)

Any work to be conducted in the Hebgen Basin area that is within 1.0 mile nesting bald eagles or within 0.5 mi of known foraging habitat shall not commence until August 15th annually. (Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 1994).

Lionhead Area (Henry’s Lake Mountain Range, Maps HEN-3 and HEN-4)

Two projects would be implemented in the Lionhead area. The first would be to construct an ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike connector trail from the Contour Road #1718 to the Denny Creek Road #1735 in Sec. 25, T12S. This trail would be designed to create a loop opportunity for ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes, consistent with route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Lionhead Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, pages II-128 to II-129, and the final Travel Plan decision map for motorized uses). Work to be done includes about 0.3 miles of trail construction. (Map HEN-3)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-23

The second project would be to construct a non-motorized trail parallel to the Ski Hill Trail #114. This project is responsive GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Lionhead Travel Planning Area (Travel Plan Decision, page II-125) which is to establish a non-motorized trail route to serve as the Continental Divide Scenic Trail (CDNST) off existing motorized Trail #114. (Map HEN-4)

Mile Creek Area (Henry’s Lake Mountain Range, HEN-5)

In the Mile Creek area the proposal is to relocate a route on the National Forest from the Mile Creek Trail #214 to Reynolds Pass and the Reynolds Pass Trailhead on the Targhee National Forest. The purpose of this project is to remove the Continental Divide Trail from off of the Mile Creek Road and Highway 87. This project is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Lionhead Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-125), which is to establish a non-motorized trail route to serve as the Continental Divide Scenic Trail (CDST). (Map HEN-5)

Buck Ridge Area (Madison Mountain Range, Maps MAD-1 and MAD-2)

Two projects would be implemented in the Buck Ridge area. The first would be to construct new ATV trails from the upper Buck Creek Trailhead in Sec. 31, T7S, R4E to the Third Yellowmule Trail #157. This trail is designed to provide a series of ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike loops by providing an alternative connector route between the Yellowmule Trails #157 and #162 to the north of the Buck Ridge Trail #10 and the Inspiration Divide Trail #8. This project is responsive to GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Big Sky Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-24), which is to provide an ATV/motorcycle connector trail from the Buck Ridge Trail into the First, Second and Third Yellowmule Creek drainages. It is also consistent with the route-by-route management direction established in the GNF Travel Plan for the Big Sky Travel Planning Area (See GNF Travel Plan Decision, page II-27, and the final Travel Plan decision map for motorized uses). Work to be done includes about 9 miles of trail construction, 3.9 miles of reconstruction and 0.3 miles of maintenance. (Map MAD-1)

The second project would be to relocate the lower Buck Ridge Snowmobile and ATV Trail to the west generally following Trail #906 road reservation location. As part of the Big Sky land exchange the Forest Service acquired and reserved a road location easement between the Buck Creek Ridge Parking Lot on Hwy 191 to the Buck Creek Ridge Road on national forest land in Sec. 32, T7S, R4E. The proposal here is to relocate the trail to this easement. This project involves about 2.2 miles of trail reconstruction and 0.7 miles of maintenance. (Map MAD-2)

These projects along with any other projects in the Hilgard #1 and #2 bear subunits shall be coordinated so that multiple projects are not occurring at the same time in the same subunit and that acres affected does not exceed the allowable acreage for the subunit under the Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Conservation (Gallatin Forest Plan Amendment #27, April 2006).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-24

Pika Point Area (Madison Mountain Range, Map MAD-3)

In the Pika Point area the portion of the Minnie Wapiti Trail #203 from the Oil Well Road Trail #68 to Pika Point would be relocated to accommodate ATVs. Work to be done includes about 1 mile of trail reconstruction and 0.5 miles of maintenance. (Map MAD-3)

Sage Creek Area (Madison Mountain Range, Map MAD-4)

In the Sage Creek area is to construct a snowmobile connector trail from the Sage Creek parking lot at Highway 191 to the Oil Well Road Trail #68 would be constructed. This project would route snowmobiles above moose winter range in the lower Taylor Fork drainage and eliminate the need for snowmobiles to travel along the plowed Taylor Fork Road to the Wapiti Road #2522. The reroute is consistent with and shown on the final Travel Plan decision map for winter uses. Work to be done includes 2.8 miles of snowmobile trail construction and 2.4 miles of reconstruction. (Map MAD-4)

Pole Gulch Area

In the Pole Gulch area 8 miles of excess project roads in the Miller Creek and Pole Gulch areas would be closed using treatment type III. Actions include rip/drain/seed/slash and pulling culverts.

Road closure and restoration work is supported by forest-wide GNF Travel Plan Objective D-1 which states: “Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs” (Travel Plan Decision, page I-11), and also Objective 5-1 for the Yellowstone Travel Planning Area (id., page II-200) which states “repair damage to road and trail system and schedule maintenance to maintain conditions that are non–erosive.”

West Pine Area

In the West Pine area 2 miles total of excess project roads in West Pine Creek would be closed using treatment type III. The work will include re-contouring junctions with Road #978, rip/drain/seed/slash remaining roads (ATV encroachment on existing closed project roads).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-25

Planning Area (id., page II-200) which states “repair damage to road and trail system and schedule maintenance to maintain conditions that are non–erosive.”

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Authorized Work Description

This section describes the types of work that would be authorized under this alternative for the site- specific actions discussed above.

New Trail Construction

New trail construction work may be accomplished by a local trail contractor, by Forest trail crews, or volunteer labor.

Outside of Wilderness, excavation could be accomplished by a mix of hand labor with hand tools, small trail-sized excavators, skid-steer loaders, ATV’s and/or other trail sized machinery. Inside of Wilderness work would be accomplished with hand labor and hand tools (i.e. no motorized nor mechanized equipment). Construction of the motorized routes would be accomplished using the most cost effective method, typically with some small mechanized equipment.

Transportation of materials such as bridges could be done with skid steers loaders, ATV’s or helicopters. Inside of Wilderness any transport of materials by helicopter shall be specifically authorized by the Forest Supervisor after being informed by a minimum tool analysis.

Work may include jack hammering, drilling, and blasting rock from the trail tread by licensed Forest or contract crews. Inside of Wilderness jack hammering or motorized drilling would need to be specifically authorized by the Forest Supervisor after being informed by a minimum tool analysis.

All machinery, tools, or gear are required to be weed/seed free and shall be inspected for compliance.

Trail Reconstruction

Reconstruction work on trails identified for ATV use is designed to bring the trail to a standard that can safely accommodate their use. For example, where the existing tread is too narrow, additional width would be constructed. Where the clearing limits are too tight, additional vegetation would be removed. Bridges, culverts or armored fords may be installed to protect stream courses. Where grades are steep and excessive tread erosion is occurring, trails may be relocated and constructed to relax the grade.

Typical Trail Standards

The following standards are typical of the trails planned to be constructed or reconstructed and represent the range of nationally accepted standards. 1. ATV Trails: (also accommodates most other trail vehicles and uses) • Single lane: with strategic passing areas on steep sideslopes

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-26

• Tread Width: 4’ – 6’ depending on challenge level and terrain • Clearing limits: 6’ - 8’ horizontal, 8’ – 10’ vertical, depending on vegetation, challenge level and terrain • Grades: sustained grades less than 12%, pitches up to 20% on good soils • Crossings: Bridges across live streams unless stream substrate is rocky and stable with no aquatic issues, bridges 6’ clear between curbs 2. Pack & Saddle Trails: (also accommodates motorcycles and mountain bikes) • Single lane: with strategic passing areas on steep sideslopes • Tread Width: 2’ – 3’ depending on challenge level and terrain • Clearing limits: 6’ - 8’ horizontal, 8’ – 10’ vertical, depending on vegetation, challenge level and terrain • Grades: sustained grades less than 10%, pitches up to 15% on good soils • Crossings: Bridges across live streams unless stream substrate is rocky and stable with no aquatic issues, bridges 7’ clear between handrails, 5’ clear between curbs 3. Motorcycle Trails: • Single lane: with strategic passing areas on steep sideslopes • Tread Width: 1’ – 4’ depending on challenge level and terrain • Clearing limits: 6’ - 8’ horizontal, 8’ – 10’ vertical, depending on vegetation, challenge level and terrain • Grades: sustained grades less than 10%, pitches up to 15% on good soils • Crossings: Bridges across live streams unless stream substrate is rocky and stable with no aquatic issues, bridges 7’ clear between handrails, 5’ clear between curbs 4. Mountain Bikes: • Geometrically similar to Motorcycle Trails 5. Snowmobile Trails: (also accommodates skiing and snowshoeing) • Single or Double lanes: depending on width of grooming, volume of use, and configuration of loops • Tread Width: 8’ – 20’ depending on single or double lanes and grooming needs • Clearing limits: Tread width plus 4’ horizontal, 12’ vertical, depending on snow depth, challenge level, vegetation, and terrain • Grades: sustained grades less than 12% • Crossings: Bridges across streams that melt out during operating season. Bridge widths equal tread width plus 2 feet and fits groomer 6. Ski/Snowshoe Trails: • Single or Double lanes: depending on width of grooming, volume of use, and configuration of loops • Tread Width: 4’ – 16’ depending on single or double lanes and grooming needs • Clearing limits: Tread width plus 4’ horizontal, 12’ vertical, depending on snow depth, challenge level, vegetation, and terrain • Grades: sustained grades less than 8%, pitches up to 12%. Flatter for easier courses. • Crossings: Bridges across streams that melt out during operating season. Bridge widths equal tread width plus 2 feet, and fits groomer if used.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-27

Road Reconstruction

Entry roads to the Forest and to major destinations would be hardened to accommodate the use and minimize erosion. Several key roads have been identified to be hardened. Roads would be surfaced for the entire designed width, including turnouts, driveway approaches, parking areas, dispersed camping spots, etc. Depth of aggregate is based on the anticipated use, operating season, and capability of the subgrade soils. Where aggregates are not locally available as commercial weed free, aggregate sources will be developed on the Forest, if not already available in stockpile. Existing pits throughout the Forest may be expanded to produce the aggregate and are not specifically identified in this document. New pits will be identified in this document. Additional features along the road may be constructed as needed, such as turnouts, turnarounds at gates, dispersed recreational roadside parking, trailheads for access to trail opportunities, etc.

Construction of Trailheads/Parking Areas

Because the Travel Plan changed some use patterns, additional new trailheads would be constructed and the capacity would be increased for others (see the description of activities by area above).

Road and Trail Maintenance

Road and trail maintenance work is continually being accomplished by the Forest, along with contractors, volunteers, partners, commercial users, and private landowners. This work is necessary to accommodate and protect recreational users, minimize effects to adjacent resources, protect the investment in the facility, and to provide administrative access for services and emergencies. Maintenance includes work such as removing blow-down, brushing, surface grading, keeping drainage improvements functioning properly, keeping structures like bridges, cattleguards, gates, etc. functioning properly, hardening soft sections of subgrade, and maintaining signing.

Road Restoration & Stabilization, and Decommissioning

This alternative includes road restoration & stabilization to minimize sediment production from open or closed road surfaces, including cut and fill slopes, and to restore or maintain historic hydrologic function. The types of treatment to be used are as follows:

Treatment Type I: This treatment is applied to roads that will remain open to administrative traffic but closed to public highway vehicles. Roads may be designated for motorized trail uses. • Install driveable cross drains on the road grades. Armor drainage dips as needed to improve functionality. • Lightly scarify road surface for seeding • Seed scarified surfaces • Block entrance road entrance with gate

Treatment Type II: This treatment is for closing roads that may be reused in the future or for roads that will be decommissioned and of low risk to sediment production into stream courses. • Remove road surface compaction by ripping road to 12” depth. • Remove at risk culverts from drainages and remove road fills within drainage.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-28

• Plug and store ditch relief culverts for future use. • Install frequent cross drains. • Slash road surfaces. • Seed any exposed soils. • Block road entrances with an earthen berm, ripping and slashing, recountouring & slashing, or a mix.

Treatment Type III: This treatment is used for closing roads and decommissioning them from the system. It may also be used on road segments that are at high risk for mass wasting into stream courses, even though the entire road may remain on the road system. • Recontour the prism to original ground profile as close as practical. This is usually considered to be around ¾ of the original on this Forest. • Remove all drainage structures and dispose of them. • Remove all fills from drainages to as close to the original geometry as practical. • Armor stream bottom if needed to prevent excessive erosion • Slash open soils • Seed open soils

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Standard Operating Procedures

This section describes some of the expectations of how the above actions would be carried out. It highlights conduct that should be observed in making choices during implementation.

2. Rare Habitats. To help in maintaining biodiversity, impacts to rare habitats such as old growth, riparian, aspen, etc. with route construction, modification, or parking lot siting will be avoided to the extent possible (see Table 2, Chapter 3, Biodiversity Section). The district biologist will be consulted for each project to determine survey needs prior to construction. Rare habitats will be avoided and buffered from the construction work if at all possible. (See Travel Plan Guideline H-2)

3. In order to mitigate effects to wildlife during important times of year such as calving and fawning, wintering, road/trail work will be conducted from 7/15 to 10/15. Outside of important big game winter ranges, work in the late fall or winter may occur. Complete road/trail work in high elevation whitebark pine habitat by 9/1 to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear. (See Travel Plan Guideline I-1)

4. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Road and trail construction, reconstruction, and maintenance will be designed to not exceed annual sediment delivery levels in excess of those in Table I-4 of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan Standard E-4, Detailed Description of the Decision, page I-12).

5. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Roads and trails shall not be located in the floodplains of Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-29

rivers and streams or in wetlands except where necessary to cross a stream or wetland with appropriate permits. (See Travel Plan Standard E-5).

6. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Stream crossing facilities for roads and trails shall allow for passage of aquatic organisms, except where passage restriction is desired to isolate genetically pure cutthroat trout populations from exposure to hybridization or competition by non-native salmonids. (See Travel Plan Standard E-6).

7. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Road materials should not be side-cast into streams or wetlands. (See Travel Plan Guideline E-7).

8. Wildlife. Work will be carried out to minimize disturbance to wildlife. This means completing work within an area expeditiously and avoiding unnecessary noise. Repeated (i.e. multi-day) low altitude helicopter use within specific project areas will be avoided.

9. Invasive Weeds. To prevent weed seeds and root fragments from being moved along the treatment area ripping roads in weed patches will be avoided.

10. Invasive Weeds. To limit the spread of weed seeds and root fragments through soil dispersal re-contouring of roads will be done to keep any weed contaminated soil in a localized area.

11. Invasive Weeds. For road stabilization and decommissioning survey for existing weeds and then treat weeds at least one or two seasons prior to disturbing the site. This will reduce the existing weed density and encourage the successful establishment of new grass seedlings and other vegetation.

If weeds are present, and more than 500 feet from motorized access route, use Treatment Type 1 (install small cross drains, lightly scarify road surface and seed with native grasses, sign the route closed to motorized vehicles, and block the road entrance with boulders, fence or gate). The road needs to remain accessible to the furthest weed patch by either ATVs or UTVs. The route is for weed treatments, and would not be for motorized public use. If weeds are present, and less than 500 feet from motorized access route (if it is reasonably accessible for backpack sprayer treatments), then use Treatment Types II or III (rip or re-contour road, and make impassible to all ATVs). Avoid spreading contaminated soil to new areas. Clean equipment prior to moving to new site. 12. Lynx. Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. For example, minimize spatial extent of site and retain maximum cover.

13. Lynx. Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used in lynx habitat when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development. For example, implement methods to control speed such as speed limit signs and speed bumps in final designs of new and upgraded roads and trails.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-30

14. Lynx. New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. For example, major ridges should be managed for travel cover, with emphasis on saddles and of a width >300 ft.

15. Lynx. Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.

16. Lynx. Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Bear Canyon, Lionhead, North Bridgers, and Shields Travel Planning Areas. Applies to identified lynx linkage areas influenced by proposed road and trail works and should be considered in other identified linkage areas not specifically mentioned by TPA.

17. Bald Eagle. Per the USFWS BO (2006), reduce the potential for human-caused mortality and disturbance of bald eagles attempting to nest and/or forage within the action area.

18. Bald Eagle. Avoid working within 1.0 mile of nesting bald eagles or within 0.5 miles of known foraging habitat until August 15 (Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 1994).

19. Bald Eagle. Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Hebgen Basin Travel Planning Area (Goal 3). Applies to known or future bald eagle nesting sites within the Hebgen Basin Area influenced by proposed road and trail work.

20. Peregrine Falcon. Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Gallatin River Canyon Travel Planning Area (Guideline 1-2). Applies to any portion of the Gallatin Canyon influenced by proposed road and trail work.

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Additional Applicable Mitigation

The following mitigation measures apply to Alternative 1:

1. Cultural Resources. Projects identified in the Allen Report (7/14/08) will be surveyed prior to construction for cultural resources and any discovered sites avoided in ground-disturbing activities.

2. Rare Plants. All projects will be surveyed prior to construction for rare plants/habitats and appropriate mitigation will be applied if sensitive plants are found.

3. Invasive Weeds. Weed surveys of project areas shall be conducted at least 1 year prior to soil disturbance. If weeds are found work with the district weed specialist to adjust project design or execution as needed to minimize the risk of spreading weeds. Any weed treatment shall be done at least one year in advance of soil disturbance work. Treat weeds in road restoration projects at least one or two years prior to treatment.

5. Invasive Weeds. Certified noxious weed free seed will be used for projects that include seeding [FSM 2081.2,1.a.(3)(a)]. A weeds specialist shall review the list of seeds present in seed mixture prior to approving the use of seeds. Seed mixtures should also be comprised of native species.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-31

[FSM 2081.2,1.a.(3)(b,c)]. This mitigation will prevent introducing seed mixtures contaminated with noxious weeds or invasive plants that are not legally listed as noxious weeds but are invasive in the ecosystem. Slash, woody debris or mulch shall be scattered on disturbed soil to improve the water holding capacity and thus assist the establishment of grass seedlings.

6. Invasive Weeds. To avoid spreading weeds between work sites, off-road equipment will be washed and inspected to ensure that it is free of soil and plant material between project areas. The district weed specialist should be consulted to determine when equipment should be washed between projects. [FSM 2081.2,1.a.(2)(a)(b), (6)(d,e) and 2081.2,1.b.(3)].

7. Invasive Weeds. To prevent the spread of weeds through use of contaminated material all fill, pit-run or gravel must be weed-free. A weed survey of the rock source shall be done prior to using the material. The borrow pit will not be used if new invaders, defined by the weed specialist, are found on site. [2081.2,1.a.(4); 2081.2,1.b.(3)].

8. Peregrine Falcon. Provide temporal buffer during nest chronology (initiation, incubation, nestling, and fledging) by precluding heavy equipment operation and blasting until after August 15. Applies to proposed road and trail work in the Gallatin Roaded Area near the Gallatin River corridor.

9. Goshawk. If an affected area is within potential goshawk habitat, surveys will be completed during the year that project work is planned. If goshawks are found in the vicinity or an active nest is located, a post-fledging area (PFA) will be defined. Allow no ground disturbing activities inside known occupied PFAs from 15 April through 15 August (about 30 days post-fledging) to protect the goshawk pair and young from disturbance during the breeding season until fledglings are capable of sustained flight. After August 15, treatment-related activities may commence within the PFA but still outside the nest area.

10. Sensitive Wildlife. In the event that species of special management designation are found in any affected area, measures will be taken to protect them and may result in project restrictions or modifications.

Alternative 1 (Cont.) – Monitoring

1. Invasive Weeds. To ensure that sites are re-vegetated within a few years, thus reducing the risk of invasive weed establishment, monitor vegetation seedling establishment. If seeds are not established on site within one year then re-seed and use weed-free mulch to help seedling establishment. Use certified weed free straw if used as mulch. Repeat until seeds do become established. [FSM 2081.2,1.a.(3),(5)].

2. Lynx. Monitoring for lynx was identified in the Travel Plan EIS. Monitoring for this proposed road and trail project work will include an annual review of planned and completed work items to ensure compliance with mitigation.

3. Bald Eagle. Per the USFWS BO (2006), monitor bald eagle nest productivity annually.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-32

4. Sensitive Species. Continue annual surveys of sensitive species with consideration of necessary special closure needs based on current year activity.

5. Cultural Resources. As part of ongoing monitoring of cultural resource sites, monitor those sites identified in the Allen Report (7/14/08) for unanticipated indirect effects from recreation users.

Alternative 2 – No Action

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the consideration of a No Action Alternative (40 CFR 1502.14d) where none of the actions outlined Alternative 1 would occur. It provides a baseline of comparison to aid in determining the significance of issues and effects of the proposed action. Under this alternative, no road or trail improvement work would occur. More specifically, under this alternative: 5) No trails would be constructed or reconstructed to accommodate the uses designated by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision, 10/2006). 6) No roads would be reconstructed to accommodate vehicle use, minimize erosion, and to provide turnouts, turnarounds and roadside parking. 7) No new or expanded trailheads/parking areas would be developed. 8) Excess roads would not be restored or stabilized.

Alternatives Considered but not Given Detailed Study

No other alternatives were identified. The two alternatives discussed in this EA were determined to be adequate because; (a) the significance of environmental issues could be minimized through application of mitigation and design features to the Proposed Action, and (b) the effects of other alternatives (i.e. combinations of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives) can be adequately understood through comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2

The following tables provide a general comparison of the two alternatives studied in detail. While Forest-wide summary tables are useful, they often do not accurately reflect true differences among alternatives. It is important to understand that the following tables are designed to provide a summary of the differences between the alternatives. Refer to Chapter 3 for a more in-depth discussion of the projected environmental consequences.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-33

Table 1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Activity Comparison Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Miles of Road Reconstruction 23 0 Miles of Trail Construction 67 0 Miles of Trail Reconstruction 72 0 Number of New/Expanded 17 0 Trailheads and Parking Areas Miles of Road Restoration and 119 0 Stabilization Achievement of Purpose and Need Purpose Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Provides the trail facilities Yes No necessary to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Hardens road surfaces to Yes No accommodate vehicle use, minimize erosion, and to provide the turnouts, turnarounds and roadside parking needed for safe, uncongested ingress and egress into the Forest. Provides places for the public Yes Existing trailheads and parking to load, unload and leave areas would be available, but vehicles while using Gallatin the proposed work to some National Forest trails. facilities identified in Alternative 1 would not be completed. Restores hydrologic function Yes on road and trail facilities No. This alternative does and minimizes sedimentation identified for improvement nothing to achieve this from cut and fill slopes and work and restoration. objective. road surfaces. Comparison by Issue Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Biological Diversity and Potential impacts have been No effect. Ecological Sustainability. mitigated through avoidance of rare habitats, and/or timing of work activity. Cultural Resources. Known sites will be unaffected. No effect. Any newly discovered sites would be protected through included mitigation.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-34

Comparison by Issue Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 General Wildlife. Increase in core habitat for The closure of project roads wildlife due to physical closure and gating of administrative of identified roads. Some roads would not occur. The wildlife displacement effects overall increase in core habitat due to construction activity. for wildlife would not increase. Grizzly Bear. Increase in secure habitat due Project roads would not be to physical closure of identified effectively closed, routes would roads. There are some not be properly potential negative effects decommissioned or associated with proposed new constructed, secure habitat routes and parking areas within would not increase, and route the Primary Conservation Area, densities would not be reduced. but the applicable provisions of Forest Plan Amendment 27 will be adhered to. Invasive Weeds. 1. Effective mitigation 1. No change to inventory measures for new construction information; projects; 2. No increase in grass cover 2. Increased inventory data; on project roads, thus no long 3. Increase establishment of term weed control. native grass seeds on project roads, helps with long term weed control. Lynx. The Travel Plan programmatic Similar to the conclusions direction and proposed within the Travel Plan EIS, the mitigation consistent with the no action alternative may add NRLA (USDA 2007) would direct, indirect and cumulative minimize the potential impact effects to the existing situation on lynx and proposed critical if the Travel Plan is not habitat from the proposed road implemented as planned. and trail project work.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-35

Comparison by Issue Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Roadless Areas. This Alternative would No effects to roadless areas. construct a little over 5 miles of new ATV trail and about 5 miles of relocated snowmobile trail within inventoried roadless areas resulting in minor effects to apparent naturalness and opportunities for solitude. Nothing in current policy or regulation prohibits motorized use or construction of motorized trails within inventoried roadless areas. There are essentially no additional effects from these projects to roadless which were not disclosed in the Travel Plan FEIS. Water Quality Sediment levels in Alternative No project induced sediment 1 would have a net decrease, increase or decrease. even with the wildfires, due to road decomissioning. The Big Sky TPA is out of sediment standard compliance due to extensive roading, business, and residential construction on private land. Construction of upper Buck Creek trailhead and the Inspiration Divide Trail #8 should be deferred at least until completion of the Upper Gallatin TMDL plan by the Montana DEQ pending resolution of sediment issues in the South Fork of the West Fork of the Gallatin River and the West Fork of the Gallatin River.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-36

Comparison by Issue Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rare Plants. There will be no direct or No effects. indirect impact to sensitive plant species because routes where ground disturbance is expected will be surveyed prior to the work occurring, and sensitive plants would be avoided. Sensitive Wildlife. Determinations for various No impacts. species are either “no impact” or “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute To a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause A Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

For goshawk suitable habitat available. Foraging and nesting habitat will remain abundant. Disturbance to individual nesting territories can be mitigated through monitoring annual nesting activity and providing appropriate spatial and temporal buffer zones during critical time periods when human use is restricted Soils. No new impacts from No effect. reconstruction, maintenance and restoration activities on roads and trails. The majority of new trail construction will not occur in areas of sensitive soils. The three with sensitive soils concerns are mitigated by avoiding these areas in trail location.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-37

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the resources and values that could be affected by the proposed action and discloses the potential impacts of the two alternatives studied in detail in relation to the environmental issues. The analysis presented here forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons made among these alternatives. For each issue, this chapter addresses:

1) The affected environment. 2) The analysis methodology. 3) The predicted direct and indirect and cumulative effects. 4) The consistency of the alternatives with laws, regulations, policy and federal, regional, state and local land use plans, including the Forest Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-38

BIODIVERSITY

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternative travel plans may have on biodiversity on the Gallatin National Forest. The effects of specific proposed road and trail work on biodiversity for on-the-ground implementation for the next 5 years (2009- 2014) will be discussed here. Implementation of the Travel Plan has the potential to result in changes to vegetation, corridors, and perhaps species viability.

The Biodiversity issue was discussed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan (2006, Biodiversity) which is incorporated by reference. Biological diversity, or biodiversity, has been defined in a variety of ways. A synonym might be species diversity, referring to the many species of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms that exist on the earth. E. O. Wilson defines biodiversity as “… the variety of life across all levels of organization from genetic diversity within populations, to species, which have to be regarded as the pivotal unit of classification, to ecosystems” (Takacs 1996:50). Because of this broad definition, it is necessary to break out the components of biodiversity that can be affected by transportation systems. The facets of the biodiversity issue include vegetative diversity, species viability and the intertwined issue of connectivity/corridors/linkage, which, for simplicity, will be referred to as corridors.

Corridors are defined as: “…avenues along which wide-ranging animals can travel, plants can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters, and threatened species can be replenished from other areas” (9th Circuit, FOG:45). In this issue, the term corridor is often used synonymously with connectivity and linkage or linkage zone. Corridors help determine how and if an animal can move through the landscape. The intention in this document is to define a corridor as a passageway, and not as meeting the full habitat requirements for the species of interest. A corridor need not provide all of the life requirements for a species within the corridor (passage species), but some species will live entirely within a corridor (corridor dwellers).

The concerns carried in to this analysis are the potential impact of Travel Plan implementation on known or highly suspected wildlife corridors and on loss of rare habitats.

The work being proposed by the Gallatin National Forest to implement the Travel Plan on-the-ground would occur over an approximate 5 year period beginning in 2009 and includes:

1. Construction of the new trail connectors identified in the Travel Plan designed to create loop opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-39

2. Construction of other trail segments to accommodate the non-motorized and winter opportunities (both snowmobiling and skiing) targeted to be provided by the Travel Plan. 3. Reconstruction of existing roads and trails to accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan (e.g. reconstructing a single track trail so that it can accommodate ATVs). 4. Construction and reconstruction of trailheads and parking facilities needed to accommodate user demand. 5. Surfacing of high priority roads and replacement of culverts to facilitate aquatic organism passage. 6. Restoration and stabilization of certain excess roads not designated for motorized use by the Travel Plan.

Mitigation for many of the wildlife and biodiversity issues are included as part of the proposal:

1. Species of Special Management Direction. Motorized routes shall be located to avoid or mitigate for known occupied habitat such as nesting, denning, roosting or key foraging areas for species of special management designation. (See Travel Plan Guideline G-2). 2. To help in maintaining biodiversity, impacts to rare habitats such as old growth, riparian, aspen, etc. with route construction, modification, or parking lot siting will be avoided to the extent possible (see Table 2). The district biologist will be consulted for each project to determine survey needs prior to construction. Rare habitats will be avoided and buffered from the construction work if at all possible. (See Travel Plan Guideline H-2). 3. In order to mitigate effects to wildlife during important times of year such as calving and fawning, wintering, road/trail work will be conducted from 7/15 to 10/15. Outside of important big game winter ranges, work in the late fall or winter may occur. Complete road/trail work in high elevation whitebark pine habitat by 9/1 to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear. (See Travel Plan Guideline I- 1). 4. Working in areas identified as wildlife corridors during the time of year they are most important for movement will be avoided (generally avoiding spring or fall, performing work in mid-summer). 5. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Roads and trails shall not be located in the floodplains of rivers and streams or in wetlands except where necessary to cross a stream or wetland with appropriate permits. (See Travel Plan Standard E-5). 6. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Stream crossing facilities for roads and trails shall allow for passage of aquatic organisms, except where passage restriction is desired to isolate genetically pure cutthroat trout populations from exposure to hybridization or competition by non-native salmonids. (See Travel Plan Standard E-6). 7. Water, Fisheries and Aquatic Life. Road materials should not be side-cast into streams or wetlands. (See Travel Plan Guideline E-7).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-40

In addition, there are some specific mitigation measures for certain Travel Planning areas with respect to bald eagle and grizzly bear. (See description of Alternative 1 in Chapter 2 of this EA).

Affected Environment

The affected environment consists of the locations on the Forest where route work is proposed to occur. The effects on habitat, especially rare habitats, and on wildlife corridors are discussed.

The analysis disclosed for the Biodiversity issue included in the Forest Travel Plan EIS (2006) is incorporated by reference. The effects of the use of routes designated in the Travel Plan were addressed there, while this document focuses on the effects of facility work to implement the Travel Plan. Maintaining and protecting biodiversity on the Forest is critical to maintaining the species diversity that presently exists. This means maintaining habitats, especially rare ones, and all wildlife species, with emphasis on those that are less common and have narrow habitat requirements.

A number of known or suspected important wildlife corridors were addressed in the Travel Plan (Ibid.). The proposed project could affect these corridors if any of the route proposals occur within these areas. Two of the Travel Planning Areas that are in potentially important wildlife corridors, Lionhead and Bear Canyon (Bozeman Pass), have proposed route changes.

How roads affect vegetative diversity is a biodiversity issue. Direct habitat loss was addressed under the General Wildlife issue in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.) and is quite small in size. However, the effect of roads on various habitats, especially rare habitats, is an important consideration. These rare and/or important habitats include potential old growth stands, riparian areas, especially cottonwood and willow communities, aspen, and whitebark pine. Construction or rerouting of roads and trails have the potential to impact these rare habitats.

Transportation systems of any kind across the landscape with linear trails and/or roads may affect vegetation, wildlife movement and habitat use; facilitate species invasion (native and nonnative plants and animals) and disrupt corridors. Native wildlife species create trails on which they move across the landscape in repeated patterns, so trails are not new to the natural environment. Roads and motorized trails are usually wider and may have different surfaces than non-motorized trails. Native vegetation is usually removed from the road or trail, and sometimes to a certain width on either side of the road or trail depending on the type of route, speed allowed, terrain, and other factors. In addition, motorized trails receive motorized traffic in varying amounts that may affect the

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-41

environment by disturbing or displacing animals. Displacement was addressed in a number of issues in the Gallatin Forest Travel Plan FEIS (2006) and in the General Wildlife issue section of this EA.

Actual implementation of the Forest Travel Plan on-the-gound includes various construction type activities that may affect wildlife and biodiversity. Many of these effects are discussed in the General Wildlife issue section of this EA, therefore this assessment will focus on corridors and rare habitats. Mitigations are in place to reduce impact to wildlife for wildlife corridors and rare habitats during construction.

The Gallatin Forest Plan (1987, p. II-1) has a Forest-wide goal of providing habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species. There are various other laws, regulations and plans in place including the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007) and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD 2007). In addition, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) help protect species viability.

The Travel Plan (2006) contains direction pertaining to wildlife and viability (Ibid.). Goals, objectives, and guidelines from the Travel Plan relevant to biodiversity include:

GOAL F. Wildlife Corridors. Provide for wildlife movement and genetic interaction (particularly for wide-ranging species) between and within mountain ranges throughout the Gallatin National Forest and connecting wild lands.

OBJ. F-1. Wildlife Corridors. Provide habitat connectivity consistent with wildlife movement patterns between mountain ranges such as that at Bozeman Pass (linking the Gallatin Range to the Bridger/Bangtails); the North Bridgers (linking the Bridger Range to the Big Belt Mountains); the Lionhead area (linking the Henry’s Lake Mountains to the Gravelly Mountains); the Shields (Crazy Mountains to the Castle and Little Belt Mountains) and any additional linkage or wildlife movement corridors recognized through interagency coordination.

GUIDELINE G-2. Species of Special Management Designation. Any proposed motorized routes, whether to serve public or administrative needs, should be located to avoid or mitigate for known occupied habitat such as nesting, denning, roosting or key foraging areas for species of special management designation. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to: altering route design, timing/volume of use restrictions, temporal and spatial buffers, and/or route/area closures in similar habitat within the home range of the species of concern for the duration of use of the newly designated route.

GOAL H. Wildlife. Protect key habitats such as willow, riparian, wetlands, whitebark pine, old growth, snags and down woody debris, ridgelines, saddles, and forest/non-forest ecotones from damage or depletion associated with forest travel management.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-42

OBJECTIVE H-1. Wildlife. Relocate, reconstruct or take other appropriate action on system roads and trails that are found to have adverse impacts on key habitats.

GUIDELINE H-2. Wildlife. Roads or trails that are constructed for motor vehicle use should be located such that construction and use do not result in adverse impacts to key habitats, or should be designed so as to mitigate for adverse effects in areas where impacts to key habitats cannot be avoided via the route location.

GUIDELINE H-3. Wildlife. Adverse impacts to key habitats will be a priority factor in the scheduling of closure for project roads and undesignated routes.

GUIDELINE I-1. Wildlife. Minimize stress factors from human recreation use to species of management concern during calving, fawning, denning and nesting seasons in habitats used for reproduction.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action has the potential to affect biodiversity by impacting rare habitats, rare species, and wildlife travel corridors. The potential impacts to biodiversity from implementation of the Travel Plan will be mitigated on a site-specific basis which is now part of the action alternative (Alternative 1) description. For instance, any proposed construction through new areas (new routes or reroutes, etc.), can be field reviewed so that rare habitats can be avoided. Specific projects proposed in wildlife corridor areas will be timed such that work does not occur in these areas at the more important times of year for them to be used for travel to other areas (spring and fall).

The routes for which there is new construction proposed during this time period are seen in the following table (Table 2).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-43

Table 2. Description of routes and activities considered in this Travel Plan implementation project. These routes will surveyed for rare habitats prior to construction. Proposed projects are presented by Travel Planning Area and Mountain Range. Travel Planning New New Non- Close Reconstruction Mainten New Winter Resur- Parking Com- Area Motorized/ motorized and of Existing ence of Routes facing areas ments Non- restore existing motorized Summer

A/B MOUNTAINS Emigrant Gulch 2.5 mi 2.5 mi S of I-90 ATV loop, Arrasta/Em igrant Gardiner Basin 18 mi x-co ski PCA Cooke City 0.2 mi 2.1 mi 6.0 mi 2.1 mi x-co ski 1 new PCA Henderson recons, and. 1.2 Mt. ATV mi maintenance Connector trail

Deer Creeks 24.8 mi Approx 3 mi 4.0 mi 1 new S of I-90 ATV #126, with 2 connector new connecters trails Suce Creek Winter parking S of I-90 area Cutler Lake 1.5 mi 1.8 1.8 mi 1 new PCA

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-6

Travel Planning New New Non- Close Reconstruction Mainten New Winter Resur- Parking Com- Area Motorized/ motorized and of Existing ence of Routes facing areas ments Non- restore existing motorized Summer

Porcupine 5.2 mi 2.6 mi 3.0 mi PCA Relocation #267 for motorcycle and non- motorized Rock/Tom 1.3 mi mt 8 mi 1 new PCA Miner bike on State 3.4 mi Land Total for A/B 32.7 6.2 8 ?? 17.3 18 4 new 3 in PCA BRIDGERS/ BANGTAILS Bangtails 5.8 mi 3.1 8.2 3 mi 2 new 0.5 mi ATV loops and connectors Bridger Ridge Signing Fairy Lake 1.4 mi 13 mi 2 mi 4.2 mi snowmo 2 new 2.5 mi ATV connectors Johnson Canyon 2.5 mi 3 mi 2.6 mi 2 mi 1 new ATV connector and loop

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-7

Total for B/B 12.7 3 13 5.7 10.2 4.2 5 5 new CRAZIES Shields River 3.3 mi 2.2 mi 1.6 mi 15.2 mi Porcupine 5.2 mi 2.6 mi 3.0 mi Relocation motorcycle Smith Creek 2.8 mi 20 mi 1.3 10.0 mi 1 new ATV loops Total for Crazies 8.0 3.3 20 6.1 14.6 15.2 1 new GALLATIN RANGE North Dry Reconstruct S of I-90 existing 2.7 mi Non-mot Bozeman Creek 0.7 mi 3 mi S of I-90

Gallatin Roaded 7.9 mi 28 mi 6.2 mi 15 mi 2.2 mi cons, 4 0.6 1 new S of I-90 ATV and mi maintenance motorcycle loops

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-8

Hyalite 2.5 20 mi 1 mi 0.8 mi 2 mi cons, 5 mi 3 new S of I-90 1.1 of recon, 15 which is maintenance Moose to Langohr and 1.4 is Buckskin Lick Cr ATV motorcycle loop

Trail Creek/Bear 9.1 mi S of I-90 Canyon Wildlife corridor area Total for 10.4 9.8 48 7.2 18.8 4.2 new 4 new Gallatin Range MADISON RANGE

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-9

Buck Ridge 9 mi 2.2 mi 1.0 mi PCA New ATV trails in Upper Buck Cr and Yellowmul es Pika Point 1 mi 0.5 mi Relocati on of trail, PCA Sage Creek Snowmo PCA reroute 2.8 cons, 2.4 recons Total for 9 3.2 1.5 Madison Range HENRY’S LAKE MOUNTAINS Hebgen Basin 0.25 ATV 25 mi Clear 3 Connector mi of ski parallel to trail Mad Arm Rd PCA

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-10

Lionhead 0.3 mi Est. 3.5 mi Part ATV/moto of non-Mot PCA, rcycle trail Wildlife connector corridor area Mile Creek Non-mot S of I-90 route NCDT approx 3.5 mi Total for .55 mi 7.0 mi 25 mi Henry’s Lake Mountains

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-11

The road/trail work proposal for the next five years does not include work in one of the previously identified and analyzed corridor areas (North Bridgers), therefore there is no impact to this corridor from this proposal and no cumulative impacts for this area. There is proposed work in the wildlife corridors in the Lionhead and Bear Canyon TPAs.

Under Travel Plan implementation, the Lionhead TPA has a motorized road density of 0.46 mi/sq mi. This is a substantial reduction from the pre-Travel Plan existing route density. In the road and trail implementation project, there is a proposal to construct an 0.3 mi long ATV/motorcycle/mountain bike connector trail from Contour Road #1718 to the Denny Creek Road #1735. It is also proposed to construct a non-motorized trail parallel to Ski Hill Trail #114. This is approximately 3 miles in length. The construction of 0.3 mi of motorized route and 3 miles of non-motorized are believed to be biologically insignificant to wildlife using this TPA either as habitat or as a wildlife corridor. It is preferable to construct these routes in mid-summer to avoid times of year that this area most likely functions as a corridor. Therefore Alternative 1 specifies an operating period that runs from July 1st to the end of September. The Lionhead TPA has a Travel Plan goal. GOAL 4. Migration Corridors. Provide for wildlife migration and movement across the Henry’s Lake Mountain Range to and from the Madison Mountain Range (Travel Plan 2007).

