Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture APRIL 2018

Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District,

Lincoln County, Wyoming

For More Information Contact: sid woods Greys River Ranger District 671 N Washington Afton, WY 83110 Phone: 307-886-5300 Email: [email protected] Fax: 307-886-5339

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632- 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Contents

Acronyms & Abbreviations: ...... iv Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ...... 1 Need for the Proposal ...... 3 What will be Decided? ...... 4 Public Involvement ...... 4 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 5 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 7 Motorized Trail Best Management Practices Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 9 Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 10 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 12 Description of Alternative 2 ...... 12 Motorized Trail Best Management Practices and Design Features ...... 14 Phased Implementation under Alternative 2 ...... 15 Alternative 3 ...... 17 Description of Alternative 3 ...... 17 Motorized Trail Best Management Practices and Design Features ...... 19 Implementation under Alternative 3 ...... 19 Alternative 4 ...... 21 Description of Alternative 4 ...... 21 Design Features for Alternative 4 ...... 23 Implementation under Alternative 4 ...... 24 Alternative Considered But Not Evaluated in Detail ...... 26 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 26 Chapter 3. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 29 RECREATION ...... 29 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 29 Affected Environment ...... 30 Environmental Consequences ...... 33 INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS ...... 48 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 48 Affected Environment ...... 50 Environmental Consequences ...... 53 BOTANY ...... 58 Affected Environment ...... 58 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 58 Environmental Consequences ...... 58 WILDLIFE ...... 65 Elk, Mule Deer, and Moose ...... 69 Indicators Addressed ...... 69 Affected Environment ...... 70 Environmental Consequences ...... 76 Grizzly Bear (Sensitive), Wolverines (Proposed), and Gray Wolves ...... 95 Indicators Addressed ...... 96 Affected Environment ...... 96 Environmental Consequences ...... 101 Canada Lynx (Threatened) ...... 107 Affected Environment ...... 107

i Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences ...... 109 Bald Eagles and Harlequin Ducks (Sensitive) ...... 111 Indicators Addressed ...... 111 Affected Environment ...... 112 Environmental Consequences ...... 114 Columbia Spotted Frog and Boreal Toad (Sensitive) ...... 118 Indicators Addressed ...... 118 Affected Environment ...... 119 Environmental Consequences ...... 123 Migratory Birds (E.O. 13186 ) ...... 131 Indicators Addressed ...... 131 Affected Environment ...... 132 Environmental Consequences ...... 140 HYDROLOGY ...... 147 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 147 Affected Environment ...... 147 Environmental Consequences ...... 149 FISHERIES ...... 155 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 155 Affected Environment ...... 155 Environmental Consequences ...... 157 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 161 Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed ...... 161 Affected Environment ...... 161 Environmental Consequences ...... 161 References ...... 164 Appendix A: Bridge/Culvert Design Checklist ...... 176 Objective ...... 176 Direction ...... 176 Checklist Items ...... 176

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of alternatives by proposed activities ...... 5 Table 2. Description of actions proposed by route for each alternative ...... 5 Table 3. Proposed changes under Alternative 2 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area...... 13 Table 4. Proposed changes under Alternative 3 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area...... 17 Table 5. Proposed changes under Alternative 4 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area ...... 22 Table 6. Comparison of environmental effects by alternative ...... 26 Table 7. Area of desired future conditions (DFCs) in the Middle Greys Motorized Travel project area ...... 32 Table 8. Summary of effects on wildlife habitat and wildlife, by Road Effect Zone (open routes only), and the proportion of the project area comprising each Road Effect Zone, by alternative. The habitat effectiveness multiplier for elk provides a general indication of the level of negative effects on wildlife (0.0 = major reduction in habitat effectiveness; 1.0 = no or negligible reduction in habitat effectiveness)...... 66

ii Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Summary of effects on riparian habitat and wildlife in riparian areas, at different distances from open motorized routes, and the proportion of the project’s stream miles within each Road Effect Zone, by alternative...... 67 Table 10. Estimated breakdown of vegetation types in the Middle Greys River Watershed, based on the 2007 BTNF vegetation layer...... 75 Table 11. Existing and Alternative 1: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes and accessible unauthorized routes. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level...... 78 Table 12. Alternative 2: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level...... 78 Table 13. Alternative 3: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level...... 78 Table 14. Alternative 4: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover within the project area, DFC area within management area, and the Afton elk herd unit, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level...... 78 Table 15. Open season of use between alternatives. These seasonal dates represent most of the route system, see Maps A.1 – A.4, and Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA for more detail...... 79 Table 16. Acreage of each noxious weed species, by distance band, in the Middle Greys Motorized Trails project area; open motorized routes only under existing conditions and Alternative 1...... 91 Table 17. Motorized route densities in the project area and in two DFC areas...... 101 Table 18. Proportion perennial stream miles (within each of three geographic areas) that occur within each Road Effect Zone (open routes only) for each alternative...... 127 Table 19. Percent of each of three geographic areas that would be in each of four road-effect zones relative to open motorized routes, and the percent change from open routes under Alternative 1 to open routes under each of the action alternatives (italicized in parentheses). All numbers in the cells are percentages...... 128 Table 20. Designations and habitat associations for selected migratory bird species (and one grouse)...... 136 Table 21. Estimated trends in populations of 75 bird species known or predicted to occur in the Middle Greys Project Area, based on 1968-2015 Breeding Bird Surveys in Wyoming. .... 138 Table 22. Number of miles of motorized trail by alternative and by Desired Future Condition habitat type (e.g. Overall, DFC1B, DFC10). The percentage of change is listed below mileage (+%). Sediment delivery is reduced exponentially by distance (m)...... 158

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Middle Greys Motorized Trails project area on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Lincoln County, Wyoming ...... 2 Figure 2. Map of Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) ...... 8 Figure 3. Map of Alternative 2 ...... 16 Figure 4. Map of Alternative 3 ...... 20 Figure 5. Map of Alternative 4 ...... 25 Figure 6. Motorized trail designations ...... 31 Figure 7. Roadless areas and Middle Greys Motorized Travel project boundary ...... 49 Figure 8. Grayback Ridge Inventoried Roadless Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest...... 50 Figure 9. Salt River Range Inventoried Roadless Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest ...... 51

iii Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 10. Proposed 50” new motorized trail within Grayback Ridge roadless area ...... 55 Figure 11. Proposed 64” new motorized trail within Grayback Ridge roadless area ...... 57 Figure 12. Vegetation types in and around the MGMT project area ...... 73 Figure 13. Map 3d. Road effect zones (distance bands) under existing conditions and Alternative 1 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area. Distances are 0-100 m, 101- 200 m, 201-360, etc., based on Rowland et al. 2012 (except that the 0-360 m band was split three ways for this analysis based on Table 5 and DeLong 2015:68-74)...... 80 Figure 14. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 2 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area. (DeLong and Egan 2017) ...... 81 Figure 15. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 3 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area...... 82 Figure 16. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 4 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area...... 83 Figure 17 Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 1, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Note seasonal routes and effects on security cover if it were not for these closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991)...... 84 Figure 18. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 2, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991) ...... 85 Figure 19. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 3, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures...... 86 Figure 20. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 4, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991)...... 87 Figure 21. Modeled wolverine habitat on the BTNF, based on modeled by Copeland et al. (2007) and Inman et al. (2011)...... 98 Figure 22. Modeled sensitive-amphibian breeding habitat and migration habitat in and near the MGMT project area for spotted frogs and boreal toads, summer habitat for boreal toads, and buffers around known breeding sites...... 122 Figure 24. Streams, 6th Field HUCs, and Wetlands located within the Middle Greys Motorized Travel project area...... 148

Acronyms & Abbreviations: ATV all-terrain vehicle

Bridger-Teton Bridger-Teton National Forest

DFC desired future condition

EA environmental assessment

IRA inventory roadless area

MVUM motor vehicle use map

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OHV off-highway vehicle

iv Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to update the Motor Vehicle Use Map within the Middle Greys River project area to provide functional motorized trail loop opportunities, improve resource conditions, and improve the ability to manage motorized use. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Greys River Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (Bridger- Teton).

In order for the public to begin seeing improvements in how motor vehicle use is managed on the ground in a timely manner, the scope of the project is focused within an area that offers the best opportunity for success. This focus also helps ensure the success of partner organizations, allowing them to concentrate their efforts within a manageable area. After reviewing current and past proposals to improve motorized trail loop opportunities, it is clear that the Middle Greys River area offers the best chance for success. This area already has resource analysis information available, is identified as a priority for watershed improvement, and has Forest Plan direction which is compatible with a motorized trail system.

This environmental assessment (EA) provides documentation to determine whether implementation of changes to the designated motor vehicle travel system may significantly affect the quality of the human environment (Chapter 3) and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This EA fulfills agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Location of the Proposed Project Area The Middle Greys Motorized Travel project area (Figure 1) is located approximately 25 miles southeast of Alpine and 14 miles northeast of Afton, Wyoming, along the Greys River Road (FS #10138). It is approximately 5 miles wide by 11 miles long (approximately 27,395 acres) and includes lands both east and west of the Greys River Road (FS #10138). The area includes the west slope of the Wyoming Range and the east slope of the Salt River Range, extending from Blind Bull Creek on the north (T34N, R116W, S8) to South Three Forks (T32N, R117W, S13) on the south. The project area encompasses the Meadows guard station (rental cabin) and the Forest Park campground.

The northwestern portion of the Middle Greys project area is largely within the Desired Future Condition (DFC) Class 10 of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan).The management emphasis for this area is to balance wildlife habitat needs with uses such as timber harvest and livestock grazing. The southern and eastern portions of the project area are largely within DFC Class 1B where the management emphasis is on commodity uses such as timber harvest and livestock grazing. Motorized recreation is appropriate within both of these Desired Future Condition classes. A smaller portion of the project area along the Greys River corridor is designated as DFC Class 3A which is an area managed to offer river and scenic- recreation experiences.

1 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Middle Greys Motorized Trails project area on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Lincoln County, Wyoming

2 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Need for the Proposal The National Forest Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 261.13) and the Forest Plan (USDA 1990) both require motor vehicle use to occur only on designated routes shown on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. On the Greys River Ranger District, the existing motorized travel system includes 187 miles of rough, low-volume roads, 97 miles of motorcycle trail, and about 35 miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width. There are also higher volume and higher speed roads suitable for passenger vehicles (e.g. the Greys River and Smiths Fork Roads). This system of motor vehicle routes is based on environmental analysis completed in 1991, prior to technological advances that transformed off-highway vehicle use. Over the past 10 years, the Greys River Ranger District has experienced an increase in off-highway vehicle use and with this, considerable interest in developing a higher quality motorized trail system including the desire for loop trails, family-friendly riding opportunities, and trails that accommodate a variety of off- highway vehicles. At the same time, implementation of the current travel system has been problematic with numerous violations occurring. Public complaints have increased, notably about poor trail conditions especially at stream crossings, as well as complaints about motor vehicle use occurring in closed areas or during closed seasons. A well-managed travel system requires attention to all 4 E’s (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation). This project allows for some focused attention on engineering, i.e. the design of the motor vehicle travel system to meet current public needs and resource objectives.

The purpose of this project is to improve management of motor vehicle use within a focused area – the Middle Greys area. The existing motorized travel system evolved largely from sheepherder trails and old logging and mining roads. Vehicle class often changes along the length of these routes, e.g. allowing vehicles less than 50” wide along part of the route and then changing to allow only motorcycles. The inconsistency in the class of vehicle allowed along a particular route creates confusion, makes enforcement difficult, and does not provide the loop opportunities many people desire. At the same time, many of the district’s low-volume roads no longer receive Forest Service maintenance due to budget decreases, which detracts from their usefulness for many full- size vehicle users. Yet these routes offer potential for motorized experiences for many of today’s trail vehicles.

The Forest Service seeks to provide better public service by designing a motorized travel system that reduces the potential for resource damage and violations while offering quality experiences that better accommodate user desires. Quality experiences will:

• include clear and navigable routes that attract riders to stay on the designated system,

• offer family opportunities to safely explore together,

• encompass points of interest, notably scenic vistas,

• provide loops away from high-volume, higher-speed roads,

• be designed and maintained to reduce erosion and persistent bogs.

There is also a need to address resource and social impacts associated with user-created routes, unsustainable designated routes, impacts to wetlands/riparian areas, disturbance of and direct impacts to wildlife, and conflict with outfitted clients and others seeking quality non-motorized trail experiences. To meet both public and resource needs, the motorized road and trail system

3 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

within the Middle Greys area must be designed within the context of Forest Plan desired future conditions with particular attention to retaining the diversity and abundance of wildlife that define the area’s heritage, and retaining or improving the quality of high-country watersheds.

Based on the needs described above, specific project goals within the Middle Greys area are to:

1. Improve the motorized route system by designing motorized loops and/or trail vehicle options away from high-volume roads for family-friendly ‘trail-like’ recreational riding opportunities that reduce the potential for collisions/encounters between motorized groups, encourage motor vehicle use only on designated routes, and provide separation between non-motorized and motorized trail experiences, consistent with Bridger-Teton National Forest direction and National Rules (e.g. National Forest Travel Management Rule, Roadless Rule).

2. Reduce resource impacts by creating a motorized trail system that encourages the right use in the right location at the right times so that trails are sustainable with minimal erosion, wetlands are not damaged, wildlife disturbance is minimized especially during key seasons, the potential for sensitive wildlife species to be directly affected by motor vehicle use is minimized, and blocks of secure habitat are retained during fall hunting seasons.

3. Encourage community stewardship and public engagement in managing the motor vehicle travel system to foster connections between the public and their public lands, increase the capacity for resource stewardship, and contribute to thriving communities. What will be Decided? The need for the proposal outlined earlier sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed. Based on the analysis, the district ranger will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the district ranger will select an alternative deciding:

♦ Whether to implement a proposed motorized route network; ♦ What specific design criteria or mitigation measures are needed; ♦ What specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

The decision will be based on: ♦ how well the selected alternative achieves the need, ♦ how well the selected alternative protects the environment and addresses issues and concerns, and ♦ how well the selected alternative complies with relevant policies, laws and regulations. Public Involvement The Forest Service hosted a public meeting on May 15, 2015 to discuss the project proposal. On June 19, 2015 a field visit was held on the north end of the project area. A scoping letter was then released with that proposal on December 9, 2015 to gather ideas, concerns and recommendations

4 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment for the development of alternatives and identification of issues. A 30-day public comment period was initiated with a legal notice in the Caper Star-Tribune on January 2, 2016 and an open house held on January 13, 2016. Forty-one comment letters or emails were received during that time frame.

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives Four alternatives were considered in this analysis: a no action alternative and three action alternatives, including the proposed action, which were designed to create a new network of connected routes that better accommodates trail vehicles.

Table 1. Summary of alternatives by proposed activities Class of Road or Trail Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Action

Roads (open to full size 47 miles 22 miles 20 miles 47 miles vehicles) (note: all alts. include 12 miles of the Greys River road) Trail open to all vehicles (no 0 miles 3 miles 0 miles 0 miles width restriction) Trail open to 64” vehicles 0 miles 0 miles 28 miles 33 miles (special designation) Trail open to 50” vehicles 6 miles 35 miles 13 miles 0 miles Trail open to motorcycles 4 miles 8 miles 9 miles 4 miles Non-motorized trail 21 miles 20 miles 20 miles 20 miles Routes with seasonal 11 miles 36 miles 42 miles 24 miles restriction Closed road 65 miles 59 miles 61 miles 47 miles (not necessarily (with effective (with effective (with effective effective closures) closures) closures) closures) Total motor vehicle route 10 miles 43 miles 50 miles 37 miles system motorized trails motorized trails motorized trails motorized trails 47 miles roads for 25 miles roads for 20 miles roads 47 miles roads full-size vehicles full-size vehicles for full-size for full-size vehicles vehicles

Table 2. Description of actions proposed by route for each alternative Route Name Route Alternative 1 No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 # Action Proposed Action South Three 10006 0-6.1 mi closed 0-2.5 mi <50” 0-2.5 mi <64” 0-2.5 mi <64” Forks 7/1-10/10 7/1-9/10 6/1-9/10 2.5-6.1 mi Closed 2.5-6.1 closed 2.5-6.1 closed

New 0-1.75 mi <50” 0 - 1.75 mi <64” 0-1.75 mi <64” connector 7/1-10/10 7/1-9/10 6/1-9/10 Barstow Lake 3088 0-1.5 <50” 0-1.5 <50” 0-1.5 <64” 0-1.5 <64” Trail No seasonal 7/1-10/10 7/1-9/10 6/1-9/10 restriction Middle Three 10422 0-1.97 all vehicles 0-1.97 Closed Same as Alt. 2 0-1.97 all vehicles Forks

5 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Route Name Route Alternative 1 No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 # Action Proposed Action No seasonal 6/1-10/10 restriction N Three 10043 0-3.52 all vehicles 0-.40 all vehicles 0-3.3 <64” 0-5.2 all vehicles Forks 6.2 closed spurs .4-5.2 <50” 7/1-12/1 No seasonal No seasonal 7/1-10/10 3.3-5.2 <64” restriction restriction 6.2 closed spurs 7/1-9/10 6.2 closed spurs 6.2 closed spurs

Bear Cr TS 10363 0-3.1 all vehicles 0-3.1 Close 0 - 3.1 <64” 0-3.1 plus 1.22 3.1-3.6 closed 1.5 1.22 spurs Close + New spurs all vehicles closed spurs connection +New connection 1.22 open spurs 0-0.2 <64” 0-0.2 all vehicles No seasonal 7/1-12/1 6/1-10/10 restriction 1.22 Spurs Elk Cr Trail 3039 Non-moto Install parking, signs, Same as Alt. 2 Same as Alt. 2 barriers @ junctions Bear Cr. 10420 0-0.9 all vehicles 0-0.9 Close Same as Alt. 2 0-0.9 : all vehicles; Ridge No seasonal No seasonal restriction restriction Elk Cr Loop 10421 0-3.2 non-moto 0-3.2 <50” 0-3.2 <64” 0-3.2 <64”: 7/1-9/10 7/1-12/1 6/1-12/1 2.2 mi spurs Close 2.2 mi spurs, same as Alt. 2 Bear Cr Rd 10214 0-5.5 All vehicles 0-1.3 all vehicles, 0-11.8, b <64” 0-11.8 plus all Spurs b, h all 1.3-11.8, b, h <50” New connection spurs + .3 vehicles 1.9 7/1-9/10 0-0.3 connection: all 5.5-11.8 closed Other spurs: Close 7/1-12/1 vehicles No seasonal Other spurs: No seasonal restriction Close restriction

Bear Cr Trail 3085 0-3.4 <50” 0- 0-1.3 <50” 0-7.6 motorbike 0-1.3 <64” 7.6 motorbike 7/1-9/10 5/1-12/1 1.3-7.6 motorbike 1.3-7.6 motorbike 5/1-12/1 5/1-12/1 Upper Cabin 10255 Closed 0-6.2 0-6 mi <50” 11.55 closed 0-6 mi <64” Cr Closed 5.35 spurs 7/1-9/10 road and spurs all vehicles @ Trail Rehabilitate .4 spurs all vehicles Head (TH): .2 spur N, @ TH .2 spur S 5.6 mi spurs : Rehabilitate New N/A 0-1.3<50” Same as Alt. 1 0-1.3<64” connector 7/1-9/10 Deadhorse 10350 All Vehicles 0-1.5 mi Rehabilitate 0-1.5: All vehicles 0-1.5 mi Rehabilitate 0-1.5 mi 5/1-12/1 Lower Cabin 10256 0-5.93 mi 0-.5 mi all vehicles 0-4.93 mi <50” 0-5.93 All vehicles Cr All Vehicles .5-4.93 mi <50” 7/1 -9/10 3.23 mi closed 4.23 + spurs: 4.23 + spurs: spurs Rehabilitate 4.23 + spurs: Barricade Rehabilitate

6 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Route Name Route Alternative 1 No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 # Action Proposed Action Cabin Cr 3083 Non-moto 0-2 <50”; 0-2 <50” 0-2 all vehicles Peak Install new trailhead Install new Install new and re-route trailhead and re- trailhead and reroute route

Covey Cutoff 3081 0-2 <50” 0-7 motorbike 0-7 motorbike 0-2 <64” 2-7 motorbike 5/1-12/1 5/1-12/1 2-7

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 proposes no changes to the existing open roads and motorized trails in the project area as currently depicted in the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM, https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/btnf/maps-pubs). This alternative also provides a baseline for comparison of the action alternatives.

Under Alternative 1, current roads and trails intersecting the project area include approximately 47 miles of full-size vehicle roads open to public use. Of these, about 12 miles of the roaded area is the Greys River Road (Forest Service Road 10138) which is the main access road for recreation in the area. There are approximately 6 miles of ATV (motorized 50”) trail, 4 miles of motorcycle trail, 21 miles of non-motorized trail and 65 miles of former roads that are closed to motorized use (Table 1, Figure 2).

Some areas of use are open for limited time periods while others may be open without seasonal restrictions. The access route of Greys River Road is closed to wheeled vehicles from December first through the end of April. The ATV trails in this area connect road systems to motorcycle trails or to non-motorized backcountry areas, allowing for increased access to such areas, but not designed as loop or continuous routes. The designated ATV trails are out and back routes and are available to wheeled motorized vehicles with a 50-inch or less width. The ATV segments provide access onto mixed-use Forest System Trail 3085 (north side of Bear Creek) and Forest System Trail 3081 (west of Meadows Guard Station). The trail system open to motorcycles can be accessed from multiple locations via ATV trails and open roads. The project area includes motorcycle use on portions of Forest System Trail 3079, Way Trail, south from Lake Barstow. The non-motorized trail system provides maintained routes for public use, primarily on foot or horse, although some mountain bike use also occurs.

7 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 2. Map of Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)

8 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Motorized Trail Best Management Practices Common to All Action Alternatives The following Forest Service National Core Best Management Practices (BMPs, Technical Manual 2012) would be implemented as part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Other BMPs may be identified from the technical manual during implementation as appropriate.

• Locate or relocate trails to conform to the terrain, provide suitable drainage, provide adequate pollutant filtering between the trail and nearby waterbodies, and reduce potential adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian resources.

- Avoid sensitive areas, such as riparian areas, wetlands, stream crossings, inner gorges, and unstable areas to the extent practicable.

- Use suitable measures to mitigate trail impacts to the extent practicable where sensitive areas are unavoidable.

- Use suitable measures to hydrologically disconnect trails from waterbodies to the extent practicable.

• Design, construct, and maintain trail width, grades, curves, and switchbacks suitable to the terrain and designated use.

• Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for control of erosion and stormwater when constructing trails.

• Install and maintain suitable drainage measures to collect and disperse runoff and avoid or minimize erosion of trail surface and adjacent areas.

• Use and maintain surfacing materials suitable to the trail site and use to withstand traffic and minimize runoff and erosion. Pay particular attention to areas where high wheel slip (curves, acceleration, and braking) during motorized use generates loose soil material.

• Design stream crossings to use the most cost-efficient structure consistent with resource protection, facility needs, and types of use and safety obligations (see BMP Road-2 [Road Location and Design] and BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]).

• Designate season of use to avoid periods when trail surfaces are particularly prone to unacceptable erosion, rutting, or compaction.

• Monitor trail condition at regular intervals to identify drainage and trail surface maintenance needs to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

• Manage designated trails to mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from over-use when closure and rehabilitation is not practicable or desired.

9 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

• Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 A. A. Non-Designated Roads and Unauthorized Routes (part of Alternatives 2 and 3)

1. Prevent vehicles from entering non-designated system roads from open trail/road

a) in DFC 3 and 10 areas by rehabilitation: scarifying, returning to grade, and/or potentially seeding or tree-planting in particularly sensitive areas; and

b) in DFC 1B areas by installing barriers most likely to be effective in the given terrain, from boulder placement to gates to removing visible segments of routes (short segment re-contouring, but not complete route).

2. All unauthorized routes across the project area shall be re-contoured and/or re-vegetated.

a) Place barriers, gates, and other structures where terrain features and vegetation would minimize the potential for vehicles to go around them.

b) Stewards will work with appropriate resource specialists to secure funding for decommissioning and associated work (e.g., re-contouring, placement of rocks, logs, tank traps, gates) to increase effectiveness of designed habitat and watershed protections.

c) Focused survey of all roads, authorized and unauthorized, for A. paysonii and L. paysonii, prior to any reclamation activities that include revegetation and/or mulching. If occurrences of A. paysonii, L. paysonii or any other R4 Sensitive Plant Species are located, work with Botany personnel to include mitigations as appropriate.

d) Work with Botany personnel to develop appropriate seed mixes for revegetation purposes.

B. Routes Designated Open as Part of Travel Network

1. Focused survey of all new routes and widened sections of existing routes prior to any ground disturbance. If occurrences of any R4 Sensitive Plant Species are located, work with Botany personnel to include mitigations as appropriate.

2. New motorized trails (including currently closed roads) will be situated and constructed to help keep trail vehicles on the new trail; for example:

a) placement along and within cliffs, steep terrain, dense trees, downfall, willow thickets;

b) avoiding crossing riparian areas and ridgelines, except where terrain features and vegetation prevent or greatly minimize the potential for vehicles to travel along these corridors; and

10 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

c) avoiding crossing meadows that access other open areas or wet areas. Forest Service employees will work with stewards and state trails staff when finalizing trail locations within the system.

3. Where terrain openings could allow off-trail access, into riparian corridors, or along unforested ridgelines, install additional engineered support for route compliance, e.g., barricades, created cut banks.

4. Prevent or mitigate impacts to springs, seeps, wetlands, and other wet spots along new and existing portions of the proposed route.

5. Prevent trail vehicles from driving through springs, seeps, and other wetlands adjacent to new and existing portions of the motorized trail using engineering, education, and enforcement.

6. At least 30 miles of network trails must be patrolled at least every 2 weeks by stewards and Forest Service employees, at different times of the day and different days of the week, to help ensure successful compliance with designated route system. An Annual Operating Plan would be created every May to outline an agreed-upon schedule, and patrol reports would be reviewed at the end of each operating season in a joint session of stewards and Forest Service staff. (A reduced schedule may be agreed upon in future years).

7. Trail signs would indicate all junctions and vehicle class changes as well as all non- motorized trail junctions along the network. Seasonal dates would be prominently marked at both ends of applicable segments. These signs would be maintained at least annually to ensure ongoing presence of clear information.

8. Trailhead waste would be monitored and collected regularly to dissuade ongoing abuse. If deemed appropriate to amount of system use, temporary outhouses would be ordered and emptied as needed.

9. Motorized-route construction activities will not occur prior to July 20 to avoid the primary nesting season for migratory birds and to avoid early summer movements of sensitive amphibians. General travel, monitoring activities, and sign replacement are excluded.

10. No motorized routes will be allowed within 100 feet of known breeding sites of Columbia spotted frogs and boreal toads, and efforts will be made to avoid motorized routes within 200 yards of these sites. If an active breeding site is found prior to route construction, no part of the trail will be constructed within 100 feet of the breeding site and all attempts will be made to place it further than 200 yards from the site. If it is not possible to keep at least 200 yards between the breeding site and motorized route, potential impacts will be mitigated by other means. If an active breeding site is found near an existing open motorized route, the route will be relocated at least 100 feet to the side if at all possible and at least 200 yards where possible; if this is not possible, mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts of routes.

11. Trails stewardship partners and/or Forest Service personnel will conduct periodic surveys (at least once every 3 years) along motorized routes, and survey any newly-constructed routes for two consecutive seasons after construction. If key noxious weeds (e.g., spotted

11 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

and diffuse knapweed, yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, Dyer’s woad) are found, partners will immediately notify the District Weed Coordinator for treatment.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 2 responds to local interest in creating a new network of connected routes designed to better accommodate trail vehicles. The alternative focuses on opportunities for vehicles up to 50 inches, the least-served class of motorized vehicles, while limited mixed use would continue to be allowed for full-size camp vehicles where appropriate. The network would offer a southern loop at Three Forks, connect northward through Bear Creek to a northwestern loop at Cabin Creek, and adds a new connection to Meadows Guard Station (Figure 3). Alternative 2 also proposes some seasonal restrictions to protect natural resources and route closures to clarify the loop routes. Alternative 2 would provide 43 miles of motorized trails and 25 miles of open roads.

Description of Alternative 2 Table 1 displays the mileage summary of the proposed route network under Alternative 2. Roads and trails intersecting the project area include approximately 22 miles of full-size vehicle roads open to the public. Of these, about 12 miles is the Greys River Road (Forest Service Road 10138) which is the main access road for recreation in the area. This alternative would provide approximately 3 miles of trail open to all vehicles with no width restriction (dual designated as open road), 35 miles of motorized 50-inch trail, 8 miles of motorcycle trail, and 20 miles of non- motorized trail. Of these routes, 36 miles would have seasonal restrictions. Table 2 summarizes the actions proposed by route for each alternative.

In order to implement Alternative 2, the following changes to the current motor vehicle use map (MVUM) are proposed: approximately 17 miles of closed road would become available for riders on vehicles under 50” wide, 12 miles would be converted from open road to a motorized trail for vehicles under 50” wide, 4 miles of motorcycle trail would be widened to accommodate vehicles under 50” wide, 4 miles of new 50” wide motorized trail would be constructed, 1 mile of non- system route would be added to the system (i.e., MVUM) with dual designation 50” trail and full- size trail and 12 miles of open road that dead-ends or otherwise do not contribute to the functional loop network would be closed. Changes to the existing travel management system are summarized in Table 3 and include the following actions in specific locations:

• Portions of three currently full-size roads (North Three Forks, upper Bear Creek and most of Lower Cabin Creek) would be converted to 50” trail for a more trail-like experience throughout the network.

• North Three Forks road would have a new trailhead at the South Three Forks junction; above that it would be 50” trail.

• Full-size vehicle access on Bear Creek Road (FS #10214), dual-designated as a road and as a trail open without width restrictions, would be retained up to the FS 3083 trailhead.

• At the Bear Creek trailhead on the north side, two full-size road spurs would also be added to accommodate camping vehicles.

12 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

• On Lower Cabin Creek, full-size access would be retained for camp vehicles on the bottom 1.5 miles, again dual-designating as both a road and a trail to allow unlicensed drivers of 50” vehicles throughout the connected network.

Table 3. Proposed changes under Alternative 2 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area. Proposed Change Length Open closed road to motorized route 17 miles (road bed still retained) (all 50” trail) Change open road to motorized trail 12 miles (road bed still retained) Change vehicle class on motorized trail 4 miles (motorcycle trail becomes 50” trail) Construct new motorized trail 4 miles (all 50” trail) Add existing non-system route to motor vehicle 1 mile system (e.g. camp spurs) (50” and full-size trail) Close open road (dead-ends and roads that don’t 12 miles contribute to functional loop)

Seasonality: Many participants in the design phase and respondents to the project scoping desired seasonal closures to protect resource values, including trail sustainability during wet seasons and primitive hunting experiences in the fall. The following seasonal designations are proposed under Alternative 2:

1. The southern 50” trails, including Barstow Lake Trail (FS #3088), would be open to vehicle use from July 1 through October 10;

2. Full-size vehicle access below the trailhead would continue to be open during the same season as the main Greys River Road (5/1-12/1).

3. The N. Three Forks to Bear Creek connection would be open from July 1 through September 10 to allow elk to migrate into Forest Park Feedground.

4. Trail #3083 on the north side of Bear Creek above the FS Road #10255 junction would be open to motorbikes only, with a season of 5/1-12/1. The portions of the network still open to all vehicles, which includes lower Bear and Cabin, would also be open the same season as the main road (5/1-12/1).

5. On the west side of the northern loop, Upper Cabin Creek FS Road #10255 and the newly constructed connector, the 50” vehicle motorized use season would be from July 1 through September 10.

6. The lower, or eastern portion of the loop, utilizing Lower Cabin Creek Road #10256 and some of the Cabin Creek Peak trail #3083l to connect down to Meadows Guard Station, would be open from July 1 through October 10.

7. The Covey Cutoff Trail #3081, which runs west over the Salt River Range from Meadows Guard Station, would be open to motorbikes only, with a season of 5/1-12/1.

13 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Existing system routes not designated as part of the loop network would be closed to public motorized use to improve both visitor navigability and habitat effectiveness for wildlife, and all unauthorized routes would be re-contoured to improve watershed conditions. Approximately 50 miles of closed roads would remain closed and the Forest Service would implement a combination of the following effective closure options:

a) Gated routes - seasonal routes and non-system routes needed on regular basis for admin or permittee use;

b) Engineered closures - entrances blocked or obscured with boulders, logs, etc; and

c) Rehabilitated routes - only in DFC 10 (north of Cabin Creek), mechanically remove road surface and re-establish hillslope.

Implementation of the loop network would primarily be accomplished through partnerships with the Wyoming State Trails program. Trail crews would use a combination of the following equipment to conduct trail maintenance, construction and reconstruction: SWECO Trail Dozer equipped with a 4’ wide dozer, ripper, tine rake; ASL, 4’ wide, tracked skid steer type loader; a Cat skid loader with augers, brush hog, and rock breaker; rubber track mini excavators; dump trucks; Cat IT14 wheeled loader; post hole augers; portable welder; gas powered post pounder; chain saws; ATVs; 6X6’s off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and miscellaneous other hand tools.

• General trail maintenance is the ongoing upkeep of a trail necessary to retain or restore the trail to the intended trail management objective. General maintenance includes surface and back slope grading and reshaping; trailside brushing; aggregate and/or cable- concrete mat placement; installation of geotextile, drain dips and cross drains for surface erosion control; puncheon repair or installation; trail entrance pinch-point installation. Maintenance of some trails may occur only on sections of the trail needing work to improve resource protection.

• Trail construction and reconstruction is the actual building or rebuilding of a trial. Trail construction/reconstruction includes realignment, widening, clearing and grubbing, excavation work to accommodate safe use of Off-Highway Recreational vehicles, establishing trail template, major drainage structure installation, and general maintenance activities.

New construction and agreed-upon closures would be accomplished at the same time in order to assure a correctly functioning system as described under Alternative 2. Monitoring of design features and effectiveness monitoring would also be done primarily through stewardship group partnerships, who would also participate in basic management and maintenance needs.

Motorized Trail Best Management Practices and Design Features The same Forest Service National Core Best Management Practices (Technical Manual 2012) would be implemented as part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. For a description of these best management practices see the “Motorized Trail Best Management Practices Common to All Action Alternatives” section (p.9).

This alternative also includes design features described in “Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3” section (p. 10)

14 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Phased Implementation under Alternative 2

Phase 1: Opening the Southern Loop and Bear Creek Connector Under Alternative 2, immediate implementation of the southern network (South Three Forks to Bear Creek), with clear monitoring to determine effectiveness of design requirements (see description following Alternative 4). Stewardship agreements would include annual meetings to improve existing efforts or develop new initiatives to make this system successful.

If/when the system meets effectiveness goals, Phase 2 would then include creation of the northern portions of the project (Bear to Upper Cabin and Lower Cabin to Meadow Creek).

Phase 2: Opening the North Loop If the following criteria are met within the 2-year monitoring period following the completion of Phase 1, then the implementation of the west side of the North Loop would begin.

1. All specific design features ― listed under A and B, above ― have been fully implemented in the project area.

2. No more than 5 newly established spurs / year (average) had been documented within the project area; “Established” means still-visible tracks on landscape when annual pre- season inspection occurs. Average would be determined on a rolling 2-year basis.

3. No more than 5 closed roads throughout the project area show evidence of illegally being used (including illegal use on seasonally closed routes—data may be collected from patrol reports).

Utilize the above monitoring criteria to determine if new actions should be implemented to improve proper road and trail etiquette. Additional actions would be outlined in the annual Operating Plan and include the following:

1. Increased stewardship outreach for volunteers and/or to communicate with visitors (on- site, through news media, through dealerships, with social media, etc.) could be designed and documented.

2. Additional funding for Forest Service maintenance and or patrol staff could be sought. Further grant requests and contracts could improve or expand rehabilitation efforts.