The 8 square mile analysis area for Bear Canyon consists of 5.12 sq mi of National Forest and 2.92 mi of non National Forest (R7E, T3S, sections, 4, 5, 6 and R7E, T2S, sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). This area encompasses 1.2 mi of interstate highway (I-90) and 5.1 miles of non Forest Service roads. This yields a road density of 0.78 mi/sq mi of non- Forest Service road. The Interstate highway (I-90) is the major impediment to wildlife movement in this corridor. None of the motorized roads contributing to road density fall under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. It should be noted that although this 8 sq mi of analysis area has the same fairly low road density under both alternatives, National Forest and private land east of this 8 sq mi area has many motorized routes (although some routes are gated and closed to public use).

There are two proposals for the Trail Creek/Bear Canyon area. Both routes are non- motorized. The first is to construct a hiking and stock trail from the ridge above Bear Lakes to the existing North Trail Creek trail. This trail is designed to provide a foot and horse trail connecting the Bear Canyon area to the North Fork of Trail Creek, consistent with GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Bear Canyon Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-20). The route eliminates the need for roaded access through the North Trail Creek private road system. Work to be done includes about 5 miles of trail construction (Map GAL-11). The second proposal is to construct a non-motorized trail from the Trail Creek County Road to the end of the existing trail at Chestnut Mountain. This trail is designed to provide a mountain bike, foot and horse trail connecting Chestnut Mountain to Trail Creek. Work to be done includes about 4.1 miles of trail construction and 1 mile of trail reconstruction. The Bear Canyon TPA has a Travel Plan goal. GOAL 4. Migration Corridors - Provide for wildlife migration and movement between the Gallatin Mountain range and the Bridger-Bangtail Mountain ranges. There is also an

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-12

associated objective which is: 4.1.b) Relocate trails #440 and #458 off of the ridge to provide a non-motorized north/south through this TPA. (Ibid.).

Travel Plan implementation in the Bear Canyon TPA results in a minor decrease in motorized routes and an increase in non-motorized routes. Most information about effects of travel routes on wildlife indicates that non-motorized use has less impact to wildlife than motorized use (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Archibald et al. 1987, Mattson et al. 1987, McLellan and Shakleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Joslin and Youmans 1999, Mace et al. 1996). Most of the effects to this travel corridor are from routes not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.

Mitigation is in place in the project description that states: Work in this area will be confined to an operating period that runs from July 1st to the end of September thus avoiding working in this identified wildlife corridor during the time of year it is most important for movement (avoiding spring or fall). To help in maintaining biodiversity, impacts to rare habitats such as old growth, riparian, aspen, etc. with route construction, modification, or parking lot siting will be avoided to the extent possible.

The overall implementation of the Travel Plan on the Forest is beneficial to biodiversity and species viability as compared with not implementing theTravel Plan (Ibid.). Because the Travel Plan proposes an overall reduction of motorized routes on the Forest, and especially in some important areas for wildlife, it enhances biodiversity. The actual on- the-ground construction work may have some temporary displacement effects on wildlife (see General Wildlife issue). Many of the potential impacts to wildlife and habitat will be mitigated. For new routes, some habitat will be impacted. The proposed routes will be surveyed and routed in such a manner as to avoid important wildlife habitats such as old growth, riparian, willow, aspen, and whitebark pine, therefore, there will be minor or no effects to rare habitats and no cumulative effects.

There is proposed work in two of the identified wildlife corridors, and this work will be timed (generally in mid-summer) so that it has a minimal impact on the area at the time of year when wildlife will be most likely to be using the corridor.

Analysis Methodology

Most of the analysis for this issue in the Travel Plan FEIS was conducted through literature searches on biodiversity and through GIS queries for potential old growth and rare habitats (Ibid., see Project Record, Cherry 2006 Potential Old Growth and Rare Habitats queries) where they are intersected by roads. Most effects to potential old growth and rare habitats generally already exist, and now, new routes and modifications that could affect these habitats are proceeding through NEPA analysis. The site-specific analysis allows for new routes to be designed so as to avoid old growth and rare habitats. The impacts of Travel Plan implementation to old growth and rare habitats will be mitigated.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-13

Viability is typically analyzed by examining the habitat available to a species and activities that may affect that habitat unless a species has a recovery plan or conservation strategy with criteria that can be addressed. Many of the rarer species are addressed in detail under their own issue analysis such as lynx, wolverine, grizzly bear, and sensitive species. (Further viability information is available in the Travel Plan project record (Cherry and Tyers 2003, Samson 2006.)

Three wildlife corridors were analyzed in the Travel Plan including all or portions of Bear Canyon, North Bridgers, and Lionhead Travel Planning Areas TPAs). There is on- the-ground implementation construction work is planned in the Lionhead and Bear Canyon TPAs. The amount of ‘core habitat’ for each TPA was calculated in the General Wildlife Issue in the Travel Plan (Ibid.) and gives some idea about where wildlife is likely to move through the Forest.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

The proposed action (Alternative 1) has the potential to affect biodiversity by impacting rare habitats, rare species, and wildlife travel corridors. Many of the potential impacts to biodiversity from implementation of the Travel Plan will be mitigated on a site-specific basis. For instance, any proposed construction through new areas (new routes or reroutes, etc.) (Table 2), will be field reviewed to assure that rare habitats are be avoided by route location. Specific projects proposed in wildlife corridors will be timed such that implementation work does not occur in these areas when wildlife species are using them to migrate to other areas. Implementation of the Travel Plan on-the-ground has many benefits to wildlife and biodiversity. Overall route densities on the Forest will decrease, secure and core habitats will increase, project routes will be effectively closed, administrative routes will be gated, and off-route travel will not be allowed to proliferate.

The overall effect of not implementing the Travel Plan (Alternative 2) is negative for wildlife and biodiversity on the Forest. This is because many project roads would not be effectively closed, secure and core habitats would remain the same or decrease, routes would not be properly decommissioned or constructed, route densities would not be reduced, and user built routes would continue to proliferate (wildlife issues, Travel Plan, 2006).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts of the Travel Plan on biodiversity were discussed in the Travel Plan (Ibid.). For this project, cumulative effects include how the implementation of the routes may affect wildlife corridors and rare habitats. On-the-ground construction generally results in a minor and temporary displacement of wildlife (see General Wildlife issue). Activities that are louder or longer than what occurs as the baseline activity in the area may displace wildlife. This is especially true at certain times more critical for wildlife movement. Avoiding rare habitats by surveying prior to road and trail work and then identifying alternative routes, will mitigate the impacts to rare habitats. The impacts to two of the wildlife corridors are minor. Cumulative effects to biodiversity of

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-14

implementing the Travel Plan are less than those that would occur if the Plan were not implemented due to the reduction in motorized routes.

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

The major components of biodiversity affected by programs and activities include wildlife corridors, vegetative diversity, rare habitats, and viability. Biodiversity is most affected by anything that impedes wildlife movement across the landscape, affects vegetative diversity, especially rare habitats, or affects species viability. Many of the impacts of human programs and activities are fairly short term except for a change or reduction of vegetation.

Timber harvest and fire activities are fairly short-term but have longer lasting consequences (see Cherry 2006, Cumulative Effects worksheet for Biological Diversity Issue). Fire suppression has led to the landscape having more older and denser vegetation than would have existed in the normal fire regime for this area. Timber harvest generally removes the larger, older trees, reducing the potential old growth and mature component of the forest. These effects are long-lasting, however, the effects of timber harvest on biodiversity may not be what many think since humans have suppressed wildfires. Fire suppression has decreased the amount of aspen on the landscape, and has probably affected whitebark pine and other rarer species. The recent efforts to move this area back to a more natural fire regime and reduce unnatural fuel buildup should be beneficial for biodiversity. Attempts to enhance the rarer habitats such as aspen, willow and whitebark pine will be beneficial for biodiversity. Livestock grazing has probably led to a decrease in plant diversity on livestock allotments, and possibly impacts to riparian species in some areas. This has probably decreased biodiversity, at least during the early grazing days.

Travel routes affect biodiversity by allowing for humans to more easily enter the landscape, impact vegetation, spread exotic species, and perhaps impact wildlife movement. Roads and facilities on the landscape reduce habitat available to wildlife and may have some effect on wildlife movement through areas depending on densities.

Mining has had fairly minor effects on biodiversity except where it may have affected water quality and thus aquatic species diversity and survival. There has been habitat loss where large mining operations have occurred, such as the Cooke City area.

Human use can affect biodiversity by concentrating in rare habitats, such as riparian areas, and by displacing wildlife from some areas, potentially affecting wildlife movement. Recreational residence sites remove wildlife habitat and may displace wildlife in those areas having a fairly minor and localized effect on biodiversity. Most of the approximately 200 recreational residences on the Forest are found on Hebgen Lake and Bozeman Ranger Districts. Developed ski areas could potentially affect wildlife, mostly in the winter. Habitats are usually altered, with cover removed, and the size and location of a ski area could influence how animals move across the landscape, especially in winter. Winter is not normally the time of long movements by most wildlife species.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-15

The acquisition of lands and conservation easements on lands that were in checkerboard ownership or adjacent to the Forest is of critical importance to wildlife and has made a huge improvement in the Forest’s ability to manage wildlife habitat and protect important wildlife areas from development as well as provide for wildlife movement across the landscape. The flip side of this lands effort has also resulted in large blocks of private land that can be developed adjacent to the National Forest. However, many lands in places such as the Taylor Fork or Cooke City have been acquired and are of major benefit to wildlife.

Many wildlife species have rebounded from the early efforts of hunting, trapping and predator control. Wildlife in Montana is managed by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) with regulated hunting, fishing and trapping regulations with the intent of conserving these species. Legislation such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has led to protection of threatened and endangered species and has shown success in the delisting of the peregrine falcon, bald eagle nationally and the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone area. These species have met their recovery criteria. These recovery actions have benefited biodiversity. The reintroduction of the gray wolf is one of the most interesting things to occur in this area with its subsequent impact on a whole suite of predators as well as prey. Not only are these animals influenced, but apparently there are influences that are occurring on the wildlife habitat as indicated by an increase in riparian vegetation such as willow and aspen. The maintenance of relatively undisturbed habitats and the reintroduction of species that have been removed from the ecosystem in the past benefit biodiversity. The wolf is currently listed as threatened, nonessential, experimental in the Yellowstone, but it may be delisted soon and become a Forest sensitive species.

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened under ESA in 2000, and the Forest Service is using the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007) to guide its management of lynx habitat.

Upon delisting, the grizzly bear is now managed by the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007). Recent amendments for the grizzly bear and the lynx will help assure the conservation of these species and will likely have beneficial effects on other species and be beneficial for biodiversity.

Fisheries management tends to benefit wildlife habitat and biodiversity, especially when riparian areas are improved.

The existence of large Wilderness areas on the Gallatin and adjacent Forests and large protected areas within Yellowstone National Park offers a refuge for many wildlife species sensitive to the presence of humans. This has led to the presence of a high percent of habitat that is non-motorized and where wildlife is relatively undisturbed by large numbers of people.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-16

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

Future vegetation management projects will be more tied to fuels reduction and will tend to be patchier in nature, leaving some structure for wildlife in burned or harvested areas. The increase in use of prescribed fire on the landscape should be beneficial to wildlife in this fire dependent ecosystem where fire has been somewhat successfully excluded in the last 60 years. A return to a more normal fire cycle and regime will be beneficial to wildlife and biodiversity.

Improved range management practices and monitoring of range condition will improve wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Control of noxious weeds is important for maintaining high quality wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Efforts to restore native vegetation to the landscape or enhance species that are declining are beneficial to biodiversity.

Minerals activity is unpredictable. Future activities on the forest would have to go through NEPA. Smaller mine operations have fairly minor effects, but larger operations could affect wildlife movement, vegetation, and perhaps water quality and aquatic diversity.

Future work on FS roads and trails may increase the impact of these facilities to wildlife by encouraging greater use by a wider range of vehicles and increasing vegetation loss and perhaps spread of noxious species. Other routes will be decommissioned, which will benefit wildlife and biodiversity in general.

An increase in dispersed use in which many of the dispersed users are interested in wildlife may actually be somewhat detrimental to the resource they wish to see, photograph, or hunt. Additional education of the public on their wildlife resource is important so that wildlife habitat and biodiversity are protected. Increasing public use will decrease the ability of wildlife to fully occupy available habitat, and some species are more likely to be affected than others. The number of recreation residences is not expected to increase in the future, and although there may be some modifications, their impacts will be about the same as they are at present. Outfitter/guide activity may increase, particularly for somewhat less traditional uses such as kayaking, wildlife watching, and photography. There are likely to be some minor impacts to wildlife. There will be some new impacts from ski area expansions which consist of a loss of vegetation and more humans utilizing the area in the winter.

The Forest will continue to acquire appropriate lands and conservation easements that will have an overall beneficial effect for biodiversity, particularly wildlife movement.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-17

Future fisheries habitat enhancement will be of benefit to biodiversity, especially when riparian areas are improved.

Working with the highway departments on wildlife passage is important. Requests to access private land across the National Forest are likely to continue and must be granted in most cases. These projects will have to go through NEPA.

Implementation of the Gallatin National Forest’s Travel Management Plan should reduce motorized routes on the Forest and thus increase non-motorized habitat for wildlife and increase biodiversity. Other Forests are also undergoing travel management planning, either by district or Forest. The trends are similar on other Forests.

The gray wolf is likely to be delisted in the future and will become a sensitive species on the Forest.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

Alternative 1 (Proposal)

Alternative 1 allows for the on-the-ground implementation of the Travel Plan. Signing has already been done, and it required no further NEPA analysis than the Travel Plan decision. Implementation of the Travel Plan is of benefit overall to wildlife and biodiversity. The main benefit of implementation of a Travel Plan is gaining control of the travel system on the Forest, closing routes that should be closed, maintaining routes that stay open, and not allowing off route vehicles or the proliferation of new routes. Weed control efforts could be somewhat more limited since there will be less motorized access on the Forest. Vegetative succession for potential old growth takes long enough that little change in this vegetative component that no increase in potential old growth is expected. Other rare habitats, such as willow and aspen may show fairly rapid vegetative succession in a relatively short period of time once routes impacting these habitats are closed. The Travel Plan reduces motorized route and density on the Forest and increases core habitat for wildlife as well as secure habitat for grizzly bears (see General Wildlife and Grizzly Bear issues in the Travel Plan, 2006). These changes benefit wildlife. Some of the construction will have short-term displacement effects on wildlife (Ibid.). There is mitigation in the proposal that protects rare habitats and requires construction in identified travel corridors to occur outside of spring and fall when most wildlife movement would occur.

Cumulatively, many of the past, present and future management actions on the Gallatin National Forest have improved or will improve or maintain biodiversity over the current condition. Rare habitats that have been lost to access routes will either remain that way or be restored over time if routes are closed. There are large pieces of non-motorized habitat found in the National Parks and Forests in the Yellowstone area. This proposal

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-18

has implementation projects in two of the three previously identified travel corridors. Most impacts to biodiversity are from cumulative effects on private lands, and are not the results of the actions of the Forest Service or other agencies. The impact of the growing human population and associated development poses the greatest risk to biodiversity on the Forest. Mitigation is in place in the project proposal to protect biodiversity.

Alternative 2 (No action)

The cumulative effect of the no action alternative with other programs and activities will have a negative impact on biodiversity because it allows the proliferation of current travel on the Forest, allowing off-route use, and not designating travel routes. In addition, project roads will remain open to the public and administrative routes may not all be gated. This will have the effects of higher route densities which may affect wildlife movement and reduces habitat availability, and more vegetative disturbance and introduction of exotic species which affects vegetative diversity. In addition, new user built routes would occur that affect rare habitats such as potential old growth, aspen, willow, whitebark pine and other important habitats.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

In addition to higher level direction identified above, there is some additional direction worth noting.

1. The Gallatin Forest Plan (p. II-1) includes a Forest-wide goal of providing habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species.

The NRLMD (Ibid. ROD Attachment 1, p. 8) includes direction relevant to linkages.

OBJECTIVE LINK O1 is: In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservations plans, land excahnges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat.

STANDARD LINK S1 is: When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkdage areas, identify potential highway crossings.

GUIDELINE LINK G1 is: It is a guideline to maintain NFS lands in public ownhership.

The proposed project (Alternative 1) is consistent with all legal and other higher-level direction identified in this section, including the Forest Travel Plan, Forest Plan and associated amendments. Alternative 2 is the no action alternative and therefore compliance with legal and other direction is not of issue.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-19

FISHERIES

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternatives may have on fish, amphibians, and other aquatic biota, and their habitats, as a result of road, parking area, and trail maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning (hereafter, ‘improvements’) associated with implementation of the Gallatin NF (GNF) Travel Plan (Travel Plan). The Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) disclosed effects to aquatic biota and their habitats of the various kinds of uses to be allowed on each travel management facility (e.g. road or trail) in the 39 Travel Planning Areas (TPAs), as well as effects of the specific facilities those uses require, both during construction and as a long-term feature of the landscape. Further, the FEIS included specific mitigations for some specific facilities so that proposed uses could occur without adverse effects to aquatic biota or their habitat. Thus, this analysis is focused on those actual actions (construction, reconstruction, etc.) required to create facilities, and their specific proposed locations and designs, appropriate for the uses analyzed in the FEIS, including the mitigations described above (including road decommissioning and similar actions). Referring to these actions as improvements does not by itself indicate an improvement to aquatic biota habitat or populations. Rather, it indicates an improvement in the GNF travel management system which may or may not have effects to aquatic habitat or biota. These effects will be analyzed for each travel route or facility improvement.

Potential effects of constructing improvements of travel route facilities on aquatic habitat and populations are combined under one primary aquatic issue (aquatic habitat and biota effects). However, as noted in the FEIS, the issue is segregated into various components of concern. Those components are:

1. Travel route improvement effects on stream channel form and function, including sediment delivery to streams and subsequent effects on aquatic habitat and biota. 2. Travel route improvement effects on riparian ecosystems. 3. Travel route improvement effects on habitat fragmentation. 4. Travel route improvement effects on exploitation and modification of recreational and native fisheries.

The general nature and mechanisms of these potential effects, including effects of initial construction of the various improvements, were discussed in the FEIS, pages 3-179 to 3- 184. As noted by Story (Water Resources Initial Specialist Report, 2008), some improvements with overall beneficial effects to aquatic biota and their habitats (e.g. road decommissioning) may have short-term negative effects that are compensated by long- term beneficial effects. The Travel Plan implemented standards to protect aquatic biota and their habitat (Travel Plan Standards E-4 through E-7, Detailed Description of the Decision, pages I-12 and I13) by minimizing effects of improvements so that aquatic biota populations and the function of their habitat would not be compromised.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-20

Incorporation of these standards into the proposal allows dismissal of two of possible effects listed above: aquatic habitat fragmentation and riparian habitat function as it relates to aquatic ecosystem function. Travel Plan standard E-6 (Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, page I-13) stipulates that stream crossings will permit aquatic organism passage; thus, proposed designs will incorporate features complying with this standard (either bridges or fords will be used). Similarly, riparian function will be maintained for new facility construction and reconstruction by Standard E-5 (id.), which precludes locating these facilities in floodplains and wetlands where riparian communities occur. Riparian ecosystem effects are separately being examined with respect to vegetative and wildlife function. Effects on exploitation and modification of recreational and native fisheries can also be dismissed because Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) regulates fish harvest; in the analysis area, harvest of native trout (Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat trout) is not allowed, and harvest of other species is allowed requisite with the capability of each water body to support it. Proposed activities will not change this capability. The primary potential effects of this proposal are those that could result from impacts to stream channel form and function, particularly in the form of changes in fine sediment delivery, as disclosed in the FEIS. Finally, actual construction activities can have direct effects to individual aquatic biota and these potential effects will be discussed.

Affected Environment

The 25 work areas within the project area (Table 3) encompass portions of the Madison, Gallatin, Yellowstone, Boulder and Shields River drainages, which, on the GNF, contain over 1,700 miles of fishable streams and over 700 high mountain lakes and reservoirs. The general characteristics of these waterbodies are described in the FEIS, pages 3-178 to 3-181) and by Story (2008). These rivers, lakes and their tributaries support several internationally known “blue ribbon” trout fisheries, as well as populations of important endemic fish and amphibians. Populations of the latter which are classified as sensitive species and which are present in the work areas are noted in Table 3; these include westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), Yellowstone cutthroat trout (O. clarki bouvieri), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) and western toad (Bufo boreas). An additional sensitive species, fluvial Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), is not currently known to be present within the project area. Of these species, Yellowstone cutthroat are more common than westslope cutthroat, and western toads are more widely-distributed than northern leopard frogs or plains spadefoot.

All wild trout are Management Indicator Species (MIS) for project area streams under the Gallatin Forest Plan (FP, page II-18). MIS occurring in the project area include the sensitive trout species mentioned above and brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow (O. mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). At least one MIS is present in every work area, except for Bridger Ridge, because no fish bearing streams are present along the crest of the Bridger Mountains where this work area resides.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-21

Among work tasks proposed are modifications of stream crossings to allow aquatic organism passage in several work areas specifically noted in this proposal (Table 3) as well as some that fall outside those work areas. The culverts highest in priority for modification in the Shields work area are on Bennett Creek (4 culverts) and Turkey Creek (2 culverts); in the Hebgen Basin work area are on Watkins and Trapper Creeks; in the Smith Creek drainage on Meadow Creek, EF Smith Creek (3 culverts), Smith Creek, and an unnamed tributary (2 culverts) in the Deer Creeks work area on Upper Deer Creek; and in the Mill Creek drainage on Colley and Lambert Creeks. These culverts were analyzed by Williams and Story 2003 and were determined to be impeding aquatic organism passage to varying degrees.

Table 3. Aquatic species presence, potential aquatic issues, and necessary mitigations, if needed, by Travel Plan implementation work area. Abbreviations: WT = western toad; PS = plains spadefoot; NLF = northern leopard frog; WCT = westslope cutthroat trout; YCT = Yellowstone cutthroat trout; SX = Stream crossing; WET = wetland; DC = decommissioning; SD = sediment concern Work Area Sensitive Potential Aquatic Mitigations other than Aquatic Species Issue Standards; Comments Present Buck Ridge WCT, WT SX; WET; SD Exceeds SD standard Pika Point WT WET None Sage Creek WT WET None Hebgen Basin WT, PS SX;WET; DC DC beneficial*# Lionhead WT WET None Mile Creek WT SX; WET None Rock/Tom Miner YCT SX; WET; DC DC beneficial Trail Creek/Bear None known WET None Canyon North Dry YCT WET None Cutler Lake YCT WET None Hyalite WCT, WT WET, DC DC beneficial Bozeman Creek WCT, WT WET None Gallatin Roaded WCT, WT, NLF SX; WET; DC; SD Road surfacing, DC beneficial Smith Creek YCT, WT SX; WET; DC DC beneficial# Porcupine YCT SX, WET None Shields River YCT, WT SD; WET, DC, SX Road surfacing, DC beneficial# Cooke City YCT, WT SX; WET None Deer Creeks YCT SX; SD; WET Needs SX stabilization Tr #5 before motorized use allowed**# Johnson Canyon WT SX; WET None Bridger Ridge None known WET None Fairy Lake YCT SX; WET; DC DC beneficial

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-22

Work Area Sensitive Potential Aquatic Mitigations other than Aquatic Species Issue Standards; Comments Present Bangtails YCT SX; WET None Suce Creek YCT WET None Gardiner Basin YCT WET None Emigrant Gulch YCT WET None *Road decommissioning may have short term impacts, but long-term benefits outweigh these. **Mitigation included in FEIS. #Work areas which include culvert replacements to allow aquatic organism passage.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Analysis Methodology

The methods used to analyze effects of the proposal are described in the FEIS (pages 3- 185 to 3-186). Sediment analyses were updated from Story (2008) and any new information regarding fish or amphibian populations were also incorporated. Analysis was conducted on an improvement-by-improvement basis within each work area.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Direct effects are those resulting in the direct mortality of fish or amphibians, or the destruction of fish or amphibian habitat. Indirect effects are those resulting in changes to fish and amphibian habitat as a result to changes in the aquatic environment, such as the potential for altering the rate in which sediment or woody debris enters the stream channel, modifying temperature regimes by reducing riparian shading and changes in stream bank stability due to near-bank activities.

The no action alternative retains existing travel management facilities with no improvements, and retains both existing direct and indirect effects disclosed in the FEIS for existing conditions (3-178 to 3-213). In 7 work areas (Table 3), this means that road decommissioning and/or road resurfacing would not occur, which has benefits to aquatic organisms and their habitat through reductions in fine sediment delivery, restored hydrologic function, and other mechanisms. Further, stream crossings within some of these work areas (Table 3) would not be modified to either reduce their impacts to stream channel form and function or to allow aquatic organism passage. Conversely, these benefits are realized by the proposed action. As noted by Story (2008), these treatments may result in short-term increases in sediment delivery but these increases are quickly reduced to below pre-treatment levels, particulary when accompanied by appropriate mitigations. For example, new trail and road construction will increase fine sediment delivery, but when combined with road decommissioning, it is reduced from pre-Travel Plan levels, when recent wildfires are accounted for (Story 2008). Furthermore,

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-23

application of the aquatic standards (E-4, E-5, E-6, and E-7) in the Tavel Plan will effectively reduce effects of proposed improvements to be minor, with no effects to overall aquatic habitat function, and thus aquatic organism population function, in all work areas except two (Table 3). Some direct mortality could occur to western toads, where present (Table 3), when they are using upland habitats post-breeding, during construction of new improvements, or during reconstruction. However, such events are unlikely and should not compromise western toad populations. Likewise, direct mortality of aquatic organisms during construction or remediation of stream crossings is possible, but also unlikely, and would not have population level effects.

One work area, Buck Ridge, is part of a TPA which exceeds Travel Plan aquatic standards/guidelines for sediment delivery (Travel Plan Standard E-4; Story 2008). This work area contains a conservation population of westslope cutthroat trout. In the Buck Ridge TPA, the majority of sediment delivery is the result of anthropogenic activities outside of GNF lands (Story 2008). Therefore trail improvements as proposed for this work area would not comply with Travel Plan aquatic standards/guidelines for sediment delivery. The completion of the Upper Gallatin River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis by Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), which will determine sediment guidelines and controls in this watershed (Story 2008), may result in the ability to proceed with these trail proposals.

On the whole, because the proposed action largely does not have negative direct or indirect effects to aquatic biota and their habitat, as described above, it is not expected to interact with effects of other actions to have negative cumulative effects to aquatic biota and their habitats. As noted above, with respect to sediment delivery, a slight reduction in overall sediment delivery to aquatic habitats is predicted (Story 2008). Proposed activities within the one work area described above which does comply with GNF sediment delivery parameters would interact with other actions to have cumulative negative effects to aquatic biota, including cutthroat trout, a region 1 Sensitive Species.

Cumulative Effects

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

The net effect of past programs and activities was a reduction in aquatic habitat quantity and quality from pristine conditions. However, these effects are highly variable and localized. In general, present programs and activities are either maintaining or reducing impacts, with the net effects combining to reduce negative effects to aquatic resources. Most important among these activities, in terms of magnitude of beneficial effects, has been road decommissioning and stream crossing modification, modification of range management methods, and reduced timber harvest. Locally significant beneficial effects have come from mine reclamation and fish population and habitat restoration. Thus, although localized areas retain degraded habitats, the overall GNF trend in aquatic habitat and biota is positive. These localized areas of degraded habitat were identified, where

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-24

pertinent, in the Fisheries analysis of the Travel Management Plan alternatives, and resulted in mitigations where possible.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

Although some programs and activities will maintain existing effects on aquatic biota and their habitats, and others may have localized short-term negative effects, the net combined effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities are also beneficial with regard to aquatic habitats and biota. Remaining degraded aquatic habitats have been and will continue to be targeted for restoration (including by this proposed action), such as Smith Creek, the Upper Shields River, the Deer Creeks, and Mill Creek, all of which have projects of various kinds (road decommissioning, trail and road maintenance, in- stream habitat restoration) scheduled for upcoming fiscal years. Native species restoration will occur in places like Cherry Creek and Soda Butte Creek. Range allotments with degraded habitats will be given updated management plans to improve livestock management with respect to riparian areas and stream channels. Additional stream crossings will be modified to improve aquatic organism passage, and reduce impacts to stream channels and aquatic habitats.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

Alternative 1 retains existing cumulative effects, as it represents the status quo and incorporates neither the mitigations for existing impacts on aquatic habitats (e.g. road decommissioning or aquatic organism passage), nor the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines proposed for the other proposed actions that address existing impacts of travel management. By contrast, the proposed action incorporates both the proposed goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for all work areas as well as actions designed to improve aquatic habitats from the existing condition (e.g. road decommissiong and aquatic organism passage). Cumulative effects related to sediment delivery decrease from existing conditions (no action alternative) if the proposed action is implemented (Story 2008). The proposed action includes all mitigations for riparian and aquatic resources (including relevant standards and guidelines) appropriate to protect riparian and aquatic resources. For example, travel route proposals in this alternative were designed to accommodate aquatic mitigation measures. Thus, direct and indirect effects result in no impacts to fish, amphibians and their habitats in the proposed action; therefore, the proposed action is expected to cumulatively have no effect to fish, amphibians, and their habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-25

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

Compliance and consistency of both no-action and the proposed action largely remain as discussed in the FEIS (pages 3-210 to 3-213). A potential exception was noted previously for the Buck Ridge work area, where sediment delivery to a westslope cutthroat trout stream would increase under the proposed action. This would not comply with sediment delivery standards because development of lands off of national forest have already elevated sediment delivery in this watershed (SFWF Gallatin River) in excess of standards, and thus would also be inconsistent with the Montana interagency Cutthroat Trout Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement (MOUCA), with the Land Use Strategy for implementation of the MOUCA, and with Forest Service Region 1 Sensitive Species policy. All other projects associated with the proposed action (Alternative 1) are consistent with laws, regulations, and other higher level direction for fisheries.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-26

GENERAL WILDLIFE

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternatives may have on general wildlife species on the Gallatin National Forest. The issue of general wildlife is discussed in the following analysis on a Forest-wide level. The effects of implementation of the Travel Plan (2006) on-the-ground over the next 5 years, beginning in 2009, are addressed, primarily the displacement that may occur during the construction activity. The effects of the no action alternative will also be addressed.

The work being proposed by the Gallatin National Forest to implement the Travel Plan on-the-ground would occur over an approximately 5 year period beginning in 2009 and includes:

7. Construction of the new trail connectors identified in the Travel Plan designed to create loop opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes. 8. Construction of other trail segments to accommodate the non-motorized and winter opportunities (both snowmobiling and skiing) targeted to be provided by the Travel Plan. 9. Reconstruction of existing roads and trails to accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan (e.g. reconstructing a single track trail so that it can accommodate ATVs). 10. Construction and reconstruction of trailheads and parking facilities needed to accommodate user demand. 11. Surfacing of high priority roads and replacement of culverts to facilitate aquatic organism passage. 12. Restoration and stabilization of certain excess roads not designated for motorized use by the Travel Plan.

The concerns carried into this analysis are the potential impact of Travel Plan implementation on wildlife. The wildlife corridor/linkage topic is discussed under the Biodiversity Issue. Mitigation for the wildlife issues are now part of the proposal (Alternative 1):

4. Species of Special Management Direction. Motorized routes shall be located to avoid or mitigate for known occupied habitat such as nesting, denning, roosting or key foraging areas for species of special management designation. (See Travel Plan Guideline G-2).

5. To help in maintaining biodiversity, impacts to rare habitats such as old growth, riparian, aspen, etc. with route construction, modification, or parking lot siting will be avoided to the extent possible. The district biologist will be consulted for each project to determine survey needs prior to construction. Rare habitats will be avoided and buffered from the construction work if at all possible. (See Travel Plan Guideline H-2)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-27

6. In order to mitigate effects to wildlife during important times of year such as calving and fawning, wintering, road/trail work will be conducted from 7/15 to 10/15. Outside of important big game winter ranges, work in the late fall or winter may occur. Complete road/trail work in high elevation whitebark pine habitat by 9/1 to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear.

7. Working in areas identified as wildlife corridors, Lionhead and Bear Canyon, during the time of year they are most important for movement will be avoided (generally avoiding spring or fall, performing work in mid-summer).

6. There is some project or route specific direction related to bald eagle, grizzly bears, and travel corridors. See Chapter 2 of this NEPA document for details by Travel Planning Area.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the consideration of a No Action Alternative (40 CFR 1502.14d) where none of the actions outlined Alternative 1 would occur. It provides a baseline of comparison to aid in determining the significance of issues and effects of the proposed action. Under this alternative, no road or trail improvement work would occur. More specifically, under this alternative: 9) No trails would be constructed or reconstructed to accommodate the uses designated by the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision, 10/2006). 10) No roads would be reconstructed to accommodate vehicle use, minimize erosion, and to provide turnouts, turnarounds and roadside parking. 11) No new or expanded trailheads/parking areas would be developed. 12) Excess roads would not be restored or stabilized.

Affected Environment

The area analyzed is Forest-wide for all travel plan route implementation over the next 5 years. The wildlife resources and habitats on the Gallatin National Forest are quite diverse. Some of the species that are found on the Forest are classified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, such as the grizzly bear, and others are classified under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered such as the Canada lynx. The Forest hosts many big game species such as elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, etc. Numerous large and mid-sized carnivores occur in this area including both species of bear, mountain lions, wolverines, gray wolves, and others. Many nongame species and migratory birds are found on the Forest. The appreciation of this vast wildlife resource is shared by diverse groups such as hunters, birdwatchers, hikers, ATV’rs, snowmobilers, and skiers. Many members of the public enjoy the Forest while

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-28

doing a wildlife related activity (e.g. hunting or photography) or enjoy wildlife observation as they travel through the Forest for some other purpose. The Gallatin National Forest is located on the north and west boundary of Yellowstone National Park and shares many of the same species and populations. This is one of the few areas in the lower 48 United States that hosts a complete native fauna and offers tremendous wildlife viewing and appreciation opportunities.

Road and trail improvements have several potential ways of affecting wildlife species. The effects to wildlife of humans using the routes in the Travel Plan have already been analyzed. The Travel Plan FEIS General Wildlife Issue (2006, incorporated by reference) addresses these in detail. The current topic for analysis is the effects of implementation of the Travel Plan on wildlife over the next 5 years.

1) The major issue in relation to habitat change is the indirect loss of habitat through wildlife displacement from human activity associated with construction of roads and trails. 2) Disruption of wildlife travel routes, or corridors is another wildlife issue. It is discussed in detail under Travel Plan FEIS Issue 3: Biological Diversity (Ibid.) and the Biological Diversity Issue for this project. Actual implementation could temporarily disrupt wildlife movement patterns. There is direction in several recent Amendments (Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007) to consider linkages during construction activities as well as the effects to linkages from construction. This issue is discussed in detail in the Biodiversity issue of this EA. 3) The wildlife mortality issue relates directly to the amount of high-speed roads that are under National Forest jurisdiction. There are virtually no high-speed routes managed by the Gallatin National Forest. Mortality from actual construction is virtually nonexistent for most wildlife species. This issue is dismissed from further discussion in this EA. 4) The issue of habitat change relates to direct loss of habitat due to the presence of road and trail prisms, and again, this is a very minor loss. This is addressed further in the Rare Plants issue.

There is little doubt that recreational activity participation rates are high and increasing. Both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are popular (Joslin and Youmanns 1999:1.5-1.8).

A road or trail itself makes a physical “footprint” on the landscape and generally removes wildlife habitat where it lies. The physical footprint is also surrounded by an area of influence that the routes have on wildlife species in the area, which can be referred to as the “virtual footprint” (Forman et al. 2003:113). In the case of routes that are already established, a physical footprint already exists on the ground. New routes establish a new physical footprint on the ground. A virtual footprint is the area affected by the physical existence of the route. The virtual footprint is affected by the amount of noise and duration of activity occurring on the actual route itself or during the construction work on

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-29

that route. This may increase in size during actual construction, reconstruction, or other activities that may occur in this project depending on the baseline level and type of activity already present on the route. The effects of human use on the routes designated in the Travel Plan (2006, Ibid.) were discussed in that FEIS for various issues including General Wildlife. The portion of the affected environment not discussed there was the actual on-the-ground activities of construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and other techniques. That will be discussed below. Some construction related to trails such as trailheads were not analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS. They are also discussed below.

Changes in habitat change, loss and quality were discussed in the Travel Plan FEIS. The results of the various alternatives showed direct loss of wildlife habitat acreage due to roads and trails is minor. However, there are some very valuable habitats that can be impacted by new routes or reconstructed routes, including riparian areas, whitebark pine, aspen, old growth, etc. (see Biodiversity issue).

For the analysis of general wildlife in relation to the Travel Plan, please see Travel Plan FEIS, General Wildlife Issue (Ibid.). Refer to other issue analyses for species such as grizzly bear, big game, wolverine and lynx. These analyses are tailored to the species, with reviews of species-specific research, while the analysis presented here is very general.

Wildlife species are protected by a number of laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act. The Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment, 2007) and Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007) are recent direction. Other laws and regulations also have direction for wildlife such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940), and the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007). Some of these laws and direction are discussed in more detail in other issues. There is direction for general wildlife in the Gallatin Forest Plan (1987). Forest Plan Goal A.7 is to “Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals.” There is also a goal (Goal A.8) to “Provide sufficient habitat for recovered populations of threatened and endangered species…”. There are a number of wildlife standards in the Forest Plan as well as Management Area direction (Forest Plan 1987).

Relevant direction comes from the Forest Travel Plan (2006). That is listed and discussed below. This direction is relevant to the proposal (Alternative 1) but not the no action alternative (Alternative 2).

Standard A-8. Off-route travel. Wheeled motorized vehicle travel shall be prohibited off of designated routes with the following exceptions. This standard is beneficial to many species of plants and animals by limiting almost all use to designated routes with minor exceptions, rather than allowing off-route use.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-30

GOAL D. Resources (General). Manage a system of roads and trails and associated public use that is consistent with Forest Plan goals for water quality; wildlife habitat; fish habitat; threatened and endangered species recovery; and historical resources This goal is beneficial to many species and their habitats on the Forest by allowing uses consistent with water quality, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, etc.

OBJ. D-1. Road Rehabilitation. Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs. This objective reduces the amount of roads which reduces their effects on general wildlife species and habitat.

OBJ. D-2. Trail Rehabilitation. Close and rehabilitate existing non-system trail not otherwise designated for public travel. This objective reduces impacts of humans on general wildlife species and habitat.