3. Other trail stewardship groups can also be consulted for examples of what has been effective in their locations.

Ineffective management: If the above thresholds remain continuously unmet over any 3-year period, this indicates that the trail vehicle network (or specific portions thereof) cannot be effectively managed to protect resources and would need to be close to motorized uses.

Potential closures, of any or all of the system, due to incomplete or ineffective implementation of requirements, can also be phased in by areas most important for wildlife or watershed protection. This would include installation of gates at each end of segments in places where trail vehicles cannot get around. Portions of the network that remain designated as roads would not close due to any proposed monitoring of this trail vehicle system; should resource concerns arise in those locations. Road closures would need to be analyzed under a separate decision.

15 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 3. Map of Alternative 2

16 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes a network of connected routes designed to better accommodate trail vehicles. This alternative proposes the highest trail mileage among the alternatives accommodating 50” vehicles, 64” side-by-sides, and motorcycles while also responding to wildlife concerns regarding habitat effectiveness within the Desired Future Condition (DFC) 10. The network would offer a southern loop at Three Forks, northward through Bear Creek connector to a northeastern loop at Cabin Creek which incorporates the east-side of the Greys River Road to the Meadows Guard Station (Figure 4). Alternative 3 also proposes some seasonal restrictions to protect natural resources and route closures to clarify the route network. Portions of this network would be designed to accommodate larger trail vehicles up to 64 inches wide. Alternative 3 would provide 50 miles of motorized trails and 20 miles of open roads. Alternative 3 also proposes some seasonal restrictions and route closures to protect natural resources and help recreationists stay on the designated routes.

Description of Alternative 3 There would be three dedicated OHV route loops and a continuous OHV route network where crossing a road would occur at two OHV “crosswalks” along the Greys River Road, allowing access to a proposed East Side trail system. Portions of the motorized trail network in Alternative 3 would be designed to accommodate larger trail vehicles up to 64” width with a special designation on the official Motor Vehicle Use Map. Routes with mixed-use of full-size vehicles and OHVs (other than the Greys River Road) would not occur as part of this alternative.

Under Alternative 3, roads and trails intersecting the project area include approximately 20 miles of full-size vehicle roads open to the public. Of these, about 12 miles is the Greys River Road (Forest Service Road 10138) which is the main access road for recreation in the area. This alternative would provide approximately 13 miles of 50-inch trail, 28 miles of routes open for larger side-by-side trail vehicles up to 64” wide, 9 miles of motorcycle trail, and 20 miles of non- motorized trail. Of these routes, 42 miles would have seasonal restrictions. Six miles of road within the project area near the Blind Bull road would remain open to full-size vehicles, but these are not part of the connected network in this alternative. Table 1 provides the mileage for specific route designations under Alternative 3.

Extending motorized use dates into the fall hunt is also proposed in portions of the network. Table 2 displays the actions proposed by route for each alternative. Table 4 summarizes the proposed changes to the current motor vehicle use map under Alternative 3. The same design features as proposed under Alternative 2 would also be implemented as part of Alternative 3. As with Alternative 2, existing system routes not designated as part of the network and all unauthorized routes would be effectively closed to public motorized use to improve habitat effectiveness for wildlife and watershed conditions and to improve public navigation of the maintained network.

Table 4. Proposed changes under Alternative 3 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area. Proposed Change Length Open closed road to motorized route 13 miles (road bed still retained) (most 64” trail) Change open road to motorized trail 18 miles (road bed still retained) Change vehicle class on motorized trail 6 miles

17 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Proposed Change Length (motorcycle trail becomes 50” trail to accommodate wider vehicles) Construct new motorized trail 7 miles (all 50” trail) Add existing non-system route to motor vehicle 1 mile system (e.g. camp spurs) (50” and 64” trail) Close open road (dead-ends and roads that don’t 9 miles contribute to functional loop)

Seasonality: Many participants desired seasonal closures to protect resource values, including trail sustainability during wet seasons and primitive hunting experiences in the fall. The following seasonal designations are proposed under Alternative 3:

• South Three Forks and Barstow Lake routes would be open from July 1 through September 10.

• North Three Forks through all of Bear Creek would be open from July 1 through December 1.

• The Bear Creek Trail #3085 would be open from May 1 to December 1 for motorbikes and non-motorized uses only.

• The Cabin Creek area would be open from July 1 through September 10.

• East side route would be open from July 1 through December 1.

Effective Closure Methods: Existing system routes not designated as part of the loop network would be closed to public motorized use to improve both visitor navigability and habitat effectiveness for wildlife. All unauthorized routes would be re-contoured to improve watershed conditions. Approximately 61 miles of closed roads would remain closed and the Forest Service would implement a combination of the following effective closure options:

• Gated routes - seasonal routes and non-system routes needed on regular basis for admin or permittee use;

• Engineered closures - entrances blocked or obscured with boulders, logs, etc; and

• Rehabilitated routes - only in DFC 10 (north of Cabin Creek), mechanically remove road surface and re-establish hillslope.

18 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

This alternative also includes design features described in “Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3” section (p. 10)

Implementation under Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would approve the entire route network without proposing effectiveness triggers to implement successive stages of the network, or thresholds for negative impacts such as proposed under Alternative 2. Initial implementation again would primarily occur through Wyoming State Trails program partnerships. Effectiveness monitoring, as needed and conducted with stewardship partners, would determine if/when changes to management should occur. Annual meetings with interested stakeholders would provide opportunities to explore new, or improve existing efforts to make the system successful. Implementation of the full network would still depend on funding and construction capacity, therefore portions of the network would likely be created over time.

19 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Map of Alternative 3

20 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 proposes to retain and expand the network of routes and was designed retain roads for full-size vehicles as well as offer some trail segments for motorized vehicles. Under this alternative, use of full-size vehicles on all existing routes in the project area would continue and closed routes and new routes would be opened as motorized trails. Unlike other action alternatives, Alternative 4 would not offer 50” motorized trails but would offer motorcycle trails and 64” motorized trails. Loop rides would be possible but would require riding on segments of road, thus precluding use by unlicensed drivers. This alternative extends to the northeast to include lower Blind Bull timber sale roads within the route network (Figure 5). Existing open system routes and spurs not designed to be part of the loop networks would also remain open. Remaining existing system routes currently closed to public motorized use would be barricaded, rather than restored. User-created routes on the ground that are not listed as system routes could be evaluated for potential addition to the open use system, rather than being automatically rehabilitated. Design features proposed under this alternative are specific to Alternative 4.

Description of Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, roads and trails intersecting the project area include approximately 47 miles of full-size vehicle roads are open to the public. Of these, about 12 miles is the Greys River Road (Forest Service Road 10138) which is the main access road for recreation in the area. This alternative would provide approximately 33 miles of routes open for larger side-by-side trail vehicles up to 64” wide, 4 miles of motorcycle trail, and 20 miles of non-motorized trail. Of these routes, 24 miles would have seasonal restrictions (Table 1).

In order to implement Alternative 4, the following changes to the current motor vehicle use map (MVUM) are proposed: approximately 18 miles of closed road would become available for riders on vehicles under 64” wide, 6 miles of 50” trail would be widened to accommodate vehicles 64” wide, 9 miles of new 64” wide motorized trail would be constructed, 1 mile of non-system route would be added to the system (i.e., MVUM) as a 64” trail and 1 mile of open road that dead-ends or otherwise do not contribute to the functional loop network would be closed. Changes to the existing travel management system are summarized in Table 5 and include the following actions in specific locations:

• Beginning at the bottom of South Three Forks, a route with a special designation for vehicles up to 64” wide would connect via approximately 2 miles of new construction to the North Three Forks Road.

• The one-mile spur trail for Barstow Lake, currently a 50” route, would be converted to a 64” route.

• The network would connect north over Elk to Bear Creek with the 64” vehicle designation.

• Bear Creek Ridge, with about 4.3 miles of existing open- and closed-road segments would have some minor new construction to connect a short full-size vehicle loop.

• Approximately 2 miles of new trail open to vehicles under 64” would connect via Deadhorse 10350 down to Meadow Creek, and another 2-mile section of new construction would make an upper 7.5 mile loop with 10255 back to Bear Creek.

21 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

• To create an additional north-eastern route off the main Greys, approximately 6 miles of new 64” trail would be constructed on the east side of the road from the Bear-Cabin trailhead, running north. This portion of the network would cross the Greys River Road at the south end, and would connect to Blind Bull Road on the north end. The trail network would end at the junction of Blind Bull Road and Trail Creek Road #10258.

Table 5. Proposed changes under Alternative 4 from current motor vehicle use map within Middle Greys Project Area Proposed Change Length Open closed road to motorized route 18 miles (road bed still retained) (most 64” trail) Change open road to motorized trail No change (road bed still retained) Change vehicle class on motorized trail 6 miles (50” trail becomes 64” trail) Construct new motorized trail 9 miles (all 64” trail) Add existing non-system route to motor vehicle 1 mile system (e.g. camp spurs) (64” trail) Close open road (dead-ends and roads that don’t 1 mile contribute to functional loop)

Seasonality: Under Alterative 4, almost 20 miles of 64” route would be open for the entire season (May 1-December 1), and another 13 miles of 64” routes would be designated with seasonal restrictions. Twenty-five miles of open roads would remain available within the trail vehicle network. The open seasons for this alternative would be as follows:

• The South Three Forks and Lake Barstow 64” routes would be open from June 1 through September 10

• The connector over Elk Creek would be open from June 1 through December 1

• Lower Bear Creek would be open from May 1 through December 1, and above the existing gate up to junction with new construction the season would be June 1 through October 10 (as current)

• All of the northern loops (Upper and Lower Cabin Creeks and new construction on east) would have an operational season of May 1 through December 1.

22 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Design Features for Alternative 4 A. Non-Designated Roads and Unauthorized Routes

1. Prevent vehicles from entering roads not designated as part of the system in all DFC areas by installing barriers most likely to be effective in the given terrain, from boulder placement to gates.

2. Unauthorized routes across the project area may be re-contoured and/or re-vegetated, or they may be left for potential conversion to legal route in the future.

a) Place barriers, gates, and other structures where terrain features and vegetation would minimize the potential for vehicles to go around them.

B. Routes Designated Open as Part of Travel Network

1. New motorized trails (including currently closed roads) will be situated and constructed to help keep trail vehicles on the new trail; for example:

a) placement along and within cliffs, steep terrain, dense trees, downfall, willow thickets;

b) avoiding crossing riparian areas and ridgelines, except where terrain features and vegetation prevent or greatly minimize the potential for vehicles to travel along these corridors; and

c) avoiding crossing meadows that access other open areas or wet areas. Forest Service employees will work with stewards and state trails staff when finalizing trail locations within the system.

2. Where terrain openings could allow off-trail access into riparian corridors, or along unforested ridgelines, install additional engineered support for route compliance, e.g., barricades, created cut banks.

3. Prevent or mitigate impacts to springs, seeps, wetlands, and other wet spots along new and existing portions of the proposed route.

4. Prevent trail vehicles from driving through springs, seeps, and other wetlands adjacent to new and existing portions of the motorized trail using engineering, education, and enforcement.

5. An Annual Operating Plan would be created every May to outline an agreed-upon stewardship schedule, and patrol reports would be reviewed at the end of each operating season in a joint session of stewards and Forest Service staff.

6. Trail signs would indicate all junctions and vehicle class changes as well as all non- motorized trail junctions along the network. Seasonal dates would be prominently marked

23 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

at both ends of applicable segments. These signs would be maintained at least annually to ensure ongoing presence of clear information.

7. Trailhead waste would be monitored and collected regularly to dissuade ongoing abuse. If deemed appropriate to amount of system use, partners would order temporary outhouses and empty as needed.

Implementation under Alternative 4 Implementation of the loop network would primarily be accomplished through partnerships with the Wyoming State Trails program. Trail crews would use a combination of the following equipment to conduct trail maintenance, construction and reconstruction: SWECO Trail Dozer equipped with a 4’ wide dozer, ripper, tine rake; ASL, 4’ wide, tracked skid steer type loader; a Cat skid loader with augers, brush hog, and rock breaker; rubber track mini excavators; dump trucks; Cat IT14 wheeled loader; post hole augers; portable welder; gas powered post pounder; chain saws; ATVs; 6X6’s OHVs and miscellaneous other hand tools.

24 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 5. Map of Alternative 4

25 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative Considered But Not Evaluated in Detail The entire mix of routes in Alternative 4 were potentially considered to be designated for full-size and trail vehicles as Trails Open without Width Restriction. Re-designating these roads as Trails Open to All Vehicles would retain these route opportunities for all motorized users, yet require all drivers to purchase State off-highway vehicle registrations. While this could create revenue for the State of Wyoming to help build and maintain these kinds of trail networks, the alternative was removed from analysis because it is not reasonable to require all motorized vehicles to purchase off-highway vehicle tags. Comparison of Alternatives The effects of the alternatives on the resource indicators are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of environmental effects by alternative Analysis indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Recreation Effects on Quality of The miles of Motorized system uninterrupted trail riding would be the Offers the greatest lowest among action Offers 30 miles of number of miles of uninterrupted OHV alternatives (8 Maintains the existing uninterrupted OHV miles). Offers the trails. Offers the trail (32 mi). travel system which largest number of largest number of currently confuses miles of 50” OHV Offers 28 miles of 64” trails (33 miles) visitors due to trail among the four 64” trails. Offers and seven loops frequent dead end alternatives (35 mi) three trail loops with although none meet spurs and parallel but lacks 64” trails. almost 28 miles in the family-friendly routes and ineffective Offers two trail loops total loop length. criteria because they route design. The and opportunities for Provides the most include use of full system results in poor two additional loops opportunity for sized vehicle roads. user compliance and that utilize the Greys families with children Contain 16 miles of lacks a motorized trail River Road as part without a driver’s mixed vehicle-class loop. of the route. license to legally roads interspersed ride. within the loop

network where unlicensed riders would not be allowed to ride. Routes with 11 miles 36 miles 42 miles 24 miles seasonal restriction Effect on Non- 20 miles of non- Motorized 20 miles of non- motorized Opportunities motorized designated trail use. 20 miles of non- 21 miles of non- designated trail use. Enhanced quiet motorized motorized designated Enhanced quiet experience due to 9 designated trail use. trail use. 65 miles of experience due to12 miles of currently Decrease in quiet closed roads provide miles of currently open roads and experience due to quiet recreation open roads and dead-ends that 20 miles of newly experience. dead-ends that would be effectively opened motorized would be effectively closed. routes. closed.

Inventory Roadless Areas Miles of open system road with 8.8 6.5 5 8.8 roadless area

26 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Analysis indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Total miles of motorized route 22.3 20.2 21.6 29.1 within roadless area Acres of roadless area influenced by motorized route 3,872 4,461 4,536 5,225 (area within ¼ mile of motorized route) Botany Potential habitat Less potential More potential Most potential habitat creation – Least potential habitat creation than habitat creation than creation (due to A.paysonii habitat creation Alt 1 and 4 but more Alt 1 but less than ineffective closures) than Alt 2 Alt 2 and 3 Potential direct and More potential for More potential for indirect impacts - Most potential for Least potential for negative impacts negative impacts individual plants and negative impacts negative impacts than Alt 2, but less than Alt 2 and 3 but species habitat than Alt 1 and 4 less than Alt 1 Potential to contribute to More potential for negative cumulative than Alt 2 but not More potential than impacts that could Most potential Least potential significantly. Less Alt 2 and 3 but less result in a loss of potential than Alt 1 than Alt 1 viability to sensitive and 4 plants – particularly A.paysonii Wildlife Elk habitat effectiveness within: 36% 30% 33% 26% - project area - DFC* 10, MA+ 32 55% 53% 56% 52% (Suitable is 66-100%) - DFC 1B, MA 35 35% 34% 34% 33% (Suitable is 53-100%) Wolverine habitat effectiveness within: 1.68 1.59 1.72 2.12 - project area - DFC 10, MA 32 0.75 0.76 0.68 0.81 (Suitable is <0.73%) - MA 32 & 35 Greys River Watershed 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.86 (Suitable is <0.73%) % of area within 200 meters of open motorized routes (large impacts on 28.1 32.9 34.1 40.0 wildlife): - project area - DFC 10 MA 32 14.2 15.5 13.7 16.1 % of area > 720 meters of open motorized routes 30.3 21.9 23.9 12.3 (small impacts on wildlife):

27 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Analysis indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 - project area - DFC 10 MA 32 59.1 56.1 60.3 55.0 % of stream miles within 200 meters of open motorized routes (large 50.2 57.0 60.7 63.6 impacts on wildlife): - project area - DFC 10 MA 32 39.6 41.0 39.6 41.0 % of stream miles > 720 meters of open motorized routes (small impacts on 24.3 11.7 10.7 6.0 wildlife): - project area - DFC 10 MA32 38.6 36.3 38.8 36.4 Hydrology Temporary and short-term increases in sediment may occur during Lack of maintenance implementation. occurring on existing Implementation of routes and the project design presence of features, BMPs, and Same as Alternative Same as Alternative unauthorized routes identification of a 2 2 causes increased regular maintenance sedimentation along schedule for the new hillslopes and stream and existing routes channels. would reduce sedimentation into stream channels in the long term.

Fisheries Lower sedimentation Least potential for Most potential for negative impacts on Unstable stream assoc. with smaller negative impacts on trout spawning due banks due to high 50”-width of routes trout spawning to the greatest road density and than 64” under Alt 3 associated with mileage of closed unauthorized user & 4 and moderate greatest mileage of road and seasonal created motorized seasonal open roads, 64” restrictions. Slightly trails contribute to restrictions. route width, & fewer greater potential for reduced water quality egative impacts on seasonal restriction. N sedimentation which impairs fish Negative impacts trout spawning assoc. with wider habitat. Crossing could be mitigated associated with routes (64”) than Alt streams before July through construction sedimentation could 2. Negative impacts 15 would negatively of covered stream be mitigated with could be mitigated affect spawning crossings (e.g. construction of with construction of cutthroat trout. culverts/bridges) covered stream covered stream crossings crossings Cultural Resources No direct/indirect effects to Potential for documented cultural direct/indirect effects resource indicators. Same as Alternative Same as Alternative on documented and Potential to have 2 2 undiscovered cultural direct/indirect effects resources indicators. to undiscovered cultural resources indicators.

28 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. RECREATION This section presents the environmental effects of each alternative on recreation and is a summary of the recreation report (Wilkinson and Woods 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Recreation is an increasingly diverse resource and one of the many public benefits derived from national forests. Motorized recreation consists of a variety of vehicle class sizes from full-size highway passenger vehicles, 4-wheeled drive jeeps, the classic 4-wheel drive all-terrain vehicles to motorized trail bikes. A growing number of larger side-by-side trail vehicles is changing the composition of visitors on public lands. Non-motorized recreational users that frequent national forests include a variety of visitors, from hikers, dog walkers and distance runners to mountain bikers, horseback riders or campers.

Off-highway motorized recreation is one of many popular activities on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. From 1999 to 2009 off-highway motorized recreation saw a thirty-four percent increase nationwide in participants (Cordell 2012). Although designated roads and motorized trails are present within the Middle Greys Project Area, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use within this portion of the Greys River Ranger District is not being managed in a manner consistent with Forest Plan direction and the OHV Rule. This section analyzes the effects of the four alternatives on opportunities for and management of motorized recreation within the project area. The analysis is guided by the project objectives (Chapter 1: Need for the Proposal) and issues identified during scoping of the proposed action.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed 1. Effect on the Quality of the Motorized System

Indicators:

a) Maximum miles of uninterrupted trail riding for families (Non-licensed riders: children)

b) Miles available to vehicles 50” or less

c) Miles available to vehicles 64” or less

a) Miles of complete trail riding loops

b) Motorized trails leading to a scenic or recreational destination (F: fishing, C: Camping, SV: Scenic Views)

c) Number of OHV crossings of a road

d) Miles of mixed-class vehicle use routes (not including Greys River Road)

e) Miles available to full-size vehicles

29 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

2. Effect on Fall Seasonal Access

Indicators:

a) Number of routes of 50” or less trail that have a closure date of September 10th

b) Number of routes of 64” or less trail that have a closure date of September 10th

c) Number of routes open to full-size vehicles that have a closure date of September 10th

3. Effect on the Management of OHV Travel System: The proposed motorized route system may be difficult to adequately enforce or maintain over time, with several factors contributing to either simplifying or complicating the network management.

Indicators:

a) Number of engineered barriers necessary to effectively keep users on the designated motorized system

b) Number of signs and gates to address seasonal restrictions

c) Number of width restriction structures and signs needed to ensure access only by appropriate class of vehicle

d) Number of old and/or unauthorized routes to be revegetated

4. Effects on Non-Motorized Recreation

Indicators:

a) Non-motorized experience

b) Seasonal closures

Affected Environment On the Greys River Ranger District, the existing motorized travel system includes 187 miles of rough, low-volume roads, 97 miles of motorcycle trail, and about 35 miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width. There are also higher volume and higher speed roads suitable for passenger vehicles (i.e. the Greys River Road, Sheep Creek-McDougal Gap).

The Greys River Ranger District has experienced an increase in off-highway vehicle use and with this, considerable interest in developing a higher quality motorized trail system including the desire for loop trails, family-friendly riding opportunities, and trails that accommodate off- highway vehicles larger than 50” width. At the same time, implementation of the current travel system has been problematic with numerous violations occurring. Public complaints have increased, notably about poor trail conditions especially at stream crossings, as well as complaints about motor vehicle use occurring in closed areas or during closed seasons.

30 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 6. Motorized trail designations

The area chosen to be the best location on the Greys River District to develop a new OHV Trail system was the Middle Greys Area. The Middle Greys project area is 27,395 acres or just under 43 square miles in size. Within the Middle Greys project area, there are currently about 47 miles of system roads open to all vehicles, 65 miles of closed roads, just under 6 miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width, 4 additional miles of single-track trail open to motorcycles only, 21 miles of non-motorized trail, and 11 miles of known user-created routes. The existing motorized travel system in this area evolved largely from sheepherder trails and old logging and mining roads. Vehicle class often changes along the length of many of these routes, with lower segments being open to wider vehicles, and steeper high country segments only accommodating single- track motorbikes. While these route segments provide access, they do not meet the desire for continuous motorized rides. These trails or sections of trails are designated as allowing vehicles 50” or less in width or allowing only motorcycles. The inconsistency in the class of vehicle allowed along a particular route creates confusion, makes enforcement difficult, and does not provide the loop or continuous riding opportunities many people desire.

Many of the district’s low-volume roads no longer receive Forest Service maintenance due to budget decreases, and, as a result, offer a higher potential for motorized trail experiences, where the state’s registration program earns funds that support maintenance activities. Safety may be compromised by having rough, narrow routes that allow full-size vehicles and OHV riders to coexist. Additionally, the public must ride both roads and trails to reach many areas or to create loop opportunities. This prevents a fully-legal “family friendly” riding experience, since unlicensed riders (children under the age of 16), are not allowed in Wyoming to ride on routes designated as roads.

31 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Desired Condition (Motorized Opportunities) The project goal is to develop a designated road and motorized trail system that complies with the 2005 final rule regarding management of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on National Forests and Grasslands (36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295) while best meeting the three project objectives. This rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. The designated route system must be displayed on a motor vehicle use map that conforms to a nationally-consistent format.

The desired conditions for the project area are based on the 1990 Forest Plan. Forest-wide, there is a desire to offer a range of recreation settings that have characteristics that make an area attractive to visitors, with management actions geared toward protecting natural resources while providing both motorized and non-motorized opportunities in appropriate locations. Motorized routes should be located to minimize potential conflicts with non-motorized recreation, to maximize wildlife habitat effectiveness and watershed function, and to facilitate effective enforcement of travel designations through system design.

The northern portion of the Middle Greys project area is largely within the Desired Future Condition (DFC) Class 10 of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan). The management emphasis for this area is to balance wildlife habitat needs with uses such as timber harvest and livestock grazing. The southern portion of the project area is largely within DFC Class 1B where the management emphasis is on commodity uses such as timber harvest and livestock grazing. A smaller portion of the project area along the Greys River corridor is designated as DFC Class 3A which is an area managed to offer river and scenic-recreation experiences. Motorized recreation is appropriate in all of these desired future condition categories with DFC 3A being the most restrictive. The motorized road and trail system must be designed within the context of Forest Plan desired conditions with specific consideration given towards retaining the diversity and abundance of wildlife that define the region’s heritage and significance.

Table 7. Area of desired future conditions (DFCs) in the Middle Greys Motorized Travel project area DFC Acres % of Project Area DFC – 1B 90,812 58% DFC – 3A 20,487 13% DFC – 10 47,273 29%

Management Framework Motorized travel on the Bridger-Teton National Forest is guided by the National Forest Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212), direction found in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 1990), and State of Wyoming regulations pertaining to the operation of off-road vehicles on public land.

The National Forest Travel Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. Designations will be made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. The rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that is not consistent with the designations. The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each

32 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

National Forest is intended to enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National Forest for non-motorized travel and experiences. The designation of motorized routes within unrestricted areas must occur through the environmental planning process with public input. The resulting system of motorized routes is displayed on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM, https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/btnf/maps-pubs ).

Environmental Consequences

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to recreation for all alternatives are the Middle Greys Project area itself because it provides a clear microcosm as an example of the trade-offs inherent in travel planning. Additional insight is provided by offering some district-wide comparisons of selected measures. The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to recreation for all alternatives are the Greys River watershed, because visitors to the Middle Greys will typically utilize much of this available land area in the course of their stay, or over the span of a recreation season, if local. The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative effects include the long-term fifteen year span, because these travel management changes would continue in place at least until any succeeding planning process decision offers changes.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects on Quality of Motorized System: Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the existing system of travel management in the Middle Greys area. Forty-seven miles of open roads are presently displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map for this area. The plethora of routes on the ground within the project area would continue to confuse visitors, unless some incentive for better management and increased resources would allow for continual maintenance of signs, barriers, gates and/or natural succession to remove visible evidence of old routes. Travel classifications would also continue to change along a route’s length. Some visitors would feel unwelcomed by all this confusion, while others would continue to take advantage of the lack of ongoing maintenance to ride outside and beyond the designated system shown as open on the Motor Vehicle Use Map, creating more confusion, more resource damage and more conflict, along with increased safety concerns. The district has had at least one mortality and several major hospitalizations from visitors using motor vehicles outside of the designated system (although accidents do also occur on the designated system, most especially where mixed use occurs on the higher-speed, higher-volume Greys River Road).

The lack of routes available for unlicensed youth riders/drivers would also continue to result in a lack of adherence to state law and increased safety concerns as more families explore across the area.

33 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Because today’s trail vehicle enthusiasts express a clear preference for loop routes, ongoing efforts by visitors to make their own unauthorized connections could impact sensitive habitats and landscapes and create continued conflict with non-motorized visitors.

Secondary roads are not supported by maintenance budgets, and state support for maintaining such routes may depend on new methods of securing income from the growing numbers of wider ‘side-by-side’ trail vehicles that enjoy these routes.

Motorized trail bike (motorbike) enthusiasts would continue to ride on less-desirable two-tracks for long portions of favored routes on Bear and Meadow Creeks.

Motorized use kiosks with information are available at Bear/Cabin Creek junction and the base of Blind Bull Road, but are often difficult to maintain. No specific trailhead parking is delineated within the Middle Greys, although Meadow Creek trail parking is available at the Guard Station, next to public horse corrals. On Blind Bull, a large gravel source lot is available but seldom used, with most visitors simply travelling the road on their OHVs from dispersed sites or even from the entrance to the Greys River Road.

A number of stewardship groups have formed and dissolved over recent years, and without some clear actions to focus their members on, creating or retaining enthusiasm for partnering with the agency seems to have developed no traction. New national laws do provide additional mandate for the agency to seek such partners, however, so stewardship improvement opportunities may well become a higher priority for managers even with existing travel plans, creating more user- and resource-friendly routes across the current system simply with improved maintenance and enhanced on-site outreach and education.

Effects of Fall Seasonal Closures Within the project area, fall season closures (after 9/10 and 10/10), are currently present in two areas only, with no fall closures for most of the Middle Greys project area. This allows motorized access to occur in large areas of important wildlife habitat that may adversely affect hunting success overall. With many of these open roads accessing closed or non-system routes, motorized use is occurring in many hunting areas where motorized use is not allowed, creating constant conflict.

Additionally, management and enforcement remains difficult in this area due to the many spurs and parallel routes for the public to utilize closed and non-system roads. This situation continues the development of additional non-system routes in many areas. Much of the current illegal and growing motorized route development is not correctly engineered and is often unsuitable and unsafe for OHV riding, while reducing the quality of Forest resources including soils, water, vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Effects on Non-Motorized Opportunities Existing conditions for non-motorized recreational activities would continue on the current trajectory. Approximately 21 miles of maintained trail would be available with no motorized use designation, and trail tread on historic routes also not designated on the motorized use map would provide additional opportunity, although encroachment from motorized visitors in those locations would likely be common. Enforcement would be sporadic, spread thin by decreased law enforcement budgets, with no additional support in engineering or education. Trailhead areas would continue to have mixed use, but without the attraction of a planned network, motorized use

34 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

would probably grow only at the same rate as anywhere else across the district. Stewardship engagement may improve on the basis of national agency direction, although nothing would suggest that such engagement would pertain specifically to the Middle Greys area.

Cumulative Effects Current and future timber harvest and or livestock grazing would continue to have full-size motorized access throughout much of the project area due to the high number of open roads available for travel.

Increasing populations in Star Valley and a newly subdivided inholding add pressures to the difficult management situation surrounding travel designations in the Middle Greys, negatively effecting recreational quality for both motorized and non-motorized visitor groups.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects In this alternative, a new network of OHV routes would be designed to better accommodate OHV vehicles 50” or less, with some continued mixed-class vehicle use being allowed. Full-size vehicles on currently open roads would be allowed on portions of two routes that would be listed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map as Trails Open without Width Restriction. This includes approximately the first three miles of the Bear Creek Road and one mile along the south end of the Cabin Creek Road. Unlicensed drivers would be able to legally ride these routes, contributing to the family-friendly uninterrupted loop opportunities. Full-size vehicles would continue to have access to popular dispersed sites on Bear and Cabin Creeks, but the speed and volume of traffic there are low, lessening potential safety concerns.

The OHV system would also offer a family friendly southern loop with new construction between South and North Three Forks Creeks. The North Three Forks section would connect further northward across Elk Creek to Bear Creek, creating a north loop between Meadow Creek and Bear Creek.

Re-classifying the lower 3.4 miles of motorized designation on Bear Creek trail from <50” to motorbike would provide a more desirable experience for those who seek single-track routes and a more challenging relationship to the backcountry. Orienting the two-track trail vehicle network north-and-south would keep management separation more clear, leaving the 7.6 miles of east- west orientation on Trail 3085, Bear Creek, to connect with the 8.5 miles of single-track motorized trail on Strawberry Creek, beyond the project area. Trail 3081 from Meadows also orients east-west, but the proposed network retains that 2 mile two-track 50” portion of the route to provide connection to the proposed 50” designation for #10255. An engineered width restriction barrier would assist riders with understanding in which direction the loop network exists and where the motorbike route continues east, again connecting to Strawberry and forming a potential loop with Bear.

Implementing Alternative 2 would include 8 miles of Motorcycle Trail (within the project area boundary), 35 miles of OHV Trail (vehicles 50” or less), 22 miles of Open Roads and 59 miles of Closed Roads (with effective closures).

35 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Effects on Quality of Motorized system: Alternative 2 meets many aspects of the project purpose and need by offering 37 miles of sustainable designated OHV trails including two trail loops and opportunities for two additional loops that utilize the Greys River Road as part of the route. The mixed-use loops along the Greys River Road would be open only to licensed drivers. Additionally, a long connector route between the trail-only loops provides differing views from its up-and-back perspectives.

Alternative 2 would have the largest miles of 50” or less OHV trail among the four alternatives. A special designation for OHV trail vehicles 64” or less would not be available in this alternative. The methodology used to determine overall mileage is GIS analysis where designated trail for OHVs with a maximum width of 50” within the project boundary is highlighted and summarized as a single numerical value.

One safety measure considers road crossings of OHV trails. Maximum miles of uninterrupted OHV trail is defined as the longest single section in an alternative where an OHV trail is not crossed by or consistent with a system road. This alternative includes four road crossings. Under Alternative 2 the maximum stretch of uninterrupted trail riding for families including unlicensed drivers would be 30 miles.

This alternative would offer two complete OHV trail loops totaling 20 miles in length. System loop mileage including mixed-use, licensed-driver-only routes would be over 48 miles. Visitors choosing to ride in the area would be expected to increase substantially.

This alternative would contain about 4 miles of low-speed, low-volume mixed-use routes designated as Trails Open without Width Restriction. This provides for continued full-size vehicle access to popular dispersed campsites on the lower 3 miles of Bear Creek and lowest mile of Cabin Creek roads. Twenty-two miles total within the project area remain open for full-size vehicles.

Twelve miles of poor quality open full-size roads would be re-classified and better utilized as trails open to 50” vehicles or less. Seventeen miles of currently non-motorized former timber sale roads would be opened to motorized travel in that vehicle class, along with about four miles of new connector routes.

Overall, much of the currently open motorized routes would remain open, with a motor vehicle class change occurring (i.e. full-size vehicles to 50” or less vehicles) in some cases. Much visitor confusion in poor quality dead-end routes, some currently open and some currently closed to motorized use, would be eliminated as twelve miles of those routes would be effectively and clearly closed for vehicle use. In this alternative, full-size vehicle access would be reduced as motorized trails for OHVs that are 50” or less in width would increase.

New trailheads would be created with delineated parking areas sufficient for trailer parking. Maintenance at these areas would need to include at a minimum regular trash pickup, and monitoring of use to determine if the area designated is meeting visitor needs and resource protection requirements. Travel kiosks would need to be installed and maintained with current designated use information. Depending on use amounts, portable toilet facilities may be reasonable accommodation, or monitoring may demonstrate the need for more permanent toilet facilities. For Alternative 2, four trailheads would best serve the network needs.

36 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

While dealership sales for these smaller 4-wheeled trail vehicles have declined in the shadow of larger side-by-side vehicles, they continue to be well-represented at camp sites and on trails across the district. The 50” vehicles may be more visibly represented in the person-to-person sales category, although no such data has been located. Oftentimes, these vehicles appear to have been passed down to younger family members as the adults ‘upgrade’ to the larger vehicles. Creating a system of routes that have limited full-size vehicles across the network, and then only in low-speed, low-volume situations, meets the expressed desire for routes that can be safely ridden by younger family members who may have limited training or experience driving in traffic, but who have spent enough time in the woods with their families that they are no longer content to ride in the same vehicle that an adult is driving.

While these young people may be uninclined, uninformed or unable to take part in public meetings or proposal comment periods, their interests should not go unrepresented, since this is one of the primary demographics for whom the project sought improvements.

Promoting additional trail opportunities for the 50” vehicles may also be beneficial for another demographic that typically remains underrepresented in public forums. While the current costs of large side-by-side vehicles run from $2500 to $8000, the smaller ATV-type vehicles can readily be purchased under $1000. Creating new networks of opportunity for lower-income residents and visitors is certainly consistent with the Forest Service history of being the ‘people’s’ recreation area, allowing access for working class families to public lands and recreation activities that might otherwise be skewed to more politically vocal and more moneyed families.