GOAL E. Fisheries. Manage a road and trail system that fully supports the beneficial use of growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life. This is followed by a number of objectives. The protection of water quality, riparian habitats, fisheries helps to protect important wildlife habitat. GOAL F. Wildlife Corridors. Provide for wildlife movement and genetic interaction (particularly for wide-ranging species) between and within mountain ranges throughout the Gallatin National Forest and connecting wildlands. This goal and TPA specific objectives help protect and allow for movement of wildlife between mountain ranges. OBJ. F-1. Provide habitat connectivity consistent with wildlife movement patterns between mountain ranges such as that at Bozeman Pass (Linking the Gallatin Range to the Bridger/Bangtails); the North Bridgers (linking the Bridger Range to the Big Belt Mountains; the Lionhead Area (linking the Henry’s Lake Mountains to the Gravelly Mountains); the Shields (Crazy Mountains to the Castle and Little Belt Mountains) and any additional linkage or wildlife movement corridors recognized by the Forest Service. Corridors are recognized as essential for allowing wildlife movement and allowing wildlife populations to be as connected as they have been in the past. GOAL G. Threatened, Endangered and Species of Special Management Designation. Manage human use of the Forest road and trail system that allows for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and maintains sensitive species and their habitats. (This goal helps protect and recover T&E species and other rare species and their habitats. After the Forest Travel Plan was completed in 2006, The Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment, 2007) was completed. See the Grizzly Bear issue in this NEPA document for further details.) Guidelines G-2 Species of Special Management Designation, and Guideline G-3, Threatened and Endangered Species are part of the proposed action. In addition to the proposed programmatic direction, the travel management decision follows current direction applicable to the management of grizzly bear and lynx. This is now the direction from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-31

GOAL H. Wildlife. Provide for healthy vegetative conditions in key habitats such as willow, riparian, wetlands, whitebark pine, and potential old growth. Maintaining key habitats, which host more species than other habitats, is important for general wildlife species habitat. OBJ. H-1. Relocate, reconstruct or take other appropriate action on system roads and trails that are found to have adverse impacts on key habitats. OBJ. H-2, Roads and trails should be located to avoid key habitats or mitigate the impacts. Maintaining key habitats that are important for many wildlife species benefits general wildlife. GOAL I. Wildlife. Provide high quality security habitat in areas important to wildlife reproduction (e.g. calving, fawning, denning and nesting habitat). Protection of reproductive habitats is important for general wildlife species and habitat. OBJ. I-1. Minimize stress factors from human recreation use to species of concern during calving, fawning, denning and nesting seasons in habitats used for reproduction. See specific travel management area direction. Although ungulates tend to be common species, providing security on big game winter range also benefits general wildlife. Guideline I-2. Management of winter travel should consider MFWP goals for optimal survival on big game winter ranges.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The specific issue analyzed in this document is the effects on wildlife by the new on-the- ground construction or reconstruction of travel routes (roads and trails) to certain standards, construction of trailheads and parking areas, maintenance of roads and trails, and restoration, stabilization and decommissioning of routes (see Alternative 1 description in the Introduction). These activities are generally done by hand and hand tools in the Wilderness but are achieved by a variety of means on the non-Wilderness portion of the Forest. Types of tools and equipment potentially used include excavators, skid-steer loaders, ATV’s, helicopters, blasting, hammering, drilling, brushing, surface grading, maintaining drainage structures, maintaining bridges, cattleguards, gates, signing, and other structures. Also, techniques used for restoration, stabilization and decommissioning include minimizing sediment by using cut and fill slopes, drainage, scarification, seeding, slashing, ripping, recontouring, and possibly armoring stream bottoms at crossings (Table 4.)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-32

Table 4. Type of work involved in implementing the Travel Plan on-the ground and potential effects to general wildlife. Type of Work Wildlife Potential disturbance/displacement NON-MOTORIZED ACTIVITY All non-motorized work including hand Generally the same effects to wildlife as labor and hand tools and seeding, the baseline level, but work may occur in Usually, all activity in designated one location for a longer time period rather Wilderness Areas are non-motorized than a vehicle moving through on the travel route, so the potential exists for slightly more and longer localized wildlife displacement than baseline (normal trail use). If the work is occurring on a non- motorized route, the effect to wildlife would be insignificant due to the baseline being a motorized route. MOTORIZED ACTIVITY All motorized or loud activities Effects to wildlife tend to be at about baseline level for most activities for existing motorized routes (but some motorized equipment and activities such as blasting and drilling may be louder, increasing wildlife displacement from the local area Small trail-sized excavators, or other trail Assuming all of these activities include a sized machinery, skid-steer loaders, ATVs, motorized component, the wildlife impact vegetation removal, brushing, surface would be current level for motorized routes hardening but generally concentrated and longer duration and potentially louder than baseline Additional features such as turnouts, These features encourage additional human parking lot construction or expansions, use, and may change types and amounts of trailheads use on the travel route Installing gates Usually baseline level if on a motorized route, short duration Ripping to 12 in depth, remove culverts, Effect to wildlife is baseline level or above drainage, install cross drains, slashing road if motorized route: however, increased surface, block road with berm or other wildlife displacement over baseline is techniques, recontour route prism, armor expected if a motorized project activity is stream bottom, removing blow-down, occurring in a non-motorized area properly functioning drainage of culverts, bridges, etc., install drainage, scarify for seeding, other similar actions Helicopter for materials and bridges if Impact to wildlife can be high. This is not allowed by a minimum tool analysis and a normal activity to which most species Forest Supervisor in Wilderness, allowed will habituate. Duration of the activity

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-33

outside of Wilderness may be short, but the project may take repeated flights which would displace some wildlife species varying distances from the work site and potentially affect critical portions of life cycles if activities occur during these times (e.g. during calving, fawning, or in the Grizzly Bear Primary Conservation Area, see Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007) Jack hammer (THs), Drilling (THs), Impact to wildlife can be high. This is not Blasting rock (THs) if allowed by a a normal activity to which animals minimum tool analysis and Forest habituate. This activity can be very loud, Supervisor but duration is usually short. Wildlife will be temporarily displaced, and this activity could potentially affect critical portions of life cycles (see above block)

The proposed activities for implementation of the Travel Plan on-the-ground may impact wildlife species by displacement of some animals during construction and perhaps for a short time afterward. The displacement is most likely to be temporary and primarily during actual construction work. The louder and more sudden the activity is over baseline activity in the area, the greater the displacement of some animals is likely to be (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

For a thorough literature review on the topic of the effects of travel management on wildlife, please see the Travel Plan FEIS, General Wildlife Issue (incorporated by reference). The information most relevant to implementation of the Travel Plan on general wildlife species is in the portion of the General Wildlife Issue on Habitat Quality.

The effects of implementing the Travel Plan on-the-ground tend to have similar effects to that of motorized use, where noise is produced in an area during the construction, which increases the “virtual foot print” (Forman et al. 2003) of the location and tends to displace wildlife that are not habituated to motorized or loud activity. The actual footprint of the route itself is the direct effect, and the increase in effects due to construction would be an indirect effect or part of the virtual foot print.

Trailhead improvements such as parking lots were not analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS but will be discussed here. The creation of a parking lot directly removes wildlife habitat for some species. Due to the actual size of the parking lots, this is very minimal acreage on the Forest. However, if a parking lot is located in a rare or important habitat (e.g. riparian areas) it will have more serious impact to some wildlife. These rarer habitats shall be avoided as discussed in the Biodiversity Issue.

Indirect habitat loss due to displacement is the issue that is most closely related to the actual on-the-ground construction work proposed by this project (Table 4). The actions of implementing the Travel Plan by the travel route work planned over the next 5 years

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-34

(2009-2014) will cause some temporary wildlife displacement during construction activity due to the human presence on-the-ground and increased traffic and noise associated with some of the proposed changes to routes or new construction. In general, the louder the activity and the longer the duration, the more the impact there will be to wildlife (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). This will either be displacement from an area normally utilized for a relatively short period of time during the disturbance, a long term displacement if it is a newly constructed route, or potentially a more serious effect if the disturbance is severe or is at a critical time in the species’ life cycle. Avoidance of loud, disturbing activity may interfere with different species that are raising offspring or performing some other critical function. Some activities, such as repeated helicopter flights or blasting may be especially disturbing at critical times of year or in rare habitats (Ibid. and MacArthur et al. 1982, Gabrielson and Smith 1995).

New or improved parking lots and trailheads may have the indirect effect of increasing human use and potentially types of use on the road or trail accessed from the facility. Increased access from an improved trailhead may allow increases in activities such as hiking, hunting, or motorized use, if allowed. For species that are sensitive to such types and changes in use, such as the grizzly bear, this new activity or developed site must be carefully considered in light of the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment, 2007, see Grizzly Bear issue). Increased use of routes by people results in increased potential for human/wildlife conflicts, with the usual result for most species being displacement from the trail or road, but the effect can occasionally be more serious. More recreationists in grizzly bear habitat generally leads to more human/bear conflicts.

The no action alternative for this project means not implementing the Forest Travel Plan on-the-ground. Because the final Travel Plan decision was a vast improvement over the current condition for virtually all resources, including wildlife, not implementing the Travel Plan returns the Forest to previous travel management on the Forest which was not beneficial for many of the resources. This is primarily because many of the project roads would remain open to the public, many roads and trails would not be properly drained, decommissioned, etc. User created routes would continue to proliferate. However, it is possible to implement part of the proposal without implementing those parts that have more serious negative consequences to wildlife. Mitigation is included in Alternative 1 to reduce or eliminate potential negative effects to various wildlife species and habitats.

Analysis Methodology

The primary method of the analysis for this issue in the Travel Plan FEIS and this document (2006) was a review of recent, relevant literature on the general effects of motorized and non-motorized use of roads and trails on wildlife. In some cases, extrapolations were made from the closest type of activity one could find to route construction activities and their effects on wildlife. The issues of concern for implementation of the Travel Plan are indirect, temporary habitat loss during construction and potential disruption of wildlife movements in linkage areas due to construction. The Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-35

linkage/corridor is discussed in detail in the Biodiversity Issue of this NEPA document.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

The five year proposal for road and trail implementation of the Travel Plan on-the-ground will likely to lead to temporary displacement of some species and individual animals from the construction area. Some direct loss of wildlife habitat from new routes will occur, but habitat will also be gained from routes that are closed. An indirect effect is displacement of wildlife due to disturbance. Displacement will be greater for animals not habituated to construction noises (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Displacement will be less where construction activities are at or below the baseline level of activity in the area. The majority of changes in travel management from the Travel Plan are beneficial to wildlife (see Travel Plan, wildlife issues) and for general wildlife, core habitat (>1 km from any travel route) is increased. Because most routes proposed for some construction type of activity already exist, wildlife are already being impacted by the uses that occur on these routes and that was analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.). The increased noise that is associated with the construction activity will cause a temporary and minor displacement of some species away from the area where work is occurring. In general, the louder the noise, the greater the displacement of wildlife (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Also, the longer the period of loud activities, the longer the displacement of wildlife. When the construction work is completed, wildlife will return to the area used prior to construction. Because the proposed work is spread over 5 years, and there are few proposed routes located in close proximity to one another, the implementation of the Travel Plan will tend to have fairly minor and temporary displacement effects on general wildlife species, and there will be habitat to which they can be temporarily displaced. The mitigation measures in place in Alternative 1 will reduce or avoid impacts to wildlife.

The overall effect of not implementing the Travel Plan is negative for wildlife on the Forest. This is because many project roads would not be effectively closed, routes would not be properly decommissioned or constructed, route densities would not be reduced, and user built routes would continue to proliferate. These are all negative effects for general wildlife species (see General Wildlife Issue, Travel Plan FEIS, 2006).

Cumulative Effects

This issue is being addressed on a Forest-wide basis over the period of Travel Plan implementation for 5 years (2009-2014). Improvement work for roads and trails on the Forest can have cumulative effects on general wildlife species along with many other activities. A thorough discussion of cumulative effects on general wildlife may be found in the Travel Plan FEIS, General Wildlife Issue (Ibid.).

The most serious effect on wildlife species from human activity is temporary, indirect habitat loss through displacement during construction. Other things that also result in direct or indirect habitat loss are those with the greatest cumulative effects. These include things like increases in human residences and activity on and near the Forest

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-36

where habitat is lost to increasing development, and wildlife are displaced by both this and the activities of the humans moving into and using their habitat. Other activities that can result in displacement include natural events such as wildfire or loss of habitat due to insects and disease.

Because most routes proposed for some construction type of activity already exist, wildlife are already being impacted by the uses that occur on these routes and that was analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.). The increased noise that is associated with the construction activity will cause a temporary and minor displacement of some species away from the area where work is occurring. In general, the louder the noise, the greater the displacement of wildlife (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Also, the longer the period of loud activities, the longer the displacement of wildlife. For new proposed routes, the type of use has already been considered in the Travel Plan. However, the activity of constructing these routes was not analyzed. During construction, which may be an increase over baseline activity, some wildlife will be displaced. When the construction work is completed, wildlife will return to the area used prior to construction. Because the proposed work is spread over 5 years, and there are few proposed routes located in close proximity to one another, the implementation of the Travel Plan will tend to have fairly minor and temporary displacement effects on general wildlife species, and they will have habitat to which they can be temporarily displaced. Some species may be more sensitive than others to disturbance, while some are less sensitive. Construction on new routes in an area will tend to have more impact to wildlife during construction than routes being worked on where they have already existed. Alternative 1 includes mitigation to reduce or eliminate impact to general wildlife.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities were also discussed in detail in the Travel Plan FEIS, General Wildlife issue, (Ibid.). The implementation of the Travel Plan overall is beneficial for wildlife and increases the amount of core habitat available to wildlife (Ibid.). The actual implementation of the Plan on-the-ground will have some temporary negative effects to some wildlife species, primarily in the form of displacement (see Table 4).

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

A common theme throughout this issue is the direct and indirect effects of motorized use on wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat has been affected by numerous other events and activities, but many of these effects are often temporary and benefit some species while having a negative effect on other species. Habitat alteration caused by harvesting timber, livestock grazing, or implementing prescribed fires are relatively temporary in nature, with longer lasting effects to wildlife if all structure (trees and downed material) are removed from the site. In some cases there may be a change in the plant species occurring on the site, which is generally negative for wildlife if they are exotic species or if they are less desirable for most wildlife. Where prescribed fire is used as a tool to reintroduce fire into a fire dependent ecosystem such as this one, the results are generally beneficial for wildlife. Fire suppression has taken us out of the normal fire cycle and resulted in a buildup of fuels. Control of weeds is beneficial for wildlife as an attempt to

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-37

return the site to native vegetation. Attempts to revegetate or rejuvenate vegetative types that have been reduced on the landscape are beneficial to many wildlife species, especially those using rarer habitats such as whitebark pine and aspen.

Mining activity can result in areas that need to be reclaimed, but can also create habitat for some species such as bats. Activity associated with mining, logging, or burning may displace some wildlife from the area while it is occurring.

Road improvements on the Forest may increase wildlife mortality where speed limits increase. Improvements also tend to lead to increased traffic and a higher risk of wildlife mortality. This same issue exists for roads not under National Forest jurisdiction that exist on the Forest. Most routes involved were 2 lane highways also the 4 lane Interstate- 90. These routes, depending on the difficulty of crossing safely, can be a barrier to wildlife movement.

Most of the mortality that occurs to wildlife species occurs on high speed, paved routes such as highways. Mortality on these types of roads can be significant for some species at some times of year. This is a cumulative effect to what occurs on the National Forest system routes. In terms of direct habitat loss, Ruediger (1996) points out that a 300-foot cleared right-of- way for a road would consume almost 6% of each section (640 acres) that it crosses. These types of rights-of-way rarely exist on the National Forest, but can affect the same wildlife that use the Forest and are a cumulative effect. The analysis of indirect habitat loss or displacement for the Travel Plan was presented for public Forest Service motorized and non-motorized routes on National Forest only. Obviously, there is a cumulative effect of private, county, state and federal roads on the National Forest or adjacent lands. For some TPAs, such as Big Sky, this is a very large impact to the local area. For others, there is no effect or only a small effect. There are increasing routes on private land therefore the impacts to wildlife and displacement of wildlife from private land are likely to continue to increase. There are cumulative effects of the human activity associated with roads and trails. One of these is the presence of pets (usually dogs) that can provoke a predator-alarm response, harassment and energy expenditure, and occasionally direct mortality of wildlife. There are also effects of the activities that humans do when they use roads and trails, including hunting, fishing, trapping, firewood cutting, viewing wildlife, rock climbing, spelunking, etc. All of these activities can potentially disturb wildlife, and some can cause direct mortality. Another example would be the introduction of the raccoon into areas where it had not previously existed. Racoons can have negative effects on birds via nest predation. The presence of roads may facilitate the introduction of these types of species into areas where they have never existed, where the native fauna is not equipped to respond well to their presence. One important cumulative effect is the development that is occurring near the National Forest or on private inholdings within the Forest. Ruediger (1996) suggests that as roads of increasingly high quality become available in an area, one can expect development to

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-38

increase along these linear features. Seasonal use may become year-round. Areas become developed with subdivisions and the supporting infrastructure. This has serious impacts on wildlife habitat that is a cumulative effect of the presence of roads.

There is often a time lag between when habitat alteration occurs and when ecological effects of the alteration can be detected. Habitat loss is the most immediate effect of road/trail construction and wildlife should show a fairly rapid response. The multitude of other factors such as reduced quality of habitat, wildlife mortality, and reduced connectivity has effects that may be much more difficult to detect. The effect of road mortality and disruption of connectivity may take decades or longer to appear. Roads and motorized trails can lead to reduction of wildlife habitat, alteration of habitat and fragmentation. Motorized routes may reduce populations. However, most wildlife populations can and do persist in the presence of motorized routes. The rate of change and the rate of disturbance are critical in allowing species to adapt to change. The threshold motorized route density at which wildlife can no longer survive and function is not known, and probably differs greatly by species. For some large mammal species, some literature suggests that densities of 0.75-1.0 mi/sq mi of motorized routes are tolerated (Maxell and Hokit 1999:134-137).

Dispersed recreation has increased on the Forest, and the appreciation for nonconsumptive uses of wildlife has also increased. Increased human use of the Forest also displaces wildlife and can degrade habitat. Recreational residence sites remove wildlife habitat and may displace wildlife in those areas. Most of the approximately 200 recreational residences on the Forest are located on the Bozeman and Hebgen Lake Ranger Districts. Outfitter/guides are offering more non-consumptive wildlife activities and this type of use is increasing. Outfitter/guides also take many hunters into the Forest. Outfitter/guiding is regulated, and probably is less impactive to wildlife than non- outfitted activities. Developed ski areas are more likely to affect wolverine and lynx which are addressed as separate topics in this EA. Some wildlife species could be affected by removal of trees from these areas.

The acquisition or adjustment of lands and conservation easements on lands that were in checkerboard ownership or adjacent to the Forest is of critical importance to wildlife and has made a huge improvement in the Forest’s ability to manage wildlife habitat and protect important wildlife areas from development. Other lands projects have occurred in very important areas for wildlife such as the Taylor Fork drainage and the Gardiner Basin.

The main concern with non-recreation special uses is during the period of construction and then afterwards if any motorized routes are created during the construction and are needed for maintenance.

Many wildlife species have rebounded from the early efforts of hunting, trapping and predator control. Wildlife in Montana is managed by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks with regulated hunting, fishing and trapping regulations with the intent of conserving these species. Legislation such as the ESA has led to protection of threatened and

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-39

endangered species and has shown success in the delisting of the peregrine falcon, bald eagle and grizzly bear in the Yellowstone area. These species have met their recovery criteria. The reintroduction of the gray wolf is one of the most interesting things to occur in this area with its subsequent impact on a whole suite of predators as well as prey. Not only are these animals influenced, but apparently there are influences that are occurring on the wildlife habitat as evidenced by an increase in riparian vegetation such as willow and aspen.

The expansion of the Food Storage Order Forest-wide is beneficial for wildlife. It will keep wild animals from becoming habituated to human food and losing their innate fear of humans. The Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007) help assure the conservation of these species and likely have beneficial effects on other species.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

Future vegetation management projects will be more tied to fuels reduction and will tend to be patchier in nature, leaving some structure for wildlife in burned or harvested areas. Few, if any, new roads will be built to access areas for this type of work. Those that are built will be project roads, not open to the public and closed and obliterated after the work is completed. Since this is a major impact of these activities to wildlife species, this is a vast improvement. The increase in use of prescribed fire on the landscape should be beneficial to wildlife in this fire dependent ecosystem where fire has been somewhat successfully excluded in the last 60 years. Return to a more normal fire cycle and regime will be beneficial to wildlife.

Future livestock grazing on the Forest will consist primarily if not exclusively of cattle and horses, and fewer depredations and conflicts will result. Improved range management practices and monitoring of range condition will improve wildlife habitat. Control of noxious weeds is important for maintaining high quality wildlife habitat and efforts at this should increase in the future. Efforts to restore native vegetation to the landscape or enhance species that are declining are beneficial to wildlife.

Exploration for leasable and locatable minerals is of concern due to its rather unpredictable nature. The greatest potential for leasable minerals is in the Crazy and Bridger mountains at this time.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-40

Future improvements of FS roads and motorized trails may increase the impact of these facilities to wildlife by encouraging greater use. Other routes will be decommissioned, which will benefit wildlife in general.

An increase in dispersed use in which many of the dispersed users are interested in wildlife may actually be somewhat detrimental to the resource they wish to see, photograph, or hunt. Additional education of the public on their wildlife resource is important so that wildlife habitat is protected as are the animals that use it. Increasing public use will decrease the ability of wildlife to fully occupy available habitat, and some species are more likely to be affected than others. Recreation residences are not expected to increase in the future, and their impacts will be about the same as they are at present. Outfitter/guide activity may increase, particularly for somewhat less traditional uses such as kayaking, wildlife watching, and photography. It may decrease for activities such as hunting. There are likely to be some impacts to wildlife, but outfitters and guides will be under permit and should have less impact to wildlife than non outfitted users. No new impacts from ski areas are foreseen except for a minor loss of cover in these areas where routes are maintained.

The Forest will continue to acquire appropriate lands and conservation easements that will have an overall beneficial effect for wildlife.

Requests for special uses permits for non-recreational uses will continue. The main concern would be during the construction phases of the projects and then afterward if any motorized access routes are created. All of these requests will go through site-specific NEPA analysis.

Future fisheries habitat enhancement will be of benefit to wildlife, especially when riparian areas are improved. Hunting will continue to be used as a management tool by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

As human population and traffic in the area increases, the potential for wildlife mortality on highways increases. Increased driving speeds and poor sight distances contribute to mortality. Working with the highway departments on wildlife passage is important. Requests to access private land across the National Forest are likely to continue and must be granted in most cases. These projects will have to go through separate NEPA analysis.

Implementation of the Gallatin National Forest’s travel management plan will result in a reduction of motorized routes on the Forest and thus increase non-motorized habitat for wildlife. Other Forests are also undergoing travel management planning, either by district or Forest. The trends are similar on other Forests.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-41

Because the most serious effect on wildlife species from human activity is indirect habitat loss through displacement, other things that also result in direct or indirect habitat loss are those with the greatest cumulative effects. These include things like increases in human residences and activity on and near the Forest where habitat is lost to increasing development, and wildlife are displaced by both this and the activities of the humans moving into and using their habitat. Other things that can result in displacement include natural events such as wildfire or loss of habitat due to insects and disease.

Because most routes proposed for some construction type of activity already exist, wildlife are already being impacted by the uses that occur on these routes and that was analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.). The increased noise that is associated with the construction activity will cause a temporary and minor displacement of most species away from the area where work is occurring. In general, the louder the noise, the greater the displacement of wildlife. Also, the longer the period of loud activities, the longer the displacement of wildlife (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). For new proposed routes, the type of use has already been considered in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.). However, the activity of constructing these routes was not analyzed. During construction, which may be an increase over baseline activity, some wildlife will be displaced. When the construction work is completed, wildlife will return to the area used prior to construction. Because the proposed work is spread over 5 years, and there are few proposed routes located in close proximity to one another, the implementation of the Travel Plan will tend to have fairly minor and temporary displacement effects on general wildlife species. Some species may be more sensitive than others to disturbance, while some are less sensitive. Construction on new routes in an area will tend to have more impact to wildlife during construction than routes being worked on where they have already existed. Avoiding important wildlife habitats at certain times of year could mitigate some of the displacement.

Alternative 1 (Proposal)

Alternative 1 is beneficial to overall wildlife. Core habitat (greater than 1 km from a travel route) is increased on the Forest. With implementation of the Travel Plan, human

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-42

travel will primarily be focused on designated routes (either motorized or non- motorized), and wildlife can tend to habituate to predictable uses in predictable locations. Wildlife is displaced by unpredictable types and locations of human uses (Lyon et al. 1985). The Montana-Dakota OHV Decision (Jan. 2001) and the decision for the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Oct. 2006), which disallows cross country motorized use, will reduce displacement away from roads and trails for some species and individuals. In addition, there will be little direct loss of wildlife habitat by additional routes. Through implementation of a Travel Plan, wildlife movement corridors on the Forest can be generally protected from impacts. Most impacts to wildlife are a result of private actions, and not the actions of the agency.

Cumulatively, present and future management actions on the Gallatin National Forest generally improve wildlife habitat over the current condition. There are large pieces of non-motorized habitat found in the National Parks and Forests in the Yellowstone area. Implementation of the Travel Plan provides increased acreage of non-motorized habitat for wildlife which decreases both direct and indirect habitat loss. Most impacts to wildlife are a result of private land actions, and do not result from the actions of the Forest Service or other agencies.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

If the Travel Plan were not implemented, many potential benefits to wildlife are lost. The closure of project roads and gating of administrative roads would not occur. The overall increase in core habitat for wildlife would not increase. The motorized and non- motorized routes on the Forest will continue to proliferate, further decreasing core habitat for wildlife. Secure habitat for grizzly bears would not increase as much as it does with implementation of the Travel Plan.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

Management to avoid wildlife displacement is consistent with the Gallatin Forest Plan and laws, regulations, and policy. There is some direction for general wildlife in the Forest Plan. Forest Plan Goal A.7 is to “Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals.” There is also a goal (Goal A.8) to “Provide sufficient habitat for recovered populations of threatened and endangered species…”. Most of the Forest Plan standards for wildlife and threatened and endangered species are specific to certain species or groups of species (USDA 1987: II-1, 17-19). Management to avoid wildlife displacement is consistent with these standards. Several documents such as the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Grizzly Bear Amendment include information for avoiding displacement of certain species. The Forest is to manage to maintain habitat for sensitive species (Forest Plan USDA 1987:II-1, 17-19). Other management direction for various species appears in other issue analyses (e.g. grizzly bear).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-43

The Cabin Creek area on the Hebgen Lake Ranger provides some of the highest quality wildlife habitat on the Gallatin National Forest, particularly for elk and grizzly bears. This was recognized by the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Management Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-140), which stated that “the Congress finds that certain lands within the Gallatin National Forest near Monument Mountain have important recreational and wildlife values, including critical grizzly bear and elk habitat.” The Act established the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area (CCRWMA) and provided special protection for wildlife habitat in this area. It states that, “the Secretary shall permit continued use of the area by motorized equipment only for activities associated with existing levels of livestock grazing, administrative purposes (including snowmobile trail maintenance) and for snowmobiling during periods of adequate snow cover but only where such uses are compatible with the protection and propagation of wildlife within the area.” No definable threshold for evaluating compatibility of motorized uses with the protection and propagation of wildlife were included in the Act.

All general wildlife concerns were mitigated by bringing them into the Alternative 1 description. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with current direction from laws, regulations, policy, the Forest Plan and Travel Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-44

GRIZZLY BEAR

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the proposed travel plan implementation projects may have on the grizzly bear. The effects of the implementation of the Travel Plan over the next 5 years, from 2009-2014, are addressed. The Forest Travel Plan FEIS (2006, incorporated by reference) contains a thorough description of the effects of various types of human access (motorized and non-motorized) on the grizzly bear.

The grizzly bear is currently listed by the Regional Foresters as a sensitive species in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). It was removed from listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2007, after the completion of the Forest Travel Plan (2006). The grizzly bear is known to be sensitive to the effects of access management, especially as related to motorized use. Grizzly bears tend to avoid areas used by motorized vehicles (McClelland and Shackleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1989, Mace et al. 1996, Wieglus et al. 2002). The Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (Grizzly Bear Amendment, 2007) contains some clarifications of the direction that was used at the time the Forest Travel Plan was prepared and contains direction relevant to implementation. Most of the standards and guidelines in the Grizzly Bear Amendment pertain only to the Primary Conservation Area (PCA), formerly known as the Recovery Zone. However, there is monitoring direction for secure habitat outside of the PCA where bears occur on the Forest (South of I-90).

The Forest Service is beginning another phase in the implementation of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan) through the initiation of the environmental analysis for improvement work proposed for Forest roads and trails. The work being proposed would occur over an approximately 5 year period beginning in 2009 and includes:

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-45

6. Restoration and stabilization of certain excess roads not designated for motorized use by the Travel Plan.

The following measures were added to the proposal as mitigation that may affect the grizzly bear.

a. Species of Special Management Direction. Motorized routes shall be located to avoid or mitigate for known occupied habitat such as nesting, denning, roosting or key foraging areas for species of special management designation. (See Travel Plan Guideline G-2).

b. To help in maintaining biodiversity, impacts to rare habitats such as old growth, riparian, aspen, etc. with route construction, modification, or parking lot siting will be avoided to the extent possible (see Table 2). The district biologist will be consulted for each project to determine survey needs prior to construction. Rare habitats will be avoided and buffered from the construction work if at all possible. (See Travel Plan Guideline H-2)

4. Working in areas identified as wildlife corridors, Lionhead and Bear Canyon, during the time of year they are most important for movement will be avoided (avoiding spring or fall, performing work in mid-summer).

5. Wildlife. Work will be carried out to minimize disturbance to wildlife. This means completing work within an area expeditiously and avoiding unnecessary noise. Repeated (i.e. multi-day) low altitude helicopter use within specific project areas will be avoided.

Additional route specific mitigation is also part of the proposal for routes that are in the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) in secure habitat. Travel Plan implementation projects that are motorized but are proposed for secure habitat must be treated according to the project application rules for temporary decrease in secure habitat. Permanent reduction in secure habitat must be treated according to the application rules. The application rules for developed sites will apply (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007).

Affected Environment

The area of analysis for Travel Plan implementation is the PCA (see Figure 1). The changes outside of the PCA but south of I-90 are included only for monitoring purposes. There is an extensive discussion of affected environment for grizzly bear in the Travel Plan FEIS (2006, incorporated by reference). The grizzly bear is a species that is fairly rare in the lower 48 states. It is one of the charismatic megafauna that are found in the

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-46

GYA, with the southern part of the Gallatin National Forest lying within the PCA, and most of the Forest south of Interstate 90 being considered current habitat for grizzlies. The grizzly bear, now a sensitive species in the GYA, may be affected by the implementation of parts of the Travel Plan. The decision for types of use on routes and the routes themselves was made in the Travel Plan. The actual site-specific on-the- ground implementation to occur over the next 5 years is what is assessed here. Motorized activity and associated noise is known to have an effect on grizzly bears (McClelland and Schackleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1989, Mace et al. 1996, Weiglus et al. 2002). Many of the activities of Travel Plan implementation have noise associated with them, especially those to occur outside of the Wilderness where mechanized activity is prohibited. The Grizzly Bear Amendment in the GYA (2007) was signed after the Travel Plan decision (2006), and there is information that was not considered at the time the Travel Plan was written and also some new things proposed in implementation that were not analyzed in the Travel Plan FEIS such as trailhead or parking lot construction. The Travel Plan analysis was written using our best information at the time for grizzly bear habitat management (Ibid.) under the Conservation Strategy (2003) direction for the grizzly bear which was still listed as threatened under ESA. This direction primarily revolved around maintaining or improving secure habitat at or above 1998 levels, and maintaining Open Motorized Access Route Density (OMARD) and Total Motorized Access Route Density (TMARD) at or below 1998 levels.

The grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area after delisting is now managed under the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) and State Management Plans. There is still some management direction for the grizzly bear in the Forest Plan, however, Appendices G and H and of the Forest Plan and Amendment 19 to the Forest Plan were replaced by the 2007 Amendment. As a sensitive species, there is direction from the Regional Forester (FSM 2670) regarding preparation of a Biological Evaluation and determinations for actions impacting sensitive species.

The value of the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area (CCRWMA) on the Hebgen Lake Ranger District was discussed in the Travel Plan FEIS (Ibid.). The CCRWMA lies within the PCA. This area provides some of the highest quality wildlife habitat on the Gallatin National Forest, particularly for elk and grizzly bears. This was recognized by the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Management Act of 1983 (Public Law 98- 140), which stated that “the Congress finds that certain lands within the Gallatin National Forest near Monument Mountain have important recreational and wildlife values, including critical grizzly bear and elk habitat.” The Act established the Cabin Creek Area and provided special protection for wildlife habitat in this area. It states that, “the Secretary shall permit continued use of the area by motorized equipment only for activities associated with existing levels of livestock grazing, administrative purposes (including snowmobile trail maintenance) and for snowmobiling during periods of adequate snow cover but only where such uses are compatible with the protection and propagation of wildlife within the area.” No definable threshold for evaluating compatibility of motorized uses with the protection and propagation of wildlife were included in the Act.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-47

The following is a summary of direction from the Travel Plan of benefit to grizzly bears (Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision, pp. I-2 through I-14). Other wildlife related direction may also benefit the grizzly bear.

STANDARD A-8. Off-route travel. Wheeled motorized vehicle travel shall be prohibited off of designated routes with the following exceptions. This standard is beneficial to many species of plants and animals, including grizzly bears, by limiting almost all use to designated routes with minor exceptions, rather than allowing off-route use.

OBJ. D-1. Road Rehabilitation. Close and rehabilitate existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs. This objective reduces the amount of roads and their effects on the landscape to grizzly bears.

OBJ. D-2. Trail Rehabilitation. Close and rehabilitate existing non-system trail not otherwise designated for public travel. (This objective reduces impacts of humans to grizzly bears.

GOAL F. Wildlife Corridors, and it is worded differently. Provide for wildlife movement and genetic interaction (particularly for wide-ranging species) between and within mountain ranges throughout the Gallatin National Forest and connecting wildlands. OBJ. F-1. Provide habitat connectivity consistent with wildlife movement patterns between mountain ranges such as that at Bozeman Pass (Linking the Gallatin Range to the Bridger/Bangtails); the North Bridgers (linking the Bridger Range to the Big Belt Mountains; the Lionhead Area (linking the Henry’s Lake Mountains to the Gravelly Mountains); the Shields (Crazy Mountains to the Castle and Little Belt Mountains) and any additional linkage or wildlife movement corridors recognized by the Forest Service.) Corridors are recognized as essential parts of maintaining biodiversity by allowing wildlife movement and allowing wildlife populations to be as connected as they have been in the past. Corridors are important for wide ranging species such as the grizzly bear. GOAL G. Threatened, Endangered and Species of Special Management Designation. Manage human use of the Forest road and trail system that allows for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and maintains sensitive species and their habitats. This goal helps protect and recover T&E species, such as the grizzly bear, and other rare species and their habitats. OBJ. G-1. Grizzly Bear Recovery. Provide effective closures on access routes not designated for motorized use. Grizzly Bear subunits Gallatin #3, Henry’s Lake #2, and Madison #2 and non-designated routes that are attractive to

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-48

motorized use within secure grizzly bear habitat should receive high priority. This helps assure that priority is given to closing routes in important grizzly bear habitat. GOAL H. Wildlife. Provide for healthy vegetative conditions in key habitats such as willow, riparian, wetlands, whitebark pine, and potential old growth. Maintaining key habitats, which host more species than other habitats. Some of these rare habitats such as riparian habitat and old growth are very important for grizzly bear. OBJ. H-1. Strive for no unclassified, undesignated roads and trails within key habitats that have been damaged or is devoid of native vegetation due to motorcycle, ATV, horse or foot use. GUIDELINE H-1. Relocate, reconstruct or take other appropriate action on system roads and trails that are found to have adverse impacts on key habitats. GUIDELINE H-2 Roads and trails should be located to avoid key habitats or mitigate the impacts. Maintaining key habitats that are important for many wildlife species. GOAL I. Wildlife. Provide high quality security habitat in areas important to wildlife reproduction (e.g. calving, fawning, denning and nesting habitat). Protection of reproductive habitats is important for protecting and maintaining one of the important food sources for grizzly bears. OBJ. I-1. Minimize stress factors from human recreation use to species of concern during calving, fawning, denning and nesting seasons in habitats used for reproduction. See specific travel management area direction. OBJ. I-1. Ungulates. Eliminate stress factors from human winter recreation use to ungulates in important winter range areas. Although ungulates tend to be common species, providing security on big game winter range also benefits other species that occur there. Grizzly bears often move onto ungulate winter range soon after den emergence, and protection of security of these areas benefits grizzlies. Guideline I-2. In management of winter travel the Forest should consider MFWP goals for optimal survival on big game winter ranges.

The Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) was completed after the Travel Plan (2006) and contains some standards that were not considered during the Travel Plan analysis. The following table (Table 5) of definitions is excerpted from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (Ibid).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-49

Table 5. Criteria and definitions from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (p.6 Executive Summary, Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation FEIS, 2007).

Criteria Definition Motorized Access Motorized access routes are all routes having motorized use or the potential for motorized use Routes (restricted roads) including motorized trails, highways, and forest roads. Private roads and state and county highways are counted. Restricted road A restricted road is a road on which motorized vehicle use is restricted seasonally or yearlong. The road requires effective physical obstruction, generally gated (IGBC Taskforce Report 1998). Season 1 – 1 March to 15 July. Season 2 – 16 July to 30 November. There are no access Season Definitions standards in the winter season (1 December to 28 February). Permanently restricted road A road restricted with a permanent barrier and not a gate. A permanently restricted road is acceptable within secure habitat. Decommissioned or obliterated or A decommissioned or obliterated or reclaimed road refers to a route which is managed with reclaimed road the longterm intent for no motorized use, and has been treated in such a manner to no longer function as a road. An effective means to accomplish this is through one or a combination of several means, including recontouring to original slope, placement of logging or forest debris, planting of shrubs or trees, etc. (IGBC Taskforce Report 1998). Secure habitat is more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or Secure Habitat recurring helicopter flight line. Secure habitat must be greater than or equal to 10 acres in size*. Large lakes (greater than one square mile) are not included in the calculations. A project is an activity requiring construction of new roads, reconstructing or opening a Project permanently restricted road, or recurring helicopter flights at low elevations. Opening a gated road for public or administrative use is not considered a project as the area behind locked gated roads is not considered secure habitat. Temporary project To qualify as a temporary project under the Application rules, project implementation will last no longer than three years. Opening a permanently restricted Removing permanent barriers such that the road is accessible to motorized vehicles. road A permanent barrier refers to such actions as placement of earthen berms or ripping the road Permanent barrier surface to create a permanent closure. Removing motorized routes To result in an increase in secure habitat, motorized routes must either be decommissioned or restricted with permanent barriers, not gates. Non-motorized use is permissible Seasonal periods Season 1 – March 1 through July 15 Season 2 – July 16 through November 30 Project activities occurring between December 1 and February 28 do not count against secure habitat. Developed Site A developed site includes but is not limited to sites on public land developed or improved for human use or resource development such as campgrounds, trailheads, improved parking areas, lodges (permitted resorts), administrative sites, service stations, summer homes (permitted recreation residences), restaurants, visitor centers, and permitted resource development sites such as oil and gas exploratory wells, production wells, plans of operation for mining activities, work camps, etc. Vacant allotments Vacant allotments are livestock grazing allotments without an active permit, but that may be restocked or used periodically by other permittees at the discretion of the land management agency to resolve resource issues or other concerns. Recurring conflicts Recurring conflicts Recurring grizzly bear/human or grizzly bear/livestock conflicts are defined as three or more years of recorded conflicts during the most recent five-year period. * Secure habitat in the Grizzly Bear Amendment FEIS did not include areas open to cross country off- highway vehicle (OHV) travel.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-50

The following is direction from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (ROD, p. 5-6, 2007) of relevance to Travel Plan implementation. The proposed Travel Plan implementation projects on the Forest will be screened through these standards and application rules to see if the individual project meets them or not. The following is direction for the PCA.

Standard 1- secure habitat Inside the PCA, maintain the percent of secure habitat in Bear management Unit subunits at or above the 1998 levels. Projects that change secure habitat must follow the application rules.

Standard 2 – Developed Sites Inside the PCA, maintain the number and capacity of developed sites at or below 1998 levels with the following exceptions: any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of developed sites from the 1998 baseline in the PCA is analyzed and potential detrimental and positive impacts on grizzly bears are documented through a BE or BA. Projects that change the number of capacity of developed sites must follow the Application Rules.

The following are application rules for the above direction (Grizzly Bear Amendment ROD, p. A-2-5).

Application Rules for changes in secure habitat Permanent changes to secure habitat. A project may permanently change secure habitat if secure habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent technology) is replaced in the same Bear Management Unit subunit. The replacement habitat must be maintained for a minimum of 10 years and be either in place before project implementation or concurrent with project development. Increases in secure habitat may be banked to offset the impacts of future projects of that administrative unit within that subunit.

Temporary changes to secure habitat. Projects can occur with temporary reductions in secure habitat if all the following conditions are met: • Only one active project per Bear Management Unit subunit can occur at any one time. • The total acreage of active projects within a given Bear Management Unit does not exceed 1 percent of the acreage in the largest subunit within that Bear Management Unit (Figure A-6). The acreage of a project that counts against the 1 percent limit is the acreage associated with the 500-meter buffer around any gated or open motorized access route or recurring low level helicopter flight line, where the buffer extends into secure habitat. • To qualify as a temporary project, implementation will last no longer than three years. • Secure habitat must be restored within one year after completion of the project. • Project activities should be concentrated in time and space to the extent feasible.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-51

Acceptable activities in secure habitat. Activities that do not require road construction, reconstruction, opening a permanently restricted road, or recurring helicopter flight lines at low elevation do not detract from secure habitat. Examples of such activities include thinning, tree planting, prescribed fire, trail maintenance, and administrative studies/monitoring. Activities should be concentrated in time and space to the extent feasible to minimize disturbance. Effects of such projects will be analyzed in the National Environmental Policy Act process. • Helicopter use for short-term activities such as prescribed fire ignition/management, periodic administrative flights, fire suppression, search and rescue, and other similar activities do not constitute a project and do not detract from secure habitat. • Motorized access routes with permanent barriers, decommissioned or obliterated roads, nonmotorized trails, winter snow machine trails, and other motorized winter activities do not count against secure habitat. • Project activities occurring between December 1 and February 28 do not count against secure habitat.

Application Rules for developed sites Mitigation of detrimental impacts must occur within the affected subunit and be equivalent to the type and extent of impact. Mitigation measures must be in place before implementation of the project or included as an integral part of the completion of the project. • New sites must be mitigated within that subunit to offset any increases in human capacity, habitat loss, and increased access to surrounding habitats. Consolidation and/or elimination of dispersed campsites is adequate mitigation for increases in human capacity at developed campgrounds if the new site capacity is equivalent to the dispersed camping eliminated. • To benefit the grizzly bear, capacity, season of use, and access to surrounding habitats of existing developed sites may be adjusted. The improvements may then be banked to mitigate equivalent impacts of future developed sites within that subunit.

Mitigation is included in the proposed action that states that Travel Plan implementation is subject to the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) application rules for secure habitat and developed sites (see above).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts most likely to have effects on bears are those that create more noise and displacement than the current use of the route (see General Wildlife Issue). If the route currently is motorized and the proposal includes motorized work such as heavy equipment, the effects may be relatively small. If it is a non-motorized route and some loud activity is needed, such as blasting, bears are likely to be displaced from the area

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-52

during the time of the blasting, but displacement should be of short duration. The louder the activity and the longer the activity, the greater the displacement of bears from the adjacent area. If the activity is no louder than current activity on the route, there will be no additional cumulative effect of the added activity. If it is slightly louder, there may be a small additional displacement (Bowles in Knight and Gutzwiller 1995 and see General Wildlife Issue). See Table 6 for details by Travel Planning Area and grizzly bear subunit on effects of the proposed activities to grizzly bears.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-53

Table 6. Project description by TPA and Bear subunit and grizzly bear issues.

Project, New New Close Reconstr Mainten New Resurf Parking Comm Grizzly Bear Issues Travel Planning Motorized/ Non- and uction of ance of Winter acing areas ents Area and Non- motoriz restore Existing existing Grizzly Bear motorized ed Subunit Summer (Those in bold are in the PCA S of I-90, outside PCA are in regular type with no subunit) Emigrant Gulch, 2.5 mi 2.5 mi S of I- NO Mill Creek TPA ATV loop, 90 Arrastra/E migrant Gardiner 18 mi PCA In secure habitat, Basin, x-co construction will Gardiner Basin ski occur on <1% of the TPA, acreage of the Hellroaring/Be largest subunit and ar #1 Subunit will be the only activity occurring at that time in the subunit (1% = 1,466 acres) (see Appendix 1)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-54

Project, New New Close Reconstr Mainten New Resurf Parking Com Grizzly Bear Issues Travel Planning Motorized/ Non- and uction of ance of Winter acing areas ment Area and Non- motoriz restore Existing existing s Grizzly Bear motorized ed Subunit Summer Cooke City 0.2 mi 2.1 mi 6.0 mi 2.1 mi 1 new PCA All routes were Cooke City Henderso x-co This analyzed in the TPA, Lamar #1 n Mt. ski TH/parkin Gallatin Travel Plan Subunit ATV recons g area is Grizzly Bear issue, Connector , and. intended to Where in secure trail 1.2 mi encourage habitat, the ski maint vehicles, to route enanc park at the construction will e pass, and occur on <1% of the reduce the acreage of the size of the largest subunit and parking lot will be the only needed at activity occurring at the bottom that time in the of the subunit (1%=1,920 Abundance acres) (see Appendix Lake road 1), Mitigation of as well as new parking motorized area/TH according traffic to mitigation rules

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-55

Project, TPA, New New Close Reconstr Mainten New Resurf Parking areas Comme Grizzly Bear and Bear Motorized/ Non- and uction of ance of Winter acing nts Issues Subunit Non- motoriz restore Existing existing motorized ed Summer Deer Creeks, 24.8 mi Approx 4.0 mi 1 new S of I-90 NO Deer Creeks ATV 3 mi TPA connector #126, trails with 2 new connecte rs Suce Creek, Winter S of I-90 NO Mill Creek TPA parkin g area Cutler Lake, 1.5 mi 1.8 1.8 mi 1 new parking PCA Mitigation of Yankee Jim lot/TH new parking Canyon TPA, mitigated for area/TH Gallatin #3 by removal of according to Subunit Sphinx Cr mitigation trailhead rules which was combined with Yankee Jim facilities

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-56

Project, TPA, New New Close Reconstr Mainten New Resurf Parking Comm Grizzly Bear Issues and Bear Motorized/ Non- and uction of ance of Winter acing areas ents Subunit Non- motoriz restore Existing existing motorized ed Summer Rock/Tom 1.3 mi 8 mi PCA Parking area will be Miner, mt developed on State Rock/Tom bike land Miner TPA, 3.4 mi Gallatin #3 Subunit North Dry, Reconstr S of I- NO Yellowstone uct 90 TPA existing 2.7 mi Non- mot Bozeman Creek, 0.7 mi 3 mi S of I- NO Bozeman Creek 90 TPA Gallatin Roaded, 7.9 mi 28 mi 6.2 mi 15 mi 2.2 mi 0.6 1 new S of I- NO Gallatin Roaded ATV and cons, 4 90 TPA motorcycle mi loops mainte nance,

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-57

Project, TPA, New New Non- Clos Reconstructi Maintenan New Resurf Parkin Comme Grizzly Bear and Bear Motorized/ motorized e on of ce of Winter acing g areas nts Issues Subunit Non- and Existing existing motorized resto Summer re Hyalite 2.5 20 1 mi 0.8 mi 2 mi cons, 3 new S of I-90 NO Hyalite TPA 1.1 of mi 5 mi which is recon, 15 Moose to maint Langohr and 1.4 is Buckskin Lick Cr ATV motorcycle loop

Trail Creek/Bear 9.1 mi S of I-90 NO Canyon, Bear Canyon TPA

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-58

Project, TPA, New New Non- Clos Reconstructi Maintenan New Resurf Parkin Comme Grizzly Bear and Bear Motorized/ motorized e on of ce of Winter acing g areas nts Issues Subunit Non- and Existing existing motorized resto Summer re Buck Ridge, 9 mi 2.2 mi 1.0 mi PCA All routes Taylor Fork New ATV were TPA, trails in analyzed in Hilgard #1 Upper the Travel Buck Cr Plan. and Where in Yellowmul secure es habitat, snowmobile route relocation construction will occur on <1% of the acreage of the largest subunit and will be the only activity occurring at that time in the subunit (1,286 acres) (See Appendix 1)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-59

Project, TPA, New New Non- Clos Reconstructi Maintenan New Resurf Parkin Comme Grizzly Bear and Bear Motorized/ motorized e on of ce of Winter acing g areas nts Issues Subunit Non- and Existing existing motorized resto Summer re Pika Point, 1 mi 0.5 mi Relocati This Taylor Fork on of relocation TPA, trail, was analyzed Hilgard #2 PCA in the Travel Plan Sage Creek, Snowmo PCA Where in Taylor Fork reroute secure TPA, 2.8 cons, habitat, Hilgard #2 2.4 recons construction will occur on <1% of the acreage of the largest subunit and will be the only activity occurring at that time in the subunit (1286 acres) (See Appendix 1)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-60

Project, TPA, New New Non- Clos Reconstructi Maintenan New Resurf Parkin Comme Grizzly Bear and Bear Motorized/ motorized e on of ce of Winter acing g areas nts Issues Subunit Non- and Existing existing motorized resto Summer re Hebgen Basin, 0.25 ATV 25 Clear 3 NO, no Hebgen Lake Connector mi mi of ski PCA detrimental Basin TPA, parallel to trail effect to Madison #2 Mad Arm secure Rd habitat Lionhead, 0.3 mi Est. 3.5 mi Part Where in Lionhead TPA, ATV/moto of non- PCA secure Henry’s Lake rcycle Mot trail habitat, #2 connector construction will occur on <1% of the acreage of the largest subunit and will be the only activity occurring at that time in the subunit (1286 acres) (See Appendix 1)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-61

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-62

There are several concerns related to grizzly bears with the Travel Plan implementation proposal Alternative 2. These include the proposal of two new parking lot/trailheads within the PCA on the Gallatin National Forest (Lake Abundance near Cooke City in Lamar #1 and Cutler Lake area in Gallatin #3). These are considered new developed sites by the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) Application Rules and require mitigation, preferably within the same subunit. These have been mitigated for in Alternative 1. The Lamar #1 Daisy Pass trailhead/parking lot is intended to reduce motorized traffic to Abundance Lake and reduce the use of the existing Lost Wolverine trailhead closer to Abundance Lake. The new trailhead will consist of a parking area and a bulletin board. Within Gallatin #3, Cutler Lake is a proposed new trailhead. An update of developed sites for this subunit shows that the Sphinx Creek trailhead has been combined with the Yankee Jim picnic area and boat launch allowing for this new developed site according to the Application Rules. These had been counted as separate developed sites 1998 baseline for the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007). In addition, the new Cutler trailhead will have minimum development such as parking and a bulletin board

Where construction in secure grizzly bear habitat is proposed, it will be centralized with all heavy equipment in one area rather than dispersed along the route to minimize acres of disturbance at any one time. This will assure that the affected acreage remains below 1% of the largest subunit as provided in the Application Rules. In the subunits where both construction and closure/restoration are proposed, closure/restoration will occur prior to construction work to avoid a decrease in secure habitat (Table 6).

Where there are other land management agencies comprising the same bear subunit where project activity is proposed, they will be contacted to ascertain their project schedule in the area to assure that there will not be more than one project occurring in secure habitat of the same subunit at the same time (see Appendix 1 for other land management agency jurisdictions).

Table 7 presents type of proposed activity, potential to displace bears, and related grizzly bear direction.

Table 7. Type of proposed activity and potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears. Type of Work Grizzly Bear Potential Related Grizzly Bear disturbance/displacement Direction NON-MOTORIZED ACTIVITY All non-motorized work Generally the same effects to bears Complies with direction from including hand labor and as the baseline level, but work the Grizzly Bear Amendment hand tools and seeding may occur in one location for a (2007) longer time period than a vehicle moving through on the travel route, so the potential exists for slightly more and longer localized wildlife displacement than baseline (normal trail use). If the work is occurring on a non- motorized route, the effect to bears

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-63

would be insignificant due to the baseline being a non-motorized route. MOTORIZED ACTIVITY All motorized or loud Effects to grizzly bears tend to be Motorized activity, if outside of activities at about baseline level for most the PCA or outside of Secure activities for existing motorized habitat, complies with routes (but some motorized direction. If inside the PCA equipment and activities such as. and secure habitat, is blasting and drilling may be considered a ‘project’ and louder, increasing bear complies with Application displacement from the local area) Rules under Alternative 1* Small trail-sized excavators, Assuming all of these activities If outside of the PCA or outside or other trail sized include a motorized component, of Secure habitat, complies machinery, skid-steer the impact to bears impact would with direction. If inside the loaders, ATVs, vegetation be current level for motorized PCA and secure habitat, is removal, brushing, surface routes but generally concentrated considered a ‘project’ and hardening and longer duration and complies with Application potentially louder than baseline Rules under Alternative 1.* Additional features such as These features encourage If inside the PCA, new parking lot construction or additional human use, and may developed sites comply with trailheads change types of use on the travel the Application Rules* under route Alternative 1.* Installing gates Usually baseline level if motorized If on a currently motorized route route, complies with Application Rules Ripping to 12 in depth, Effect to grizzly bears is baseline Motorized construction remove culverts, drainage, level or above if motorized route: activity, if outside of the PCA install cross drains, slashing however, increased grizzly bear or outside of secure habitat, road surface, block road displacement over baseline is complies with direction. If with berm or other expected if a motorized project inside the PCA and secure techniques, recontour route activity is occurring in a non- habitat, is considered a prism, armor stream bottom, motorized area ‘project’ and complies with removing blow-down, Application Rules under properly functioning Alternative 1.* drainage of culverts, bridges, etc., install drainage, scarify for seeding, other similar actions Helicopter for materials and Impact to grizzly bears can be If outside of the PCA or secure bridges if allowed by a high. Duration of the activity habitat, complies with minimum tool analysis and may be short, but the activity may direction. If inside secure Forest Supervisor take repeated flights which would habitat, complies with the displace bears some distance from following Application Rule

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-64

the work site and potentially affect under Alternative 1. critical portions of life cycles (e.g. “Helicopter use for short-term during calving, fawning, or in the activities such as prescribed Grizzly Bear Primary fire ignition/management, Conservation Area) periodic administrative flights, fire suppression, search and rescue, and other similar activities do not constitute a project and do not detract from secure habitat.” Jack hammer (THs), Impact to bears can be high. This If outside of the PCA or outside Drilling (THs), activity can be very loud, but of secure habitat, complies with Blasting rock (THs) if duration is usually short. Grizzly direction. If inside the PCA allowed by a minimum tool bears will be temporarily and secure habitat, is analysis and Forest displaced, and this activity could considered a ‘project’ and Supervisor potentially affect critical portions complies with Application of life cycles (see above block) Rules under Alternative 1.*

* Standard 1- secure habitat Inside the PCA, maintain the percent of secure habitat in Bear management Unit subunits at or above the 1998 levels.

Application Rules for changes in secure habitat

Permanent changes to secure habitat. A project may permanently change secure habitat if secure habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent technology) is replaced in the same Bear Management Unit subunit. The replacement habitat must be maintained for a minimum of 10 years and be either in place before project implementation or concurrent with project development. Increases in secure habitat may be banked to offset the impacts of future projects of that administrative unit within that subunit.

Temporary changes to secure habitat. Projects can occur with temporary reductions in secure habitat if all the following conditions are met: • Only one active project per Bear Management Unit subunit can occur at any one time. • The total acreage of active projects within a given Bear Management Unit does not exceed 1 percent of the acreage in the largest subunit within that Bear Management Unit (Figure A-6). The acreage of a project that counts against the 1 percent limit is the acreage associated with the 500- meter buffer around any gated or open motorized access route or recurring low level helicopter flight line, where the buffer extends into secure habitat. • To qualify as a temporary project, implementation will last no longer than three years. • Secure habitat must be restored within one year after completion of the project. • Project activities should be concentrated in time and space to the extent feasible.

**Standard 2 – Developed Sites Inside the PCA, maintain the number and capacity of developed sites at or below 1998 levels with the following exceptions: any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of developed sites

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-65

from the 1998 baseline in the PCA is analyzed and potential detrimental and positive impacts on grizzly bears are documented through a BE or BA. Projects that change the number of capacity of developed sites must follow the Application Rules.

There is a concern with motorized construction for any type of route. If any are within the PCA secure habitat, and motorized construction work is proposed for summer, it would have to be considered a ‘project’ in secure habitat and be subject to the Application Rules for projects in secure habitat. Mitigations are in place to meet the Application Rules in Alternative 1 (see Table 6 for detail).

There is also a concern about using helicopters as a tool in the PCA. Repeated helicopter in secure habitat is treated as a motorized route. Recurring helicopter is not allowed in secure habitat according to the Application Rules. The number of locations and whether or not they are in the PCA where helicopter use is planned is not known from the information provided in the proposal. Alternative 1 complies with the Application Rules.

The grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area is now managed under the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) and State Management Plans. Some management direction for the grizzly bear remains in the Forest Plan (mostly in the Management Areas), but most has been superceded. The grizzly bear is now a sensitive species under Regional Forestder direction (FSM 2670). The Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area (CCRWMA) is to be compatible with the protection and propagation of wildlife within the area, however, compatibility was not defined.

Analysis Methodology

The methodology used was to look at the proposed actions, route by route and determine whether or not they were located within the PCA and secure habitat.. If a project falls inside grizzly bear secure habitat in the Primary Recovery Zone, the Application Rules from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2006) were applied to the proposal for Alternative 1.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-66

Overall, implementation of the Travel Plan is highly beneficial to wildlife, including grizzly bears, when compared to what would exist without Travel Plan implementation. For the grizzly bear, full Travel Plan implementation increases overall security habitat and reduced Open Motorized Access Route Density (OMARD) and Total Motorized Access Route Density (TMARD), and will have a major beneficial effect in a number of subunits. All 3 subunits (Gallatin #3, Madison #2, Henry’s Lake #2) that were ‘in need of improvement’ prior to the Travel Plan were improved by the alternative selected. The Gallatin #3 subunit was greatly improved for grizzly bear (Travel Plan FEIS, Grizzly Bear Issue, Ibid.). However, there are some individual pieces of Travel Plan implementation (Alternative 1) that do not benefit the grizzly bear. The routes with potential conflicts are presented in Table 6 in bold. There are a number of routes to be constructed in the PCA (with some of these being routes that will only receive winter use by skiiers or snowmobilers) and construction will probably occur while bears are active. New trailheads are considered new developed sites and are therefore mitigated for within the bear subunit under the Application Rules. Timing of work will be such that only one project in secure habitat per subunit is under construction at any one time, and that the acreage of secure habitat affected is <1% if the largest subunit in that Bear Management Unit (BMU) (Table 8).

Table 8. BMU information inside the PCA on the Gallatin National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 2007 (from p. 366-367, Figure 118, in the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests FEIS (2006).

BMU Name 1% acres of largest Other Land management subunit in the BMU agency in addition to Gallatin NF (GNF) Boulder/Slough 1805 CNF, YNP Crandall/Sunlight 2022 SNF Gallatin 1395 YNP Hellroaring/Bear 1466 YNP Henry’s Lake 1286 C-T NF Hilgard 1286 B-D NF Lamar 1920 CNF, YNP Madison 1453 B-D NF, YNP Plateau 2688 C-T NF, YNP

The overall effect of not implementing the Travel Plan is negative for grizzly bears on the Forest. This is because many project roads would not be effectively closed, routes would not be properly decommissioned or constructed, secure habitat would not increase, and route densities would not be reduced.

Cumulative Effects

Of some concern for cumulative effects, but largely beyond human control, is the potential loss of important food sources to grizzly bears. Food sources most in question are whitebark pine and spawning cutthroat trout that are seeing declines due to disease and introduction of lake trout, respectively. Army cutworm moths are another food source, but seem to be relatively constant in

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-67

the late summer and fall in certain locations where bears have learned to use them. Ungulates, both live and as carrion, may vary somewhat in availability with weather conditions, population size, and other factors. Weather conditions also affect availability of food to bears and may affect reproduction and survival. These items are a component of the environmental baseline.

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

There are several recurring themes in discussing past and present cumulative effects on grizzly bears. These are activities or situations in the past that have led to grizzly bear/human encounters and/or mortality. These themes are: 1) motorized access routes, 2) availability of food or garbage attractants, and 3) livestock grazing.

Past effects of timber harvest on the Forest in relation to grizzly bear were mostly temporary in nature: loss of hiding cover, change in forage quality and quantity, and the activities related to the timber sale. The longer lasting effect of these projects was the creation and often maintenance of roads used to access and remove timber from the Forest. Motorized access into areas is known to decrease habitat quality for grizzly bears by displacing them from areas near roads. Motorized access also allows more humans into areas where conflicts with grizzly bears may then arise (see the earlier portion of this issue section for a discussion of this).

Prescribed fire likely has a neutral to beneficial effect for wildlife depending on the area burned. Where prescribed fire is used to reduce fuels in the urban interface, there is probably a neutral impact since unhabituated bears tend to avoid these areas (for a more extensive review of cumulative effects see Cherry, 2006, Cumulative Effects Worksheet in the Project Record for this issue). Fire can result in an increase in succulent forage post-burn. Fire is a natural component of the environment and the natural fire cycle is important for these fire-adapted systems. Fire suppression has resulted in the disruption of the natural fire regime in this area and caused an unnatural buildup of fuels leading to more intense fires. Although an increase in cover provided by fire suppression has some benefits to the bear due to the presence of humans, it may not be the best overall vegetative condition. Restoration of fire into the landscape in some important habitats and fire dependent species is important.

Livestock grazing has been a part of the area that became the Gallatin National Forest since white settlers first arrived in the area. Sheep, goats, cattle, and horses have been grazed on the Forest, and sheep were grazed in large numbers in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. Grizzly bears seem to have had relatively few interactions with cattle and horses on the Gallatin National Forest, but have run into conflicts on sheep allotments. It is likely that many grizzly bears were killed due to conflicts with livestock, primarily sheep, prior to grizzly bears being protected by law. The reduction in sheep allotments and numbers that has gradually occurred over the years has been beneficial in reducing negative interactions between sheep and bears, and reducing grizzly bear mortalities. A recent development is the closing of the Ash/Iron Mountain sheep allotment, a site of recent grizzly bear/livestock conflict.

Weed control is beneficial to grizzly bears and their habitat. Restoration and maintenance of native plant species is important. Efforts to restore whitebark pine and aspen are both important for the

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-68

grizzly bear. Whitebark pine is a very important food source, and efforts to plant this species post- fire and conduct research on its status in the area are important.

Projects that benefit fisheries and riparian habitat typically also benefit grizzly bears, because of the importance of riparian habitat to grizzly bears.

Mining has been occurring on the Forest since the time of early settlement. This activity occurred in some areas of high quality habitat, such as Cooke City, and there were undoubtedly conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities as a result. Small mining activities probably have minor impacts on bears, but large operations and also reclamation efforts probably displace bears from some parts of the Forest (such as New World Mine) due to noise and activity.

The Gallatin National Forest receives a lot of dispersed recreation use with many visits from the public occurring each year. Recreational activities lead to the potential for grizzly bear/human encounters. Encounters with negative consequences seem to be more frequent during the fall hunting season when occasionally grizzly bears are wounded or killed and humans are injured or killed. Spring bear hunting season has also led to negative grizzly bear/human encounters and loss of grizzly bears through confusion with black bears.

When humans bring food to the National Forest and do not properly store it, the presence of an attractant can also lead to grizzly bear/human encounters. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (now PCA) has had a Food Storage Order in place for over 25 years, which helps to minimize attractant related encounters. A number of human fatalities and injuries and bear mortalities and injuries have resulted from past dispersed use on the Forest. This Order was expanded Forest-wide on the Gallatin National Forest in 2007.

There are numerous outfitters/guides of various types bringing people to the Forest to recreate for many days. Hunting season is again a time of most negative encounters. Food storage is a part of the outfitter/guide permit and permits are subject to revocation in cases of noncompliance. Many of the outfitted activities, such as rafting, are very unlikely to result in bear/human encounters, but proper food and garbage handling is essential to avoid the presence of food attractants at either over night camps or during day use activities. Winter activities have little potential to affect the grizzly bear except for minor cover removal due to the removal of trees for the trails on several cross- country ski resorts.

Recreation residences are under special use permits and as long as residents follow the food storage order and do not create attractants for bears, they can coexist fairly well with bears. Most of the approximately 200 recreational residences on the Forest are on Hebgen Lake and Bozeman Ranger Districts.

Most non-recreational special uses are fairly benign once the facility is in place. However, some of these things, such as power lines, come with increased motorized access to the Forest due to service roads for the facilities.

The checkerboard landownership of the National Forest has been problematic for bears. Much of this private land came to be owned by timber companies and led to harvest of accessible acreage.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-69

Other land was sold to private developers. The timber harvest itself was not the real problem for grizzly bears, but the road building to access the timber had impacts. Roads and human activity tied to them displace bears from otherwise usable habitat, and also allow humans easier access into areas where grizzly bears occur and resulted in bear mortalities. Lands that are developed into home sites or ski areas result in direct habitat loss and displacement from grizzly bears in these areas. More human access into these areas increases the probability for bear/human encounters resulting in injury or mortality. A significant portion of the checkerboard lands have recently been added back to the National Forest through land acquisitions and adjustments. Recovering this habitat to public ownership has been very beneficial to many wildlife species, including the grizzly bear. Other private inholdings besides those in checkerboard ownership have been acquired or adjusted or put under conservation easements.

The Food Storage Order on in the Recovery Zone on the Forest has been very beneficial to bears and has undoubtedly decreased bear/human interactions. The implementation of the Food Storage Order and installation of bear resistant garbage containers and food storage boxes has occurred on the Forest and on private lands. This has reduced bear/human encounters. The Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (2003) and Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) have helped focus grizzly bear conservation efforts.

The presence of large amounts of fairly secure (non-motorized) habitat in Yellowstone National Park is of benefit to the grizzly bear. Creation of designated Wilderness areas also created large pieces of secure habitat for grizzly bear. Restriction of OHVs use off-road has helped reduce the chance of bear/human encounters and made motorized use predictable to motorized routes.

MFWP sets the hunting and fishing seasons in Montana. Big game season seems to be one of the times of year when grizzly bear mortality occurs due to numerous people being in areas where bears occur and those people are armed. Occasionally grizzly bears are killed through misidentification for black bears. The MFWP has instituted a bear identification course that all black bear hunters must take before they may hunt. In addition, multiple agencies and groups endorse the carrying and use of bear pepper spray in bear encounters. In addition, bear safety is taught by several groups in the state. The MFWP recently completed the State Grizzly Bear Plan for SW Montana.

The combination of the effects of the above activities along with protection of the grizzly bear under the Endangered Species Act has overall been positive for the bear. Some activities or effects have been negative, such as the history of motorized access route building and management. Some have been very positive, such as the acquisition of private lands, implementation of the Food Storage Order Forest-wide and decline of sheep grazing on the Forest. On the whole, the resulting effects have been positive.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

There are several recurring themes in discussing reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects on grizzly bears. These are activities or situations in the past that have led to grizzly bear/human conflict and/or mortality. These themes are: 1) motorized access routes, 2) availability of food or

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-70

garbage attractants, and 3) livestock grazing. An improving trend in all three of these factors is occurring, and is expected to continue to occur.

Future projects involving timber removal may tend to be tied largely to fuels reduction and management and will tend to be partial cuts. The major effect of timber activities on grizzly bears, that of new motorized routes, will be limited to temporary and low grade routes if any new routes are needed, and all project routes are to be closed and/or obliterated after the project is completed.

Efforts are being made to increase the number of acres treated annually with prescribed fire. These projects will be coordinated and planned with wildlife in mind, and should overall be beneficial or neutral for the grizzly bear. Fire is a natural component of the landscape, and returning the Forest to a normal fire regime is beneficial for many wildlife species.

More efforts to maintain native species of vegetation on grazing allotments and protect riparian areas are occurring through the range management program. These efforts are beneficial to all wildlife species, including grizzly bears. Depredation from grizzly bears should decrease with the loss of sheep allotments on the Forest.

Expanded efforts to control weeds on the Forest are occurring. This will have an overall positive effect for wildlife species. Continuing the whitebark pine and aspen efforts at some level would be beneficial to the grizzly bear.

Future fisheries habitat enhancement will be of benefit to the grizzly bear, especially when riparian areas are improved.

Future minerals activity on the Forest is an issue due to the presence of the grizzly bear. Of particular concern is the exploration for leasable minerals. This can lead to an increase motorized activities such as helicopters and motorized access routes. Direction from the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy does not allow new motorized routes or developed sites within the Recovery Zone without compensation within the same subunit. At this time, most of the interest in leasable minerals appears to be in the Crazies and Bridger Mountains which are currently well outside areas currently inhabited by grizzly bears. There is the potential for new mineral claims within grizzly bear habitat and the activity that accompanies them. These activities must be mitigated.

According to the Travel Plan and following direction from the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, there will be no new developed sites on the National Forest in the grizzly bear Recovery Zone, and there will be no decrease in secure habitat in the Recovery Zone and an increase in secure habitat in some subunits. .Implementation of the Travel Plan is an improvement over the pre-Plan secure habitat situation for grizzly bears given the closure of project roads and designation of routes.

From a dispersed recreation perspective, the types of activities that lead to grizzly bear/human encounters on the Forest seem to show an increase indicating greater future use by day hikers, backpackers, and wildlife watchers among others. With a concurrent increase in the numbers of grizzly bears and an increase in the area utilized by bears, we can expect an increase in bear/human encounters. The Food Storage Order is planned to be expanded Forest-wide in 2007. This should help modify bear/human encounters related to attractants. In addition, Montana FWP and the FS as

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-71

well as other entities, are encouraging the public to carry bear pepper spray when recreating on the National Forest. In the future, this should help to defuse some bear/human encounters. Educational programs on bear identification and safety are continuing and improving. No matter how much or how hard we work to prevent it, as long as humans and grizzly bears occupy the same landscape, there are likely to be bear/human encounters. We can strive to decrease the negative outcomes of these encounters, and steps are being taken to do so.

Outfitting/guiding is likely to increase with demand on the Forest. Outfitters/guides assuring that their group follows the rules are probably less likely to have bear/human encounters than the general public.

The number of recreation residences is not expected to increase in the future, and although there may be some modifications, their impacts will be about the same as they are at present. Permits for most of these facilities have been renewed in 2008. Language is being added to all permits on proper storage of food and garbage and consequences for noncompliance. Language is also being added to assure that any user of the residences is responsible, not just the permit holder.

The Forest will continue to acquire appropriate lands and conservation easements that will have an overall beneficial effect for wildlife, including grizzly bears.

The expansion of the Food Storage Order Forest-wide will be beneficial for bears and other wildlife. It will keep wild animals from becoming habituated to human food and losing their innate fear of humans. It should also reduce the potential for bear/human encounters. The future amendment of the Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bear to the Forest Plans in the GYA will help assure the conservation of this species.

As the grizzly bear population increases, and human population and traffic in the area increases, the potential for grizzly bear mortality on highways increases. Increased driving speeds and poor sight distances contribute to mortality. Working with the highway departments on wildlife passage, including grizzly bears, is important.

The Gallatin National Forest’s travel management plan is likely to reduce motorized routes on the Forest and thus increase secure habitat for grizzly bears and reduce motorized route densities. Other Forests are also undergoing travel management planning, either by district or Forest. The trends are likely to be similar to those of the Gallatin within the Recovery Zone.

The bison capture facility is likely to continue to exist at Horse Butte and one may be built north of the Park on the National Forest. The same situation is likely to continue at Horse Butte, and any new facility on the Forest will have to go through site-specific NEPA and will include an effects analysis for grizzly bears.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-72

Hunting seasons will continue, and due to the presence of hunters with guns and grizzly bears in close proximity, human/bear encounters are likely to continue to occur. Education and enforcement of food storage may help to reduce the likelihood that these will be fatal encounters. Food Storage efforts must be maintained and increased as the human population increases and the bear population expands. The expansion of the Food Storage Order is one item that will occur in 2007.

The combination of wolves and grizzly bears in livestock depredation scenarios is not a good one. At this time, it appears that wolves are exerting a significant influence on some cattle allotments in terms of distribution of animals, etc. Grizzly bears have not been involved in cattle depredations in the past, but it is uncertain what the future holds. Because sheep have gradually phased out of the allotments on the Forest, that issue of depredation has been resolved.

The Grizzly Bear Amendment to the Forest Plans in the GYA (2007) gives a detailed look at the effects of reasonably foreseeable activity on the grizzly bear on a GYA-wide basis. For additional information, please see this Amendment documentation. Using the NRLMD (2007) guidance generally benefits grizzly bear by addressing effects of motorized use on habitat.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

Many activities that have and will occur on the National Forest affect grizzly bears. The things that affect grizzly bears and are of most concern are those related to: 1) motorized access routes, 2) availability of attractants, and 3) livestock grazing (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007). Changes to habitat, like those brought by wildfire, fuels treatments, and timber harvest or livestock grazing tend to have fewer impacts with impacts that are shorter in duration. Some effects, like those of fire in this fire dependent ecosystem, are beneficial to grizzly bears. Since the Forest now has a Forest- wide food storage order, attractants are limited. The Forest no longer has any sheep allotments, and has rarely had difficulty between grizzly bears and other livestock. This leaves the primary issue over which the Forest has jurisdiction to be the amount of motorized habitat on the Forest, or looking at it conversely, the amount of secure grizzly bear habitat available. Secure habitat appears to be one of the highest predictors of grizzly bear survival and population growth.

Other activities that may impact grizzly bears include mortality that occurs during the hunting seasons when bears run into conflict with armed humans and humans react by killing them. With the high density of bears, and the high density of hunters in some areas, conflict is almost inevitable with dead bears and injured humans being the result. MFWP has instituted a bear identification course that all black bear hunters must take before they hunt. Multiple agencies and groups endorse the carrying and use of bear pepper spray for Forest users. Humans and bears do run into conflict in the non-hunting seasons, but these encounters are less often likely to cause mortality.

The large amount of Wilderness acreage and National Park land in the area lead to high amounts of secure grizzly bear habitat in this area.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-73

The activities that continue on private lands such as development in the form of neighborhoods or scattered houses usually yield a greater opportunity for conflict including improperly stored attractants, higher motorized route densities, higher human densities and entry into the Forest, etc. Some important land adjustments, acquisitions and conservation have occurred in the last 20 years that have played an important role in grizzly bear conservation (OTO, Taylor Fork, other Gardiner Basin properties, Cooke City area).

The successful reintroduction of the gray wolves to the Yellowstone Area has had mixed effects for the grizzly bear in terms of interaction and competition for carcasses, and it has restored an important species to the landscape.

Most, if not all reasonably foreseeable activities on the Gallatin National Forest will be neutral or beneficial to the grizzly bear. The use of the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007) to analyze project proposals and limit developed sites and impact to secure habitat will ensure this. Prescribed fire, fuel management, and weed treatment are likely to increase while timber harvest and livestock grazing may decrease. Habitat enhancement of rare habitats (including whitebark pine) is likely to increase.

Recreation use of the Forest and adjacent lands will probably increase if it follows current trends of increasing day hikers, backpackers and wildlife watchers. Grizzly bear I&E programs will continue as will the emphasis on carrying bear pepper spray for self defense. Outfitter/guide activity will probably include more non-hunting activities than it does presently.

Implementation of the Travel Plan will increase secure grizzly bear habitat and decrease OMARD and TMARD. Some subunits, such as the Gallatin #3, will see major improvements (Travel Plan FEIS, 2006). As discussed above, secure habitat is of great importance to grizzly bears. Implementation of the Travel Plan is overall beneficial to bears. The actions of implementing the Plan will cause some temporary displacement of grizzly bears in areas where construction is occurring, especially if the activity is above baseline level.

Additional route specific mitigation is also part of the proposal for routes that are in the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) in secure habitat. Route construction activities that are motorized but are proposed for secure habitat must be treated according to the project application rules for temporary decrease in secure habitat. The application rules for permanent decreases in secure habitat indicate that: a project may permanently change secure habitat if secure habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent technology) is replaced in the same Bear Management Unit subunit. Therefore project roads in the area must be effectively closed to motorized traffic prior to, or simultaneously with building this new route. The Application rules for developed sites will also be followed (Grizzly Bear Amendment 2007). The intention for the PCA is to maintain or improve secure habitat over the 1998 level and to not increase developed sites over that level. As long as the Grizzly Bear Amendment is complied with, the overall impact of implementing the Travel Plan on the ground is positive for the grizzly bear. Many other actions on the National Forest are also beneficial for the grizzly bear, however, actions on private land continue and usually are not of benefit to the bear.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-74

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan) Forest-wide Direction

The most recent and concise direction based on the best available science comes from the Grizzly Bear Amendment (2007). Direction is also found in the Forest Service Manual for sensitive species (2670). This proposal, if implemented as described above, is consistent with various laws, regulations, Plans and Plan amendments. Following the Application rules presented in the Amendment (Ibid.), and included in Alternative 1, will assure that the implementation of the project will have minor and temporary impacts to grizzly bears, and the entire Travel Plan has overall benefit to the grizzly bear.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-75

Figure 1

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-76

INVASIVE WEEDS

Introduction

The ground disturbance associated with these activities has the potential to increase the spread of invasive weeds on the Forest. Control of noxious weeds is required by the State of Montana County Noxious Weed Management Act, by The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, and by Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999. In addition, the Gallatin Forest Plan (page II-28) directs the Forest to “(i)mplement an integrated weed control program ----- to confine present infestations and prevent establishing new areas of noxious weeds. ...Funding for weed control on disturbed sites will be provided by the resource which causes the disturbance.” Funding rules and mechanisms for weed control may change over time by the agency.

Affected Environment

Noxious weeds can have a long-term biological impact on the ecosystem: They can displace native plants and alter wildlife habitat; change fire frequency; increase soil erosion; and alter soil nutrient levels (GNF Noxious and Invasive Weed Control EIS, pages 1-3 to 1-6, 3-3 to 3-12). The 2008 GNF invasive weed inventory has mapped 19,237 acres of established weeds. A description of common invasive weeds (the plant’s characteristics and habitat at risk) is in the initial Invasive Weeds specialist’s report in the project record. Most of the existing weeds are adjacent to existing travel routes (GNF Travel Plan, FEIS, page 3- 350). Once established, invasive weeds are very resilient and extremely difficult to eradicate (mostly due to dormant seed in the soil, and rhizomatous roots). In order to eradicate a weed population, the treatment must be 100 percent effective at preventing future seed production and spread by rhizomes, until the soil seed bank is exhausted (roughly 5 to 30 years depending on the species). Managing a weed patch for eradication is usually limited to small patches due to the difficulty in achieving 100 percent effective treatments. For large patches, a control strategy that reduces the density of weeds is more realistic. Common techniques used to control weed patches includes; herbicide treatment to reduce weed density and limit seed production, increase competition for desirable plants (if necessary plant grass or shrubs), and if available, use biological control insects. Over time, the patch may become small enough and then the eradication treatment strategies may become feasible.

Obviously, preventing the establishment of invasive weeds is the ultimate goal, and numerous operating procedures designed to prevent weed spread are included in Alternative 1 list of mitigation measures (pages 2-22 and 2-23). The mitigation measures are designed to identify existing weed patches and then incorporate activities that will minimize the spread of the weeds (avoidances, treat existing weeds, plant disturbed sites with grass seed, clean equipment, etc.). The Gallatin Forest has been implementing most of these mitigation measures over the last five years.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-77

When fully implemented, it is reasonable to expect these mitigation measures to be effective at preventing the spread of invasive weeds.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct effect of building new routes and trailheads includes the risk of spreading weeds by introducing contaminated equipment (dozers, excavators, etc.) and materials (gravel, pit-run, grass seed). Mitigation measures included in Alternative 1 that requires the use of clean equipment and materials will reduce the risk of spreading weeds to a reasonable level.

The direct effect of road stabilization and decommissioning is both the risk of spreading weeds and the loss of motorized access for weed treatment. Since weed management requires numerous treatments, over many years, some motorized access is needed if weed management is to continue. The most efficient way to treat infestation is with motorized vehicles (ATV or UTV). Backpack spraying is reasonable when hiking less than 500 hundred feet and with some access to water (needed to mix herbicides). Horses can be used for treating remote areas but only to a limited extent. Horses work well on small areas, with gentle slopes and near water (needed for mixing with herbicides). In situations with a large infestation, and not close to water, then ATV or UTVs are the most efficient tools. The ATV or UTV is also the more cost effective tool.

Matching the type or road stabilization and decommissioning treatment (as outline in Chapter 2) with the presence of invasive weeds will minimize the impacts to future weed treatments. The included measures, as described below will allow for a reduction in road sediment (the purpose for the project) while still allowing for minimal access for weed treatment.

Survey the roads for existing weeds and then treat weeds at least one or two seasons prior to disturbing the site. This will reduce the existing weed density and encourage the successful establishment of new grass seedlings and other vegetation.

If weeds are present, and less than 500 feet from motorized access route (where it is reasonably accessible for backpack sprayer treatments), then use Treatment Types II or III, (rip or recontour road, and make impassible to all ATVs, see pages 2-23 and 24).

For both situations, avoid spreading contaminated soil to new areas. Clean equipment prior to moving to new site. Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-78

Indirect effects from building new routes and treating project roads, involve creating soil disturbance and increasing sun light on the forest floor. This creates a niche suitable for the establishment of invasive weeds. Monitoring the newly disturbed site for establishment of seedlings (both grass seeds and invasive weeds), then re-seeding grass seed and treat weeds as necessary, will minimize the risk of new weed patches. Funding for treatment will be provided by the resource area that created the disturbance (Gallatin Forest Plan, page II-28).

For more information on the effects of weed control methods, such as the use of herbicides, refer to the 2005 Gallatin NF Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatments EIS (pages 3- 13 to 3-52, and 4-2 to 4-72).

Analysis Methodology

This analysis focuses on how to minimize the risk of weed spread by incorporating mitigation measures into the action alternative. Determining the effectiveness of the mitigation measure and operating procedures is based on professional experience with weed management. All of the mitigation measures are based on recommendation for weed managers in Region 1 of the Forest Service, which have also been incorporated into the FS Manual 2080.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

The effects from Alternative 1 on invasive weeds are minimal due to the mitigation measures and standard operating procedures listed in Chapter 2. Alternative 1 will increase weed control effort on project roads by implementing a weed survey, by increasing weed treatment efforts prior to treatment of road surface, and by increasing native grass cover on project roads. Conversely, Alternative 2 (No Action) will not increase inventory information, or increase weed treatments along project roads. Under the No Action alternative, project roads may receive an occasional herbicide treatment, but limited funding prevents the planting of native grasses on the road surface.

Using Treatment Type 1 (blocking road entrance and the lightly scarifying and seeding road surface, see page 2- 23) is consistent with the Travel Plan, Detailed Description of the Decision (pages 1-10 and 1-11). The Travel Plan allows for a system of roads and trails consistent with the Forest Plan goals (Goal D). Then it states that project roads are existing roads not designated for motorized use and closed to public (wheeled) motorized use. The Travel Plan also allows for administrative use of roads (Goal C) and for the opening of roads for project use if consistent with future decisions covered under the NEPA process. This analysis and its associated decision will allow for the use of these roads until the weeds are eradicated. None of the project roads within secure grizzly bear habitat will remain accessible to motorized travel for weed control.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-79

Cumulative Effects

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

While it is true that invasive weeds are very aggressive plants that area capable of colonizing areas without anthropomorphic influences; past management practices, have contributed to the invasive weed problem by introducing weeds into the area and by creating sites susceptible to weeds. The high association between weeds and human disturbance, and the absence of weeds in the backcountry (as evident by the weed inventory maps), is a strong indicator that human activities are spreading weeds. Currently the Gallatin National Forest has more that 19,237 acres of invasive plants inventoried and treats roughly 4000 acres annually. Current funding limitations prevent the treatment of every acre of weeds; consequently, weed treatment focuses on high priority areas.