Design of this alternative purposefully included retaining full-size vehicle access to several highly-desirable dispersed camping locations within the proposed trail network, which serves to accommodate the most-desirable recreation activity on Greys River District. The district’s most popular use is the nationally-rare ability to utilize undeveloped sites, commonly along waterways, for extended overnight stays with camp trailers or self-supported recreation vehicles (RVs). In this alternative, these vehicles would continue to be allowed to the popular pull-off at the North- and South Three Forks junction, to the area just north of the junction of Bear Creek Road and Bear Creek Trail, and up to the cattleguard on Cabin Creek Road. Dual-designation allows unlicensed OHV drivers to legally ride the full length of the network, and given the low volume and low speed of the full-size road, is not expected to pose a large safety risk. The popular dispersed areas on Bear Creek include two large flats with scattered shade trees that sit back away from the streambanks. Capacity for these two areas is estimated at approximately 15 camp vehicles, depending if campers are intending to camp as groups or more individually. The user- created two tracks into these flats are currently unauthorized for motor vehicle use, but are proposed for inclusion in the travel system due to their ability to provide excellent opportunity with low resource impacts.

Effects on Fall Seasonal access: Two 50” or less motorized trails would be closed after September 10th annually in Alternative 2. One of these motorized trails would be a newly designated trail on the old logging road #10255 to the Bear Creek Trail #3085 junction. The other motorized trail closing on September 10th would be the newly designated trail from the Bear Creek Road southward to the North Three Forks OHV Trail. Compared to existing conditions, there would be no effect (no change) to motorized recreation of these newly designated motorized trails closing on September 10th. The only system roads with a September 10th closure would be less than 2 miles of Forest Service Road 10152 and Forest Service Road 10152A into the elk feedground area near Forest Park. Since these

37 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

seasonal closures are already in effect, there would also be no change in hunter access there. All other OHV system trails and roads would remain open after September 10th in Alternative 2.

The south side of the South Loop, along South Three Forks, is currently closed year-round to motorized use. In Alternative 2, an October 10th closure date would allow motorized access throughout bow hunting and deer seasons.

Effects on Non- Motorized Recreation Non-Motorized Experience:

Concerns raised during the planning stage included the issue of disrupting the quiet experience of being in the outdoors that is valued by many. Actual miles of trails open only to non-motorized users decreases by just one mile, to twenty miles total. Noise and smell are typically cited as disturbances, but given differences in terrain and vegetative cover, no clear measure to gauge potential changes was apparent. Non-motorized visitors are able to take advantage of the additional maintained trail miles if potential disturbances are not a deterrent. If disturbance is a deterrent, Alternative 2 provides for the effective exclusion of motor vehicles from 12 miles of currently open roads and dead-ends that do not contribute to the functional loop system, all of which would offer viable trail tread for additional non-motorized explorations, although the routes would not be cleared by district crews. Seventeen miles of currently closed road and four miles of new construction would be opened to motorized trail vehicles, a negative effect for those who desire a separation from motors and a more primitive recreation setting.

One frequently-voiced negative impact that would occur under this Alternative is the reclassification of North Three Forks Road to a 50” trail. The current 1.5 mile, 50” motorized trail in to Barstow Lake does attract non-motorized visitors as well, and for those who have no trail vehicles, the additional three miles in travel distance could discourage them from accessing this popular location. While the trail is neither designed nor maintained for wheelchair accessibility, at least one public comment specified that this route reclassification would also impact a wheelchair user.

At Meadows Guard Station, visitors currently take advantage of the public-use corrals to stage from this public rental into the Meadow Creek, Deadhorse and Cabin Creek Peak area routes. Because this area could become a key trailhead for the new motorized network in Alternative 2, the often desired separation between riding stock and motorized uses would be decreased. Stock- based and other non-motorized visitors would expect to experience more of the noise and motorized smells associated with trail vehicles than under the No Action alternative. Optionally, a new trailhead could be created near the Meadow Creek bridge over Greys River, using a flat area southwest of the bridge and north of the existing administrative pasture fence. This area is within the half-mile river corridor that delineates Desired Future Condition 3a, which clarifies management criteria for the eligible Wild and Scenic River. Parking areas are allowed and expected within the corridor, although primarily geared for river recreation. Because of the proximity to the river, careful design of a parking area there would need to consider both aesthetics and water quality needs. Until a motorized network design has been chosen, however, parking area specifications have not been proposed. Once the network is decided, additional parking area analysis may occur.

Under this alternative, a new motorized trailhead location would need to be created at the North and South Three Forks junction. No non-motorized routes would remain in this area, so it would

38 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

not increase the potential for conflict among trail users. Several dispersed campsites would be displaced at the trailhead, however.

A consistent complaint from non-motorized recreationists has been the lack of compliance with the existing designated route systems. By providing a higher quality network that meets user desires and is much clearer to follow, the new network is expected to improve compliance. Alternative 2 provides for the strongest assurance that the creation of new routes would lead to improvements in designated route compliance in two ways. The route mileages listed are the maximum possible, but a partial new loop network on the south end would need to meet specific monitoring and effectiveness criteria before the north end of the network would be fully built out. This would provide incentives to stewardship organizations and their volunteers by making the first steps with the system manageable. With success, this would allow for ongoing commitment from stewardship volunteers for further trail mileage. The clearly defined monitoring requirements would build trust with forest visitors who highly value other resources, specifically fish and wildlife, and their needs.

Alternative 2 also provides the only clear commitment from the agency that portions of the network would be closed if reasonable compliance cannot be achieved. Where other loop opportunities of various levels of quality have been created, such as Wickiup, Graveyard, and Squaw-Murphy, the additional miles primarily have added more users who then created more unauthorized routes, but no effort for better management in those locations has been successful, nor any motorized closures attempted.

Seasonal Closures:

Two portions of the network would have a September 10th closure date. Given the difficulty in ensuring compliance with existing seasonal closures, hunting season opportunities for hunters on foot and on horseback may still be expected to decrease in the early stages of implementation because of the provision of the new OHV trails, although the inclusion of a specific monitoring program in this alternative should correct for that initial potential over time. Authorizing motor vehicle use during bow season (starting September 1) on these new route designations has been voiced as a public concern. Non-motorized hunters, including outfitter clients, would experience a decreased opportunity in the Three Forks and Meadow Creek/Deadhorse areas between September 1st and October 10th. This includes deer hunters in general and bow hunters for elk.

Cumulative Effects Impacts on the environment (regarding motorized opportunities) may result in the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. More effectively closing former timber road networks may improve wildlife security and fall hunting opportunities over time. However, the newly created OHV trail between the Meadows area and Bear Creek across Upper Cabin Creek that would enable additional hunting season access on OHVs may have an incremental negative effect on wildlife habitat security that may reduce some hunting opportunities. This area has been identified by Wyoming Game & Fish as critical habitat for both Mule Deer and elk.

The ability of recreationists to camp at dispersed sites in many areas beyond the project area boundary should lessen any impact on recreation opportunity from downsizing full-size routes within the proposed network.

39 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Current livestock grazing permittees could be able to utilize full-size vehicles in the project area only under an administrative use exception with this alternative. If this were to occur, the impact to recreation opportunities would likely be minimal, depending where it happened. Livestock could also be accessed either on horseback or in some cases OHVs 50” or less in width for the Elk Creek and North and South Three Forks areas, and that would be consistent with public uses proposed for the area.

Because system roads closed to public motorized use would remain available for administrative use, future timber harvest opportunities could still benefit from a high level of accessibility throughout much of the project area. To be able to utilize these roadbeds may require opening of gates or temporary removal of constructed road access barriers. In some cases, road improvement may also become necessary to safely use some of these unmaintained roads. Once a timber project was completed, access barriers or restrictions would be reinstated as per travel management decision. These activities could result in potential temporary closures for motorized trail vehicles in parts of the network as a safety precaution.

Nearby activities that may have an accumulation of impacts on the recreation experience include the subdivision of a forest inholding property at Blind Bull and increasing population in Star Valley. These proposed trails could bring more people further up the Greys River, spreading use and impacts higher into the watershed. The monitoring program specified in Alternative 2 provides some strong guidelines and incentives for managing that use to mitigate any negative impacts. The design features of Alternative 2, including adding seasonal restrictions to the motorbike routes to address the current trend in earlier melt-off associated with climate change, provide strong guidelines for managing that use to mitigate negative impacts.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Implementing Alternative 3 would include 9 miles of Motorcycle Trail (within the project boundary), 13 miles of OHV Trail (vehicles 50” or less), 28 miles of OHV Trail (vehicles 64” or less), with 20 miles of Open Roads and 61 miles of Administrative Roads restricted to non- motorized public uses.

Effects on Quality of Motorized Trail System: Maximum miles of uninterrupted OHV trail is defined as the longest single section where an OHV trail is not crossed by a system road. Under Alternative 3, the maximum miles of uninterrupted motorized trail riding would be about 32 miles. This is the longest uninterrupted OHV trail proposed among the four alternatives. Alternative 3 would provide the opportunity for families with children without a driver’s license to legally ride. With 13 miles, it would also have the second largest miles of 50” or less OHV trail among the four alternatives. Specific OHV trail for 64” or less vehicles, at 28 miles, would be the second largest available among the alternatives. Combining the 50” and 64” trail specific miles results in 41 miles of family-friendly trail. Additional miles in this alternative are provided by inclusion of the mini-loop in upper Bear Creek, which entails less than a mile of new construction, although no other attractions are served by this addition.

Alternative 3 would offer three complete OHV trail loops with almost 28 miles in total loop length and this would represent the most OHV-specific loop opportunities among all alternatives.

40 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

For families where all drivers are licensed, the east side trail, the Lower Cabin Creek trail, and the Bear-North Three Forks connector also provide three additional loop opportunities if recreationists choose to include portions of the Greys River Road on their travels. While this road includes higher speeds and higher traffic volumes, many adult recreationists do use it successfully, even at the busier lower end of the road, especially to make the popular loop route out of the Squaw-Murphy trail. These segments cannot be classified as a network trail, but because they are enrolled in the state’s OHV system, licensed riders can utilize them with just a state registration sticker and do not need a license plate. If family-friendly is construed to mean younger children riding with their adult drivers in a wider trail vehicle, these loops can provide that experience.

Re-classifying the lower 3.4 miles of motorized designation on Bear Creek trail from <50” to motorbike would provide a more desirable experience for those who seek single-track routes and a more challenging relationship to the backcountry. Currently, wider trail vehicles have been consistently operating beyond the end of the road and dispersed site network at the beginning of this trail, so new engineered barriers may improve compliance. Orienting the two-track trail vehicle network north-and-south would keep management separation more clear, leaving the 7.6 miles of east-west orientation on Trail 3085, Bear Creek, to connect with the 8.5 miles of single- track motorized trail on Strawberry Creek, beyond the project area. Similarly, Trail 3081 from Meadows also orients east-west, and the proposed network would reclassify that 2 mile two-track portion of the route to a motorbike-positive single-track. Engineered width restriction barriers at the trailhead would assist riders with understanding which directions provide the 50” loop network and where the motorbike route continues east, again connecting to Strawberry and forming a potential loop with Bear Creek Trail.

This alternative would not contain any network miles of mixed-use routes where unlicensed riders would not be legal to ride. Eighteen miles of currently open roads would be converted to motorized trails, and thirteen miles of closed roads would be opened to motorized trail use. Popular dispersed camping areas on Bear, Cabin and North Three Forks would only be available for tent campers using trail vehicles to access their locations. Seven miles of new construction is included in this alternative, primarily for 50” vehicles. Two official OHV “crosswalks” over the Greys River Road would provide legal access to the East Side trail system.

New trailheads at Meadows and the Bear-Cabin Creek junction would also serve the East Side trail. An additional trailhead at the North-South Three Forks junction would meet the network’s needs. Construction and maintenance support would be needed for three trailheads.

With much of the current system roads converted to OHV trails in this alternative, dispersed camping (non-developed) opportunities would remain for OHV riders but would not be available to full-size vehicle recreation, except as currently exists along the Greys River Road. However, with access for camping limited to OHV riders, a more remote and aesthetic camping experience might become available for those willing to ride OHVs to disperse camp. The new east side route as mapped would potentially lower the positive experience of dispersed camping at popular Greys River Road locations near the Bear-Cabin bridge. The route would have less impact if the road crossing was re-routed to the southern end of that segment, remaining on the east side of the road on a sufficiently-wide bench there.

Alternative 3 meets many aspects of the project purpose and need by offering just under 41 miles of sustainable and safe designated OHV trails including three loop opportunities. Twenty miles within the project area remain open for full-size vehicles. Along with the variety of both 50” and

41 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

64” or less vehicle trails, a larger and more diversified riding and dispersed camping opportunity would be created with this alternative.

Effects on Fall Season access: Two OHV routes: one 50” or less and one 64” or less motorized trails would be closed after September 10th annually in Alternative 3. One of these motorized trails would connect the Meadows Guard Station Area via the Cabin Creek Trail heading south to the Bear Creek Trail. Compared to existing condition, new access is provided for motorized visitors for bow season. This change would, on the other hand, limit the motorized access on Lower Cabin Creek which currently has no date restrictions. The east side route provides new access for the full hunting season, however, with a closure date of December 1st.

The other motorized trail closing on September 10th would be the newly designated route through the South Three Forks area. Since this route is currently closed to motorized use, the effect remains a benefit for motorized visitors. The North Three Forks OHV Trail connecting northward with the Elk and Bear Creek OHV Trails would remain open through December 1st, facilitating fall hunting opportunities with OHVs in this area.

Effects on Non- Motorized Recreation Non-Motorized Experience:

Concerns raised during the planning stage included the issue of disrupting the quiet experience of being in the outdoors that is valued by many. Actual miles of trails open only to non-motorized users decreases from existing management by just one mile, to twenty miles total. Noise and smell are typically cited as disturbances to note, but given differences in terrain and vegetative cover and the ability to buffer those effects, no clear measure to gauge potential changes has been evaluated. Non-motorized visitors are able to take advantage of the additional maintained trail miles if potential disturbances are not a deterrent. Where open roads change to motorized trails, the effect may be negligible, because the motorized impacts of noise and smells would likely be similar, if not increased, from current condition.

At Meadows Guard Station, non-motorized visitors currently take advantage of the public-use corrals to stage from this public rental into the Meadow Creek, Deadhorse and Cabin Creek Peak area trails. Because this area would become a key trailhead for the new motorized network in Alternative 3, the often desired separation between riding stock and motorized uses would be decreased. With Meadows being a trailhead for both east side and west side motorized loops, this congestion could be substantial. Separating use could be attempted by creating a new trailhead parking area next to the Meadow Creek bridge rather than adjacent to the Guard Station. This area is within DFC 3 and has a river-based recreation emphasis, as well as scenic river design features and water quality protections that would need to be considered if a second trailhead is built. Even if motorized, or two-track motorized users were directed to park here, management of the two-

42 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

parking-area system could be haphazard. The trails would all pass the guard station and corrals before splitting into different directions. Stock-based and other non-motorized visitors would expect to experience more of the noise and motorized smells associated with trail vehicles than under the No Action alternative.

If disturbance is a deterrent for some visitors, Alternative 3 provides for the effective motorized closure of 9 miles of currently open roads and dead-ends that do not contribute to a functional loop system, all of which would offer viable trail tread for additional non-motorized travel, although the routes would not be cleared by district crews. This potential benefit is countered by the new construction of 7 miles of motorized trail, largely on the east side of the road which currently provides a primitive, non-motorized experience with no system trails at all, in an inventoried roadless area. The additional connector segments being constructed also can be expected to increase motorized use more than their length would indicate, because of the intended effect of increasing their attraction for motorized users. All of these miles would therefore be considered a negative effect for the non-motorized experience.

A consistent complaint from non-motorized recreationists has been the lack of compliance with the existing designated route systems. By providing a higher quality network that meets user desires and is much clearer to follow, the new network is expected to improve compliance. Alternative 3 provides some assurance that the creation of new routes would lead to improvements in designated route compliance. Effectiveness criteria are delineated, and the Forest would commit to a specific monitoring program, with assistance in implementation from dedicated stewardship groups. Rather than utilizing effectiveness incentives to permit successive phases of the network build-out, the only implementation timelines would be a function of the State Trails Program’s capacity, considering their other statewide needs. Portions of the network may, therefore, be created over time, or the network could be created in full all at once, without any further assessments of stewardship capacity or evaluation of implementation effectiveness. Relative to the proposed action in Alternative 2, this may provide for less capacity-building among as-yet-unproven stewardship groups and less incentive for members to stay engaged with management needs as soon as the network is built.

Alternative 3 offers no clear commitment that portions of the network would be closed if reasonable compliance cannot be achieved. Annual meetings with interested stakeholders could continue the partnership between motorized and non-motorized visitors and the Forest Service to develop flexible ways to manage the system successfully.

Effect of Seasonal Closures

For non-motorized visitors, extending the presence of motorized vehicles into the fall hunting season is a negative effect. While much of the Cabin Creek route is currently open throughout the fall, the creation of the loop with Meadow Creek would be expected to draw additional riders into the area for the bow hunting season. This route closure for the season following September 10th would, however, be considered a positive impact relative to existing condition. On the East Side trail, however, both the creation of new motorized trail and allowing it to be impacted by that disturbance through December 1st are substantial negative effects. Because this route is in an inventoried roadless area and parts of it are also within the eligible wild and scenic river corridor, visitors expect to experience a less-developed recreation opportunity.

Similarly, opening the currently closed routes over Elk Creek and at South Three Forks to motorized use would especially impact non-motorized bow hunting access. While South Three

43 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Forks would close to motorized use by September 10th, relative to existing condition that provides no benefit, and because of its inclusion in this loop network, potential non-compliance concerns would increase. Allowing motorized access through December 1st across Elk Creek, directly behind the state’s elk feedground area, would be a negative impact that extends both to the route designated open and most likely to the non-motorized trail which traverses east to west from the feedground into the Salt River Range high country.

Dispersed camping within the project area could be an activity welcomed by trail vehicle recreationists. Some already hardened sites could provide that opportunity with little negative effect on passing trail traffic.

Larger trail vehicles, especially when operated by licensed drivers, are relatively safe in mixed traffic with full-size vehicles, and at the same time operate successfully on deteriorated secondary roads that no longer attract much full-size vehicle use. Whereas trails used by small <50” vehicles can provide a distinctly more trail-like experience, wider trail routes would provide much the same experience as currently available on the district’s secondary roads, with over 100 miles of opportunity for that class of vehicle. The recently approved Great Western Trails Designation may increase numbers of OHV trail visitors on the district, who could be interested in the additional routes provided in this network.

Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would limit access to livestock permittees to horseback and/or OHVs of either 50”or less in width in the Cabin Creek Area and eastside trail areas and 64” or less in width for the Elk Creek and North and South Three Forks areas. Administrative use exceptions may be granted to authorized permitees, however, which could negatively affect trail rider enjoyment but likely only on limited occasions.

Most system roads closed to the motorized public would still remain available for administrative use, thus future timber harvest could still occur with a high level of accessibility throughout much of the project area but would require the opening of gates or temporary removal of closed road barriers constructed to restrict public access. In some cases some road improvement may be necessary to allow safe use of these unmaintained roads. Once a timber project was completed, the access barriers or restrictions would be reinstated as per travel management decision. Potentially timber sale activities could require temporary closure of the OHV trail network in some locations as safety precautions.

The design features of Alternative 3, including adding seasonal restrictions to the motorbike routes to address the trend in earlier melt-off associated with climate change, provide strong guidelines for managing that use to mitigate negative impacts. Dispersing the increasing use across a wider area may serve to better maintain many of the qualities people enjoy in their backcountry experiences.

44 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects on Quality of Motorized system: This alternative, rather than increasing the diversity of recreation opportunities by creating more family-friendly motorized travel options, only adds to the provision of similar experiences in a concentrated use area around the Middle Greys, while decreasing more intimate trail opportunities for smaller vehicles.

Under Alternative 4, the maximum miles of uninterrupted trail riding for families (including the opportunity for children without a driver’s license to be able to ride), would be the lowest available of the action alternatives with a total uninterrupted trail riding distance of just under 8 miles. At 33 miles, this alternative would have the largest number of 64” or less vehicle OHV trail miles among the four alternatives. Specific OHV trail for 50” or less vehicles and dedicated complete OHV trail loops would not be available with this alternative. Seven loop options are available, although none of them would meet the family-friendly criteria. The absence of legal riding loops for families would set this alternative apart from the other action alternatives. This network design fails to meet the important goal of providing family friendly loops as stated in the project purpose and need. Additionally, this alternative would contain over 16 miles of mixed vehicle-class routes interspersed within the loop network where unlicensed riders would not be allowed to ride. This number of mixed-use route miles would be the highest number of miles for the action alternatives. The number of road crossings included as part of this alternative would be the highest as compared to the other alternatives. As in the No Action Alternative, this alternative would retain 47 miles of system roads open for full-size vehicle use.

Alternative 4 does not meet most aspects of the project purpose and need. This alternative would have the lowest miles of roads effectively closed to motorized use among the action alternatives at just under 47 miles, failing to meet the goal of improving wildlife habitat and resource protection. Additionally, due to riders having to use mixed-use full-size vehicle roads to access and connect system OHV trails to form loops, it fails to enhance the quality of a family-friendly OHV trail system in the Middle Greys. While it adds 27 miles of motorized trails above current condition, this alternative would still provide the lowest number of OHV trail miles compared with the other action alternatives.

Because so much of the network would remain open to full-size vehicles which would not be required to display state registration stickers, access to State Trails funding sources for maintenance may be severely limited. Without network income through the registration stickers, the State may not be able to support the work needed to sustain these miles of motorized routes nor the management required to assure visitor satisfaction and compliance. Timeline restrictions for implementation of this network would not hinge on compliance or effectiveness goals, but would simply be contingent on the ability to secure the funds necessary for system buildout.

Locating network trailheads would be somewhat haphazard in this alternative, with so many locations accessed by roads, similar to the No Action situation. Potentially, a trail vehicle trailhead could be located at the bottom of the Blind Bull road, where an existing gravel supply source offers a previously-impacted and level site. If the typical network user would be licensed adults in wider trail vehicles, this trailhead would provide reasonable connectivity. Unlicensed riders would not be able to connect the east and west sides from that trailhead unless a short

45 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment segment of the Greys River Road could be dual designated as a Trail without Width Restriction as well as a Road. Trailheads for the south loop could be created at the South Three Forks junction and, with some gravel hardening, at a dispersed site near Barstow Lake trail. A developed parking area and facilities on the Bear Creek trailhead could usefully serve routes going north or south, although an additional parking area may also be needed for the Cabin Creek starting point, which could displace another dispersed site. This alternative could easily result in 5 or more trailhead locations for construction and maintenance.

Effects on Fall Season access: Having longer open seasons in Alternative 4 for most motorized routes plus creating additional motorized routes available beyond current conditions may have a negative effect on wildlife security and fall hunting opportunities, especially in the upper Meadows and upper Cabin Creek areas, over time. The upper Cabin Creek area has been identified by Wyoming Game & Fish as critical habitat for both Mule Deer and elk.

The only system roads in Alternative 4 with a September 10th closure would continue to be FS10152 and FS10152A directly across from the Forest Park Campground. Buck Creek and Park Creek roads do close on September 10th currently but the location of the seasonal gate is outside the project boundary so that mileage is not included in this analysis. The South Three Forks portion of the southern loop and the nearby Barstow Lake trail would both have a September 10th closure date. This would enhance bow season opportunities for motorized users on over 4 miles of a currently closed route. It would decrease hunting season access on the 1.5 miles of Barstow Lake trail. Additionally, since all new OHV system trails and routes in the project area would remain open after September 10th in Alternative 4, motorized access for hunting would be enhanced compared to current conditions. Most routes would remain open the full fall season until the Greys River Road closes to wheeled travel on December 1st.

Effects on Non- Motorized Recreation Non-Motorized Experience:

If disturbance is a deterrent, Alternative 4 provides for 18 fewer miles of historic roads closed to motorized use currently utilized as a non-motorized resource. This loss is exacerbated by the new construction of 9 miles of motorized trail, largely on the east side of the road which currently provides a primitive, non-motorized experience with no system trails at all, in an inventoried roadless area. The additional connector segments being constructed also can be expected to increase motorized use more than their length would indicate, because of the intended effect of increasing their attraction for motorized users. All of these miles would be considered a negative effect for the non-motorized experience.

In Alternative 4, one potential benefit for non-motorized visitors could be a new trailhead location on Blind Bull, which could decrease the noise and traffic experienced across the river at Meadows Guard Station, a popular rental facility with public stock corrals.

46 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

A consistent complaint from non-motorized recreationists has been the lack of compliance with the existing designated route systems. Because the network proposed in Alternative 4 makes no improvement in the chaotic mixture of vehicle class designations and even increases that mix with new routes, it would likely be no clearer to follow. Alternative 4 provides no assurance that the creation of new routes could lead to improvements in designated route compliance, and with the continued need for multiple signs along each route to indicate class changes and date changes, misunderstandings would likely be commonplace. The only implementation timelines would be a function of the State Trails Program’s capacity, considering their other statewide needs. Portions of the network may be created over time, or the network could be created in full all at once, without any further assessments of stewardship maintenance capacity or evaluation of implementation methods and goals. Design features for this alternative alone allows for user- created routes to be left for potential conversion to legal routes in the future, rather than rehabilitating them, so these existing routes also remain as potential attractive nuisances. Additionally, this change from the other alternatives, if adopted, could be perceived as incentive for users to continue creating exploration routes outside public input and agency analysis. Alternative 4 offers no clear commitment that portions of the network would be closed if reasonable compliance cannot be achieved.

Seasonal Closures:

For non-motorized recreationists, seasonal closures provide a potential benefit, with additional areas that can be utilized without noise or smell disruptions. Large amounts of currently un- impacted areas would be open to motorized trail use until December 1st under Alternative 4, including the newly constructed east side trail, the currently closed route from the top of Bear over to North Three Forks, and the currently closed Upper Cabin Creek Road #10255 along with the lower connection to Meadows. The seasonal closure on South Three Forks provides a return to existing non-motorized condition for that route after September 10th, but still detracts from potential non-motorized activity during bow hunting season. The only seasonal closure on an existing open route would be on the 1.5 miles of Barstow Lake trail. This alternative would continue the existing October 10th motorized use closure on the upper portions of Bear Creek Road, though routes around the Bear Creek gate are currently commonplace. By allowing motorized use on the Elk Creek connector trail through December 1st, compliance would be expected to decrease substantially causing further negative effects on the non-motorized experience.

Cumulative Effects Impacts on the environment (regarding motorized opportunities), may result in the incremental impact of the alternative when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

While the entire current full-size vehicle system would remain designated for that class of vehicle, dispersed site availability would potentially decrease to meet the need for trailhead facilities. This would be a negative effect for the camping experience of visitors exploring with any size access vehicle.

Most system roads that are currently closed to public motorized use would remain available for administrative use, thus providing future timber harvest opportunities that could still occur with a high level of accessibility throughout much of the project area. Utilizing these roads may require opening of seasonal gates or temporary removal of road access barriers. In some cases, road

47 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

improvement may also become necessary to safely use some of these unmaintained routes. Once a timber project was completed, the access routes would once again be closed to the public. INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS This section presents the environmental effects of each alternative on inventory roadless areas and is a summary of Resource Report – Roadless Areas (Merigliano 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Management Framework Activities involving road construction or reconstruction and timber cutting within Inventoried Roadless Areas are subject to the requirements of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Consistent with the Rule, the Code of Federal Regulations establishes prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction and on timber cutting, sale, or removal (36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13). Prohibitions pertinent to the Middle Greys Motorized Travel project include:

294.12 Prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas. (a) A road may not be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service has prepared guidance for analyzing the effects of proposed projects on Inventoried Roadless Areas. “The standard of analysis for impacts to Inventoried Roadless areas mandates that the potential adverse effects to wilderness potential be described. This is usually accomplished by discussing the effects to the wilderness attributes of the Inventoried Roadless Area” (USDA 2008).

This analysis focuses on the effects of implementing four alternatives for improving management of motor vehicle use within the Middle Greys River project area on inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas included in this project include the western edge of the Grayback Ridge Inventory Roadless Area (IRA) #03007and a small northern portion of the Salt River Range IRA #03002 (Figure 7). This analysis is intended to provide information on the effect of the proposed motor vehicle routes on the area’s wilderness attributes.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed 1. Effect on Inventoried Roadless Areas – Indicators:

a) Miles of open system road within IRAs

b) Total miles of designated motorized route within IRAs

c) Number of acres and percent of IRA influenced by motorized route

The Forest Service has established national direction and federal regulations for the interim management of IRAs. The Code of Federal Regulations found at 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 establishes prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction and on timber cutting, sale, or removal. National direction for IRAs is also found in Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1042-156 issued in May 2011 and the Forest Service Chief’s letter of June 10, 2011. The effects of the proposed motor vehicle trails would be considered significant if the treatments were inconsistent with national direction or federal regulations.

48 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 7. Roadless areas and Middle Greys Motorized Travel project boundary

49 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment

Grayback Ridge Inventoried Roadless Area #03007 This inventoried roadless area contains approximately 315,647 acres.

Figure 8. Grayback Ridge Inventoried Roadless Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest

Natural and undeveloped character This area is the largest inventoried roadless area on the Bridger-Teton National Forest still containing wilderness characteristics. The breakdown of acreage shows that 30% of the area meets the criteria for a primitive setting and 50% of the area meets the criteria for a semi- primitive non-motorized setting (per ROS mapping protocol). The area includes its namesake Grayback Ridge, the Hoback Range, and the northern Wyoming Range to McDougal Gap.

Evidence of past livestock grazing is found in shale gullies north of Mount McDougal and in reduced species diversity found in places like Pickle Pass, Blind Bull summit, the hills above Roosevelt Meadows. However, most of the changes to vegetation are not obvious to the typical visitor, and natural ecological processes have resulted in improving trends.

Most of the area appears natural. There is little sign of an old airstrip near Blind Bull Summit but there are some closed roads in the Blind Bull—Silvermine area that are still visible. The Telephone Pass OHV trail is within the area; pioneered vehicle tracks are beginning to create some visible scars in that area as well as Middle Ridge.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation Except in popular hunting locations during the fall elk and deer seasons, there is a very good chance of seeing few to no other parties on most of the trails. Cliff Creek has become more popular in recent years, especially with people on mountain bikes, but even that trail (up to the falls) gets relatively light use. Outstanding opportunities for backcountry hunting are offered by the large, remote area and the wildlife it supports. There is a high degree of remoteness in much of this large area. Some of the most remote parts of the Bridger-Teton backcountry are within the Grayback area, particularly in the central core where the Little Greys and Hoback Rivers and Cliff and Willow Creeks begin. A good trail system penetrates this area but there are many places where cross-country travel is possible, with the need to route-find, ford creeks, and travel over rough and steep terrain.

50 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Special features and values This is the Bridger-Teton’s largest primitive/semi-primitive area outside of wilderness. The upper Hoback and Little Greys Rivers and several of their tributaries are eligible for inclusion in the National Rivers System. The area includes Deadman Mountain, Hoback Peak, and Mt. McDougal, high landmarks of the northern part of the range.

Grayback Ridge is a land of scenic and historic importance, associated with Theodore Roosevelt, who once hunted in the area. The Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail passes through the area from Bryan Flat to McDougal Gap. Nearly all of the area has distinctive scenic character, with ridges, cliffs, and multi-colored rock formations, waterfalls, aspen stands, and extensive subalpine wildflower parks. The area is well known for big game, especially trophy mule deer, and parts of it are home to small bands of bighorn sheep.

Bridger-Teton National Forest Plan Direction The Grayback Ridge IRA contains a variety of desired future conditions (DFC). The two DFCs that encompass proposed motorized routes within the IRA are DFCs 1B and 3A

DFC 1B: Management emphasis is on scheduled wood-fiber production and use, livestock production, and other commodity outputs. Recreation is managed to provide roaded natural appearing opportunities in roaded areas, and semi-primitive opportunities in other areas. Suitable recreation activities include dispersed, road-oriented uses such as fire-wood gathering, roadside camping, OHV use on open routes, hunting and winter sports. OHV use is appropriate.

DFC 3A: An area managed to give river and scenic recreation experiences. Roaded natural opportunities are provided in areas of existing system roads and at major river access points. All other areas will provide semi-primitive or primitive opportunities. Motorized vehicles will be allowed in parking lots and on designated roads and trails only.

Salt River Range Inventoried Roadless Area #03002 The Salt River Range IRA inventoried roadless area is approximately 259,270 acres.

Figure 9. Salt River Range Inventoried Roadless Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest

51 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Natural and undeveloped character The Salt River Range includes the crest of the range from north to south and most of the higher elevations on the Greys River side of the range. About 10% of the area is primitive and 60% semi-primitive, non-motorized (per ROS mapping protocol). The remainder of the area is influenced by semi-primitive, motorized corridors and roads (e.g. the lower reaches of Squaw, Murphy, North Fork Murphy, and White Creeks; the benchlands between Meadow and Three Forks Creeks, lower Spring Creek, and Poison Meadows-Tri-Basin Divide).

Some of the most scenic and undisturbed backcountry areas within the Bridger-Teton are found in this area. Alterations to the natural condition are mostly the result of old grazing practices; natural vegetation and soil have been altered in some areas and one can still see terracing that was placed along steep denuded slopes fifty years ago. These effects are limited to a few areas and do not seriously detract from the recreation experience of most visitors. Some of the Bridger-Teton’s most extensive tall forb plant communities are found in the high basins of this area; some of these are in impaired condition with loss of soil and species diversity, but others are in excellent shape, including the east slope of Stewart Peak, upper Murphy Creek, upper Bear Creek, the divide between Strawberry and White Creeks, and parts of upper Corral Creek. The Swift Creek Research Natural Area was designated to exemplify the tall forb cover type. Sheep Pass, at the southern end of the area, has been treated with check dams and native planting to help restore a severely eroded area; this slope is beginning to look natural again. Some pioneered ATV routes have created scars on steep open slopes.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation This is an outstanding area for backcountry recreation with plentiful opportunities for solitude except for a few popular trails and destinations during peak use times, notably during the fall hunt season. A good trail system and many access points exist.

The area has livestock grazing in summer, various forms of non-motorized recreation and some motorized trails, as well as winter snowmobiling. Many of the major creek valleys that drain into the Greys and Salt Rivers contain system trails.

There are many parts of the area without trails which offer cross-country travel and require navigation skills; yet the trail system is adequate to give access to most destinations. Steep and rough terrain, creek fords, and essentially wild country offer a high degree of challenge in most areas, even where the destination (usually a high lake) is only a few miles from the trailhead.

Special features and values Periodic Spring, in Swift Creek, is a cold water geyser and well-known special feature; it provides culinary water for the town of Afton. Only a half-mile from the trailhead, it is a popular destination for hikers. Swift Creek is also the location of one research natural area; the Afton Front Research Natural Area, designated to represent mountain shrub land and related communities, is also within the Salt River Range.

This area has distinctive scenic character, with a high degree of variety and features such as high mountain lakes, subalpine wildflower parks, multi-colored cliffs and hogbacks, waterfalls, and rock formations that include caves and natural bridges. There are extensive stands of whitebark pine in the upper elevations. The area includes Mt. Fitzpatrick, highest peak in the Salt River Range.

52 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

The headwaters of the Greys and Salt Rivers, both eligible for consideration under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, are found in this area. Other eligible streams include Swift Creek, Corral Creek, and Crow Creek.

Bridger-Teton National Forest Plan Direction The Salt River Range IRA also contains a variety of desired future conditions. The DFC for portion of the IRA influenced by the proposed motorized routes is 3A.

DFC 10: Management emphasis is to provide long-term and short term habitat to meet the needs of wildlife managed in balance with timber harvest, grazing, and minerals development. All surface-disturbing activities are designed to have no affect or beneficial effects on wildlife. Non- motorized and motorized trails for a variety of users are managed consistent with the recreation setting and compatible with wildlife objectives. Over the life of the Forest Plan, an average of no more than 1mile of trail per square mile of area, including closed roads, should be attained.

Environmental Consequences

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial context for analyzing direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on the Grayback Ridge and Salt River Range IRAs is the project area for the Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project. This spatial scale is considered appropriate because the direct and indirect effects are site- specific with limited influence on the IRA beyond the sight and sound of the motorized routes.