The Roads and Trails project minimizes the risk of spreading weeds by using effective mitigation measures, which are consistent with FS Manual 2080.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

All future projects, with a risk of spreading weeds, will incorporate mitigation measures as stated in the FS Manual 2080.

The need for motorized access for future weed treatment projects will be accommodated through the standard operation procedures as listed on page 2-24.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

The project is consistent with all laws, regulations, and Forest Plan directions. The mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2 includes all applicable policies and Forest Plan direction.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-80

LYNX

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternatives may have on lynx. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires all federal agencies to review any project authorized, funded or carried out to determine the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed, threatened or endangered species. Forest Service policy requires that all Forest Service programs and activities need to be reviewed for possible effects on proposed, threatened or endangered species (FSM 2672.4). The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in March 2000. Lynx have been documented, historically and currently, throughout the Rocky Mountains of Montana from the Canadian border through the Yellowstone area. Direction for evaluating federal actions relative to lynx habitat is provided in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision and subsequent Forest Plan Amendments (NRLA) (USDA 2007).

Lynx was analyzed as a significant issue in the Travel Plan EIS. Standards and guidelines relative to recreation and road management, specifically as they relate to winter and summer motorized use activity, and habitat connectivity, were used to analyze the travel plan alternatives. Parameters used to measure effects included summer motorized open road density (ORD), miles of marked or groomed (i.e., designated) over-the-snow (snowmobile and ski) routes, and acres of closed snowmobile area. A determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” was given for lynx because the intent of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), the management direction prior to the NRLA (USDA 2007), had been met. The primary potential impact to lynx from travel management was found to be from winter use and snow compaction. In all cases, new compacted routes were balanced by increasing areas of snowmobile closures. This analysis does not focus on those impacts but instead the proposed road and trail project work, which is the ground-disturbing implementation of transportation corridors designated in the Travel Plan.

In addition to the management direction provided in the NRLA (USDA 2007), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed critical habitat for lynx (USDI 2008a and USDI 2008b). Critical habitat is a term in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that identifies geographic areas essential for the conservation of a species. All of the occupied portions of the Gallatin Forest are included in the proposal for the Greater Yellowstone Area unit (see Affected Environment section below for discussion of occupied/ unoccupied habitat). If the final rule designates critical habitat as proposed, the Gallatin Forest may be required to consult with the FWS relative to activities that may modify it adversely. The lynx analysis for the Travel Plan EIS did not address proposed critical habitat. The following figure can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/lynx/fedreg_unit5_repro2: and displays the proposed critical habitat for the Greater Yellowstone area unit.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-81

Figure 2. Map of proposed critical habitat areas

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-82

Affected Environment

Lynx habitat can be generally described as boreal forests that have cold winters with deep snow that provide a snowshoe hare prey base and at an elevation range between 6,000 and 8,800 feet. Primary vegetation that contributes to lynx habitat is lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. Secondary vegetation, that when interspersed within subalpine forests may also contribute to lynx habitat, includes cool, moist Douglas fir and aspen forests. Dry forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, climax lodgepole pine) do not provide lynx habitat. In general, habitats that favor snowshoe hare will provide optimal foraging habitat. The proposed road and trail project work would modify habitat through the creation of the transportation corridor as described in Chapter 2 – Alternative 1, Authorized Work Description. Additional disturbance impacts may occur when forest roads or trails are constructed or reconstructed. For example, use of heavy equipment, blasting, jack hammering, work crews, and use of ATVs or helicopters may cause displacement of lynx during the time of operation.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 2003) describes a scenario wherein lynx range coincides with that of the southern margins of boreal forest where it is naturally fragmented into patches of varying size as it transitions into subalpine forest. Where boreal forest patches within the contiguous United States are large, with suitable habitat, prey, and snow conditions, resident populations of lynx are able to survive throughout the cyclic snowshoe hare populations. When there is a high in the lynx metapopulation in Canada, dispersion of individuals act like a wave radiating out to the margins of the lynx range. Lynx are able to disperse long distances, crossing unsuitable habitats, in order to colonize suitable habitats and find potential mates.

Home range size varies with dispersion pattern of suitable habitat and with the abundance of prey as a response to lower density snowshoe hare populations. Males generally maintain larger home ranges than females. In Montana, Brainerd (1985) reports home range sizes of about 17 and 122 sq mi for females and males respectively. Nellis (1989) indicates that most home ranges fell between 5-20 sq mi. Ruediger et al. (2000) found annual home range size for females averaged 44 sq mi.

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) were mapped for the Gallatin National Forest in 2000. LAUs are units for which the effects of a project would be analyzed. These were subsequently reviewed and reconfigured in 2005 and subsequently used for the Travel Plan EIS analysis. See Figure 3 that displays the LAUs on the Gallatin Forest.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-83

Figure 3 – Gallatin National Forest Lynx Analysis Unit Index

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-84

The Travel Plan EIS discussed the data that show continuous presence of lynx in Montana that led to the conclusion that lynx are a potential and confirmed resident of occupied habitat on the Gallatin Forest. The Recovery Outline (USDI 2005) roughly identifies the Gallatin National Forest serving as ‘core’ or ‘secondary’ areas, which further implies the present or historic presence of lynx and the potential role of the Gallatin Forest in lynx recovery. Since that time, the NRLA (USDA 2007) and Federal Register proposing critical habitat for lynx (USDI 2008a), have confirmed the role.

Management direction for projects in occupied lynx habitat is provided in the NRLA (USDA 2007). This direction includes a goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines relative to the type of project being addressed. Standards and guidelines were incorporated where a project may possess risk factors found to threaten lynx populations. Standards are management requirements. Guidelines, though not required, are normally taken to meet objectives. However, justification for not following guidelines in the case of site-specific exceptions is expected (USDA 2007).

The NRLA (USDA 2007) applies to occupied lynx habitat. The species list was confirmed through the FWS website (last updated December 16, 2008): http://montanafieldoffice.fws.gov/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/Gallatin_sp_list.pdf. The FWS recently removed the threatened Canada lynx from their list of species that may be present on the Gallatin Forest north of I-90. A map of the unoccupied habitat is displayed below:

Figure 5. Map of occupied/ unoccupied lynx habitat

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-85

On the Gallatin, only those forested areas meeting the description of lynx habitat south of Interstate- 90 is considered occupied. The Bridger/ Bangtails and Crazy Mountain ranges are considered unoccupied. However, according to the NRLA (USDA 2007), presently unoccupied habitat should consider the management direction that is now incorporated into the Forest Plan.

Analysis Methodology

The NRLA (USDA 2007) is the primary basis for determining effects to lynx. This planning document incorporated standards and guidelines for those risk factors found to threaten lynx populations or have possible adverse affects on individual lynx. To address compliance with the NRLA (USDA 2007) management direction, effects to Canada lynx were evaluated by assessing effects of specific actions for the proposed road and trail project work relative to applicable management direction. Applicable management direction for this proposed road and trail project includes those standards and guidelines related to forest roads and linkage areas as displayed below.

Table 8. Management direction applicable to proposed road and trail project.

Standard Discussion ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following objectives, standards, and AND ACTIVITIES (ALL) guidelines apply to all management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use. Objective ALL O1 Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas. Standard ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments¹ and vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area. HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU) The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs), subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas. Guideline HU G3 Recreation developments¹ and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-86

Guideline HU G6 Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used in lynx habitat when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development. Guideline HU G7 New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. Guideline HU G8 Cutting brush along low-speed2, low-traffic- volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.

¹Developed recreation requires facilities that result in concentrated use. For example, skiing requires lifts, parking lots, buildings, and roads; campgrounds require roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities. ²Low-speed, low-traffic-volume road is defined as – low speed is less than 20 miles per hour; low volume is a seasonal average daily traffic load of less than 100 vehicles per day (USDA 2007).

The Level 1 Team, made up of Forest level Wildlife Biologists, developed a programmatic biological assessment (BA) (USDA 2004^) to facilitate consultation on listed species with the FWS. The programmatic BA is used to rapidly identify specific actions related to minor project types where effects are clearly insignificant or discountable. Any proposed action implements a screening process to determine which proposed projects properly fit within a programmatic approach to consultation on simple, straightforward projects that would result in a ‘not likely to adversely affect’ determination. Not all of the project types described in the programmatic BA are eligible for this programmatic assessment since some are either ambiguous or may result in an adverse effect. If the programmatic screening concurrence process does not apply, the standard section 7 process is required.

Since the NRLA (USDA 2007) decision, the screens necessary to use this approach for lynx have not been updated and no concurrence sought from the FWS. A draft version of the programmatic BA screens (located in project file) includes effects to lynx and to proposed critical habitat (USDI 2008a and USDI 2008b). The proposed road and trail work to implement the Travel Plan does not fit within the draft programmatic screening process. If the draft programmatic BA screens for lynx do not change for the final version, standard consultation would be necessary. The activity components applicable to the proposed road and trail project work and its effects on lynx and proposed critical habitat that cannot be screened include developing new or expanded recreation sites that result in permanent habitat loss, blasting for trail re-routes, new trail construction with more than 10 foot clearing widths, and road upgrades that may result in increased speed or traffic. This does not imply that the effects of the proposed road and trail project work are adverse but that the programmatic BA would not be an available tool for consultation on this listed species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-87

The mere presence of roads and trails represents a direct loss of habitat. This was summarized in the Travel Plan EIS but was not quantified as the Travel Plan decision did not consider the ground disturbing effects of implementation at that time. The NRLA has specific management direction for vegetation management projects and it is quite explicit as to what kinds of projects this applies; the proposed road and trail project work does not fit these categories. The standards and guidelines for vegetation management projects do not apply to removing vegetation for permanent developments or roads. It must also be considered that not all the proposed road and trail project work occurs within occupied and proposed critical habitat. Any habitat loss (denning or foraging) from the implementation of the Travel Plan decision can be quantified but is more subject to a qualitative discussion due to the lack of specific direction. Road decommissioning may provide opportunities for foraging and/or denning habitat in the future and is considered a beneficial effect.

As noted in the discussion of denning habitat in the Travel Plan EIS and in the NRLA (USDA 2007), recent research shows lynx use a variety of conditions for den sites and these habitat elements are generally found across broad landscapes; therefore denning habitat is a not limiting factor for lynx. Similarly, the amount of foraging habitat loss is considered for vegetation management projects and regarded loss of habitat through human use projects to be minimal. This is understandable as this is adequately considered through other management direction of human use projects. For example, the over-the-snow recreation management direction must assume a travel corridor exists. Over-the-snow winter travel routes were critically examined in the Travel Plan EIS to address the then current LCAS (Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy) management direction and concurrence from FWS received for this portion of the project. All LAUs met this standard which was subsequently changed to a guideline in the NRLA (USDA 2007).

Mortality due to increased speed and traffic is another direct effect that is more the focus of the NRLA (USDA 2007) management direction. Lynx seem to not avoid roads except at high traffic volumes. As summarized in the Travel Plan EIS, roads into areas occupied by lynx may pose a threat to lynx from incidental harvest or poaching and disturbance or mortality from vehicles. Any roads targeted for an improvement in level of construction and maintenance standard would likely encourage a higher level of public use. However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 2003) asserts that no information currently exists to determine the level at which traffic volume or roadway design may influence or create an impediment to lynx movement. They addressed potential threats to lynx and concluded that the threat to lynx populations from high traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat and associated suburban developments is low. This level of risk was retained in the NRLA (USDA 2007) as a guideline.

Roads and trails, or more importantly, the human use occurring on roads and trails, in occupied habitat, may cause indirect effects to lynx. The Travel Plan EIS discussed human activities adjacent to den sites that may cause abandonment and threaten kitten survival, the importance of landscape connectivity linking areas of lynx habitat, the risk of roads on lynx populations, and potential disruption of optimal habitat use. Data from research inconclusively determined the effects of human activities on lynx.

The Travel Plan EIS analyzed the impacts of use of roads and trails. The then current LCAS management direction for Forest backcountry roads and trails included a road density of 2.0 mi/ sq

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-88

mile guideline for LAUs; all LAUs met this guideline. This management direction was dropped in the NRLA (USDA 2007). Recommendations provided by researchers, and discussed in the Travel Plan EIS, were also evaluated in the NRLA (USDA 20007). Their review found that road building was adequately addressed with guidelines and provided rationale for why they were the appropriate level of management direction. It incorporated some guidance on how to design projects because roads may affect individual lynx. The guidelines are consistent with recommendations to manage travel cover to allow movement of lynx within their large home ranges.

In summary, lynx potentially in and around areas frequented by humans may be displaced. This may put lynx at further risk of human-induced mortality and increase their vulnerability to hunters and trappers. Summer use of roads may also increase the vulnerability of any kittens potentially using denning habitat. However, this is probably not an issue based on current research and management direction.

None of the management direction for linkage areas is applicable to the proposed road and trail project work. Habitat connectivity was discussed in the Travel Plan EIS and is considered for other species in the biodiversity issue section. In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 2003) concluded that there is low threat to the contiguous United States lynx population to maintain connectivity between habitats in Canada and the United States.

As stated in the Travel Plan EIS, part of the implementation of the interagency Canada Lynx Conservation Agreements involved identification of lynx linkage areas. These linkage areas are meant to aid in movement and dispersal of individuals separated by areas of non-habitat and management direction for these was included in the NRLA (USDA 2007). The lynx linkage areas that were identified for the Gallatin Forest include the North Bridgers to the Big Belt Mountains area, Castle Mountains to northern Crazy Mountains area, Crazy Mountains to the Absaroka Mountains area, the Crazy Mountains to Bridger Range area, the Bridger Range to Gallatin Range area (Bozeman Pass), the Henry’s Lake Mountains to Gravelly Range area (Reynolds Pass), the Gallatin Range to Absaroka Mountains area (Yankee Jim), and areas between the Cooke City to Yellowstone National Park and Custer National Forest areas. There is no specific direction of how to manage for these linkage areas relative to travel planning, habitat manipulation, or development. Figure 5 above which displays occupied and unoccupied habitat also identifies linkage areas.

Table 9 - Relationship of proposed alternatives to applicable management direction.

Standard* Meets – Yes/ No ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL) Objective ALL O1 and Standard ALL S1 Travel Plan programmatic direction would be followed. Travel corridors analyzed in the Travel Plan EIS and in the Biodiversity issue report. HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU) Guideline HU G3 Habitat loss due to human use is expected to be minimal over the entire LAU. Programmatic direction and mitigation would

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-89

minimize impacts to lynx habitat. Guideline HU G6 Some level of risk occurs with the increased speed and traffic expected on upgraded roads and trails built to standard. Mitigation would minimize impacts to lynx habitat. Guideline HU G7 Recommendations from research include maintaining cover within lynx habitat. Mitigation would minimize impacts to lynx habitat. Guideline HU G8 Recommendations from research include maintaining cover within lynx habitat. Mitigation would minimize impacts to lynx habitat. * Standards are management requirements. Guidelines, though not required, are normally taken to meet objectives. Justification for not following guidelines in the case of site-specific exceptions is expected and was part of the terms and conditions that were incorporated from the FWS Biological Opinion (USDA 2007).

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

The areas of influence to be analyzed include the trail tread or road locations and any access to those locations. Impacts of the project on lynx are described above in some detail with reference to the Travel Plan EIS. The Travel Plan programmatic direction and proposed mitigation consistent with the NRLA (USDA 2007) would minimize the potential impact on lynx and proposed critical habitat from the proposed road and trail project work.

Conversely, assuming human recreational activities increase in the future, this alternative has the most potential to affect lynx long term. The Travel Plan EIS stated that there was no reasonable logistical way to deter an increase in snowmobile use without designating routes with area closures, such as what was identified in the Travel Plan. However, the basic premise of the Travel Plan is already implemented (designated routes) and much work can be done without the proposed road and trail project work being completed. It is possible that if roads were not upgraded, snowmobile routes not cleared, and ATV connector routes not constructed that lynx and proposed critical habitat would not be further impacted. Of course, this would also mean that the long-term beneficial impacts of road decommissioning and correcting trail erosion by rerouting would not occur. Similar to the conclusions within the Travel Plan EIS, the no action alternative may add direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the existing situation if the Travel Plan is not implemented as planned.

Mitigation and Monitoring

As mentioned above, some “mitigation”, in the form of regulatory tools and programmatic management direction adopted in the Travel Plan EIS does exist. Programmatic management direction (GOAL F, G, H, and I) provides guidance to minimize impacts to lynx and should be applied to occupied lynx habitat. Additional site-specific mitigation, consistent with the NRLA (USDA 2007), will further limit impacts and shall be conducted in coordination with the pertinent District Wildlife Biologists. This includes:

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-90

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-91

Lynx  Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. For example, minimize spatial extent of site and retain maximum cover.  Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used in lynx habitat when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development. For example, implement methods to control speed such as speed limit signs and speed bumps in final designs of new and upgraded roads and trails.  New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. For example, major ridges should be managed for travel cover, with emphasis on saddles and of a width >300 ft.  Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.  Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Bear Canyon, Lionhead, North Bridgers, and Shields Travel Planning Areas. Applies to identified lynx linkage areas influenced by proposed road and trail works and should be considered in other identified linkage areas not specifically mentioned by TPA.

Monitoring for lynx was identified in the Travel Plan EIS. Monitoring for this proposed road and trail project work (Alternative 1) will include an annual review of planned and completed work items to ensure compliance with mitigation.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed road and trail project work is not considered to have significant effects on lynx or proposed critical habitat and therefore there are no cumulative impacts anticipated other than what was discussed in the Travel Plan EIS.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

 Endangered Species Act Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, each Federal agency must ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. The determination is “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” on lynx and proposed critical habitat. Consultation refers only to the area designated as occupied on the Gallatin Forest (south of Interstate 90) and is forthcoming. The US Fish & Wildlife Service recently removed the threatened Canada lynx from their list of species that may be present on the Gallatin Forest north of I-90. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for projects in “unoccupied” habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-92

 Gallatin Forest Travel Plan, including the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment Forest Plan Standard for Threatened and Endangered Species, page II-18, section 6.b.all. Impacts to lynx were considered within the framework of the NRLA (USDA 2007) and in context with the effects analysis completed for the Travel Plan EIS. Guidelines for the proposed road and trail project work are met due to incorporation of Travel Plan programmatic direction and mitigation.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-93

MIGRATORY BIRDS

Introduction

This issue addresses the potential effects of the physical aspects of Travel Plan implementation on migratory birds and their habitat. Physical aspects include the restoration and stabilization of roads no longer needed for management or recreation purposes, as well as construction, reconstruction and maintenance of new or currently unsuitable facilities. Effects of changes in human use levels and distribution associated with Travel Plan implementation were addressed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (2006: Chapter 3, pp. 396-419). Migratory bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-711). A January 2001 Executive Order requires agencies to ensure that environmental analyses evaluate the effects of federal actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. Species of concern include those listed under the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service sensitive species, and those identified as species of concern by the Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Individual species of concern are addressed in other sections of this document.

Affected Environment

Migratory bird species are an extremely diverse group, and as such, occupy all types of habitat available on the Gallatin Forest, including lakes, streams, wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands, shrub lands, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest, recently burned forest, alpine tundra, rock outcrops and sheer cliff walls. Many migratory bird species use habitat within the Forest as breeding grounds, while others breed in more northern climes and winter here. Some species are habitat specialists and are relatively restricted to certain cover types such as wetlands, riparian, forest interior or cliff habitat. Others are habitat generalists and can occupy a wide variety of cover types. Some bird species are extremely sensitive to habitat modifications and human disturbance, particularly in breeding areas, while others are much more tolerant of human intrusions, and can actually benefit from habitat modifications resulting from human activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

Direct and indirect effects of actions proposed for Travel Plan implementation would occur in the form of habitat alteration resulting from facility construction, maintenance, and/or restoration, plus disturbance due to noise, equipment and human presence associated with implementation projects.

Habitat modification can alter the quality and quantity of habitat available for migratory bird species. Habitat alteration that could result from proposed implementation actions could have both positive and negative effects for migratory birds. Negative impacts may occur for some species due to habitat loss resulting from vegetation removal associated with new construction or reconstruction in some instances. On the other hand, edge habitat created by the creation of a new trail may be favored by other species. While creation and maintenance of travel facilities would reduce cover

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-94

and habitat in some areas, restoration and stabilization elsewhere would facilitate vegetative re- growth, which would improve habitat for many species.

Habitat loss can result from the permanent removal of vegetation or other natural features to provide the facilities; e.g. trails, parking lots, and trailheads, approved in the Travel Management Plan. Habitat loss is also evaluated in the General Wildlife section. Construction and maintenance of trails and related facilities can directly affect bird species through removal of security cover, loss of potential nest sites, destruction of roosting areas and loss of hunting perches (Forman et al. 2003:115). Construction activities can also create conditions conducive to the spread of noxious weeds. Weed infestations can result in loss of cover and/or forage for many bird species.

A considerable amount of literature is devoted to habitat modification that results in fragmentation of homogenous vegetation types. Fragmentation effects are also addressed in the Biological Diversity section. New construction can affect habitat fragmentation by dissecting contiguous vegetation types with travel corridors. Fragmentation effects have been reported to impact bird species in a variety of habitat types (Joslin and Youmans 1999:3.22, 3.24), but most of the attention to this issue has been focused on fragmentation of forest habitat. Migratory bird species have often been the focus of forest fragmentation issues. Fragmentation has been noted for creating an environment that facilitates nest predation and brood parasitism of forest interior species (Rich et al. 1994:1110).

It appears that corridor width can influence bird species composition and associated nest predation and parasitism rates along travel corridors. A number of studies (Rich et al. 1994; Askins 1994; Hutto et al. 1995) generally found that narrow travel corridors such as those used for primitive roads and trails had few notable impacts on nesting birds, whereas wider corridors associated with primary and secondary roads, had more considerable effects associated with nest predation and brood parasitism. No new road construction is proposed for Travel Plan implementation. ATV trails proposed for construction or reconstruction would require a corridor width of approximately six feet, while single track trails used for motorcycles, livestock, and foot use would generally be narrower. Further, road restoration and stabilization projects would facilitate vegetative re-growth, potentially reversing fragmentation effects over time in some areas.

A driving factor for road restoration and stabilization is to improve water quality by reducing runoff, erosion and resulting stream sedimentation. Water quality influences habitat conditions for migratory birds and other wildlife. Water quality is an imperative factor in the health of riparian habitat. In this arid climate, neotropical migratory bird species comprise a greater proportion of breeding bird populations in riparian habitat than in any other major habitat type in the western states (Dobkin 1992:A-5). Therefore, the road restoration/stabilization component of the proposed action would have notable benefits for bird habitat, particularly in areas where riparian habitat has been adversely affected by past road construction and use.

Human presence and noise associated with construction, reconstruction and restoration/stabilization projects would produce disturbance effects, which could impact migratory birds in locations identified for Travel Plan implementation projects. Physiological responses to disturbance factors can include elevated hear rate and increased energy expenditure due to forced avoidance flights, as well as decreased energy intake and potential malnutrition due to displacement from foraging areas.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-95

Disturbance during the breeding season can affect reproductive success, while disturbance outside the breeding season can influence a bird’s energy balance, and consequently affect survival rates (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995:52, 73, 75).

Weather and soil conditions typically limit access for road and trail projects in this area. Therefore, with a few exceptions, most Travel Plan implementation projects would occur during summer and fall months. On the Gallatin Forest, the primary breeding season for birds occurs in spring. Throughout most of this Region, breeding season is over and birds are moving in family groups by mid July (Hutto et al. 1998:8). Therefore, disturbance effects from project activities would have minimal impacts on nesting birds, but could still have some minor impacts on individual birds outside the breeding season.

With the ability to fly, birds are highly mobile and therefore potentially better able to adjust to habitat changes and disturbance effects than are more sedentary species (Forman et al. 2003:123). Given this high degree of mobility, limited overall habitat loss that would be at least partly offset by habitat restoration resulting from road closures, few projects occurring during the bird breeding season, and limited project duration in any one area, the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action would have very low impacts on migratory bird species.

Analysis Methodology

Potential effects of Travel Plan implementation on migratory birds were assessed using a variety of tools. Agency monitoring and surveying records were reviewed for insight to migratory bird species occurrence, distribution and habitat use patterns within the Forest, compared with proposed Travel Plan implementation project locations. Scientific literature was consulted for additional information on migratory bird habitat use and possible impacts from ground-disturbing activities.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Under the No Action alternative, new routes would not be developed and improvements identified for existing facilities would not be realized. Therefore, habitat alterations and disturbance effects resulting from construction and reconstruction activities would not occur. Proposed restoration and stabilization projects would also be abandoned under the No Action alternative. Disturbance factors such as equipment noise and human presence associated with implementation projects would not be an issue under this alternative. However, potential benefits associated with road restoration,

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-96

including vegetative re-growth and subsequent re-establishment of nesting, foraging and security cover, would not be achieved under the No Action Alternative.

In summary, there would be some impacts to migratory birds associated with habitat modification and disturbance due to the proposed action. Many of the proposed new routes provide loop connecters for existing routes, and some have been established as “user-built” routes for a while now, so disturbance from recreational use may already be a factor in some areas. Long term ecological benefits to be gained from water quality and vegetative cover improvements associated with road restoration and stabilization projects would outweigh short term disturbance effects caused by construction and reconstruction of new and existing routes.

Cumulative Effects

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

It is difficult to address cumulative effects to migratory bird species collectively, since various management actions can have adverse effects on some species, while having no effect or benefiting others. With over 200 migratory bird species known to occupy habitat on the Gallatin Forest, it would not be practical to attempt to address them all individually. Therefore, a summary is provided here, focusing on those activities considered to have the greatest impacts on birds. Cumulative effects related to travel management were described in detail in the Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (2006: Ch. 3, pp. 405-408), and an extensive analysis of cumulative effects to migratory bird species from specific land use activities occurring within the Gallatin National Forest is available in the Travel Management Plan FEIS project files (Dixon 2006a).

Habitat loss and associated fragmentation are often sited as major factors contributing to population declines for migratory bird species. While habitat loss is undoubtedly a significant factor affecting migratory birds, it should be noted that forested landscapes in the intermountain western states have historically been shaped by dynamic disturbance processes such as widespread fire, insects and disease, resulting in a naturally fragmented landscape compared to the more homogenous forest habitats of the eastern US and Pacific northwest. Likewise, it should be noted that in general, western populations of migratory bird species have faired better than eastern North American populations (Dobkin 1992:A-4).

Human-induced habitat modification in the inland west has been a function of timber harvest, fire suppression, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, recreational development, housing, transportation and agricultural development. Major developments such as housing, agricultural conversions, major recreational developments and large scale mining operations result in permanent habitat loss and fragmentation, which have the greatest impact and long-term adverse effects on migratory bird populations. Sallabanks and others (2004) looked at a variety of forested land management treatments relative to unmanaged forest landscapes in northwestern Idaho and western Montana. They found no difference in nest predation rates between treated landscapes; e.g. forests managed for timber production and livestock grazing, versus unmanaged forests. They suggested this finding is based on the historic pattern of fragmentation in the inland west due to natural

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-97

disturbance regimes such as fire, wind, insects and disease. These authors found no evidence that songbird nesting success or productivity differed between various landscape compositions in the inland western states, and cited other studies (Schieck et al. 1995, McGarigal and McComb 1995, Schmiegelow et al. 1997, Tewksbury et al. 1998) as having similar findings with respect to forest fragmentation effects on breeding songbirds in western states.

Disturbance effects come from a wide variety of human activities including forest management projects such as vegetation management, fire suppression, livestock operations, and transportation management, as well as general recreation activities that all involve human presence and associated noise disturbance in migratory bird habitat. Again, some bird species and even some individuals within a particular species are extremely sensitive to human disturbance factors, while other species and/or individuals are much more tolerant of human presence on the landscape. Past management practices tended to have fewer restrictions on the use of heavy equipment than current policy allows; however, numbers of recreationists have increased exponentially in recent years. Land management projects tend to concentrate activity sources, producing intense noise and disturbance in localized areas, whereas recreation effects are generally more widely dispersed, and produce lower intensity noise and disturbance.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

Projected effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities have potential for both positive and negative cumulative effects to migratory birds and their habitat. Unmanaged recreation, invasive species, unnatural fuel buildup and loss of open space are some of the major ecological threats recognized by public land management entities. Generally speaking, traditional land management practices are trending toward more ecologically sensitive programs. Accordingly, management practices are being redesigned to have less negative impacts on the land, while still allowing for the maximum spectrum of land uses within the capability of resources. Vegetation management projects on the Gallatin Forest are currently being planned with more integrated resource objectives, and are focusing more on restoration strategies as opposed to resource extraction. However, private land development is occurring at an increasing rate. Major developments (large-scale housing developments, high volume/speed transportation systems) result in permanent habitat loss with greater potential for adverse impacts on migratory bird populations. Recreation use is continuing to increase in this area, and use levels are projected to continue to climb in the near future. Such use will perpetuate human disturbance effects; however, the Travel Management Plan was designed to help manage recreation use in ways that minimize disturbance impacts to migratory birds and wildlife in general.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities by Travel Plan Implementation Alternatives

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-98

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), there would be some increases in disturbance and slight habitat modification due to construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization efforts required to create new routes, improve existing facilities, and close/rehabilitate old road surfaces that are no longer needed for management or recreation purposes. These factors are added to disturbance associated with increased use expected to occur on new and improved facilities, as well as increased recreational use in general associated with increasing human populations and subsequent demands for recreation opportunities. Longer term beneficial effects associated with road restoration and stabilization, combined with improved recreation management resulting from full implementation of Travel Plan direction, are expected to offset disturbance and habitat modification impacts through overall reductions in motorized route densities, habitat restoration, and improved water quality, all of which contribute to improved ecosystem health.

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), there would be no additional disturbance or habitat modification impacts due to construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization efforts. However, recreation use levels and demand are expected to continue to increase with or without the proposed projects. Impacts from general recreation use may be harder to manage without completion of new routes and improvements proposed for Travel Plan implementation, as recreationists continue to forge their own connecter routes, re-routes around difficult portions of existing routes, and continued use of old project roads identified for restoration and stabilization.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

Management of migratory bird species and their habitats are governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-711) and an associated Presidential Executive Order. Executive Order 13186 directs Federal agencies whose actions have a measurable negative impact on migratory bird populations to incorporate migratory bird conservation into planning processes and take reasonable steps that include restoring and enhancing habitat. The Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987) contains forest-wide standards to carefully manage key migratory bird habitat components such as snags and down woody debris, cliffs, caves and riparian areas, and habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and wading birds. The Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan (2006) contains forest-wide direction (goals, objectives, standards and guidelines) including specific measures designed to minimize impacts on wildlife and rare habitats. This direction would be followed for proposed construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization associated with implementation of the Travel Plan. Both the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative would be consistent with all current laws, regulations, policy and direction for management of migratory bird habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-99

ROADLESS

Introduction

Several small projects are proposed in this EA which will construct ATV or snowmobile trails within inventoried roadless. Several people commented during scoping for the Travel Plan EIS and the Implementation EA that they felt that motorized use within roadless was incompatible or inappropriate, and may diminish roadless character. Construction of wider routes that could accommodate ATV’s or snowmobile grooming equipment may have minor effects to people’s perception of apparent naturalness within roadless areas where cut or fill slopes of these routes are more evident. These are typically short term effects which lessen within 5-10 years of construction as vegetation is re-established and cut or fill slopes soften. There may also be temporal effects to opportunities for solitude during construction and when motorized use becomes established on these new trails. Nothing in current law, policy or regulation prohibits motorized use or construction of motorized trails within inventoried roadless areas.

Affected Environment

Please see Chapter 3 of the Travel Plan FEIS (pages 3-497 through 3-500) for a description of the affected environment for roadless areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects

No new roads are proposed to be constructed in inventoried roadless areas.

Several small projects are proposed in this EA which will construct ATV or snowmobile trails within inventoried roadless. Nothing in current policy or regulation prohibits motorized use or construction of motorized trails within inventoried roadless areas. There are essentially no additional effects from these projects to roadless which were not disclosed in the FEIS. The only minor change from the potential effects disclosed in the FEIS is to note that the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act is a bill which has been introduced to Congress ( Feb. 2007) that would designate all of the inventoried roadless in the Gallatin NF as wilderness. No recent actions have been taken on this bill except for subcomittee hearings which occurred in October 2007. Passage of the bill and subsequent designation of all the remaining roadless areas on the Gallatin NF does not seem likely or imminent, as other iterations of this legislation which have been introduced in previous years haven’t been passed into law.

The following include short summaries of these projects:

This project implements the Travel Plan decision to relocate and construct a portion of the Big Sky Snowmobile Trail from the Sage Ck. Trailhead to connecting the Oil Well road (the current location of this snowmobile trail). The re-routed trail section passes through the Madison Inventoried Roadless Unit. In order to accommodate grooming equipment on steeper sections of the trail, the existing single track trail will have to be widened in some locations, and the newly

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-100

constructed portions of the relocated route will need to have some dirt work done to accommodate grooming equipment on steeper side slopes. This trail would be managed as a groomed route. In order to accommodate the groomer, isolated trail reconstruction on the first 1.5 miles would occur, and some new construction in areas where the trail crosses steep side slopes would be necessary to safely accommodate the groomer. Trail clearing would range from 10’ – 30’. Significant portions of the groomed trail would simply occur by compacting snow along the native surface, without the need to create cuts or fills. Trail clearing, and approximately ½-1 mile of tread work on steep side slopes in several locations along the new snowmobile route would have a negative effect on apparent naturalness at least in the short term until cuts and fills revegetated and softened. Relocation of this trail may affect some recreationists opportunities for solitude and sense of remoteness in the lower reaches of the Slide Creek Trail, and along the new snowmobile route. The total length of this rerouted section of the Big Sky snowmobile trail is about 5 miles. Please see the effects analysis in the Travel Plan FEIS on page 3-507.

Construction of the Buck Ridge ATV loop trail would add about 3 miles of ATV trail in the Madison Inventoried Roadless Unit. Construction of this route would have some minor negative effects to natural integrity and apparent naturalness through soil and vegetation disturbance (as disclosed in the FEIS). Once motorized use is established in this area along the loop trail system, opportunities for solitude would diminish. The Lee Metcalf Wilderness Bill of 1983 “released” this area from future consideration for designation as wilderness during the current planning cycle. ATV trails per the Forest Service Handbook are not considered roads, and this area could be reconsidered for wilderness designation at some time in the future. Please see the effects discussion in the Travel Plan FEIS.

A short section of new ATV trail (a little over a mile) would be constructed in inventoried roadless to implement the Travel Plan decision to connect the West Bridger road with the Lower Deer Trail (in Tie Cutter Gulch) as an ATV access route to the Deer Creek Rental Cabin. Construction of this route would have some minor negative effects to natural integrity and apparent naturalness through soil and vegetation disturbance (as disclosed in the Travel Plan FEIS). Once motorized use is established in this area along the loop trail system, opportunities for solitude would diminish.

None of the trail construction or reconstruction work outlined above would prohibit future designation of any of these areas as wilderness, nor are they in conflict with the Roadless Final Rule of 2001.

Analysis Methodology

Please see the analysis methods section from the Travel Plan FEIS pages 3-500 through 3-502.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action would construct a little over 5 miles of new ATV trail and about 5 miles of relocated snowmobile trail within inventoried roadless, the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would not construct these routes. There would be no effect to roadless character

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-101

from the No Action alternative. There are minor effects to apparent naturalness and opportunities for solitude (as displayed above) from the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

Historic timber harvest, road construction, range allotment management, road and trail facility maintenance, fire management activities, ski area development and mining have all shaped the extent and quality of today’s roadless lands on the Gallatin NF. Of the non-wilderness acres of the Gallatin NF, approximately 700,000 acres retain their roadless character. Current land management activities within roadless are generally designed to retain, improve or only temporarily affect roadless character, per direction from the Roadless Final Rule. Development of roadless as outlined in the 1987 Forest Plan for timber harvest has been suspended pending outcome of various litigation efforts tied to the Roadless Final Rule. Land acquisition projects and road decommissioning may add to the roadless land base of the forest in the short term.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

A number of reasonably foreseeable projects could affect roadless characteristics within the next 5 years. Weed treatment, fuels treatment projects, range allotment improvements and management activities, ongoing trail maintenance and reconstruction, and fire suppression activities all have the potential to have minor cumulative effects to roadless characteristics.

The final Forest Weeds Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2005) preferred alternative identified about 2900 acres of weed infestations in roadless that are targeted for treatment. The preferred alternative (i.e. decision) would greatly improve natural integrity in roadless by aggressively treating noxious weeds promoting the restoration of native species. Short term effects to opportunities for solitude are likely if recreationists encounter weed control crews while working in roadless. Apparent naturalness may also be affected in the short term where chemical odors from herbicide treatments persist, or grubbing/pulling/mechanical treatments are obvious.

Fuels treatments are proposed across the Forest, including projects in roadless. Pretreatment of fuels prior to burning could result in impacts to apparent naturalness where stumps and slash piles were obvious. During pretreatment and burning operations, short term impacts to opportunities for solitude could be expected where recreationists encounter crews working with chainsaws, helicopters, etc. Treating fuels could result in short term exposure to weed infestations in burned areas – impacting natural integrity. In the long term, fuel treatment will benefit natural integrity by restoring a more natural fire regime to areas where fires have long been suppressed. One project – the Taylor Fork Fuels treatment is in the vicinity of the Big Sky Snowmobile Trail relocation. The proposed new Big Sky Snowmobile trail passes through a unit of this fuel treatment project, where understory conifers would be slashed and burned. Ongoing fuels treatments in the vicinity of the trail may have additive negative effects to apparent naturalness and opportunities for solitude during

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-102

the life of the fuels project in addition to those expected from the trail reconstruction. These effects would be short term.

Ongoing management of range allotments within roadless could affect apparent naturalness and natural integrity in some areas. Skilled observers are likely to notice that vegetation has been grazed in some areas and species composition affected. The presence of manure and stock trails would not appear natural to many. Range improvements like fences and watering facilities are an obvious sign of man’s work on an otherwise natural appearing landscape. Natural integrity of sites where over grazing occurs could be impacted by erosion, weed infestation, species composition changes, soil compaction, and damage to vegetation.

Administrative activities like trail maintenance, fire suppression and weed control all have the potential to have short term effects on opportunities for solitude, and apparent naturalness, while those projects are underway. Visitors may encounter work crews, camps, motorized and mechanized equipment associated with these projects that may affect opportunities for solitude. Fresh trail construction would not appear natural to some.

Road decommissioning of unneeded project roads will improve natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and sense of remoteness in roadless portions of the forest. Rehabilitation of these routes would likely expand the potential total acreage of IRAs as long as other obvious land management activities proximate to the decommissioned roads (like old timber harvest) were insignificant .

In the next 5 years, growing recreation use from all user types (hikers, horsemen, bikers, etc.) will likely reduce opportunities for solitude in some roadless areas.

None of the effects described above would substantially reduce roadless character or irreversibly compromise the potential to designate roadless lands as wilderness in the future.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

Cumulative effects of proposed travel plan activities to roadless character are largely the same as the direct and indirect effects discussed earlier in this chapter. Minor additive effects to roadless character (both negative and positive) can be anticipated from the activities described in the previous section: projected combined effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities. None of the proposed alternatives and associated cumulative effects would cause irreversible or irretrievable effects to roadless characteristics that would negate future consideration for wilderness designation.

Alternative 1 would construct approximately 5.3 miles of new ATV routes in roadless, and about 5 miles of re-routed snowmobile trail. The addition of new double track routes in roadless may make the corridors more susceptible to soil erosion, invasion of noxious weeds, affecting natural integrity and apparent naturalness, an additive negative effect when viewed in combination with other

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-103

reasonably foreseeable effects. These minor cumulative effects to the physical parameters of roadless character would not negate future consideration of these areas as wilderness.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

Federal laws and agency policy that provide for the management of inventoried roadless lands are:

1) National Forest Management Act: Directs the Forest Service to evaluate roadless lands for their suitability for future designation as Wilderness. 2) Roadless Final Rule 1/12/2001 36 CFR Part 294: Legally enjoined from implementation at this time. 3) Forest Service Manual 1923 and FSM 1923.03(1): Roadless evaluation and Wilderness planning guide. 4) Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 and 1909.15: Regarding Wilderness potential for roadless lands, and providing direction to complete an Environmental Impact Statement any time a proposed activity would alter the undeveloped character of roadless lands 5,000 acres or greater in size. 5) Gallatin Forest Plan 1987: Identifies the Inventoried Roadless Areas recommended for designation as Wilderness through that planning effort. Forest plan management area prescriptions determined whether roadless parcels not recommended for wilderness designation would be considered for road construction, timber harvest, or some other surface disturbing management action at some future point or managed as without roads.

The National Forest Management Act, and associated agency policy directs the agency to evaluate all roadless lands for their suitability for designation as wilderness within the Wilderness Preservation system. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gallatin National Forest Plan approved in 1987 evaluated roadless characteristics for all inventoried roadless lands on the Forest (at that time), and made recommendations for future inclusion in the wilderness preservation system. The Forest Plan did not recommend including any of the project area in the wilderness system.

Roadless effects analysis for projects proposing roads, timber harvest, or surface disturbing activities within roadless lands must consider the potential effect of those projects to roadless land character, and the potential effects those activities may have on future wilderness designation. Additionally, roadless effects analysis must disclose and consider the effects to roadless character per the 2001 Roadless Rule, regardless of the potential for future designation. This project does not propose to construct any roads in inventoried roadless areas.

In 2001 the Roadless Final Rule (USDA, 2001) was published after lengthy public debate and review. This rule recognized that roadless lands have inherent value for protecting watersheds, providing wildlife habitat, providing drinking water, primitive recreation opportunities, etc. regardless of their future designation potential as Wilderness. The 2001 rule, and a subsequent revision to that rule published in 2005 have been subject to various lawsuits. Currently, the 2001 Rule is in effect, and the 2005 rule have been enjoined from implementation. The Forest Service

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-104

published interim agency direction interpreting the rule for land managing activities on National Forests that was in place for several years. That direction is now expired, and the reigning legal direction is the language in the 2001 Final Rule.

There is no current Forest Plan, policy or other legal direction that prohibits motorized recreation, nor the construction of motorized trails within inventoried roadless areas.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-105

WATER QUALITY

Introduction

Road and trail improvements associated with implementation of the Gallatin NF Travel Plan have potential to affect streams and water quality. This section addresses the potential sedimentation effects of the Travel Plan implementation on Road and trail use, particularly motorized use, which can adversely affect watershed integrity, particularly sediment levels. Road and trail construction, reconstruction, and decomissioning can result in localized sediment changes (increases or decreases). Parking facilities can also increase localized sediment during construction. Watershed condition, stream habitat characteristics, stream channel and form, and effects on watershed conditions are detailed in the Travel Plan FEIS, Issue 7: Fisheries. This report is focused on the potential sediment changes resulting from the roads and trail improvements in the Travel Plan.

Affected Environment

The Gallatin National Forest water resource affected environment was described in detail in the the Affected Environment section for Issue #20 (Watershed Management) on pages 3-535 to 3-538 of the GNF Travel Plan FEIS including key water functions, water quality road and trail impacts, Montana Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Limited Segments and TMDL’s and implementation schedule for the Gallatin NF.

The Gallatin National Forest has an extensive network of high quality stream habitat. Gallatin National Forest lands function as recharge areas for the Gallatin Valley Aquifer system and the City of Bozeman water supply. Sediment monitoring and modeling during the last 20 years has demonstrated that the Gallatin National Forest road system is the main source of human-caused sediment increases on the Forest. The potential effects of roads on sediment are most pronounced at stream crossings.

Most streams on the Gallatin National Forest are classified by the State of Montana as B-1. The Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness, Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Hyalite Creek waters are classified as A-1. The Bozeman Creek Watershed is classified as A-1 closed. Several streams on the Gallatin NF are listed as water quality limited segments and included in the Montana TMDL completion schedule as outlined in http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/TMDL/2007TMDL%20Schedule.pdf

Direct and Indirect Effects

Analysis Methodology

The methodology for analysis of water quality – sediment effects of the roads and trails improvements and road decomissioning in this EA is documented in detail in the Direct and Indirect

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-106

Effects section for Issue #20 (Watershed Management) on pages 3-538 to 3-541 of the GNF Travel Plan FEIS including a description of the R1R4 sediment model, travel management sediment modeling coefficients by geologic type, and baseline sediment levels for the no action alternative.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

This road and trail improvement and road decomissioning EA includes about 54 miles of trail maintenance, 90 miles of new trail construction, 25 miles of trail re-construction, 20 miles of clearing and marking, 19 miles of road resurfacing 124 miles of road decommissioning (restoration), 15 new trail heads, and about 1.8 mile of new road construction. In the Travel Plan FEIS, pages 3-541 to 3-548, the projected sediment levels for each alternative were estimated then tabulated for all Travel Planning areas by alternative in Table 3.20.10 by alternative (page 3-549). The analysis in the Travel Plan included the sediment effects of trail maintenance, trail construction, trail reconstruction, cross country ski trail reconstruction, construction of parking facilities, road resurfacing, and new road construction. These estimated sediment levels are shown for on page 3- 548 for Alternative 7-M (Table 3.20.9) for the selected alternative. The Travel Plan FEIS, however, did not account for mileage reduction in the green “project” roads, about 124 miles. The sediment effects of this 124 miles of decomissioning were then calculated for this EA as primarily sediment reductions for each TPA with reduced road mileage. In addition, 25 miles of decomissioning of excess roads in Mill Creek associated with the post fire rehabilitation of the Wicked Creek fire were included in the analysis. Table 10 below also includes the sediment effects of the 2006 and 2007 wildfires on the Gallatin NF (primarily Derby Fire, Jungle Fire, Passage Falls, Big Creek, Wicked Creek, Hicks Park, and South Pine fires).

Table 10. Alternative 1 Sediment Analysis of Roads and Trail Improvement and Wildfire Sediment through 2009

Sediment Type/Source – Tons/Year Non- Percent Travel Planning Area Area Natural Motorized Motorized Trail Road Timber Fire Total Over (mi sq) Trail Trail Natural AB Beartooth Plateau 102.7 770 0 0.87 0.87 0 771 0.11 AB Wilderness 809.3 7082 0 14.13 14.13 0 339 7435 4.99 Bangtails 27.8 556 122.20 11.04 1.44 12.48 2 4.91 0.04 695 25.13 Bear Canyon 17.5 219 1.4 0.40 1.80 2.0 2.75 41.2 270 23.7 Big Sky 27.8 694 5.22 2.33 7.55 325.96 52.12 1080 55.57 Bozeman Creek 33.7 422 0 1.14 1.14 20.706 0.05 443 5.19 Bridger Canyon 13.4 201 0 0.98 0.98 26.41 229 13.61 Cabin Creek 85.4 2136 6.09 3.90 9.99 23.2 253 2422 13.40 Cherry Creek 41.7 834 0.92 5.16 6.08 13.95 854 2.40 Cooke City 40.8 357 0.105 0.50 0.61 16.2 374 4.71 Deer Creeks 104.6 2092 21.16 3.24 24.40 60.45 51 2228 6.49 East Boulder 63.1 789 2.66 0.52 3.18 19.14 2.58 0.03 814 3.16 East Crazies 163.4 3268 2.3 6.36 8.66 63.24 30.5 3370 3.13 Fairy Lake 36.1 451 0.84 0.41 1.25 53.36 506 12.10

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-107

Table 10. Alternative 1 Sediment Analysis of Roads and Trail Improvement and Wildfire Sediment through 2009

Sediment Type/Source – Tons/Year Non- Percent Travel Planning Area Area Natural Motorized Motorized Trail Road Timber Fire Total Over (mi sq) Trail Trail Natural Gallatin Crest 175.5 1,755 5.28 4.05 9.33 10.58 4.1 1.7 1781 1.46 Gallatin River Canyon 55.5 555 0 0.99 0.99 7.905 0.03 564 1.61 Gallatin Roaded 95.5 955 3.24 0.63 3.87 113.16 12.37 31.45 1116 16.84 Gardiner Basin 39.9 399 0 0.48 0.48 28.52 0.02 428 7.28 Hebgen Lake Basin 90.3 903 0.12 0.00 0.12 80.04 0.33 984 8.91 Hyalite 32.4 324 0.36 0.66 1.02 27.6 0.044 353 8.84 Ibex 30.6 612 5.06 3.00 8.06 44.64 0 0 664 8.62 Lionhead 89.0 890 1.08 1.06 2.14 25.76 0.03 918 3.14 LM Wilderness Hilgards 52.1 391 0 0.60 0.60 0 391 0.15 LM Wilderness Monument 50.5 632 0 1.16 1.16 0 633 0.18 LM Wilderness Spanish Peaks 106.4 798 0 2.14 2.14 0 800 0.27 Main Boulder 32.3 242 0 0.43 0.43 3.5 0.37 2 249 2.6 Mill Creek 116.5 1310 0.29 1.33 1.62 51.48 0.44 118 1482 13.09 Mission 18.3 229 0 0.47 0.47 6.38 11.2 247 7.88 North Bridgers 52.8 660 0 1.13 1.13 45.82 707 7.12 Porcupine Buffalo Horn 93.8 938 4.08 1.74 5.82 0.92 1.04 946 0.83 Sawtooth 30.6 306 0 0.27 0.27 0.92 308 0.39 Shields 60.8 608 4.14 1.44 5.58 143.22 2.53 1368 12.44 South Plateau 62.1 621 0.36 0.44 0.80 72.68 0.78 0.02 695 11.97 Taylor Fork 120.3 3006 12.18 6.00 18.18 99.76 1.17 1.22 3127 4.00 Tom Miner Rock 36.3 363 0.12 0.30 0.42 43.24 0.04 407 12.03 West Bridgers North 36.3 454 2.1 0.36 2.46 5.22 462 1.69 West Bridgers South 21.2 265 1.4 0.72 2.12 5.8 13 286 7.89 Yankee Jim Canyon 77.5 775 0 0.67 0.67 37.72 1.11 814 5.10 Yellowstone 47.5 475 0 1.12 1.12 41.4 9.86 44.3 571 20.37 Total 32,42.5 38,337 92 73 164 1686 107 490 41392

Sediment levels for the roads and trails improvement decrease by a modeled 54 tons/year due to reduced road mileage due to decomissioning. Trail sediment for this proposed action and for the Travel Plan Alternative 7M is 76 tons/year less than the Travel Plan “No Action” Alternative 1 due primarily to reduction in motorized road sediment miles. However compared to the Travel Plan FEIS and ROD, the actual anticipated sediment levels are higher than the Travel Plan Alternative 7M due to first year GNF forestwide estimated sediment increases of 1,468 tons due to the 2006 and 2007 wildfires. By 2009 it is anticipated that the forestwide fire sediment would decrease to 490 tons/year. Sediment levels in the Bear Creek TPA (which included the 2001 Fridley fire), Deer Creeks TPA (which included much of the 2006 Derby fire), Boulder River TPA (which included the Hicks Park fire) particularly, would decrease fire sediment by 2009 and were adjusted accordingly. Total GNF sediment in 2009 for the no action alternative is anticipated to be slightly increased over the Travel Plan FEIS total due to the wildfires. Sediment levels in Alternative 1 would have a net decrease, even with the wildfires, due to road decomissioning.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-108

Table 11. Total GNF Sediment Total GNF Sediment Total GNF Sediment Total GNF Sediment for Travel Plan No Action with 2006 for Implementation of for Implementation of Alternative 7M (FEIS and 2007 wildfires Roads and Trail Roads and Trail & ROD) Alternative 2 Improvements Improvements Alternative 1 and 2006 and 2007 Wildfires Alternative 1 41,432 tons/year 41,446 tons/year 41,378 tons/year 41,392 tons/year

Sediment effects of trail construction, trail reconstruction, trail maintenance, parking facility construction, road resurfacing, road construction, and cross cross country trail clearing and maintenance are included in the road sediment modeled estimates for road and trail sediment in Table 10. Trail construction can result in short term sediment increases but with much narrower surface prisms and less sediment per mile of trail than for road construction as described in the Travel Plan FEIS 3-538 and 3-539. Cross country trail clearing and marking, and trail reconstruction have very little sediment effects. Trail maintenance, road resurfacing, and trail reconstruction generally reduce sediment yields. The parking facility construction associated with the roads and trail improvements are generally located in areas which are not directly connected as sediment source areas to streams. All of the trailhead area sediment is included in the sediment levels shown in Table 10 – Alternative 1.

During initial road decomissioning treatments, such as ripping, culvert removal, and especially recontouring, a small and localized sediment increase could occur. However, mitigation includes the construction of erosion ditches (water bars), slashing, and ripping of roads surfaces as needed to improve water infiltration. These measures are expected to quickly reduce sediment to below pretreatment levels. In addition, as vegetation reestablishes itself (from reseeding of native grasses and the natural reestablishment of grass, forbs, and shrubs) sediment levels would be reduced to 0-5 percent of untreated and native surfaced roads.

Table 10 displays estimated sediment yields for the Big Sky TPA at 5.22 tons/year for motorized trails and 2.33 tons/year for non-motorized trails. This sediment level is the same for the Travel Plan Alternative 7M and includes the sediment effects of construction of the connector ATV trail between the upper Buck Creek trailhead and the Inspiration Divide Trail #8. Construction of this connector trail should be deferred at least until completion of the Upper Gallatin TMDL plan by the Montana DEQ pending resolution of sediment issues in the South Fork of the West Fork of the Gallatin River and the West Fork of the Gallatin River. The Big Sky TPA is out of sediment standard compliance due to extensive roading, business, and residential construction on private land. Clarification of the sediment TMDL guidelines and controls in the West Fork Gallatin area are necessary before construction of this ATV connector is appropriate.

The Travel Plan areas with the largest wildfire impacts include AB Wilderness (South Pine, Passage Falls, Jungle, Wicked Creek, and Hicks Park fires), Deer Creeks (Derby Fire), Main Boulder (Jungle and Hicks Park fires), and Mill Creek (Passage Falls and Wicked Creek fires). Sediment increase was substantial in several drainages from the Derby fire including Upper and Lower Deer Creeks and Bridger Creek. The combination of the Jungle, Passage Falls, and Wicked Creek fires

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-109

posed substantial sediment increases to the West Fork of the Boulder River and Mill Creek. The changed effects are displayed in Table 10 for 2009 conditions. Many of the potential fire effects to trails and roads are being managed through approved BAER plans for the Derby, Jungle, Passage Falls, and Wicked Creek fires including road drainage, upgraded culvert sizes, hazard tree removal, ditch maintenance, and trail maintainence through improved drainage, tread replacement, trail reconstruction, and bridge and sign replacement.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Roads and Trails Improvement EA are accounted for and consistent with the cumulative effects analysis for the Watershed Management issue in the Travel Plan as outlined in the FEIS pages 3-550 to 3-553. The cumulative effects analysis includes all sediment producing activities to the external boundary including roads, trails, timber harvest, land clearing, wildfires (including the 2006 amd 2007 fires) and prescribed fires. The spatial scope of the cumulative effects analysis is the Gallatin NF to the external forest boundary. The temporal scope is 1980 to 2015 or until all of the roads and trail improvements are completed.

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

Cumulative effects are the combined impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable events on watershed conditions and water quality. The spatial area for cumulative effects for Watershed Management (Water Quality) includes the Gallatin National Forest to the external Forest Boundary, with any inclusive private, or other jurisdictional land. Below the Gallatin NF external forest boundary land use often changes from rural to residential and agricultural which generally has more intense watershed management (water quality) impacts than the forested lands of the Gallatin NF. For several resources cumulative effects were considered to the Gallatin NF boundary. The temporal scope is generally from 1995 to 2017 although all existing impacts are considered such as roads, ski areas, mining, and other management activities/impacts that may have started before 1995. Most of the road network in the sediment analysis was built before 1995. Temporal cumulative impacts for water quality modeling are considered to 2017 which is the out year limitation for the sediment model used for much of the cumulative effects analysis. Relative changes are small and will remain within existing Forest sediment guidelines with the exception of the Big Sky TPA. The Forest Service cannot mitigate sediment delivery in the Big Sky TPA, as the majority of the sediment impacts are on private land.

The sediment analysis in the Watershed Management in the GNF Travel Plan FEIS and for Alternative 1 in this EA contains an extensive cumulative accounting of all timber harvest and silvicultural activities, roads, motorized and non-motorized trails, wildfires, mining activity, ski areas, and other land disturbing impacts on all land jurisdictions within the external Gallatin NF boundary. This includes primarily National Forest lands but also private, State of Montana, and City of Bozeman lands. Program areas which have direct sediment effects include timber harvest and silvicultural activities, fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, prescribed fire, facilities (road, trails, road decommissioning), developed ski areas, and roads not under Gallatin Forest jurisdiction.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-110

For timber harvest/silvicultural activities sediment is currently about 107 tons/year which is about 0.25% of the total sediment production on the Gallatin NF. The cumulative timber sediment level does not change between alternatives. For roads (on all jurisdictions) sediment is currently about 1,777 tons/year which is about 4.3% of the total sediment production on the Gallatin NF. Road sediment is anticipated to be reduced to approximately 1686 tons/year in this proposed action (Alternative 1) due to road decomissioning. Trail sediment is projected at about 165 tons/year which is about 0.4% of the GNF total sediment production. For roads and trails combined sediment is currently about 1851 tons/year which is about 4.5% of the total sediment production on the Gallatin NF. Sediment impacts from system roads and trails is heavily dependent on maintenance, particularly water bar drainage. Cumulative road and trail sediment level changes only slightly between alternatives. Mining activities were included in the road, trail, or timber columns of total sediment impacts. The East Boulder mine is the largest active mine (Stillwater Mining Company) on the Gallatin NF. Extensive sediment monitoring above and below the mine in 1997-2006 has not documented any measurable sediment impacts from mine activities or road construction. The most intensive historical mining activity on the Gallatin NF has been in the New World Historical Mining District which is undergoing an extensive rehabilitation program. The GNF also has an active program of Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) assessment and rehabilitation.

Several BMP reviews of prescribed burn projects on the GNF have yet to identify accelerated erosion areas due to prescribed burning. Prescribed burn treatments have had no observed effects on water quality due to lack of new road construction, preponderance of low to moderate intensity broadcast burning, very limited ground disturbance, and frequent robust re-vegetation of spring burns. Developed ski area activities were included within the road, trail, or timber columns of total sediment impacts. Travel plan areas with ski area sediment impacts include Bridger Canyon (Bridger Bowl and Bohart Ranch) and Big Sky (Big Sky, Lone Mountain Ranch, Moonlight Basin, and Pioneer Mountain). Most of these impacts occur on private land but were included in the sediment tables under roads and timber.

Livestock grazing has had a moderate effect on water quality (sediment) in localized areas on the Gallatin NF. Site specific impacted areas are identified and evaluated through the AMP revision process. During the 1990’s several allotments were evaluated with formal BMP reviews which was useful in AMP revision. Since 1995 a more intensive geomorphic based inventory system on grazing allotments has been used to evaluate livestock impacts (channel stability ratings, channel typing, pebble counts, fish habitat parameters and more recently bank trampling and stubble height limitations). Livestock effects are considered in AMP analysis but not directly quantified in the sediment modeling since the sediment model does not have a specific grazing impact component. During the 1995 to 2006 period the number of AUM’s has decreased on the GNF (about 35% since 1988) due to reduction in sheep allotments, shortened grazing seasons, non-use or vacated allotments, and land exchange out of grazing areas. The Gallatin NF has localized areas of intense livestock impacts which are being actively reduced through the AMP revision process.

Other program areas, including dispersed recreation, outfitter/guide activity, other vegetation projects, lands activities, recreation residences and other developed recreation suites, non-recreation special uses, and wildlife management activities pose cumulative effects to watershed management which are primarily use of the road and trail system included in the sediment analysis in Tables 3.20

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-111

through Table 3.20.9 of the Travel Plan FEIS. The Gallatin NF has had a very active land acquisition program since 1987 acquiring 143,700 acres of lands within the National Forest boundary. Many of the acquired properties have significant wildlife, wetland, and water quality values and were subject to potential subdivision and development. The net result has been considerably fewer roads and residential development on these parcels than would have occurred otherwise. Another benefit has been the opportunity to decommission about 150 miles of roads in the Taylor Fork, North Gallatin, and Shields drainages. Fisheries management projects have often been coordinated with watershed projects and objectives resulting in a beneficial effect to watershed management. Stream improvement projects typically have short term turbidity increases and sediment mobilization and are permitted by the Montana DFWP and as appropriate the Montana DEQ for short term turbidity exceedance. These effects are generally very localized and short term. Most of the fishery projects have beneficial impacts to stream channel stability.

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

The cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities generally are not anticipated to greatly change sediment levels as displayed in GNF Travel Plan FEIS Tables 3.20 through Table 3.20.9 result in much change in overall road and trail sediment levels which are expected to remain similar to present with a slight decline (5% to 20%) in some Travel Planning areas due to decommissioning of project (green) roads. Travel planning areas with the greatest potential for road decommissioning include Bangtails, Cooke City, Gallatin Roaded, Mill Creek, and Shields. Bear Canyon trail reconstruction and increased maintenance is expected to greatly reduce sediment levels in that Travel Planning Area. A slight expected improvement in trail maintenance will locally reduce sediment potential. Dispersed recreation on the Gallatin National Forest is expected to increase by 5 to 44% depending on the activity. Local watershed management (water quality) impacts are expected to increase accordingly but will remain very low compared to the sediment impacts of the transportation (roads and trails) system.

All of the reasonably foreseeable timber harvest/silvicultural projects are fuel risk reduction, salvage, or insect and disease projects. Sediment and water quality impacts are expected to be minimal and considerably below levels from 1960-2000. Private land timber havesting activity is also expected to be reduced considerably from the last 2 decades. Livestock effects on water quality (sediment) are expected to continue to decline as the GNF completes revised AMP plans and incorporates more stringent riparian impact standards in AMP’s. The reasonably foreseeable revised AMP plans include adaptive management techniques designed to reduce riparian/water quality impacts.

Reasonably forseeable mineral exploration and development activity is expected to have minimal and very localized effect on watershed management (water quality) on the Gallatin NF. Probability that any unexplored areas would be developed in the next 15 years is low. No large salable minerals are expected to be developed. Leasable mineral development (oil/gas) on the Gallatin to 2017 is expected to be none to minimal.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-112

The Gallatin NF has greatly accelerated fuel reduction projects since 2000 with the initiation of the National Fire Plan. Reasonably foreseeable activities include Hebgen Basin fuels, Bozeman Municipal watershed, East Boulder, South Cottonwood, and multiple smaller fuel reduction projects. These projects have potential to increase sediment levels if road and commercial harvest activities are included. However, future GNF fuel treatment projects are expected to have limited effect on water quality due to lack of new road construction, preponderance of low to moderate intensity broadcast burning, very limited ground disturbing activity, and frequent robust re- vegetation of spring burns. Project specific potential sediment effects will be disclosed for each project as part of the ongoing NEPA process. Sediment effects of wildfires and wildfire suppression activity in the future are very speculative. A substantial potential exists on the GNF for large wildfires which pose large increases in sediment production if subjected to heavy precipitation within 2 years. Fire suppression can increase watershed disturbance via fire line construction, logistical service areas, helipads, etc. but includes provisions for immediate rehabilitation once the fire is controlled.

Using procedures outlined in the GNF Weeds EIS (2005), contamination of surface water should not occur during Gallatin Forest weed spraying activities, unless a spill occurred directly into a stream. Proposed treatments may still result in small amounts of herbicide entering water. The analysis indicates herbicide applications in all but a few 6th code HUCs on the Forest should remain well below “safe” concentrations and pose little risk to fisheries. This assumes project implementation and mitigation described in the EIS are followed. Results from the analysis indicate treatments proposed for weeds within 17 of the 108 6th code HUCs across the Forest, show some risk for exceeding “safe” concentrations in surface waters. These are constrained in the EIS by pounds of picloram per year to maintain potential concentrations below threshold levels.

Non-recreation special uses, wildlife management activities, heritage resource management activities, Yellowstone National Park and other National Forest travel management plans, and Non- Forest Service wildlife and fisheries management activities have limited cumulative effects other than using the Gallatin NF road and trails system and the effects of that system as previously discussed. No large land acquisition activities like the Gallatin land consolidation are likely in the future but the GNF will continue acquisition and land trade activities on several additional parcels. These acquisitions will continue to provide watershed management benefits primarily through potential development related sediment reduction and acquisition of wetland and riparian habitats.

Foreseeable non-recreation special use activities include hydroelectric development at Hegben Reservior dam, State Highway widening and improvements (Cooke City, Grayling Creek Hy 191 bridge, Gallatin Canyon Highway 191 improvements, communication sites, road and utility access to private land, commercial filming, community facilities such as the Cooke City public waters supply development. These activities generally pose minor and localized impacts on watershed management (sediment) and are disclosed and conditioned in the NEPA and permitting process.

Fish management conservation and restoration actions will continue and projects will likely increase in scale such as the Cherry Creek westslope cutthroat restoration project and the Hebgen Basin Fry Recruitment and Habitat Restoration/Enhancement project. These projects can result in short term turbidity increases depending on the degree of stream channel activity but are permitted

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-113

through the Montana DFWP, Montana DEQ, and GNF NEPA process. Overall watershed management effects are anticipated to be minor and positive.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities with the Travel Plan Alternatives

The Cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable programs and activities for sediment are addressed in the Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities, Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities, and Direct and Indirect Effects section for each alternative. In the Travel Plan FEIS, cumulative effects of sediment delivery decrease from Alternative 1 to Alternative 6. Alternative 7-M sediment effects were less than Alternatives 1-4 and slightly greater than Alternatives 5 and 6. Relative changes were very small between alternatives. In this Roads and Trails EA, total GNF sediment in 2009 for the No Action Alternative is anticipated to be slightly increased over the Travel Plan FEIS total due to the wildfires. Sediment levels in Alternative 1 would have a net decrease, even with the wildfires, due to road decomissioning.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

The State of Montana Water Quality Act requires the state to protect, maintain, and improve the quality of water for a variety of beneficial uses. Section 75-5-101, MCA established water quality standards based on beneficial uses. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has classified all non-Wilderness surface waters on the Gallatin National Forest as B1 except for Bozeman Creek (A-Closed) and Hyalite Creek (A-1). Waters classified as B1 must be suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. A 5 NTU (nephlelometric turbidity units) turbidity increase above naturally-occurring turbidity is allowed in B1 waters. Surface waters within the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness are classified as A1, and have similar suitability criteria for beneficial uses, except that no turbidity increase above naturally-occurring turbidity is allowed.

Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the State of Montana Water Quality Act as well as other applicable laws policies, and the Gallatin Forest Plan (USDA 1987). Sediment and TMDL compliance is described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section above. Best Management Practices will be employed under all alternatives to ensure consistency with these protection measures. Specific Montana water quality standards that will be met include Administrative Rules of Montana 17.30.623 (1), which requires that B1 waters ((non-Wilderness streams except for Bozeman Creek (A1 closed) and Hyalite Creek (A1)) after conventional treatment are suitable for growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life and 17.30.623 (2) (f) that does not allow increases above naturally-occurring concentrations of sediment that would render the waters harmful to public health, recreation, safety, livestock, fish or other wildlife.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-114

The Gallatin Forest Plan, Forest-wide Standards 10.2 (USDA 1987:II-23) requires that Best Management Practices will be used in all Forest watersheds.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-115

WOLVERINE

Introduction

This issue addresses the potential effects of the physical aspects of Travel Plan implementation on wolverines. Physical aspects include the restoration and stabilization of roads no longer needed for management or recreation purposes, as well as construction, reconstruction and maintenance of new or currently unsuitable facilities. Effects of changes in human use levels and distribution associated with Travel Plan implementation were addressed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (2006: Chapter 3, pp. 598-635). The wolverine is classified as a Forest Service sensitive species. Sensitive species are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is of concern. Changing transportation facilities on the ground can alter habitat conditions, which can alter wolverine use patterns over the short and long term. Noise and disturbance associated with human presence and the use of equipment can displace wolverines from otherwise suitable habitat.

Affected Environment

Wolverines are known or suspected to occur in all mountain ranges on the Gallatin National Forest. They are considered forest carnivores because they typically occupy habitats within or near forest cover. Generally speaking, wolverines are disproportionately present in relatively high elevations that contain alpine vegetation, exhibit alpine climatic conditions, and have a high probability of retaining snow cover in spring (Aubry et al. 2007:2152-3). Studies of wolverines on the Gallatin Forest show similar habitat use patterns. Inman and others (2003:29) reported wolverine detections ranging from 4,900 – 11,800 feet elevation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with the majority of use occurring above 6,900 feet. This tendency for wolverines to occupy generally higher elevation areas has been confirmed by additional inventory and surveys conducted on the Gallatin Forest (Dixon and Wold, unpublished data; Gehman and Robinson, unpublished data). Wolverines occupy higher elevations where temperatures are cooler during summer months (Hornocker and Hash 1981:1298), but show a seasonal shift in elevational use patterns, moving to slightly lower elevations in winter (Ibid:1291). A detailed description of wolverine habitat relationships can be found in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (2006: Chapter 3 pp. 598-600).

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

Potential effects to wolverines associated with the proposed action would occur in the form of habitat modification through construction/reconstruction of new/improved facilities, and also due to disturbance associated with noise and human presence at construction, reconstruction and/or restoration locations. Habitat modification would primarily be related to removal of cover as trees and other vegetative cover are removed to create new and/or improve existing travel facilities (e.g. roads, trails, parking areas.) Loss of security cover could affect wolverine travel and behavioral patterns. However, most of the proposed new construction and reconstruction involves the use of existing routes (e.g. old project roads, etc) or occurs in natural openings, where vegetation removal

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-116

would be limited. Effects resulting from habitat loss and/or modification due to Travel Plan implementation are also addressed in the General Wildlife section of this EA.

Disturbance comes in the form of noise and activity associated with equipment and human presence at work sites. Such disturbance can cause displacement of wolverines from otherwise suitable habitat, or can result in behavioral changes in the way wolverines use habitat. The fact that wolverines are habitat generalists with the theme of remoteness from humans and human development (Banci 1994:100) implies that wolverines are highly sensitive to human disturbance. Disturbance from human activities can affect wolverines in a number of ways. Potential biological responses include elevated heart rate and respiration, increased blood sugar levels, increased blood flow to skeletal muscles and a corresponding decrease of blood flow to the skin and digestive organs (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995:95). These responses all occur in preparation for what Cannon (1929) coined as the “fight or flight response.” These reactions pose an energetic cost to animals at times of critical energy deficiencies, such as during winter or food shortages, and could have serious health consequences for individual wolverines.

Behavioral reactions to disturbance from humans could result in displacement from familiar territories, security cover and foraging opportunities. Wolverines choosing to flee from human intrusions may become more vulnerable to altercations with other predators. Displacement effects have the greatest potential for impacts on females with vulnerable young, as well as juvenile and subadult animals that have not yet established secure home range territories.

Most of the Travel Plan implementation activities are scheduled to occur during summer and fall months when wolverines tend to stay at the highest elevations. There would be little impact on reproductive females with young at natal or maternal den sites, since the reproductive period for wolverines is during winter and spring, and occurs in areas where snowpack would preclude execution of Travel Plan implementation activities. However, implementation activities that occur in high elevation alpine habitats during summer could potentially disrupt normal behavioral patterns of breeding pairs or family groups of wolverines (Banci 1994:110). Disturbance that results in displacement of potential mates away from each other, or separation of young from their mothers could influence wolverine reproduction and survival rates.

The majority of implementation projects (road and trail construction, reconstruction and restoration) are slated to occur in mid- to lower-elevation areas that wolverines are not expected to frequent during summer/fall months, and should therefore have minimal disturbance effects. The exceptions involving new construction or reconstruction are located in the Emigrant Gulch area, along the Bridger Ridge, in the Cooke City area, the Continental Divide trail in the Mile Creek and Lionhead areas, and Pika Point. These are the higher elevation project areas identified for creating new or improved travel routes. The majority of road restoration/stabilization projects are located in mid- to lower-elevation areas, with work concentrated in the Gallatin Roaded, Hyalite, Tom Miner/Rock and Hebgen Basin areas. These areas (at mid- to lower elevations) are not expected to be frequented by wolverines during the summer/fall implementation seasons.

Since the majority of Travel Plan implementation activities would occur at lower elevations than wolverines are expected to occur during summer/fall months, would not overlap with the winter wolverine reproductive season, and would be of relatively short duration in any one location, Travel

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-117

Plan implementation projects would have very minimal disturbance impacts on wolverines across the Gallatin Forest landscape.

Analysis Methodology

Potential effects of Travel Plan implementation on wolverines were assessed using a variety of tools. Agency monitoring and surveying records were reviewed for insight to wolverine occurrence, distribution and habitat use patterns within the Forest, compared with proposed Travel Plan implementation project locations. Scientific literature was consulted for additional information on wolverine biology, ecology and possible impacts from ground-disturbing projects.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Alternatives considered here include the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) (e.g. Travel Plan implementation projects) and No Action (Alternative 2) (e.g. no construction/reconstruction of new and improved facilities; no restoration/stabilization of roads no longer needed for management purposes). Under the proposed action, there would be some minor habitat alterations, primarily at lower elevations, involving removal of security cover, resulting from work required to create new routes or improve existing facilities. On the other hand, road restoration and stabilization activities under the proposed action could have indirect effects over the longer term by creating conditions more conducive to vegetative re-growth on restored road surfaces, which is another form of habitat alteration, but would potentially add, rather than remove cover. Road closures and subsequent vegetation recovery would have some potential benefits for wolverines, by providing more security cover in areas that might be used as travel routes during dispersal or other movement patterns.

In summary, there would be some impacts to wolverines associated with habitat modification and disturbance due to the proposed action. However, most new construction and reconstruction projects would occur at mid to lower elevations, which tend to not be used as frequently by wolverines as higher elevation types. In addition, many of the proposed new routes provide loop connecters for existing routes, and some have been established as “user-built” routes for a while now, so disturbance from recreational use may already be a factor in some areas. Long term ecological benefits to be gained from water quality and security cover improvements associated with road restoration and stabilization projects would outweigh short term disturbance effects caused by construction and reconstruction of new and existing routes.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-118

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-119

Cumulative Effects

Net Effects of Past and Present Programs and Activities

Past and present human uses and actions have contributed cumulative effects to wolverines primarily in the form of habitat alterations and associated human development, on both public and private lands. Human-induced habitat modifications, both temporary and permanent, alter the wolverine’s natural habitat in ways that can reduce security and thermal cover, affect prey distribution, improve access for other predators and competitors, or pose barriers to movement. Human use in wolverine habitat can cause wolverine mortality through trapping or vehicle collisions. Disturbance from human activities in wolverine habitat can affect wolverine physiology, behavior, and habitat use patterns, which can deplete critical energy reserves, and/or displace wolverines from otherwise suitable habitat. Excessive energy loss can affect the overall fitness of individual wolverines. Long-term or permanent displacement effectively reduces the amount of suitable habitat available for use by wolverines. A detailed analysis of cumulative effects due to activities and programs other than travel management implementation is available in the Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS project file (Dixon 2006b). A summary of the major land use actions considered to impact wolverines is provided here.

Habitat alterations from past activities include vegetation management, fire, insect and disease outbreaks, weed infestations and major developments that alter the wolverine’s natural habitat and/or pose barriers to movement. Removal of forest cover, either through anthropogenic or natural processes has the effect of reducing security cover available to wolverines, and can affect foraging opportunities by altering plant communities and/or distribution of prey species. Activities that remove forest cover at higher elevations could affect reproductive denning habitat suitability by altering structure that may be contributing important denning habitat components; e.g. fallen logs (Banci 1994:110).

Major habitat alterations associated with human development, agriculture, large-scale mining operations and recreation resorts have likely had the greatest cumulative impact to wolverines occupying habitat in the Gallatin National Forest. Extreme habitat alteration and high levels of human disturbance are associated with communities outside the forest boundary (Big Timber, Livingston, Bozeman and West Yellowstone), as well as smaller communities inside the forest boundary (Big Sky, Gardiner, Cooke City, Silvergate, Jardine and the Royal Teton Ranch). Major mining activities have occurred in areas around Cooke City, Jardine and the Stillwater mining complex. Developed ski areas by nature of the activity are generally located in high quality winter wolverine habitat. Clearing trees for runs, lifts, and other facilities has resulted in a permanent habitat loss for wolverines, while disturbance associated with ski area use has reduced the amount of suitable winter habitat, including reproductive denning habitat. Developed ski areas that affect wolverine habitat within or near the Gallatin Forest include Bridger Bowl, Big Sky, Moonlight Basin and Pioneer Mountain.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-120

Projected Combined Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities

Projected effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities have potential for both positive and negative cumulative effects to wolverines and their habitat. Generally speaking, traditional land management practices are trending toward more ecologically sensitive programs. Unmanaged recreation, invasive species, unnatural fuel buildup and loss of open space are major ecological threats recognized by public land management entities. Accordingly, management practices are being redesigned to reduce ecological impacts while still allowing for the maximum spectrum of land uses within the capability of resources. Reasonably foreseeable land management actions on the Gallatin Forest will be more focused on ecological restoration, through application of resource integration strategies and tools such as fuel reduction, invasive species treatment, water quality improvement and habitat enhancement. On the other hand, private land development is occurring at an exponential rate. Major developments (cities, high-volume/speed transportation systems) can influence movement capability and thus affect wolverine dispersal patterns and distribution. Reasonably foreseeable actions that could have a major impact on wolverines and their habitat include the approved expansion and development at Bridger Bowl Ski Area (involves clearing of runs, etc. on National Forest System land plus potential commercial and housing development on private land), plus other major commercial and housing development on private land.

The Gallatin Land Consolidation Act of 1998 involved a massive exchange of checkerboard lands between the USFS and Big Sky Lumber Company. This exchange served to consolidate large blocks of land into private ownership in the Battle Ridge area, the west side of the Bangtail Mountains and the Big Sky area. These lands are now much more accessible for housing development. It is reasonably foreseeable that these areas will continue to be developed in the future. The Big Sky area contains high quality wolverine habitat and is important in terms of providing habitat continuity in the Madison Mountain Range. The Bangtails and Battle Ridge areas have lower quality habitat for wolverines, but are important for maintaining habitat connectivity between the Gallatin Forest and key wolverine habitat in northwest Montana.

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Programs and Activities by Travel Plan Implementation Alternatives

Under the Proposed Action, there would be some increases in disturbance and slight habitat modification due to construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization efforts required to create new routes, improve existing facilities, and close/rehabilitate old road surfaces that are no longer needed for management or recreation purposes. These factors are added to disturbance associated with increased use expected to occur on new and improved facilities, as well as increased recreational use in general associated with increasing human populations and subsequent demands for recreation opportunities. Longer term beneficial effects associated with road restoration and stabilization, combined with improved recreation management resulting from full implementation of Travel Plan direction, are expected to offset disturbance and habitat modification impacts through overall reductions in motorized route densities, restored security habitat, and improved water quality, all of which contribute to improved ecosystem health.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-121

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional disturbance or habitat modification impacts due to construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization efforts. However, recreation use levels and demand are expected to continue to increase with or without the proposed projects. Impacts from general recreation use may be harder to manage without completion of new routes and improvements proposed for Travel Plan implementation, as recreationists continue to forge their own connecter routes, re-routes around difficult portions of existing routes, and continue to use old project roads identified for restoration and stabilization.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

The wolverine is native to this area, and is classified as a Forest Service sensitive species. Direction for management of sensitive species is contained in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.1), which states that these species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. The Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987) directs that habitat essential for species identified as sensitive will be managed to maintain those species. The Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan (2006) contains forest-wide direction (goals, objectives, standards and guidelines) including specific measures designed to minimize impacts on sensitive species such as the wolverine. This direction would be followed for proposed construction, reconstruction, restoration and stabilization associated with implementation of the Travel Plan. Both the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative would be consistent with all current laws, regulations, policy and direction for management of wolverine habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-122

RARE PLANTS

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternative travel plans may have on rare plants. Rare plants are discussed in the following analysis on a Forest-wide level for specific road and trail work has been identified for on-the-ground implementation over the next 5 years. The term ‘rare plants’ is used because changes in terminology may occur in the future, and rare plants should always be given consideration. The present term used is ‘sensitive plants’, and these are species designated by the Regional Forester for the Forests in the Region. The effects of the proposed implementation of the Travel Plan over the next 5 years on rare plants, beginning in 2009, is addressed.

The definition of sensitive species is: Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a.) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or b.) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670).