The temporal context for analyzing direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is considered to be long-term. Although it is certainly possible to close and rehabilitate a motorized route, it is difficult to close a system route once it has become established and well-used, especially if there is cooperator or partner investment that has been made to construct and maintain a route.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to the existing open roads and motorized trails in the project area as currently depicted on the Greys River Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). This alternative provides a baseline for comparison with the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Roadless Areas Within the Grayback Ridge roadless area, the No Action Alternative would allow the continued use of 2.3 miles of open system road within the project area. This primarily includes a network of Forest roads south of the Blind Bull road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. There are also approximately 0.5 miles of user-created motorized routes within the roadless area, spurring off of open roads south of the Blind Bull road, which are likely used by a variety of vehicles including full-size trucks.

Within the Salt River Range roadless area, the No Action Alternative would allow the continued use of 6.5 miles of open system road, 4.7 miles of 50” motorized trail, and 4.0 miles of

53 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

motorcycle trail within the project area. The open roads include a portion of the Cabin Creek road, a short section of road near Meadows Guard station and 3.4 miles of the Greys River road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. The 50” motorized trails include the Bear Creek trail, the trail from Meadows guard station and a small portion of the trail to Barstow Lake. The motorcycle trail is part of the Way trail. There are also approximately 4.3 miles of user-created motorized route within the roadless area, mostly located in the Cabin, Deadhorse and Bear Creek areas.

Under current management, it is likely that the user-created routes would continue to be used and other motorized routes would become established as increased motor vehicle use occurs and drivers attempt to connect segments of open route. Over time, this activity would affect wilderness attributes, particularly the natural integrity and opportunity for quiet recreation within the roadless portions of the project area. These routes are located within 3 miles of open roads including the Greys River road which mitigates the effect on the setting to some extent. Overall 0.4% of the Grayback Ridge roadless area and 1% of the Salt River Range roadless area would be influenced by motorized routes within the Middle Greys project area. These percentages would be expected to increase slightly with motor vehicle use continuing as currently managed.

Cumulative Effects Because no actions are proposed under this alternative, there would be no cumulative effects associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects on Roadless Areas Within the Grayback Ridge roadless area, the Proposed Action would allow the continued use of 2.3 miles of open system road within the project area. This primarily includes a network of Forest roads south of the Blind Bull road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. However, unlike Alternative 1, user-created motorized routes within the roadless area would be closed to prevent continued use.

Within the Salt River Range roadless area, the Proposed Action would provide 4.2 miles of open system road, 5.7 miles of 50” motorized trail, and 7.5 miles of motorcycle trail within the project area. The open system roads include a short section of road near Meadows Guard station and 3.4 miles of the Greys River road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. The 50” motorized trails include a trail from Meadows guard station into Cabin Creek, a portion of closed road converted to trail near Bear Creek, and a small portion of the trail to Barstow Lake. The motorcycle trail includes the trail near Meadows Guard station connecting over the top of the Salt Range to Strawberry Creek, the Bear Creek to McDougal Pass, and the Way Trail south of Barstow. Portions of these motorbike routes have been designated as 50” trails, and part of the proposed 50” route on Bear Creek is currently designated as full-size road, so reconstruction and maintenance work would be needed to improve sustainability and encourage compliance with smaller vehicle size designations. The user-created motorized routes within the roadless area would be closed to prevent continued use.

54 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Under the proposed action, approximately 2.3 miles of open system road would be managed as motorized trail and some existing 50” motorized trails would be converted to motorcycle trails. These changes would have a positive benefit on the roadless character of the area due to the fewer road miles, although the presence of motorized routes would still affect the wilderness attributes of the area, notably the opportunity for quiet recreation within the roadless portions of the project area. These routes are all located within 3 miles of open roads including the Greys River road which mitigates the effect on the setting to some extent. Overall 0.4% of the Grayback Ridge roadless area and 1% of the Salt River Range roadless area would be influenced by motorized routes within the Middle Greys project area.

Cumulative Effects After reviewing the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area, there are no activities that would cumulatively add to the effects of the Middle Greys motorized travel project on the roadless areas.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects on Roadless Areas Within the Grayback Ridge roadless area, Alternative 3 would allow the continued use of 0.8 miles of open system road south of the Blind Bull road. This is not a new road but rather represents the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. There would also be 4.1 miles of 50” motorized trail within the roadless area on the east-side of the Greys River road. The 50” motorized trail would be new construction. Like Alternative 2, user-created motorized routes within the roadless area would be closed to prevent continued use.

Figure 10. Proposed 50” new motorized trail within Grayback Ridge roadless area

Within the Salt River Range roadless area, Alternative 3 would allow the continued use of 4.2 miles of open system road which includes a short section of road near Meadows Guard station and 3.4 miles of the Greys River road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. There would also be 3.2 miles of 50” motorized trail, 1.5 miles of 64” motorized trail, and 7.8 miles of motorcycle trail within the project area. The 50” motorized trail is located south of the Meadows Guard station connecting with the Cabin Creek road. This trail exists on the ground but would need to be reconstructed to improve its sustainability. The 64” motorized trail includes a small portion of the Bear Creek connector and a portion of the trail to

55 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Barstow Lake. The motorcycle trail includes the trail near Meadows Guard station connecting to Strawberry Creek, and the upper portion of Bear Creek toward McDougal Pass. Except for approximately 2 miles of new trail behind Meadows Guard Station, routes currently exist on the ground but the existing 50” trail to Barstow Lake would need to be widened to accommodate 64” vehicles. The user-created motorized routes within the roadless area would be closed to prevent continued use.

Inside roadless areas, under Alternative 3, approximately 3.8 miles of open road would be managed as motorized trail and some 50” motorized trails would become motorcycle trails or 64” motorized trails. The proposed change from road to trail would have a positive benefit on the roadless character of the area due to the fewer road miles. Motorized trails are allowed in roadless areas, however, the construction of a new motorized trail would affect the wilderness characteristics of the area, notably the natural integrity and opportunity for quiet recreation within the project area (Figure 9). All changes to motorized trails are located within 3 miles of open roads including the Greys River road which mitigates the effect on the setting to some extent. Overall 0.5% of the Grayback Ridge roadless area and 1% of the Salt River Range roadless area would be influenced by motorized routes within the Middle Greys project area

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects on Roadless Areas Within the Grayback Ridge roadless area, Alternative 4 would allow the continued use of 2.3 miles of a network of open system roads south of the Blind Bull road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. There would also be 4.4 miles of 64” motorized trail within the roadless area on the east-side of the Greys River road. The 64” motorized trail would be new construction. Approximately 0.32 miles of known user-created motorized routes exist within the roadless area analyzed within the project area. These routes would be evaluated further and may or may not be closed and rehabilitated.

Within the Salt River Range roadless area, Alternative 4 would allow the continued use of 6.5 miles of open system road which includes portions of the Cabin Creek road, portions of the Bear Creek connector and 3.4 miles of the Greys River road. These are not new roads but rather represent the improved mapping capabilities available with GIS technology that was not available when roadless areas were first mapped. There would also be 7.2 miles of 64” motorized trail and 4.0 miles of motorcycle trail within the project area. The 64” motorized trail is located south of the Meadows Guard station connecting with the Cabin Creek road, the Bear Creek trail and a portion of the trail to Barstow Lake. These trails exists on the ground but would need to be reconstructed and widened to accommodate the 64” vehicles and improve their sustainability. The motorcycle trail includes the trail near Meadows Guard station connecting to Strawberry Creek. This trail currently exists on the ground. Approximately 4.3 miles of known user-created motorized routes exist within this portion of the roadless area. These routes would be evaluated further and may or may not be closed and rehabilitated.

56 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Under Alternative 4, all open system roads within the roadless areas would continue to be managed as open roads. The miles of motorcycle trail within the roadless area would not change compared to the existing condition. However, unlike Alternative 1, this alternative would add 11.6 miles of 64” motorized trail within the roadless areas. This mileage plus the 4.7 miles of user-created route that would not necessarily be closed would have a negative effect on the roadless character of the area. Motorized trails are allowed in roadless areas, however, the construction of new motorized trails and widening of other trails would affect the wilderness characteristics of the area, notably the natural integrity and opportunity for quiet recreation within the project area (Figure 11). For the most part changes to motorized trails are located within 3 miles of open roads including the Greys River road which mitigates the effect on the setting to some extent. Overall 0.7% of the Grayback Ridge roadless area and 1% of the Salt River Range roadless area would be influenced by motorized routes within the Middle Greys project area.

Figure 11. Proposed 64” new motorized trail within Grayback Ridge roadless area

57 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

BOTANY This section presents the affected environment and environmental effects of each alternative on Region 4 sensitive plant species and their habitat known or suspected to occur on the Bridger- Teton. It is a summary of the Botany Biological Evaluation (Keil 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Nine of the 20 Region 4’s sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to occur on the Bridger-Teton were carried forward for further analysis. These species are sweet flower rock jasmine (Androsacea chamaejasme var carinata), pink agoseris (Agoseris lackschwetizii), Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum), puzzling moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum), narrowleaf goldenweed (Ericameria discoidea var linearis), Payson's bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii), creeping twinpod (Physaria integrifolia v. monticola), and Greenland primrose (Primula egaliksensis).

Within the project area, there are historic records of known occurrences of two of these Region 4 sensitive plant species, Payson’s milkvetch (A.paysonii) and Payson’s bladderpod (L.paysonii).

The species which has the greatest potential to be negatively effected in the project area is A.paysonii. The Salt and Wyoming Ranges harbor 34 of 37 A.paysonii sites in Wyoming. Three documented occurrences in the project area were re-surveyed in 2012 and were not located. One occurrence of L.paysonii was documented in the project area in 1980. No subsequent surveys have been completed.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed • Potential habitat creation – A.paysonii

• Potential direct and indirect impacts - individual plants and species habitat

• Potential to contribute to negative cumulative impacts that could result in a loss of viability to Region 4 sensitive plant species – particularly A.paysonii

Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects Direct effects occur when individual plants are broken, crushed, or trampled by vehicles traveling or parking off road surfaces, or their habitat is physically impacted, such as disturbing or compacting the soil. Vehicles traveling on or parking off the route surface can result in death, altered growth, or reduced seed set through physically breaking, crushing, or uprooting plants (Wilshire, Shipley, and Nakata 1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993). Root exposure and/or direct root damage may occur due to vehicle passes over vegetation, particularly in loose soils, or in wet soils susceptible to rutting; these impacts can affect plant vigor and survival success. Direct effects are dependent upon the intensity and timing of disturbance. Effects are also dependent upon the number of plants at a specific location and the proportion of the occurrence impacted.

58 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Repeated damage of this type weakens the compensatory capabilities of rare plants, which can lead to degradation of habitat and eventually to the replacement of native plants species with nonnative species more adapted to frequent disturbances, such as invasive weeds. The extent to which plants tolerate trampling is a combination of the ability to sustain damage and the capacity to regenerate and recover. Studies have shown a 30-fold variation in species response to trampling (e.g. Cole, 1995).Responses to the mechanical effects of trampling appear to be associated with the morphological characteristics of plants, with features such as having basal meristems, tough and flexible vegetative parts, basal leaves, underground stems, large root mass, and/or the ability to reproduce vegetatively aiding in resistance to trampling (Kuss, 1986). A review of existing literature by Yorks et al. (1997) found all life-forms had some species sensitive to traffic, but in general, graminoids had the highest mean resistance, forbs appeared most likely to suffer immediate losses, and shrubs and trees had the longest-lasting decreases in diversity following traffic impact. Annuals had higher resilience (ability to recover) after disturbances than perennials (Yorks et al.,1997).

Indirect Effects Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects to rare plants can occur from soil erosion or compaction, dust, habitat fragmentation or from the potential displacement of rare and native species with nonnative or invasive species. Indirect impacts to soil from repeated off-road vehicle use can lead to the degradation of habitat for rare plants and other native plant communities. Soil compaction, erosion, and modification of soil properties can affect the distribution, abundance, growth rate, reproduction, and size of plants (Ouren et al. 2007). The effects of soil erosion on plants can include undercutting of root systems as routes are enlarged by erosion, creation of new erosion channels in areas not used by vehicles, wind erosion of adjacent destabilized areas, burial of plants by debris eroded from areas of use, and reduction of the biological capability of the soil by physical modification and stripping of fertile layers (Wilshire et al. 1978).

Soil compaction and the subsequent decrease in infiltration and distribution of water through the soil profile can lead to decreased moisture available for plant growth. Compaction caused from repeated off-highway vehicle use, can result in reduced seed germination, seedling survival, soil water infiltration (Wilshire, et al. 1978), plant and root growth (Phillips and Kirkham in Davidson and Fox 1974). In rare plant habitat, soils subjected to vehicular traffic that become compacted and eroded due to wheel ruts may become unsuitable for seedling development and the sustainability or expansion of that rare plant population could be affected. Compaction by vehicles also contributes to roadside invasions of exotic plant species by reducing native plant vigor and creating areas of competition-free space that are open to invasion (Ouren et al. 2007, Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Wilshire et al. 1978). Trombulak & Frissell (2000) report the spread of exotics by vehicles through habitat alteration, stress on native species, and creation or maintenance of movement corridors. Repeated damage to rare plant species can lead to the degradation of habitat and eventually to the replacement of native plant species, with species more adapted to frequent disturbance, such as invasive weeds. Off-highway vehicles have been shown to accelerate weed invasions (Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007) by reducing native plant vigor and cover, creating a competition-free habitat open to invasion, and acting as a vector for seed dispersal. See the Invasive SPceies Report for this project for more details.

Dust from motor vehicle use has also been shown to decrease native plant cover and vigor by reducing rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration (Spellerberg and Morrison 1998 in Ouren et al. 2007), and water-use efficiency. Dust can block photosynthesis, respiration, and

59 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment transpiration, and may even be sufficient in some cases to alter community structure (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Habitat fragmentation resulting from increased density of roads may create ―islands of otherwise suitable habitat that are too small to allow for maintenance of populations of certain plants. Fragmentation also results in a greater amount of edge area relative to the amount of interior habitat area. Newly created edges experience changes in microclimate conditions which may alter plant communities (Collinge 1996). Numerous studies have addressed the results of habitat fragmentation to plant populations and the pollinators upon which they depend (Young et al. 1996, Jules 1998, Harrison and Bruna 1999). Research findings vary depending on the type of plants, pollinators, and location. Donaldson et al. (2002) found no variation in species diversity of pollinators in habitat fragments of different sizes, but found that fragment size and distance to large fragments had a significant effect on fruit and seed set for four of the seven perennial plant species studied. Jennersten (1988) found a lower diversity and abundance of both flowering plants and insect pollinators in fragmented habitats. In her studies, seed set was much lower in fragmented habitats. These studies are not conclusive, but suggest the possibility that habitat fragmentation by road creation and use, and associated activities may affect plant populations. No habitat fragmentation studies have been conducted with the Region 4 Sensitive plants analyzed in this report; their specific responses to habitat fragmentation are not known. Wetlands and associated plants may be indirectly affected, especially by cross-country travel. Sediments and chemicals washing into wetlands from road or cross-country travel may compromise water quality. Vehicle travel in or adjacent to wetlands may create ruts that do not heal by themselves, and allow water to flow out of the wetland; over time the wetland may dry to the extent that it no longer supports wetland vegetation or provides wetland functions.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This is because the existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. By looking at current conditions, we are likely to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed to those effects.

The existing condition of sensitive plants on the Bridger-Teton is the result of multiple past disturbances on multiple scales across the landscape, including natural, as well as human-caused disturbances, which have created a diversity of plant habitats on both spatial and temporal scales. Knowledge of Sensitive plants, their locations on the Forest, and their habitat needs have increased over the years, but remains incomplete. Botanical surveys for Bridger-Teton projects are conducted with a primary focus on known potential habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive plant species. They do not cover entire project areas due to lack of available staff for intensive surveying at ideal times for each species. Often, decisions must be made to forego any surveys for a project due to other priorities. Also, many species of concern are very small in stature and are easily overlooked during surveys. Therefore, it is possible that isolated populations have been overlooked during surveys. It is probable that documented occurrences of sensitive plant species are an incomplete representation of occurrences actually present on the Forest. Scientific understanding of rare plant ecological needs has increased with time, but for most rare plant species little is known about specific ecological requirements and responses to different types of disturbances. It is difficult to determine all the impacts past activities have or

60 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

have not had on each species and their potential habitat, due to a lack of historic knowledge and detailed habitat requirements for these species.

Present and future activities that are associated with the proposed route system could impact Region 4 sensitive plant species growing along or in the vicinity of designated routes. These activities may include routine maintenance, such as clearing brush, posting signs, cleaning, or clearing of debris, or increased levels of dispersed camping or recreation along and near routes. Future projects in timber harvest and vegetation treatments, range management, fuel treatments, recreation, reforestation, road decommissioning, and special uses may also contribute impacts to sensitive plant species.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 is associated with the most risk to Region 4 sensitive plant species and their habitat in the project area.

This alternative shows the smallest number of authorized open roads However, it will likely result in the most actual routes in the project area when the estimated 65 miles of unauthorized roads with no effective closures as well as having the highest potential for creation of more unauthorized roads and cross country travel are considered.

Implementation of Alternative 1 would likely create the most potential habitat for A.paysonii. This seemingly beneficial effect would not outweigh the direct negative effects to other species and their habitats or the indirect negative effects to potential A.paysonii habitat and other species habitats from invasive species.

User created routes are likely to continue to be created in higher number than under any of the action alternatives. Cross country travel is likely to be highest under Alternative 1. This increases the potential for negative direct and indirect to species and their habitat. Alternative 1 does not include incorporation of any design features, effectiveness monitoring, triggers or management actions that would benefit Region 4 sensitive plant species or minimize undesirable direct or indirect effects.

Combined with other activities in and adjacent to the project that serve as vectors for invasive species and degrade habitat and cause direct effects to species habitat, continued management as proposed in Alternative 1 could result in an increase of undesired cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species. At most risk would be A.paysonii. This is in large part due to the project area being in the restricted range of the species and the species being a regional endemic. In addition, the known range in Wyoming exists in an area where there is a high incidence of activities that pose a threat to the species.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is associated with the least risk to Region 4 sensitive plant species and their habitat in the project area.