Travel Plan implementation may affect rare plant species. The main effect of the travel management alternatives on rare (sensitive, threatened, or endangered) plants would mostly be in the cases where new roads or trails are proposed for construction. Where roads and trails already occur, some rare plants may have been lost through habitat loss, and potential upgrades could widen or alter an existing route or create a new route that could affect or remove rare plants. The Rare Plants issue of the Travel Plan (2006) and Travel Plan Record is incorporated by reference. The project currently being analyzed is the on-the-ground implementation of the Travel Plan. Some of the various activities entailed in implementing the Travel Plan can disturb existing vegetation and soil. These are the activties that can impact sensitive plant species and include some of the activities listed below. There is also the potential indirect effect of facilitating invasion of an area where there is a rare plant species with a weed species that could then dominate the site. Weeds are addressed as a separate issue in this EA. The Forest Service is beginning another phase in the implementation of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan) through the initiation of the environmental analysis for improvement work proposed for Forest roads and trails. The work being proposed would occur over an approximately 5 year period beginning in 2009 and includes:

1. Construction of the new trail connectors identified in the Travel Plan designed to create loop opportunities for ATVs, motorcycles and mountain bikes. 2. Construction of other trail segments to accommodate the non-motorized and winter opportunities (both snowmobiling and skiing) targeted to be provided by the Travel Plan. 3. Reconstruction of existing roads and trails to accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan (e.g. reconstructing a single track trail so that it can accommodate ATVs). 4. Construction and reconstruction of trailheads and parking facilities needed to accommodate user demand. Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-123

5. Surfacing of high priority roads and replacement of culverts to facilitate aquatic fish passage. 6. Restoration and stabilization of certain excess roads not designated for motorized use by the Travel Plan.

Mitigation has been added to the proposed activity which states: All projects will be surveyed prior to construction for rare plants and appropriate mitigation will be applied if sensitive plants are found (EA Chapter 2).

Affected Environment

The analysis area is the entire Gallatin National Forest where routes are specified for some type of action in the next 5 years of Travel Plan implementation. There is the potential to remove or affect rare plants where there are travel routes being treated in this project. There are some areas where the rare plant species are more likely to be found, including bogs, streambanks and wet meadows, etc. (see Table 12). The potential affect would increase with increased length and increased width of routes and type of ground disturbing activity. New ground disturbance or alteration is of most concern for this issue. Table 12. Sensitive Plants on the Gallatin National Forest in 2008. Species Existence on Habitat GNF Adoxa moschatellina (musk-root) Suspected Forest, moist, crevices and boulders at mid-hi elevation Aquilegia brevistyla (short-styled Known Woods and streambanks columbine) 5000-6200’ Balsamorhiza macrophylla (large- Known Open hills, bunchgrass, leaved balsamroot) 7000-8500’ Cypripedium parviflorum (small Known Bogs, seeps, 3000-6200’ yellow lady's slipper) Drosera anglica (English Sundew) Known Bog-related Eleocharis rostellata (Beaked Known Bog species spikerush) Epipactis gigantea (Giant Suspected Springs, bogs, fens, 2000- helleborine) 5750’ Eriophorum gracile (Slender Known Bog species cottongrass) Gentianopsis simplex (Hiker's Suspected Bogs, meadows, 4400-8400’ gentian) Goodyera repens (Northern Suspected Open mossy forests 5040- rattlesnake plantain) 6800’ Haplopappus macronema var. Known Rocky open slopes, talus, at macronema (Discoid goldenweed) or above timberline 7640+’ Juncus hallii (Halls' rush) Known Moist to dry meadows, 6900-

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-124

8400’ Polygonum douglasii spp. austiniae Suspected Open, gravelly, shale soils, (Austin's knotweed) eroding slopes, montane zone, 5800-6800’ Ranunculus jovis (Jove's buttercup) Known Sage to forested slopes 7500- 9500’ Salix barrattiana (Barratt's willow) Known Cold, moist soil near or above timberline 6800- 10500’ Shoshonea pulvinata (Shoshonea) Suspected Open limestone outcrops, ridges, thin, rocky soil 6800- 9000’ Thalictrum alpinum (Alpine Suspected Moist alkaline meadows in meadowrue) montane and subalpine 6500- 7000’ Veratrum californicum (California Suspected Wet meadows and false-hellebore) streambanks in montane, subalpine, alpine meadows 5000-8500’

At this time the Gallatin National Forest has 19 species of plants that are categorized as sensitive by the Regional Forester (see above, Table 12). There are currently no threatened or endangered species of plants present on the Forest, but the potential is there that in the future there may be one or more plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The sensitive plant list is subject to change by the Regional Forester. Sensitive species management direction comes from the Forest Service Manual 2670.22.

• Ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions by avoiding or minimizing impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern.

• The Forest Service is to maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

• A Biological Evaluation is used to analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Six of these 19 sensitive plant species are normally associated with bog or fen habitats, which are extremely rare to nonexistent on the Forest. Two of the 19 species are usually associated with streambanks or wet meadows, and several of these plants are fairly high elevation species. The

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-125

remaining species are found in various habitats from open, dry sites to forests, to rocky sites.

For the proposal, Alternative 1, all areas where ground disturbance is expected will be surveyed prior to project implementation (Chapter 2, EA). Rare plant surveys will be conducted prior to project implementation on various route locations. This allows impact to sensitive plants to be avoided such that there will be no direct or indirect impact to sensitive plant populations. Some individual plants could be impacted if they are not discovered on the survey or if avoidance is not possible.

Analysis Methodology

There is mitigation built into Alternative 1 that essentially negates this issue. All routes that are new or that are impacting soil and plants that have not been impacted before (e.g. by widening), will be surveyed prior to implementation so that sensitive plants may be avoided. In some cases, projects in the existing route prism may occur without rare plant survey work. This mitigation would result in either a determination of ‘no impact’ or ‘may impact individuals but not lead to a trend toward federal listing.”

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1, Proposal

There will be no direct or indirect impact to sensitive plant species because routes where ground disturbance is expected will be surveyed prior to the work occurring, and sensitive plants would be avoided. This is the mitigation described in the Travel Plan, Rare Plant issue which is incorporated by reference.

Alternative 2, No Action

Impacts to sensitive plants under this alternative may occur because of the proliferation of non- system routes in areas where the occurrence of sensitive plants is not known.

Cumulative Effects

Because this issue can be completely mitigated and there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-126

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

The proposed standard is consistent with Forest Service policy on sensitive plants (FSM 2670.22). The application of this standard will protect sensitive plant species that could be affected by travel management implementation.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-127

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

Introduction

This section addresses the potential effects that the alternatives may have on sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. All Forest Service planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities are to be reviewed for possible effects on sensitive species (FSM 2672.4). The Forest Service Northern Region has identified Sensitive Species of vertebrates and plants for which population viability may be a concern, as evidenced by: 1) Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, 2) Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability, which may reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5.19). Protection of sensitive species and their habitats is a response to the mandate of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native vertebrate species (36 CFR 219.19).

The Region sensitive species list (for wildlife, aquatic and plants) was updated as of October 2008 (USDA 2008). The following terrestrial species are listed as sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and are either known or suspected to occur in one or more of the travel planning area(s): grizzly bear, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, harlequin duck, trumpeter swan, and wolverine. The effects of the travel planning alternatives on wolverine and grizzly bear are addressed separately under those issues. The bald eagle was originally analyzed as a threatened species but this species was federally delisted and is now analyzed here as a sensitive species. The northern goshawk was removed from the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (Tidwell 2008) but is addressed as a designated management indicator species in the Gallatin Forest Plan.

The effect of travel planning on sensitive terrestrial species was addressed in the Gallatin Forest Travel Plan EIS and is incorporated here by reference. The specialist report concluded that it was difficult to quantify effects due to the temporal and spatial nature of the habitat and life history requirements of these sensitive species. Therefore, a site-specific analysis was not completed. Rather, a qualitative discussion of indirect and direct effects of travel planning on species and their habitat was provided.

The EIS determined that the ability to manage recreational activity with special closure orders is critical in protecting species and their habitats. This tool enables closures to be managed when necessary to limit human activity and timing in an area. In addition, programmatic management direction (GOAL G, H, and I) adopted in the Travel Plan provides the opportunity to better protect critical sites. The report also suggested that appropriate mitigation and monitoring could focus implementation efforts and allow flexibility when there is need for constraints, limitations, or restrictions in recreational activities during critical time periods in critical habitat areas. This is the primary focus for this analysis.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-128

Affected Environment

The following table summarizes the affected environment, life history, and occurrence of terrestrial wildlife species on the Gallatin Forest. This information was also considered during the Travel Plan EIS analysis and can be found in that project file. Bald eagle was analyzed as a separate issue due to its designation as a listed species at that time but is now included here. Designated sensitive species wolverine and grizzly bear are analyzed separately.

Table 13. Sensitive Species; life history, affected environment, Gallatin Travel occurrence

Sensitive Life History and Affected Environment Occurrence on Gallatin Species Forest Bald Eagle The bald eagle was removed from the Endangered Species list Bald eagle nesting on the (de-listed), in 2007 and is now treated as a sensitive species by Gallatin National Forest is the Forest Service. The bald eagle is typically associated with generally limited to Hebgen and large lakes (> 80 acres) and major river courses. They feed Earthquake Lakes. There are primarily on fish and carrion. Bald eagles in Montana occupy eight known occupied territories. riparian habitat almost exclusively during the breeding season, See map of bald eagle nest but occasionally exploit upland areas for food and roost sites, territories. especially during winter. Generally, eagles are most sensitive to human activities during the nest building, egg laying, and incubation period, which is normally from February 1 to May 30 with fledging occurring as late as August 15. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan Biological Opinion (2006) provides measures, terms and conditions, and monitoring requirements for the management of bald eagles. The Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (1994) provides guidelines and recommendations for nest site management. Peregrine The peregrine falcon was removed from the Endangered Species Peregrine are considered Falcon list (de-listed), in August 1999 and is now treated as a sensitive residents with historical and species by the Forest Service. The peregrine is a predatory bird active eyries located across the that feeds almost exclusively on other avian species, taking their Forest, as habitat is available. prey in flight. Peregrine nests (eyries) are located in cliff and Particularly high quality nesting rock formations typically associated with hydrographic features sites occur along the Gallatin such as rivers and lakes. Riparian habitat and open meadows River Canyon where potential adjacent to nesting habitat are preferred hunting areas for cliff habitat attracts nesting peregrines. Paired peregrine falcons arrive at their eyries around peregrine falcons. mid-March. Eggs are laid directly on the cliff substrate starting in early to mid-April. Fledging occurs from mid-June to mid- July, about 42 days post hatching. Juvenile birds stay in the area several weeks (75 days) after hatching; remaining in the area as late as mid-August. Black- The black-backed woodpecker is a primary cavity nester It is highly probable that black- backed woodpeckers are using backed inhabiting northern coniferous forests from central Alaska, any of the burned areas resulting Woodpecker through most of Canada and into the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Black-backed from wildfire in the last 5-7 woodpeckers excavate holes in snags and live trees with heart years. This would include (but rot (McClelland 1979, Degraff and others 1991). Thomas not be limited to) the following (1979) listed an abundant supply of dead trees with deteriorating burned areas: Beaver Creek heartwood as a special habitat requirement providing adequate (2000), Purdy (2001), Fridley

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-129

nesting and foraging sites. Black-backed woodpeckers are (2001), Brundage (2003), relatively restricted and more abundant in early post-fire forests, Rathbone (2003), Derby (2006), and quickly colonize forested areas post-disturbance (stand Big Creek (2006), Passage Falls replacement fire, insect and disease outbreaks) (Hutto 1995, (2006), Jungle (2006), Cherry 1997). Use of burned areas decrease significantly Wicked/Hicks Complex (2007), after 6 years (Hutto 1995). Optimal habitat for the black- Madison Arm (2007). See map backed woodpecker can be created through wildfires and has of black-backed woodpecker likely increased across the Forest in recent years due to large suitable habitat. fire events. Flammulated Flammulated owls are associated with seral and climax, late- Little is known about this owl’s successional forests. These owls are secondary cavity nesters, Owl presence on the Gallatin Forest. feeding almost exclusively on insects. They require adequate One male territorial call was insect forage base and a large snag component. They have been detected in the Bridger Range in observed in a variety of habitats, but seem to prefer mature, the past; owls were not recorded open stands of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Suitable habitat during subsequent surveys is marginal except where ponderosa pine and lower elevation conducted in 2005. Douglas fir forest types occur. Townsend’s Townsend's big-eared bats are gregarious, relatively sedentary There are no known hibernacula Big-eared species (non-migratory) exhibiting a high degree of site fidelity, or maternity roosts on the Bat returning year after year to the same maternity roost Gallatin Forest. Suitable habitat (Torquemada and Cherry 1995). This colonial species will roost including numerous roosting in caves, rock outcrops, lava tubes, buildings, and occasionally sites (caves, mine shafts, large mine shafts. They will also roost under the loose bark of snags diameter trees with flaky bark or use tree cavities (Bull and others 1997). The Townsend's big- and rock outcrops) and suitable eared bat is insectivorous, capturing insects after dark using foraging habitat (streams, ponds, echolocation to find prey (Reel and others 1989). They forage lakes and wet meadows) occurs over mesic coniferous and deciduous tree canopy, wet meadows across the Forest. and other areas of open water with riparian vegetation (Torquemada and Cherry 1995, Kunz and Martin 1982). Their primary prey includes small lepidoptera (Ross 1967), beetles, flies and other flying insects (Torquemada and Cherry 1995). Harlequin Harlequin ducks are small sea ducks that winter in coastal Approximately 5-7 pairs of Duck waters before migrating inland to nest along mountain streams. Harlequin ducks nest and forage They nest on the ground on islands, on cliffs, under creek bank along the Main Boulder River overhangs, in cavities, logjams and under bushes or trees. and its tributaries. A harlequin Harlequins prefer shallow, cold, fast moving streams 3 to 150 duck with brood was observed in feet wide, with interspersed meanders and backwaters the main fork of Mill Creek containing cobble and boulder substrates with less than a 5% during the early 1990’s and gradient. Boulders, log and debris jams serve as loafing sites again in 2004 (pre-Passage Falls within the channel. Harlequins forage along the bottom of swift and Wicked wildfires). streams, looking between rocks for mollusks, insects, aquatic invertebrates and occasionally fish. Most harlequin ducks, especially females, return to the same breeding sites year after year (Reel and others 1989). Trumpeter Trumpeter swans inhabit a small portion of the Gallatin Forest. Trumpeter swan wintering areas Swan They nest in secluded areas on the margins of interconnected occur in the Hebgen Lake area. shallow marshes and lakes within forested or sagebrush habitat, There is no known nesting and oxbow habitat along rivers. They often use the same site for occurring on the Gallatin several years building a platform nest made of emergent National Forest. vegetation. Trumpeters frequent ice-free portions of slow moving rivers and streams that remain open in the winter. Management efforts have been focused on protecting and enhancing nesting and wintering habitat (Hamann and others 1999). Ice-free winter habitat is critically important to

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-130

trumpeter swans in the Rocky Mountain region (Reel and others 1989).

Management Life History and Affected Environment Occurrence in Gallatin Indicator TPAs Species Northern Northern goshawks occupy coniferous and mixed forests with Goshawk sightings have been Goshawk structural old growth characteristics. Douglas-fir and western reported on the Gallatin and larch have been reported to be the preferred species of nesting nesting territories have been trees for goshawks in the northern Rockies; however, Hayward recorded across the Forest. (1983) and Patla (1989) noted use of lodgepole pine. Lodgepole Alternative nests may be used pine was used as nest trees 61% of the time on the Beaverhead from year to year although nest NF, usually in close proximity to openings and water sources stand fidelity is high. Not all (Lemke 1994). According to Clough (2000), the three most territories are known to be active common prey species in west-central Montana were snowshoe every year. See map of goshawk hare, red squirrel, and Columbian ground squirrel with suitable nesting habitat. mammals and birds overall contributing 81% and 19%of the total prey biomass respectively. Three components of goshawk habitat have been identified: the nest area (30+ acres, the post fledging area (420 acres), and foraging area (5,400 acres) (Graham and others 1993). Goshawks occupy nesting and post- fledging areas from March 1 through late September. Nestlings may fledge by early August but stay within this area for up to two months until they have learned to hunt and are no longer dependent on the adults. Human presence and ground disturbing activities may cause mortality and/or abandonment of nesting and post-fledging territories as well as loss of habitat (nesting or roosting trees). Recommendations to protect active nests and the post-fledgling areas from disturbance are provided in Brewer et.al. (2007) and serves as mitigation for this project. Samson (2006) concluded that the northern goshawk and its habitat appear abundant and well distributed across Region 1 of the Forest Service.

Direct and Indirect Effects

According to Knight and Cole (1995), human activities such as those proposed can impact animals through disturbance or habitat modification. Habitat modification is a more obvious effect and has a temporal element. The road and trail construction and reconstruction planned for this project would result in removal of vegetation where needed to create a transportation corridor to specified clearing widths. This translates to a direct loss of habitat within the defined transportation corridor. On the contrary, decommissioning takes roads out of use, replacing habitat previously lost and restoring vegetation.

Different species groups respond to disturbance similarly, but uniquely. For example, use of heavy equipment, blasting, jack hammering, work crews, and use of ATVs or helicopters may cause displacement of terrestrial species during the time of operation. Disturbance can cause behavioral or physiological responses that may ultimately lead to displacement from a preferred habitat or even reduced productivity. Displacement may be temporary or long-term but generally coincides with the timing of activities associated with the disturbance. Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-131

Table 14. Sensitive species; review of effects and determination

Sensitive Review of Effects Determination* Species Bald Eagle No activities associated with this project would increase the access above MIIH – Activities that which was already analyzed in the Gallatin Travel Plan EIS. Travel proposed for the Plan programmatic direction (Hebgen Basin Travel Planning Area) was Hebgen Basin and adopted which provides secure bald eagle nesting sites. The Biological Lionhead areas are in Opinion (BO) received from the FWS (2006) for the Travel Plan prior to the vicinity of known delisting also provided management requirements. Reasonable and prudent measures include efforts to: “reduce the potential for human-caused territories. Disturbance mortality and disturbance of bald eagles attempting to nest and/or forage could potentially within the action area”. To implement this nondiscretionary measure, disturb or displace terms and conditions were included which require monitoring bald eagle nesting individuals and nest productivity annually to assess occupancy and activity. With may pose risk to fledging mitigation in place, the proposed road and trail projects are well within success – see mitigation terms and conditions of the BO. Activities would not affect any individual section. eagles, or potential habitat, except where located near known territories. Peregrine Falcons can be disturbed during nesting season by human intrusion, with a MIIH: Foraging and potential loss of productivity due to disruption of courtship activities, over- Falcon nesting habitat will exposure of eggs or young birds to weather, premature fledging of remain physically juveniles, or direct mortality from shooting and harassment (Hamann and unaltered. Suitable others 1999). Berger (1969) notes disturbance to the reproductive history habitat available in some of fourteen eyries in the form of picnickers and rock climbers. Dekker areas of project work (1967) discusses possible factors for falcon disappearance including including Emigrant disturbances by bird watchers and photographers. Fyfe (1969) and Gulch, Bridger Ridge, and Enderson (1974) attributed local decline of nesting peregrines to human the river corridor portions disturbance including rock climbing and picnicking, non-motorized of Gallatin Roaded, Buck activities facilitated by transportation routes. Snow (1972) states that rock Ridge, and Sage Creek. climbing near eyries usually cause falcons to abandon nesting activities. Disturbance to nesting Regardless, an eyrie consistently occupied and successfully fledged six out birds may pose risk to of eight times since 1997 is located in an area influenced by high levels of fledging success at the foot and vehicle traffic thus showing a high tolerance for human activity eyrie in the Gallatin and noise. The proposed road and trail projects would be a similar Roaded area – see disturbance as those mentioned above. Travel Plan programmatic direction mitigation section. (Gallatin River Canyon Travel Planning Area) was adopted which designate river and cliff access routes and parking areas to avoid negatively impacting peregrine falcon habitat through increased access. Black-backed Direct effects of the road and trail project work would contribute to a loss MIIH: Optimal habitat is Woodpecker of snags and snag recruitment that may affect individual woodpecker nest present and may be success. Few of the projects impact optimal (recently burned) habitat. impacted through the Forested areas that burned prior to 2000 probably do not provide beetle direct loss of snag habitat. populations, a food source critical to black-backed woodpecker, to the Disturbance could extent as recently burned forests. Information on past wildfires indicate displace individuals in that there is more optimal habitat now (fires since about 2000) then there those areas where large was during each successive 6-10 year period such that optimal habitat has fires have occurred increased over time. This trend is expected to continue. The road and trail including Deer Creeks, project work is not expected to have an adverse effect on distribution or Porcupine, Bozeman nest success. Creek, Gallatin Roaded, Trail Creek/ Bear Canyon, Hebgen Basin, Pole Gulch, and West Pine. However, this optimal

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-132

habitat is increasing over time and not limiting. Flammulated According to Hamann and others (1999), human impacts on nocturnal NI: Suitable habitat Owl raptors such as owls have been little studied. No direct effects are occurs in the Gardiner anticipated with this project. An indirect effect of the proposed road and Basin, Bangtails, Bridger trail projects that may affect the flammulated owl includes alteration of Ridge, Johnson Canyon, habitat. Other indirect effects may include disturbance as owls will avoid Deer Creeks, Porcupine, areas of activity. However, flammulated owls may be tolerant of some Smith Creek, Gallatin human presence and disturbance. Flammulated owls have been found Roaded, North Dry, Pole nesting in campgrounds and other areas of human activity with no apparent Gulch, and West Pine effects (Hamann and others 1999). This project would not result in areas. Foraging and measurable detrimental effects to flammulated owl foraging, nesting, or nesting habitat may be roosting habitat. impacted through the direct loss of trees. Townsend’s Big- Effects of recreation on bats is not well understood or documented but can NI: Caves and mine eared Bat be inferred from what is know about bat biology and ecology. Human features that may serve as activity is most likely to impact bats when they are at maternal or bat habitat are present in hibernacula roosts, which are critical periods for energy conservation. The Emigrant Gulch, Gardiner sensitivity to human disturbance of bat roost sites is well documented and Basin, Cooke City, and has shown population declines or roost abandonment (Hickman and others Gallatin Roaded areas. 1999, Reel and others 1989). The proposed road and trail projects would There would be no not increase the potential for conflicts between humans and bats. Any measurable impacts from disturbance would be immeasurable. Removal of trees would not proposed road and trail measurably alter habitat components. Foraging habitat would be unaltered projects. due to the Travel Plan programmatic direction for riparian habitat. Harlequin Duck Studies have repeatedly shown that harlequin ducks are very sensitive to NI: Foraging and nesting human disturbance in breeding territories (Hamann and others 1999) and habitat would not be avoid areas frequented by humans (Reel and others 1989). Studies in impacted by the road and Yellowstone and Jasper National Parks indicated apparent decreased duck trail projects. use of quality habitat and significant duck declines, respectively, in response to visitor use and disturbance. Repeated disturbances also can deny birds access to preferred feeding habitats (Hamann and others 1999). None of the proposed road and trail projects would adversely affect habitat for harlequin ducks. Any activity near water would follow the Travel Plan programmatic direction for riparian habitat. Trumpeter Swan Research suggests that breeding trumpeter swans respond differently to NI - Winter habitat is different types of stimuli. According to Reel (and others 1989) human present in the Hebgen disturbance during the nesting and brooding period can cause nest Basin area. Habitat will destruction and abandonment. In Alaska, human disturbance caused a not be physically altered. higher than normal mortality rate of cygnets (Hamann and others 1999). All project activity would take place during the summer so no disturbance or displacement is anticipated. * NI = No Impact MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute To a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause A Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-133

Management Review of Effects Conclusion Indicator Species Northern Human activities are known to impact raptors in at least 3 ways: 1) by Suitable habitat available. Goshawk physically harming or killing eggs, young, or adults; 2) by altering habitats; Foraging and nesting and 3) by disrupting normal behavior (Hamann and others 1999). habitat will remain Disturbance during courtship and nest building may cause nest site abundant. Disturbance to desertion; increase in egg breakage, predation; exposure of eggs and chicks individual nesting to harmful environmental conditions; premature fledging making chicks territories can be vulnerable to predation and unsuccessful flights; increased nest visitation mitigated through by predators and people due to human scent and activity. Human presence monitoring annual nesting also disrupts raptor behavior by deterring foraging or roosting causing an activity and providing increased energy expenditure of avoidance flights. Temporal buffers appropriate spatial and encompassing at least the early fledgling period would prevent potential temporal buffer zones human disturbance-caused premature fledging and/ or decreased prey during critical time deliveries to dependent fledglings. Where suitable habitat exists, there periods when human use would be a direct loss of habitat from the proposed road and trail projects. is restricted – see No habitat will be altered with any of the action alternatives; any ground mitigation section. disturbing work will require additional NEPA analysis for any newly constructed routes.

Determinations have been made for all sensitive species for the potential effects caused by implementation of the Travel Plan as described in the EA. A determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” was made for all species except the flammulated owl, trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, and Townsend’s big-eared bat which all had a determination of “no impact”. These determinations were made based on the potential effects that would be caused by the types of use as identified in the EA. No determination is given for northern goshawk which is a management indicator species.

Analysis Methodology

The focus of this report is the effect of site-specific, short duration ground disturbing activity related to travel plan implementation and what mitigation and monitoring, if any, would be necessary to ameliorate adverse impacts on sensitive species. Each sensitive species’ potential presence of habitat and life history needs was examined in conjunction with how that might be disrupted by travel plan implementation activities. For some species, (black-backed woodpecker, goshawk) habitat potential was determined through a modeling process using data generated from the Timber Stand Management Record System (TSMRS) database. Bald eagle nest territories were also mapped to provide context to proposed road and trail project work in the area around Hebgen Lake. Other species did not require models due to habitat components that are not easily mapped or for which the proposed work constituted a low risk (peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, harlequin duck, trumpeter swan).

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-134

Cumulative Effects Parameters

The context for considering cumulative effects includes spatial and temporal boundaries. The geographic context for the terrestrial sensitive species addressed in this report differs by species. For bald eagle, the spatial context is the known nest territories in the Hebgen Basin and Lionhead areas. Peregrine falcon also has a focused spatial context consisting of known locations of eyries. The spatial boundary for considering black-backed woodpecker takes into consideration the low risk of adverse impacts and is determined by the somewhat narrow suitable habitat criteria and where that exists on the landscape across the Forest. For black-backed woodpeckers that means the fire-blacked area within wildfire perimeters. The spatial context for northern goshawk include potential suitable habitat across the Forest and to some extent a regional context relative to population viability.

Temporal boundaries for these species are the timeframes within which the proposed road and trail work would be completed. As indicated for most species, the disturbance factor varies by species and may cause displacement or behavioral and/or physiological responses.

For flammulated owl, harlequin duck, trumpeter swan, or Townsend’s big-eared bat the cumulative effects analysis area was not defined and no analysis was conducted. This was because a) the project area does not provide viable habitat, and, therefore, that particular species is not expected to be present or b) the project would not adversely modify habitat to an unsuitable condition or cause detrimental disturbance to that species to any measurable degree. There would be no cumulative effects to flammulated owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat, harlequin duck, or trumpeter swan as there would be no impact from the proposed road and trail project work.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative

The areas of influence to be analyzed include the trail tread or road locations and any access to those locations. Impacts of the project would have minimal and short-term impact on terrestrial sensitive species, with the exception of temporary displacement due to the noise and activity associated with the project work. For those species that could be potentially adversely affected as identified above, mitigation would ameliorate those effects. With the proposed mitigation in place, the proposed road and trail project work would have a negligible impact on wildlife and its habitat. None of the effects described would occur under the no action alternative. No habitat would be modified and no displacement would occur due to the proposed road and trail project work.

Mitigation and Monitoring

As mentioned above, some “mitigation”, in the form of regulatory tools and programmatic management direction adopted in the EIS does exist. Programmatic management direction (GOAL G, H, and I) would provide the opportunity to better protect critical sites. This direction will focus management efforts and allow flexibility when there is need for constraints, limitations or restrictions in recreational activities during critical times in critical habitat areas. In addition, the EIS determined that the ability to manage recreational activity with special closure orders is critical

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-135

in protecting species and their habitats. This tool enables closures to be managed when necessary to limit human activity and timing in an area.

In response to the proposed road and trail project work, mitigation was recommended in the Biodiversity and General Wildlife Effects specialist reports that would serve to minimize much of the disturbance-related impacts. Additional site-specific mitigation has been included in Alternative 1 that would further limit impacts and/or provide spatial and/or temporal sideboards to disturbances to sensitive species. This includes:

Bald Eagle:  Per the USFWS BO (2006), reduce the potential for human-caused mortality and disturbance of bald eagles attempting to nest and/or forage within the action area.  Avoid working within 1.0 mile of nesting bald eagles or within 0.5 miles of known foraging habitat until August 15 (Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 1994).  Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Hebgen Basin Travel Planning Area (Goal 3). Applies to known or future bald eagle nesting sites within the Hebgen Basin Area influenced by proposed road and trail work. Peregrine Falcon:  Provide temporal buffer during nest chronology (initiation, incubation, nestling, and fledging) by precluding heavy equipment operation and blasting until after August 15. Applies to proposed road and trail work in the Gallatin Roaded Area near the Gallatin River corridor.  Follow Travel Plan programmatic direction for Gallatin River Canyon Travel Planning Area (Guideline 1-2). Applies to any portion of the Gallatin Canyon influenced by proposed road and trail work. Northern Goshawk:  If an affected area is within potential goshawk habitat, surveys will be completed during the year that project work is planned. If goshawks are found in the vicinity or an active nest is located, a post-fledging area (PFA) will be defined. Allow no ground disturbing activities inside known occupied PFAs from 15 April through 15 August (about 30 days post- fledging) to protect the goshawk pair and young from disturbance during the breeding season until fledglings are capable of sustained flight. After August 15, treatment-related activities may commence within the PFA but still outside the nest area. All Designated Sensitive Species  In the event that species of special management designation are found in any affected area, measures will be taken to protect them and may result in project restrictions or modifications.

Monitoring  Continue annual surveys of sensitive species with consideration of necessary special closure needs based on current year activity.  Per the USFWS BO (2006), monitor bald eagle nest productivity annually.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-136

Cumulative Effects

Actions contributing to cumulative effects on bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and goshawk are addressed here. Past actions contributing to a cumulative effect for the bald eagle and peregrine include everything that contributed to their endangered or threatened status and their existence as a species. Both of these species have been successfully recovered from their previous listing under the Endangered Species Act. Present actions such as human activity associated with development, dispersed or developed recreation, and use of transportation routes were basically addressed through the discussion of direct and indirect effects for the Travel Plan. Where these activities are located adjacent to bald eagle nest territories or peregrine eyries, adverse effects may occur. Identified mitigation would minimize the potential for adverse effects. These ongoing actions are also reasonably foreseeable and would be occurring at the time of the proposed road and trail work implementation. Provided that active nesting areas are protected either spatially or temporally, there would be no cumulative effects associated with the proposed road and trail project work.

Past actions contributing to cumulative effects to the goshawk include any action that modified goshawk habitat or disturbed individuals, particularly nesting habitat during the nesting period. These actions are timber harvest, prescribed or wildfire, fire suppression, other vegetation treatments, and human activity during the nesting season. While goshawk is the indicator species for old growth Douglas fir, they (and their prey) also rely on foraging habitat provided in plant community mosaics, structure, and distribution across the landscape. Many species of wildlife depend on early successional habitats and the diversity it creates. Hence, both wildfires and fire suppression have created or destroyed habitat in the past. The prescribed fire treatments may have produced some localized effects but would not have produced a substantial effect on goshawk habitat across the Forest. Over the last three decades it is estimated that 34,000 acres were treated with prescribed fire. This is approximately 2% of the Gallatin Forest acres. Similarly, during the last 40 years, the Gallatin Forest has done timber harvest on approximately 75,000 acres, not all of which was suitable goshawk habitat. Some timber harvest may benefit goshawk by creating foraging habitat with the thinning or removal of forested canopy and regenerating early successional conditions. The degree to which these actions have had effects on goshawk depends on the size and type of vegetation treatment, relative location to past treatments and their successional state, quality of goshawk habitat, and other factors.

Current projects with a timber harvest component are substantially smaller than in the past and are designed to meet multiple resource objectives such as fuel reduction. Presently, any vegetation treatment project takes into consideration the potential for nesting goshawk and mitigation is identified to minimize any impact to this species.

The reasonably foreseeable projects for the Gallatin Forest would likely treat a variety of forest types at various scales and with variable objectives, including timber harvest, fire salvage, fuel reduction, and restoration of fire adapted ecosystem. Wildfire, though unpredictable, is thought to be increasing with drought conditions and climate change. The Gallatin fire/fuels program estimates that prescribed fire treatments will continue at the rate of 3,000-8,000 acres annually. Projects would be analyzed at that time and appropriate mitigation continued to be used to mitigate any adverse effects to goshawk. The anticipated activities relating to these projects would continue to be very small in scale and would not contribute to a cumulative effect on goshawk or its habitat.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-137

The reasonably foreseeable projects for the Gallatin Forest would continue to follow mitigation where appropriate. The northern goshawk and its habitat appear abundant and well distributed across Region 1 of the Forest Service (Samson 2006). There would be no cumulative effects expected to occur from the proposed road and trail project work.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State and Local Land Use Plans (including the Forest Plan and Travel Plan)

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that Forest plans "preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities...so that it is at least as great as that which can be expected in the natural forest" (36 CFR 219.27). Furthermore, implementation regulations for the NFMA specify that, "Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area".

This report focused on seven terrestrial species identified as "Sensitive" that are known or suspected to occur on the Gallatin National Forest (USDA 2005). With the implementation of the action alternative, Alternative 1, proposed road and trail project work would have “no impact” on flammulated owl, Townsend big-eared bat, trumpeter swan, and harlequin duck. The determination for bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and black-backed woodpecker for the action alternative would be “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”.

Gallatin Forest Plan Forest Plan Standard for Wildlife and Fish, page II-18, section 6.a.12 – Habitat that is essential for species identified in the Sensitive Species list developed for the Northern Region will be managed to maintain these species. These species include: [see USDA 2005 for current list]. These sensitive species were addressed as part of the analysis for the proposed road and trail projects. Terrestrial sensitive species were analyzed and mitigation measures identified as appropriate.

Forest Plan Standard for Wildlife and Fish, page II-18, section 6.a.13 – “Indicator species,” which have been identified as species groups whose habitat is most likely to be affected by Forest management activities, will be monitored to determine populations change. This report focused on bald eagle and goshawk. Direct and indirect effects were discussed and mitigation recommended for areas where known bald eagle nest territories or potential goshawk nesting habitat occurs.

Gallatin Forest Travel Plan Direction There is applicable Travel Plan direction for wildlife, including species of special management designation (which includes sensitive species) – Guideline G-2, H-2, H-3, I-1, I-2. In addition to this Forest-wide direction, there is also direction for peregrine falcon and bald eagle in the Gallatin River Canyon and Hebgen Basin Travel Planning Areas, respectively. The new roads or trails, reconstructed trails, reconditioned or decommissioned roads, or changes in the road and/or trail

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-138

system proposed for this project would follow this management direction. From the perspective of sensitive terrestrial wildlife species, the project would be consistent with this Travel Plan direction.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-139

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Soils

The potential effects of the proposed action (Alternative 1) on soils was addressed in the report “Travel Plan Implementation 2009 Soils Initial Impact Review” (Shovic, 8/12/08). The analysis also incorporates by reference the soils analysis disclosed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (Travel Plan FEIS, pages 3-519 to 3-534). The general conclusions of these analyses are that there would be minor effects to soils from the proposed action. Proposals for reconstruction, maintenance and stabilization of roads and trails will occur on existing routes and are designed in part to protect the soil resource. Proposed new trail construction will result in new ground disturbance but the majority of this work will occur in areas with low soil sensitivity (Shovic Report, page 6). There are three trails proposed in locations where there are sensitive soils in the vicinity. These are as follows:

ATV connector trail in Fairy Lake Area One mile of construction in a map unit containing wet areas and unstable, erosive soils (71-1A). Mitigation has been included in Alternative 1 (EA, page II-4) to route this trail to avoid wet and unstable areas within this map unit.

Upper Johnson Canyon ATV loop in Johnson Canyon Area One-half mile of construction in a map unit containing wet areas (64-2C). Mitigation has been included in Alternative 1 (EA, page II-5) to route this trail to avoid wet areas within this map unit.

Bear Lakes ATV trail in Trail Creek Bear Canyon Area One-half mile of construction in a map unit containing wet areas and unstable, erosive soils (71- 1A). Mitigation has been included in Alternative 1 (EA, page II-13) to route this trail to avoid wet and unstable areas within this map unit.

Avoidance of sensitive soils in trail location, as prescribed for Alternative 1, eliminates concerns over unacceptable adverse soils impacts on these new trails.

Cultural Resources [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3 and 8)]

The potential effects of the proposed action (Alternative 1) on cultural resources was addressed in the report “Cultural Resources – Initial Specialist Report – Travel Plan Implementation” (Allen, 7/14/08). The analysis also incorporates by reference the cultural resource analysis disclosed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (Travel Plan FEIS, pages 3-93 to 3-101). The general conclusions of these analyses are that there would be no effect, no effect given project design mitigation (EA, page 2-22) or no effect but monitoring will be conducted to assess potential unanticipated indirect effects from the proposed action (EA, page 2-24). Unanticipated indirect effects would include collection, or other damage to sites from users of routes within close proximity to those sites.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-140

Public Health and Safety [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(2)]

This analysis incorporates by reference the analysis disclosed in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS (Travel Plan FEIS, pages 4-20 to 4-23). The general conclusion of the Travel Plan FEIS was that there are three factors that influence safety of the road and trail system: the condition of the facilities, the mixture of use on a particular facility, and user behavior. The decision for the Travel Plan considered and addressed the latter two factors. Providing facilities (e.g. roads and trails) that will safely accommodate uses designated by the Travel Plan is part of the purpose of this proposed action (Alternative 1). Refer to Chapter 1. In other words, any safety issues with included routes will be corrected through implementation of this proposal.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)]

There are no prime farmlands, prime rangelands, or prime forest lands within the project area.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” directs federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. “Environmental justice” means that, to the greatest extent practical and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered or are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. The Forest Service has provided notice of comment opportunities with this proposal and has considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. There would be no adverse effects to human health and neither the proposed action nor no action alternative has been determined to disproportionately affect minority or low income populations.

Potential Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided (40 CFR 1502.16)

Chapter 3 of this EA addresses the potential environmental consequences of proposed work to the Forest transportation network. In general, it can be concluded that any potential adverse effects can be avoided through the standard operating procedures and mitigation identified in Chapter 2.

Short-term Use vs. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity (40 CFR 1502.16)

Chapter 3 of this EA discusses the potential resource impacts of proposed road and trail work to a variety of resources including water quality and biological diversity. Otherwise this proposal would not be considered a short-term consumptive use such as timber harvest or mining. In general road

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-141

and trail improvement work would not affect the ability of the land to produce continuous supplies of other Forest resources.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (40 CFR 1502.16)

An “irreversible” commitment of resources results from a decision to use or modify resources that are renewable only over a long period of time. Non-renewable resources, such as minerals, are an irreversible commitment if used. An “irretrievable” commitment of resources refers to resources, resource production or the use of renewable resources that are lost because of land allocation or scheduling decisions. The proposed road and trail work addressed in this EA would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources because it is not a consumptive use of Forest resources.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives and their Significance [40 CFR 1502.16 (a, b and d)]

The projected direct and indirect effects of the alternatives are addressed as a subsection for each resource issue discussed in Chapter 3 of this EA.

Possible Conflicts with Plans and Policies of other Jurisdictions [40 CFR 1502.16(c)]

Consistency with laws, regulations, policy, and federal, regional, state and local land use plans is addressed as a subsection for each resource issue discussed in Chapter 3 of this EA.

Possible Conflicts with Other Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Neither of the alternatives discussed in this EA would be inconsistent with the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local land use plans, policies, and controls for the project area.

Energy Requirements [40 CFR 1502.16(e)]

The energy required to implement Alternative 1 in terms of use of petroleum products is insignificant when viewed in the context of production costs and the effect on national and worldwide petroleum reserves.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 3-142

CHAPTER 4 PREPARATION AND CONSULTATION

The Public Involvement Process

Consultation

For this proposal consultation was limited to those who provided comments during the scoping process. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be conducted once the Biological Assessment is complete. A list of agencies and persons consulted on the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan EIS can be found in Chapter 5 of that Final EIS.

Preparation

The following Gallatin National Forest personnel were involved in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement.

Table 15. List of Preparers: Name Title Resource Area Interdisciplinary Team Members Walt Allen Forest Archeologist Heritage Scott Barndt Forest Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Marion Cherry Forest Biologist General Wildlife, Grizzly Bears, BioDiversity, Rare Plants Steve Christiansen NEPA Specialist ID Team Leader

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-1

Name Title Resource Area Interdisciplinary Team Members Bev Dixon Wildlife Biologist Wolverine, Migratory Birds Rachel Feigley Wildlife Biologist Sensitive Wildlife, Lynx, Jonathan C Kempff Forest Transportation Engineer Proposed Action Susan Lamont Forester Invasive Weeds Steven Schacht Wildlife Biologist Big Game Kimberly Schlenker Forest Recreation & Wilderness Roadless Program Manager

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-2

REFERENCES

General

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota and Portions of South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service, 2005. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Use (36 CFR 212, 251, 261).

USDA Forest Service, 2006. The Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

Biodiversity

Archibald, W. R., R. Ellis, and A. N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of Grizzly Bears to Logging Truck Traffic in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 7:251-257.

Bowles, A. E, 1995. Responses of Wildlife to Noise. In Pages 109-156 In Knight, R.L. and K.J.Gutzweiler. eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington DC. 372 pp.

Cherry, M. and D. Tyers. 2003. Gallatin National Forest: Viability Assessment for Species of Concern. 20 pp.

Cherry 2006, Cumulative Effects worksheet for Biological Diversity Issue

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. The Wildlife Society, Helena, Montana, USA. (www.montanatws.org)

Kasworm, W. F., and T. L. Manley. 1989. Road and Trail Influences on Grizzly Bears and Black Bears in Northwest Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:79-84

Mace, R. D., and J. S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly Bear Distribution and Human Conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(3):461-467.

Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The Effects of Developments and Primary Roads on Grizzly Bear Habitat Use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management. 7:259-273.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-3

McLellan B. N., and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly Bears and Resource-Extraction Industries: Effects of Roads on Behavior, Habitat Use, and Demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451-460.

Samson, F. 2006. A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-Backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. 135 pp.

Takacs, D. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Gallatin National Forest. Forest Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.

Fisheries

Story, M. 2008. Watershed Management Report – Road and Trails Improvement EA. Gallatin National Forest.

All other references for this analysis are those listed in the FEIS, Issue 7: Fisheries, Vol. 2-9 to 2- 11.

General Wildlife

Forman, R. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutgshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Pages 113-167 in Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological Response of Wildlife to Disturbance. Pages 95-107 In Knight, R.L. and K.J.Gutzweiler. eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington DC. 372 pp.

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. (www.montanatws.org/chapters/mt/pages/page4.html)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-4

Lyon, J.L., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleerey, and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating Elk and Timber Management: Final Report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study, 1970-1985. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 53 pp.

Maxell, B. A., and D. G. Hokit. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles. Pages 2.1-2.29 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: a Review for Montana. The Wildlife Society, Montana, Chapter, Helena, Montana, USA. (www.montanatws.org)

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1918, as amended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918

Ruediger, B. 1996. The Relationship between Rare Carnivores and Highways. Pages 1-7 In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality: Proceedings of the Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar, FL-ER-58-96. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

USDA. Forest Service Manual 2600. Wildlife.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Gallatin National Forest. Forest Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1940 as amended. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/BALDEGL.HTML

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuideline s.pdf

Grizzly Bear

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. 2003. Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. 160 pp. http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-5

ConservationStrategygrizzlybearGYA.pdf

Kasworm, W. F., and T. L. Manley. 1989. Road and Trail Influences on Grizzly Bears and Black Bears in Northwest Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:79-84.

Mace, R. D., and J. S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly Bear Distribution and Human Conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(3):461-467.

McLellan B. N., and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly Bears and Resource-Extraction Industries: Effects of Roads on Behavior, Habitat Use, and Demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451-460.

White paper on clarification of grizzly bear direction for the Gallatin National Forest, 2009

USDA. Forest Service Manual 2600. Wildlife.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Gallatin National Forest. Forest Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests.

Wielgus, R. B., P. R. Vernier, and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. Grizzly Bear Use of Open, Closed and Restricted Forestry Roads. Canadian Journal of Research 32:1597-1606.

Invasive Weeds

Gallatin NF Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatments EIS (pages 1-3 to 1-6, 3-3 to 3-52, and 4-2 to 4-72). Lynx

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Northern Rockies lynx management direction record of decision. U.S. Forest Service National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Missoula, MT: Northern Region.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis); proposed rule. Fed. Reg. 50 CFR Part 17, Vol. 73, No. 40: 10860-10896. Helena, MT: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Fed. Reg. 50 CFR Part 17, Vol. 73, No. 204: 62450-62459. Helena, MT: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Birds

Askins, R.A. 1994. Open Corrdiors in a Heavily Forested Landscape: Impacts on Shrubland and Forest-Interior Birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:339-347

Dixon, B. 2006a. Cumulative Effects Analysis Report – Issue Wolverine. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan project file. Unpublished report.

Dobkin, D.S. 1992. Neotropical Migrant Landbirds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains: A Handbook for Conservation Management. U.S. Forest Service Publication R1-93-34

Forman, R.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.S. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology – Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington DC.

Hutto, R.L., J.S. Young and J. Hoffland. 1998. USDA Forest Service Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Project Field Methods. Unpublished Report. 60 pp.

Hutto, R.L., S.J. Hejl, J.F. Kelly, and S.M. Pletschet. 1995. A Comparison of Bird Detection Rates Derived from On-Road Versus Off-Road Point Counts in Northern Montana. Pages 103-110 in: US Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149.

Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Wildlife Society, Montana Chapter, USA. (www.montanatws.org)

Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Rich, A.C., D.S. Dobkin and L.J. Niles. 1994. Defining Forest Fragmentation by Corridor Width: The Influence of Narrow Forest-Dividing Corridors on Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern New Jersey. Conservation Biology 8(4):1109-1120.

Sallabanks, R., P.J. Heglund, J.B. Haufler, B.A. Gilbert and W. Wall. 2004. Regional Landscape Composition and the Nesting Success of Western Forest Birds. Unpublished Report. Eagle, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS. U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-7

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Gallatin National Forest Plan. U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

Roadless Areas

Travel Plan FEIS Roadless Effects Analysis pages3-497 through 3-518.

Water Quality

Literature used in the Watershed Management issue of the Travel Plan is listed in the reference section, pages 2-29 and 2-30 of the Gallatin Travel Plan, FEIS, volume 2, Chapter 3. No additional literature regarding watershed management is included in this EA.

Wolverine

Aubry, K.B., K.S. McKelvey and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7) pp. 2147-2158.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 92-123 Chapter 5 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, technical editors. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254.

Dixon, B. 2006b Cumulative Effects Analysis Report – Issue Wolverine. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan project file. Unpublished report.

Dixon, B. and R. Wold. 1999-2005. Winter Forest Carnivore Monitoring Reports. Bozeman Ranger District. Unpublished reports.

Gehman, S. and B. Robinson. 1998-2007. Rare Carnivore Surveys. Unpublished Reports.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.

Inman, K.H., R.M. Inman, R.R. Wigglesworth, A.J. McCue, B.L. Brock, J.D. Rieck, and W. Harrower. 2003. Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Study Cumulative Progress Report. December 2003. Wildlife Conservation Society, Ennis, Montana.

Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS. U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-8

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Gallatin National Forest Plan. U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

Rare Plants

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.22

Sensitive Wildlife

Brewer, Lorraine T., Renate Bush, Jodie E. Canfield, Alan R. Dohmen. 2007. Northern goshawk northern region review key findings and project considerations. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA Samson, F. B. 2006. A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, blacked-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA. Tidwell, Thomas L. 2008. [Letter to Forest and Grasslands Supervisors]. April 25. 2 leaves. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT; 2670 files.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan Biological Opinion. September 20. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 2670 files.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Sensitive Species List – Wildlife. [Homepage of Forest Service, Northern Region], [Online]. Available at URL: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r1/projects/wwfrp/sens-species/Sens%20Spp%20List%20Wildlife.pdf

Soils

Davis, C. E. and H. F. Shovic. 1996. Soil Survey of Gallatin Forest, Montana. Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT.

Shovic, H. F. Travel Plan Implementation 2009 Soils Initial Impact Review. August 8, 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS. U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Chapter 4-9

Appendix A Gallatin National Forest Proposed Road/Trail Improvements Forest Service Responses to a Summary of Comments Received in Scoping

COMMENTS RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

1. Sedimentation. Concern was raised about increases in sedimentation of streams from the project proposals, particularly stream crossings.

Forest Service Response

The Water Quality section of the EA 3-102 to 3-104 evaluates sediment effects of the proposed new trail construction, trail reconstruction, and road decommissioning. The results of the analysis conclude that sediment levels from trail and road construction activity would be more than offset from the road decommissioning of excess project (“green”) roads. Several provisions are in the GNF Travel relating to sediment mitigation including (Chapter 1-13, FEIS - Detailed Description of the Decision) which include Standard E-5 (proposed roads and trails no located in stream floodplains in wetlands except where necessary to cross, Standard E-6 (aquatic organism passage), and E-7 (no road material side cast in streams or wetlands). These measures are referenced and repeated in this Road and Trail EA in Chapter 2-20 and 2-21 for aquatic passage, and material side cast into streams or wetlands.

2. Wildlife. An assumption that was often proffered by other stakeholders is that closing roads and trails to motorized uses would dramatically improve the effectiveness of wildlife habitat. In our opinion, much of the rationale expressed for restricting motorized vehicle use is tied to incomplete research and grossly excessive extrapolation of research data, and is often directly contradicted by the current condition on the ground today.

Forest Service Response

There is a significant body of research and literature available on the effects of motorized routes and uses on wildlife species. Some studies are confined to certain types of uses and certain species. A discussion of this literature in detail appears in the General Wildlife Issue for both the Travel Plan EIS and the Implementation Road/Trail EA. Two references which reviewed a lot of literature include Joslin and Youmanns 1999, Boyle and Samson (1985) and Knight and Gutzwiler (1995). The majority of literature indicates negative impacts to wildlife. There is less

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-1

information available on the effects of non-motorized use on wildlife. This was also reviewed in the Travel Plan General Wildlife issue. There are a number of variables about which more information would be useful such as animal habituation to activity, how animals use topography for cover, and non-motorized uses. Current literature was used in this analysis, and although not every single article related to wildlife response to recreational uses was found and cited, several summaries of relevant literature were used (see below) and numerous articles were read and cited.

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.

Joslin, G. and H. Youmanns. Eds. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Widlife, MontanaChapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. www.montanatws.org/chapters/mt/pages/page4.html)

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington DC. 372 pp.

3. Wildlife. The agencies must not automatically assume that closing roads and trails to motorized use, while still allowing non-motorized uses, will instantly increase habitat effectiveness. Research done at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range is the most recent detailed and complex research done on deer and elk in relation to human travel modes consisting of ATV/trail bike, bicycle, hiking, and horseback. Previous studies dating back to the 1970s indicate that these animals flee from all of these travel modes. Starkey research quantifies the different rates, times, and distances. However, they admit that the resultant impact on individuals has not been determined and no scientific conclusions are reached in the studies on how this disturbance affects individual health and survivability. Nothing in the Starkey research proves the existence of motorized trails actually results in a decrease in habitat effectiveness or in an individual animal’s poor health and survivability, nor is this evidence that current vehicle use is negatively impacting herd health factors.

It should not be assumed that the elimination of motorized use would drastically reduce disturbance of wildlife or improve “wildlife vulnerability” when walking persons, persons on horses, mountain bike use, bird watchig, hunting, and numerous other uses that are documented to disturb, harass or kill wildlife, are still allowed.

Forest Service Response

Habitat effectiveness is the “percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting season” (Lyon and Christensen 1992:4). There are many studies on the effects of various human activities on elk.

The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in Oregon has produced some recent studies on the effects of recreation on elk. The recent study by Wisdom et al. (2004)

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-2

looked at off-road recreation, both motorized and non-motorized. They found that elk were more likely to flee during all 4 human activities (ATV, mountain biking, hiking and horseback riding) than during times with no human activity. In this study, elk reactions were stronger to ATV and mountain biking than to horseback riding and hiking. Elk did not flee every time there was an off-road activity and may have used topography, vegetative factors or other things to reduce flight response. Mule deer did not show much response to off-road uses and may have sought dense cover rather than flight during this study. Higher movement rates and probabilities of flight require additional energy as well as disrupt foraging and resting patterns.

This particular study does not refer to elk habitat effectiveness using that term. However, it does discuss elk moving away from a human use which is essentially the same thing. It means that elk are displaced from some of their habitat, making elk habitat less effective in areas where there is recreational activity. Additional movement costs animals energy. Depending on the individual animal, that energy may not be available, especially during the winter, which leads to lower survivorship.

This has not been tracked in individual animals throughout their lifespan in relation to a specific recreation use with all other variables controlled to ‘prove’ that it affects the survivorship of individual animals. In addition, to ‘prove’ that the health of a herd is affected would take the same type of intense study.

The comment is correct that non-motorized human uses as well as motorized uses may impact wildlife as discussed in the General Wildlife issue of the Gallatin Travel Plan EIS. However, the vast majority of literature supports that motorized uses tend to have greater impacts to wildlife (see response above).

Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Station.

Wisdom, M.J., H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off- Road recreation on mule deer and elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Vol. 69.

4. Wildlife. I support the stock and hiking trail from Johnson Canyon to North Cottonwood but it could radically alter the use patterns in this little visited drainage. Please consider how access to Mill Canyon would be managed and how wildlife might be affected by an influx in visitors.

Forest Service Response

The stock and hiking trail proposed from Johnson Canyon to North Cottonwood is predicated upon potential future loss of access from the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) Sportsman Access trailhead at North Cottonwood. Due to private

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-3

landownership and annual renewal agreements with FWP, there is some, albeit small, potential that the Sportsman Access at North Cottonwood could be lost at some point in the future. Should that public access be lost, the Travel Plan would allow for construction of a new stock and hiking trail from Johnson Canyon to access the North Cottonwood trail system.

The comment expresses concern for potential impacts to wildlife from this proposed new trail. We do not anticipate notable changes in public use levels or patterns if the Johnson Canyon to North Cottonwood non-motorized trail were built, since there would no longer be direct access (and associated parking) available at the North Cottonwood trailhead. Most non-hunting recreation use in this area involves travel on developed trails. Since there is no current or proposed developed trail to access Mill Creek drainage, we do not anticipate changed use patterns. Hunters are the major dispersed recreation users in the area, and they already access Mill Creek drainage from Johnson Canyon, by walking or riding stock in the general vicinity of the proposed trail. This area is mostly open, grassy, shrubby habitat, which does not provide notable barriers to public travel.

5. Threatened/Endangered Species, Cultural Resources and Rare Plants. There are no ESA/NHPA/Rare Plant analyses from DOI/USFWS or from the USFS – in the 2006 TMP EIS or ROD or separately – to supprt any decision as to the potential impacts of these proposals.

Forest Service Response

The Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan FEIS does address these issues. Refer to page 2-13 for “rare plants”; to page 3-93 for “cultural resources”; to page 3-359 for “lynx”; page 3-254 for “grizzly bear”; to page 3-636 for “gray wolf”; and Appendix D for the Biological Assessment. A Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service is available in the project file.

COMMENTS RELATED TO OTHER ISSUES

1. Several landowners in the Arrastra Creek area challenge the proposed work for the Arrastra Creek road and the ATV connector to Emigrant Gulch on jurisdictional grounds. For example:

“The Arrastra Creek Road (#3274) traverses private property owned by members of my family and that no easements or rights-of-way exist for the Forest Service to use the road or land. On February 11, 2007, I met with the Forest Service officials to discuss my appeal, and at this meeting, Rebecca Hath acknowledged that the Forest Service had no right to use the land or road. She also commented that until easements were obtained, the connector would remain an objective of the Travel Plan and not a viable project/goal. As of this date, no easements or rights-of-way have been obtained from the owners,

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-4

therefore, under no circumstances should anyone, Forest Service or general public, be on the property for any reason whatsoever as this would be an act of trespass.”

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service does not intend to begin any construction until all applicable authorizations are in-place. In areas like Arrastra Creek, reciprocal access needs are anticipated between both parties to resolve access and easement issues. Discussions and resolutions with landowners will start well ahead of any actual construction.

2. Other comments question the merit of managing this route for ATVs citing late summer and early fall snow and the lack of any concrete statistical evidence indicating that the predicted volume of ATV usage would warrant not only the initial cost of construction of a road, but also the additional cost of annual maintenance and upkeep.

Forest Service Response

The Travel Plan Decision determined that the merit of managing ATV opportunities on National Forest is appropriate and within the custodial means of Gallatin National Forest. The seasonal restrictions on roads and trails were a balance between demands, facility maintenance, and resource protection. The effects of increased/decreased use will be monitored over time and management adjusted to fit changing conditions, if needed.

3. We support the construction and the reconstruction and maintenance in the Porcupine Area provided an easement can be obtained or the trail can be relocated. We do not support the taking of private property rights.

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service does not intend to begin any construction, relocations, or major upgrades on the Porcupine Lowline Trail until any applicable authorizations are in- place. The Forest Service does intend to continue to maintain the route for existing uses as it has in the past until a relocation resolution agreement has been reached. Discussions and resolutions with landowners will start well ahead of any actual construction and will attempt to balance the needs of the landowner, the public, and the Forest Service administrative needs.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-5

COMMENTS SUGGESTING ACTION, MITIGATION, DESIGN FEATURES

General

1. There were comments opposing the use of Treatment Types II and III for road closure and stabilization proposals, because they preclude the use of these routes by mountain bikes, motorcycles and ATVs.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006). Roads identified for restoration work in this proposal are only those designated as prohibited to motorized use in the Travel Plan.

2. There was a comment suggesting we look at opportunities to convert roads to classified trails. According to the commenter there is a documented need to provide for the increase in popularity of OHV use. Recent reductions in opportunity have exacerbated this situation and increased the need for the agency to provide trail opportunity.

According to the study, Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), from 1982 to 2001 OHV use became one of the fastest growing activities in the country. Between an earlier NSRE conducted in 1994-1995 and the time when the next round of NSRE data was collected, between fall 1999 and summer 2000 it showed a 32-percent increase. This represented a growth from about 27.3 million OHV users in 1994-1995 to about 36.0 million in 1999-2000. According to the latest NSRE, over 28% of Montana’s population engages in OHV recreation.

The need to provide for, or at least not reduce the current amount of routes available for motorized use, was a key theme during the formulation of the Gallatin’s 2006 Travel Plan.

Given the documented need to provide for OHV uses, the importance of travel management, and the recent closures made by the 2006 travel plan, it may be prudent to consider alternatives that expand OHV opportunities beyond what is contemplated in this proposal. (Comment 8-1)

Forest Service Response

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-6

and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

3. There was a comment that the proposed project list is heavily weighted to OHV development.

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service priority in implementing the Travel Plan initially is on establishing road and trail facilities that can safely accommodate designated motorized uses while maintaining resource protection; and to restore and stabilize existing roads that are in excess to administrative, recreation and access needs.

4. There was comment that much narrower tread widths should be included as trail standards to ensure high quality single-track trails. The description says “single track” tread may be as wide as 36-inches. This width is more appropriate for a city park than the Gallatin National Forest. USFS trail standards for mountain bikes, hiking, pack and saddle and even motorcycles—on the busiest trails—should be no wider than 20-inches. Spreading treads increases exposed soils, accelerates erosion, and diminishes the narrow winding light on the land character of quiet forest trails. Please restrict all single-track widths below 20-inches.

Forest Service Response

Trail standards differ depending on the class of trail being constructed and the types of uses planned for the trail. Most of the “single track” trail treads on the Gallatin National Forest are between 24” and 36”. If one were to the measure beyond the ‘open dirt’ portion of the tread (the portion that the vegetation is constantly worn off) to the edge of the fill and the inside edge of the cut slope (the shoulders), you would be measuring the true ‘tread’ width. You would find most to be between 24” and 36”. These standards comply with national guidelines for the various uses. The Forest will be generally following national guidelines. Treads are designed and constructed to meet the basic needs of all the users, no larger and no smaller. It would not be prudent to limit all single track treads to an artificial maximum.

Bangtail.

1. A signed parking area or parking along side the road in the Willow Creek area would be a good addition. The Bangtail area is important for dispersed family recreation. Camping fire rings should also be part of the planning in areas appropriate. This area is of low to moderate ability riders and all roads should be designated “dual use” to accommodate younger riders and families.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-7

Forest Service Response

The Forest will consider the amount of parking provided in the Willow Creek area. Additional parking may be necessary to accommodate current and near future volumes. We will be monitoring changes in use patterns and volumes as the Travel Plan is implemented to see if any adjustments will be needed to keep users from parking on the roads and onto parking facilities. Most of the roads in the Bangtail area between trailheads are indeed designated for dual use (correct term is ‘mixed use’) so families with children over the age of 12 and not licensed are able to enjoy the opportunity.

2. A marked parking area at the fork of the North and Middle forks along side the road would be a good opportunity for the public to make a loop of sufficient length that is being done now.

Forest Service Response

3. The routes marked in solid green on the map closed to motorized would also be good additions for camping and game retrieval next to the loops.

Forest Service Response

The Travel Plan decision closed these routes to motorized game retrieval but they may be open to camping as long as it’s within 300’ of an open road or trail and not causing resource damage. The green roads mentioned are ‘project roads’ and were closed to motorized uses primarily to provide additional non-motorized habitat for wildlife.

Cutler Lake Area.

1. The Cutler Lake improvement work is approximately 6.5 miles from the Tom Miner bridge and 3.5 miles from the Corwin Springs bridge. Most traffic will use the Corwin Springs bridge access. Long term planning consideration should be given to replacement of the existing culvert across Mol Heron Creek from the Corwin Springs access. This culvert replacement will improve traffic safety. This existing culvert is only one-lane wide, has no guardrail and has exceeded its useful life.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-8

Forest Service Response

The ‘Yellowstone Trail South Road’ is under Park County jurisdiction. Park County is responsible for this culvert replacement. The Forest will bring this concern to their attention and resolution, if needed.

Fairy Lake Area

1. For this action the ATV bridge should span Fairy Creek and be designed so that it does not become a sediment source. The same is true of the motorcycle bridge that will cross Middle Fork Brackett Creek.

Forest Service Response

Both crossing mentioned will be spanned with a bridge that will meet or exceed all current standards. Recently, the Forest has been installing and replacing substandard bridges that fully span the stream from high water marks on both sides. Drainage is placed on both approach trails to remove sediment generated on the trail and filtered through a vegetation zone prior to entering the stream.

2. Parking lots must be large enough for large pickups with 4-place trailers and allow adequate turn-around areas.

Forest Service Response

Many of the existing trailheads were constructed years ago when vehicles were smaller with tighter turning radiuses. The forest trailheads are planned to be designed or redesigned to accommodate the anticipated vehicle volumes and geometry for the uses on the trail. Trailheads for stock trails, for example, will provide sufficient parking and access for full size pickups with 6-horse trailers. Parking capacity will be based on anticipated traffic during normal use periods and may not accommodate a single high use period, such as a planned event. Monitoring use will help determine when parking needs to be added. Those identified in this EA are the known problem areas where new and considerable expansion is needed.

3. The Fairy Lake Road #74 is in serious need of improvement. This is the major access road to the northern Bridgers, and given that you are planning to install trailheads and create loop trails for motor vehicles and mountain bikes in this area, use can only increase. I urge you to resurface the Fairy Lake Road before other improvements are installed.

Forest Service Response

Many of the existing trailheads were constructed years ago when vehicles were smaller with tighter turning radiuses. The forest trailheads are planned to be

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-9

designed or redesigned to accommodate the anticipated vehicle volumes and geometry for the uses on the trail. Trailheads for stock trails, for example, will provide sufficient parking and access for full size pickups with 6-horse trailers. Parking capacity will be based on anticipated traffic during normal use periods and may not accommodate a single high use period, such as a planned event. Monitoring use will help determine when parking needs to be added. Those identified in this EA are the known problem areas where new and considerable expansion is needed.

4. I urge you to use the most thorough means (Treatment Type III) to obliterate these roads. Gates and kelly humps are often ineffective. It’s especially important that spur roads off of Carrol Creek Road be thoroughly decommissioned. This remote road will see a lot of motorized use and I know it will not be patrolled in and effective manner.

Forest Service Response

All the plans for restoration will consider the level that best balances the need of the resource, the improved enforcement, and the economy of the project. On other recent restoration projects, entrances to closed roads have been more thoroughly rehabbed than in the past. Recontouring and slashing have been employed rather than only ‘kelly humps’. The Forest is planning the same practices in all areas for the forest, particularly where motorized uses existing in the area, such as the Carrol Creek area. Gates will continue to be employed only on roads the Travel Plan designed with seasonal restrictions or administrative traffic only. Education and enforcement will be necessary to ensure compliance. The Forest is planning to scale up its ranger programs to aid in this goal.

Gallatin Roaded Area

1. There were a couple of comments opposing the construction of a parking facility at the Shenango administrative site. Most years during the winter, the road in Storm Castle Creek is dry or clear to the Storm Castle Trailhead because the road is south facing and receives heat from the rock side hill along the river. Access must be maintained year round to leased and private property in the Storm Castle drainage. Restricted access by installing and closing a gate at the Shenango site during winter and early spring is unacceptable.

Forest Service Response

Private landowners have not requested access to their properties during the winter. If they do at some point, the Forest will consider granting them a road use permit to plow to their property and to plow reasonable parking to winter recreationists. The Forest Travel Plan decision considered the seasonal restriction on the Storm Castle road from Shenango to Rat Lake turnoff from Jan 1st to May 15th to be reasonable. That decision is not being revisited as part of this decision. Monitoring the situation over time will determine if this decision needs to be reconsidered.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-10

2. A snowmobile parking lot and groomed trail for the Storm Castle Drainage needs better analysis and review.

• Who will groom? GVSA? With what funds and time? Already shorthanded and budget strained even allotting time will be hard with current schedule. • Snow is melted off of the majority of this trail most of the year. Lots of southern exposure. • How are you going to provide access to the private cabin owners in this drainage? Any closed gate that would be necessary to preserve groomed trail would eliminate access for year-round wheeled travel to maintain private holdings and structures. • Sounds like a waste of government resources and money to me. • Better to leave as is and use Big Sky Snowmobile Trail for access.

Forest Service Response

Private landowners have not requested access to their properties during the winter. If they do at some point, the Forest will consider granting them a road use permit to plow to their property and to plow reasonable parking to winter recreationists. The Forest Travel Plan decision considered snowmobile decision and the seasonal restriction on the road to be reasonable. That decision is not being revisited as part of this decision. Monitoring the situation over time will determine if this decision needs to be reconsidered. Grooming, if any is needed or desired, will be considered in the context of the rest of the grooming program via discussions with the Bozeman Ranger District. Users may elect to enter the trail systems from Little Bear, Moose Creek, or Portal Creek entrances instead of Storm Castle.

3. There was comment about maintaining some of the lost hiking trails, which could be mountain bike routes. In particular, trails #417, 414, and 421 are hard to find. Reclaiming these trails would open some spectacular quiet use opportunities

Forest Service Response

Work is indeed planned for these trails as part of Travel Plan implementation. The work is considered to be part of routine heavy trail maintenance and therefore is not included as part of this proposal. This maintenance work would be expected to be performed within the next 5 years.

Gardiner Basin Area.

1. There was a suggestion that the trail going to Knox Lake should be marked as a ski trail also since it is in the wilderness and would represent an excellent opportunity.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-11

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Hebgen Basin

1. There was comment about continuing use of the historic snowmobile trail along the Yellowstone Park Boundary from West Yellowstone to the Bakers Hole Campground due to lack of public comment in the Travel Plan decision.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Hyalite.

1. There was a comment opposed to any road construction to accommodate 4x4s. They consistently cause excess damage and drive off road too often. We should be closing routes to these vehicles, not creating more.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. In the Hyalite area opportunities for 4x4 travel were designated. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting those decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-12

Lionhead.

1. There was a comment that our proposal for the Lionhead Area is a joke. Numerous miles of prime single track closed for motorized and you propose an ATV-motorcycle trail with .3 miles of trail construction?

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

The 0.3 miles of new motorized trail construction is designed to create a loop opportunity. This allows users to return on a different route from which they came and discourages the tendency to travel illegally beyond a non-looped trail terminus.

2. There was a comment that rather than go to all the expense and trouble of creating a new nonmotorized route parallel to Trail #114 (Ski Hill Trail), please close this route to motorized use, which is inconsistent with the use and goals of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). The objective is to have the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail be a non-motorized route, but not by eliminating motorized opportunities designated by the Travel Plan. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Mile Creek Area

1. There was a comment opposed to this proposal. It’s a waste of money. Users can use the existing route.

Forest Service Response

Currently horse and foot users of this portion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) have to travel along the Mile Creek Road and Highway 87 to connect with the CDNST on the Targhee National Forest at Reynolds Pass. This proposal would eliminate that not-so-desirable situation. The project is also

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-13

responsive to GNF Travel Plan Objective 1-2 for the Lionhead Travel Planning Area, (Travel Plan Decision, page II-125), which is to establish a non-motorized trail route to serve as the Continental Divide Scenic Trail (CDST).

Porcupine Area.

1. Any new crossings related to the relocation of the trail should not negatively impact the streambed and/or banks and should not be a sediment source. The preferred alternative is a bridge that spans the stream and its immediate banks.

Forest Service Response

Most live stream crossings with motorized uses will be spanned with a bridge that will meet or exceed all current standards. Recently, the Forest has been installing and replacing substandard bridges that fully span the stream from high water marks on both sides. Drainage is placed on both approach trails to remove sediment generated on the trail and filtered through a vegetation zone prior to entering the stream. Where stream channels and approach shoulders are hard and durable, a ford may be considered as a viable option to a bridge.

Pika Point

1. There was a comment opposed to this proposal stating that it is an exceptional single track trail that needs to remain single track.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. Wider, double-track trails need to be established on routes that are designated for ATV use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Rock/Tom Miner Area.

1. The trail crossing on Rock Creek should not negatively impact the streambed and/or banks and should not be a sediment source. The preferred alternative is a bridge that spans the stream and its immediate banks.

With the removal of the road crossing on Soldier Creek, the streambed and stream banks should be restored to a natural state. This would include proper stream type, width, depth, and slope.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-14

Forest Service Response

Sage Creek Area

1. There were several comments stating that the construction of the Sage Creek Trail would not be feasible; the construction is not feasible because of the terrain and also the fact that the proposed trail would need to be constructed in a Roadless Area. The FS would find it very difficult to construct a trail in a Roadless area. If this trail were constructed, we feel that the existing trail must be kept open for winter use of snowmobiles and grooming access. The snow will melt off rock surfaces on the new proposed trail; with a minimal snow year. The route for this trail/groomed snowmobile route would pass through a Roadless Area not open to new road construction. The Taylor’s Fork Trail (if left open) would provide a secondary route when snow is minimal if the Sage Creek Trail is constructed.

• Normal recent years will not provide enough snow for entire season open under regulations. This winter being the exception (08), early season snowpack is usually not adequate to access the Carrot Basin Area from the Sage Creek Trailhead. Late season access will also be difficult with the lower areas melting out before the end of regulation time. The result will be damaged machines, groomers, and far more resource damage from crossing dry or wet areas. • The moose that use the lower Taylor Fork area for winter range have been there co-existing and thriving with years of snowmobile access. This March 2008 on two Saturday outings I saw 4 moose within sight of the Taylor Fork Parking Lot both loading and unloading. They obviously were there all day with normal weekend traffic and seemed undisturbed. Relocation the snowmobile access for moose habitat seems to be unwarranted. From my 20+ years experience of Taylor Fork winter access, I have seen no detrimental effect on the moose population. • The only way that the Sage Creek access would work is to be an additional, secondary access to relieve pressure from the Taylor Fork access. This is a very popular snowmobile destination area and it needs more access parking. A better solution would be to improve the Taylor Fork Road, enlarge the parking area, and create a new snowmobile trail up out of the drainage from the original parking lot.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-15

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service has done some preliminary site feasibility of the area and believes a route is possible through the area that responds to user needs and safety and that would adequately accommodate grooming. The route would maximize available snow retention by keeping the trail surface in a northerly aspect and under the canopy of the trees. The trail would not be inconsistent with direction applicable to management of roadless areas (see pages 3-103 and 3-104 of this EA). Once the trail corridor is established through the Sage Creek area, the Wapiti Road route will be closed per the Travel Plan decision.

Shields River Area.

1. The crossing on American Fork Creek should not negatively impact the streambed and/or banks and should not be a sediment source. The preferred alternative is a bridge that spans the stream and its immediate banks. Road surface work should not deposit fill directly into or create a sediment source for any flowing water.

Forest Service Response

2. Any new or improved trails in this area should allow single track motorized use to offset the excessive closures implemented by the GNF ROD.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-16

Smith Creek Area.

1. With the removal of the road crossing, the streambed and stream banks should be restored to a natural state. This would include proper stream type, width, depth, and slope.

Forest Service Response

Removal of existing crossings are planned to be restored generally as described. Additional in-stream features may be added for stabilization during design.

2. Some roads in the GNF determined to be unsuitable or non-maintained by the Forest Service are still being used by recreationists for hunting, firewood gathering, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. If sediment damage is not excessive they should be left for users therefore reducing agency costs and hours.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). Roads to be restored were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use in the Travel Plan. Restoration work reduces long-term costs because it eliminates the need for ongoing maintenance.

Suce Creek Area.

1. The only potential concern with this action is that the stream crossing be designed to keep the stream banks from being impacted and to keep sediment from being washed into the stream in the spring.

Forest Service Response

The proposed action in the Suce Creek area (Road and Trail EA Chapter 2-2 and 2- 3) includes a parking facility that would be designed to accommodate up to 6 vehicles at the Suce Creek parking lot. The parking lot location is on a terrace above Suce Creek and would not be expected to be a sediment source. The Baldy Basin Trail #44 from the parking lot runs along the south side and upstream along Suce Creek then crosses in about 1 mile to the north side. The crossing consists of a foot bridge for hikers and a ford for livestock. The crossing is a Rosgen B3 channel type with small boulder/cobble dominated stream banks and fairly stable. The Suce Creek crossing is not considered a sediment source to Suce Creek. Overall sediment effects of the Roads and Trail EA proposal are summarized in the above response to the sedimentation comment.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-17

2. While additional trailheads may be requested, the funds spent on this project could be better used in plowing the existing parking lot that is within ½ mile of the proposed site. The feasibility of this proposal should be examined and presented to the public for comment.

Forest Service Response

Removal of existing crossings are planned to be restored generally as described. Additional in-stream features may be added for stabilization during design.

COMMENTS OF PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

There were no comments relative to cumulative effects or past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions.

COMMENTS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS

1. It is important to acknowledge, and incorporate into the decision making process, the significant opportunities non-motorized recreational users enjoy in this region.

Forest Service Response

Decisions regarding use restrictions were made in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (see Travel Plan Record of Decision and Detailed Description of the Decision (10/2006)). This proposal is designed to improve road and trail facilities to safely accommodate the uses designated by the Travel Plan and to restore roads that were determined to be no longer needed for public or administrative use. The scope of the decision to be made through this EA does not include re-visiting the decisions made in the Travel Plan.

2. This is not an appropriate “Scoping Document” for an EA or for a Supplement to the October 2006 Travel Management Plan (TMP) EIS. The document does not meet the format, content, or analysis requirements for an EA under NEPA or USDA/FSFS regulations/guidelines. The document does not cite under which USDA/USFS authority and process this proposed set of 6 extensive projects is being managed as to NEPA review, public comment, and public participation. Once the regulatory process under which these projects are being processed as to NEPA review, I will offer more substantive comment.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-18

Forest Service Response

We believe that the scoping document for this proposal was more than adequate. Scoping documents facilitate public comment and aid in determining the issues that should be addressed during analysis. The scoping document was not designed to be an EA and was not subject to the notice and comment requirements of 36 CFR 215.

3. These project proposals are not properly analyzed as to potential impacts in accordance with NEPA in either this so-called “analysis” or in the 2006 EIS or the applicable 2007 ROD. (Comment 18-2)

Forest Service Response

The scoping document was designed to facilitate public comment and aid in determining the issues that should be addressed during analysis. The scoping document was not designed to be an EA and therefore contained no analysis of potential impacts.

4. These projects need to be considered as part of a Supplemental EIS as they are “connected actions” to the 2006 TMP Project EIS – which was not a programmatic EIS managed under 36 CFR 219. (Comment 18-3)

Forest Service Response

The proposed actions addressed in this EA are considered to be implementation of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (10/2006). The Travel Plan made decisions regarding the uses of roads, trails and National Forest land in general, whereas this proposal focuses on improvement work to the road and trail facilities. The Travel Plan decisions are not considered “connected actions” under NEPA, because they do not need to be reconsidered as part of this proposed action. Those decisions have been made.

5. Many elements of several of the proposals (e.g. Porcupine Area) contains proposals that are the subject of current litigation (especially concerning private land easement perfection) that demands they be addressed in a SEIS, not an informal, non-NEPA document. This document (and the other 2 code 1950-1 proposals of the same date) is clearly an (improper) attempt to segment and avoid proper Supplementation of the TMP EIS. These projects clearly need significant analysis as to cumulative impacts within the context of the latest CEQ and internal USDA/USFS NEPA requirements.

Forest Service Response

While the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan decision is currently being litigated the decision has not been enjoined. We also recognized that the analysis of potential impacts of the road and trail proposals considered in this EA would take some time to complete and therefore it was likely that the outcome of the

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-19

lawsuits would be known before a decision was made. We do not agree that these road and trail proposals require supplementation of the Travel Plan FEIS. The appropriate level of NEPA analysis is determined by the potential for significant impacts of these projects and decisions made through the Travel Plan are not being re-visited here.

6. If this is a scoping document, republish the public notice and address the comments above in the notice. Give an additional 45-day comment period. Prepare a supplemental TMP EIS which bundles all related changes to the Alternative 7M cited in the 2007 ROD so that the litigation can be settled and NEPA requirements can be met.

Forest Service Response

OTHER COMMENTS

1. Many of the commenters expressed either general support or opposition to the various road and trail proposals but without any specific rationale. Generally, motorized use advocates supported the proposals for road and trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance but opposed proposals for decommissioning. One group was opposed to construction/reconstruction of routes that are to be managed for non-motorized uses under the Travel Plan. Non-motorized use advocates were generally supportive of all of the proposals although there was some opposition to specific proposals accommodating motorized uses.

Forest Service Response

Most of these comments reflect disagreements that a number of people have with the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan. As indicated in prior responses the decisions of the Travel Plan are not being re-visited in this EA.

2. There were a number of comments relating to the use decisions made through the Travel Plan.

Forest Service Response

Again, the decisions of the Travel Plan are not being re-visited in this EA. It should also be understood that proposed road restoration work is not a proposal to close additional routes not identified for closure through the Travel Plan.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-20

3. CBU has filed legal action against the GNF on the Travel Plan and any destruction of public property by obliterating or decommissioning any road or trail is unacceptable and would cause damage and harm to the public. All current access for multiple use recreation and active forest management must be protected, preserved and maintained and be a priority for the Federal agency charged with the responsibility to manage this land.

There are numerous “unresolved conflicts” concerning these proposals – as outlined in the appeal process record for the TMP EIS and in current litigation documentation.

Forest Service Response

4. Mission Creek. CBU proposes the following on the 63 Ranch access to Mission Creek. The trail would go along with the proposal the 63 Ranch came up with the construction of a parking lot next to Bruffy Lane and a trail across the private property tying into the trail along the creek. Then construct a new trail up the east side of Mission Creek for stock and foot use only up to the current Mission Creek Trail above the existing trailhead. Then install a sign at the junction of Bruffy Lane and the 63 Ranch/Mission Creek forest. Access that may say “not recommended for horse trailers”, and or “road is not maintained vehicle access not recommended”. This would most likely decrease the amount of vehicle use through the 63 Ranch corrals and the possibility of gates left open. It would also decrease the potential of an inexperienced stock/foot user having a conflict on a narrow road with a vehicle, with the possible construction of a trail on the other side of the creek. This would also meet the federal road law on not abandoning a county road or having to provide an equal like route for access. This plan would disperse users and increase the quality of experience for non-motorized users. Possibly satisfying the 63 Ranch concerns. The Forest Service would still maintain motorized access for administrative needs. A small amount of users can still access the existing trailhead in a vehicle. The 63 Ranch could maintain the non-motorized routes after construction to Forest Service specs.

Forest Service Response

The Travel Plan decision opted not the close the Mission Creek road #649 and trailhead to any road user (except snowmobiling) beyond the private land. Since the road through the 63 Ranch proper is in fact a Park County Road with only limited Forest Service maintenance responsibilities, it was only a decision able to be made by the County. The Forest Service, by virtue of the Travel Plan decision, has not been inclined to support any decision to close the road to the public. Also, the decision did not commit the Forest Service to constructing a trailhead near Bruffy

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-21

Lane and constructing a trail from that trail to National Forest land on the opposite side of the private land. This does not limit the private landowners, if they desire at their expense, to construct a trailhead and parallel trail through private land in order to avoid the central ranch complex. The Forest is willing to discuss both the need for additional signing and minor improvements to the road through the ranch to reduce user-ranch conflicts that may exist.

Gallatin National Forest Road and Trail EA Appendix A-22