Alternative 2 has more designated miles of open roads and new construction than Alternative 1 but less than Alternatives 3 and 4. Overall it would likely result in less user created routes and cross country travel than Alternative 1 as Alternative 1 would not result in effective closure of existing and future user created routes. Design features, monitoring and triggers with specific

61 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

management actions make the implementation of Alternative 2 the least likely to result in unauthorized routes and cross country travel. This decreases the potential for negative direct and indirect effects to species and their habitat. This alternative also has the least impacts to other resources that would contribute to indirect effects, including soils and hydrology considerations.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would have create the least potential habitat for A.paysonii. However, the habitat that would be created has the most potential to perpetuate in a condition conducive to the establishment of A.paysonii because of the design features, effectiveness monitoring, triggers and management actions in place.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the least negative cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is associated with the similar risk to Region 4 sensitive plant species and their habitat in the project area as Alternative 2, although slightly more it is likely insignificant. It is less risk that Alternatives 1 or 4.

Alternative 3 has more miles of designated open roads and new construction than Alternative 1 and 2 and less than Alternative 4. It has less potential to see unauthorized user created routes and cross country travel than Alternatives 1 and 4, but more than Alternative 2. This decreases the potential for negative direct and indirect effects to species and their habitat. This alternative also has the least impacts to other resources that would contribute to indirect effects, including soils and hydrology considerations.

Design feature and monitoring make the implementation of Alternative 3 preferable to the implementation of Alternative 4 or continuation of current management under Alternative 1. The habitat that would be created has more potential to perpetuate in a condition conducive to the establishment of A.paysonii than Alternatives 1 and 4 because of the design features and effectiveness monitoring. Lack of the triggers and specific management actions make it a slightly less likely to result in perpetuation of A.paysonii habitat than Alternative 2.

Design criteria minimizes the potential for undesirable direct and indirect effects to species and their habitat compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Alternative 3 includes effectiveness monitoring but does not include triggers which allow for specific adaptive management, which increases the potential for negative effects compared to Alternative 2.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less potential negative cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species than Alternatives 1 and 4, but slightly more than Alternative 2. This is mainly due to lack of adaptive management triggers and specific management actions if ineffective management is detected.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 provides less risk to Region 4 sensitive plant species and their habitats than Alternatives 1, but more risk than Alternatives 2 or 3.

Alternative 4 provides more potential to minimize new user created routes and effectively close existing unauthorized routes than Alternative 1, but less potential than Alternative 2 and 3. There would be more habitat created for A.paysonii compared to Alternative 2 or 3, but less compared to Alternative 1.

62 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Design criteria is lacking compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 resulting in an increased potential for undesirable direct and indirect effects to species and their habitats. While this potential is less than Alternative 1, it is not significantly so. There is no effectiveness monitoring proposed, nor are there triggers and specific management actions to address ineffective management.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in similar undesired cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species as Alternative 1 and more that Alternative 2 or 3. and their habitats than Alternatives 1, but more risk than Alternatives 2 or 3.

Design criteria is lacking compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 resulting in an increased potential for undesirable direct and indirect effects to species and their habitats. While this potential is less than Alternative 1, it is not substantially so. There is no effectiveness monitoring proposed, nor are there triggers and specific management actions to address ineffective management.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in similar undesired cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species as Alternative 1 and more that Alternative 2 or 3.

Determination of Effects – Region 4 Sensitive

Alternative 1 and Alternative 4– Risk High Based on the information that is available and the above analysis, a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide” is made for the 9 sensitive plant species analyzed under the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 4, relative to continuation of current management. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

• There may be habitat in the project area for all the species addressed in this analysis. When habitat is present in a project area, there is always the possibility that unknown individuals are present, which management activities may directly affect.

• These species are found in alpine, sparsely vegetated, riparian and sagebrush habitats. Those habitats are found within project area where new route construction and route widening will occur. No design criteria are in place to mitigate effects to the habitat or any known or unknown species occurrences.

• Three historic occurrences of Payson’s milkvetch had been documented in the project area. Resurveys of these occurrences in 2012 were unsuccessful and the occurrences were considered likely extirpated. Under Alternatives 1 and 4 there is a higher potential for direct and indirect effects to species individuals not yet documented in the project area. There is also a higher potential for direct and indirect effects to habitat of this species.

• One known occurrence of Payson’s bladderpod is in the project area. It is in an area where a system route exists and will continue to be open under all Alternatives 1 and 4. Under Alternatives 1 and 4 there is a higher potential for direct and indirect effects to

63 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

individuals at this occurrence and species individuals not yet documented in the project area. There is also a higher potential for direct and indirect effects to habitat of this species.

• None of the known occurrences of sweet flowered rock jasmine, pink agoseris, crenulate moonwort, puzzling moonwort, narrowleaf goldenweed, creeping twinpod and Greenland primrose known to occur on the Bridger-Teton National Forest are located within this project area Loss of unknown individuals may occur in this project area, the viable populations at the known occurrences would not be affected.

• With ground-disturbance activities there is a chance of invasive species infestation which can degrade sensitive species habitat. Alternatives 1 and 4 do not have design criteria that includes specific invasive species management associated with project implementation.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Risk Low Based on the information that is available and the above analysis, a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide” is made for the 9 sensitive plant species analyzed under the implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

• These species are found in alpine, sparsely vegetated, riparian and sagebrush habitats. Those habitats are found within project area where new route construction and route widening will occur. Design criteria are in place to mitigate effects to the habitat or any known or unknown species occurrences.

• Three historic occurrences of Payson’s milkvetch had been documented in the project area. Resurveys of these occurrences in 2012 were unsuccessful and the occurrences were considered likely extirpated. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there is less potential for direct and indirect effects to species individuals not yet documented in the project area. There is also less potential for direct and indirect effects to habitat of this species.

• One known occurrence of Payson’s bladderpod is in the project area. It is in an area where a system route exists and will continue to be open under all Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there is less potential for direct and indirect effects to individuals at this occurrence and species individuals not yet documented in the project area. There is also less potential for direct and indirect effects to habitat of this species.

• None of the known occurrences of sweet flowered rock jasmine, pink agoseris, crenulate moonwort, puzzling moonwort, narrowleaf goldenweed, creeping twinpod and Greenland primrose known to occur on the Bridger-Teton National Forest are located within this project area. Loss of unknown individuals may occur in this project area, the viable populations at the known occurrences would not be affected. However, design criteria are in place to minimize the chances of this occurring decreasing risk to the species and their potential habitat overall.

64 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

• With ground-disturbance activities there is a chance of invasive species infestation which can degrade sensitive species habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 have design criteria that includes specific invasive species management associated with project implementation.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would meet forest plan direction regarding Goal 3.3 - Sensitive species are prevented from becoming a federally listed threatened species in Wyoming and Objective 3 3(a) - Protect National Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive plant and animal species and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat to ensure that activities do not cause (1) long-term or further decline in population numbers or habitats supporting these populations and, (2) trends towards federal listing. WILDLIFE This section presents the affected environment of wildlife species and the environmental effects of each alternative on wildlife. General habitat relationships and habitat needs of the species as well as a detailed description of environmental effects of the alternatives are found in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Because motorized routes and motorized use affect many different wildlife species and affects them in so many different ways, across such large areas, analyzing effects on wildlife can become quite complicated. Using “road-effect zones” (or, distance bands) in analyzing how motorized routes and motorized use affects wildlife is one way to simplify the analysis while still accounting for many of the details of impacts on different groups of wildlife (Forman et al. 1997, Gucinski et al. 2001, Gaines et al. 2003, Ouren et al. 2007). Road effects zoning is increasingly being recognized as a more ecologically-meaningful way to assess impacts of motorized routes and motorized use than solely looking at road densities. Table 8 presents a summary of effects of motorized routes and motorized use on wildlife at each of eight distance bands, based on the large volume of scientific information that is available, and that is analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017). Figure 13 through Figure 16 illustrate the distance bands within the project area for existing conditions and each alternative, and the percentages on the right side of Table 8 show the corresponding proportion of the project area that is at these different distances. Table 8 and Figure 13 through Figure 16 only account for open routes and, therefore, underestimate the proportion of distance bands that are close to used motorized routes and underestimates the proportion of distance bands that are far from used motorized routes.

On national forests, the distance-band approach has mainly been used for elk, based on Rowland et al. (2000), and this was used for the Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project elk analysis. Based on an extensive review of scientific information in the Wildlife Specialist Report, effects of motorized routes and motorized use on elk appears to be a good proxy for the effects of this activity on a wide range of other wildlife species that are also sensitive to motorized use. Ultimately, this means that adherence to the Habitat Effectiveness Standard and associated Road Location Guideline for elk likely indicates that habitat effectiveness for many of these other wildlife species would be satisfactory. In particular, a habitat effectiveness of 60% or more in DFC 10 areas (USFS 1990, p. 109) should maintain suitable conditions for a range of other wildlife species.

A second approach to the standard distance-band analysis, instead of calculating the proportion of the project area (and other geographic areas) encompassed within each distance band and then assessing effects on wildlife within each band, involves calculating the proportion of stream miles in the project area that lie within each distance band (Table 9). This second approach is important

65 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

because riparian habitat is disproportionately important to wildlife (far more wildlife species depend on riparian habitat than on any other type of habitat, except for aspen) and because motorized routes are disproportionately located in and near riparian areas. Riparian habitat on the Greys River Ranger District comprises less than 5% of the acreage of the district, yet a large proportion of the facilities and human-related activities that occur on the district occur within and immediately adjacent to riparian zones, much higher than 5%, likely higher than 50%. As an example, the Greys River and most of its major tributaries are paralleled by roads, and this is where most of the human activity (e.g., driving, camping, kayaking, fishing) occurs, and cattle and horse grazing occurs mostly within and near riparian areas. Effects are compounded by dogs, firewood cutting, and the spread of noxious weeds in and near riparian areas. In addition, near the project area, private lands in and adjacent to riparian areas have been converted to agricultural hayfields, housing, and an airstrip, further compounding impacts on riparian wildlife in the area. Motorized routes and motorized use in and near riparian areas impact riparian habitat, amphibians, and other wildlife in multiple ways. These impacts are prevalent throughout the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West.

To illustrate the disproportionately large impacts of motorized use on riparian areas, about 33% of the stream miles in the project area currently are within 100 m of open motorized routes and about 50% currently are within 200 m, which contrasts with only about 16% and 28%, respectively, of the project area being within 100 m and 200 m of open motorized routes. More so, riparian areas only comprise about 5% of the project area, yet 33% of perennial-stream / riparian miles are within 100 m of open motorized routes.

Table 8. Summary of effects on wildlife habitat and wildlife, by Road Effect Zone (open routes only), and the proportion of the project area comprising each Road Effect Zone, by alternative. The habitat effectiveness multiplier for elk provides a general indication of the level of negative effects on wildlife (0.0 = major reduction in habitat effectiveness; 1.0 = no or negligible reduction in habitat effectiveness). Road Effects Elk Percent of Project Area within Effect on Hbtt Each Zone Zones Affected Eff. Summary of Effects (all wildlife species, with an emphasis Ex. & (m) Species Mult.A on those affected by motorized routes and motorized use) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Very  0 – (~0.08) Major reduction in habitat effectiveness (including 15.5 18.1 18.9 22.3 displacement, increased heart rate and stress, reduced feeding 100 Large rates and ability to build fat reserves, reduced nest success, (+17) (+22) (+44) increased nest abandonment) for affected speciesB, as compounded by associated human activities.  High potential for noxious weeds to be introduced, for increased sedimentation of streams and wetlands in this zone, and for at least some amphibians to be crushed.  Moderate potential for reduced snag and log density, and mod. reduction in habitat connectivity for small animals.  Negligible to small habitat loss, reduction in habitat suitability, increased mortality (collisions and crushing) for most susceptible wildlife (besides amphibians), and negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. B 101 – Large (~0.15)  Large reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected species , 12.6 14.8 15.2 17.7 as compounded by associated human activities. 200 (+17) (+21) (+40)  High potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and for increased sedimentation of streams and wetlands.  Mod to high pot. for mortality if amphib breed. site <200m.

66 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Road Effects Elk Percent of Project Area within Effect on Hbtt Each Zone Zones Affected Eff. Summary of Effects (all wildlife species, with an emphasis Ex. & (m) Species Mult.A on those affected by motorized routes and motorized use) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4  Low potential for reduced snag and log density.  Negligible or less habitat loss, reduction in habitat suitability, and reduction in the potential for fire spread. 201 – Mod- (~0.25)  Moderately-large reduction in habitat effectiveness for 15.5 18.1 17.8 20.8 affected speciesB, and mod. pot. for crushing of amphibians 360 Large (+17) (+15) (+34)  Relatively-high potential for noxious weed spread and for increased sedimentation of streams and wetlands 201 to 360 m from routes.  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread.

0 – See 0.17 See above. 43.6 51.0 51.9 60.8 360 above (87% (+17) (+19) (+39) reduction) B 361 – Mod. 0.33  Mod. reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected species 24.7 27.0 24.3 26.9 (few effects on some migratory bird species). 720 (67% (+9) (-4) (+9) reduction)  At least some potential for nox. weeds to be introduced and increased sedimentation of streams 361-720 m from routes.  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. 721 – Mod- 0.5  Mod-small reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected 14.4 14.1 11.4 9.7 speciesB (few effects on some migratory bird species). 1,080 Small (50% (-2) (-21) (-33) reduction)  At least some potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and for increased sedimentation of streams 721-1,080 m from routes.  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. 1,081 – Small 0.67  Small reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected sppB. 8.6 6.0 4.7 2.5 1,440 (33% red)  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. (-30) (-45) (-71) 1,441 – Minor 0.83  Minor reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected sppB. 4.6 1.4 2.9 0.1 1,800 (17% red)  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. (-70) (-37) (-98) >1,800 Negli- 1.0  Negligible red. in habitat effectiveness for affected spp.B 4.2 0.4 4.9 0.0 gible (0% red)  Negligible reduction in the potential for fire spread. (-90) (+17) (-100)

A Habitat Effectiveness Multiplier for Elk, based on Rowland et al. (2,000), with estimates added for 0-100, 101-200, and 201-360 m (italicized in parentheses) based on their multiplier for 0-360 m. B Species include, at a minimum, elk, moose, wolverines, gray wolves, grizzly bears, harlequin ducks, bald eagles, goshawks, other raptor species, and a range of migratory bird species.

Table 9. Summary of effects on riparian habitat and wildlife in riparian areas, at different distances from open motorized routes, and the proportion of the project’s stream miles within each Road Effect Zone, by alternative. Road Effects Percent of Project Area’s Effect on Stream Miles in Each Zones Affected Zone (m) Species Summary of Effects within the Riparian Zone (all wildlife species, with an emphasis on those affected by motorized routes Ex. & Alt. and motorized use) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 4 0 – Very  Major reduction in habitat effectiveness (incl. displacement, 33.3 37.8 42.3 43.1 100 Large increased heart rate and stress, reduced feeding rates and ability to (+13) (+27) (+29)

67 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Road Effects Percent of Project Area’s Effect on Stream Miles in Each Zones Affected Zone (m) Species Summary of Effects within the Riparian Zone (all wildlife species, with an emphasis on those affected by motorized routes Ex. & Alt. and motorized use) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 4 build fat reserves, reduced nest success, increased nest abandonment) for affected speciesA.  High potential for increased sedimentation of streams, for noxious weeds to be introduced and spread, for reduced habitat connectivity for small animals, and for crushing within 100 m of amphibian breeding sites.  Negligible to small riparian habitat loss, reduction in habitat suitability, and mortality due to collisions and crushing. 101 – Large  Large reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected speciesA. 16.9 19.2 18.4 20.5 200  Mod to high pot. for mortality if amphib breed. site <200m. (+13) (+8) (+21)  High potential for increased sedimentation of streams and for noxious weeds to be introduced.  Negligible rip. habitat loss & reduction in habitat suitability. 201 – Mod-  Moderately-large reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected 8.8 13.0 11.7 14.0 A 360 Large species . (+48) (+33) (+59)  Mod. potential for mortality if amphib breeding site is <200m.  Relatively-high potential for increased sedimentation of streams and for noxious weed spread at 201-360 m.  Negligible rip. habitat loss & reduction in habitat suitability.

0 – See See above. 59.0 70.0 72.4 77.6 360 above (+19) (-23) (+32) 361 – Mod.  Moderate reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected speciesA 16.7 18.3 16.9 16.5 720 (few effects on some migratory bird species). (+9) (+1) (-1)  At least some potential for increased sedimentation of streams and for noxious weeds to be introduced and spread 361-720 m. 721 – Mod-  Moderately-low reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected 14.5 7.7 7.1 5.6 A 1,080 Small species (few effects on some migratory bird species). (-47) (-51) (-62)  At least some potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and spread 721-1,080 m. 1,081 – Small  Low reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected speciesA. 5.7 1.7 1.8 0.4 1,440  At least some potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and (-70) (-67) (-93) spread 1,081-1.440 m. 1,441 – Minor  Minor reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected speciesA. 2.9 1.7 1.2 0.0 1,800  At least some potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and (-42) (-57) (-100) spread 1,441-1,800 m. >1,800 Negli-  Low reduction in habitat effectiveness for affected speciesA. 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 gible  At least some potential for noxious weeds to be introduced and (-52) (-52) (-100) spread >1,800 m.

A Species include, at a minimum, elk, moose, river otters, harlequin ducks, bald eagles, other raptor species, and a range of riparian-associated migratory bird species.

68 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Elk, Mule Deer, and Moose Elk, mule deer and moose are analyzed together because they are all native ungulates, they all had been designated as big game “harvest indicator species” (USFS 1990), they have similar broad- scale habitat requirements, and they all generally respond similarly to motorized use, especially elk and moose. Key differences include: (1) elk and moose are more sensitive to motorized vehicle use than mule deer, (2) mule deer and elk habitat-use patterns can differ due to competitive interactions between these species and differing tolerances of motorized use, and (3) summertime thermal cover is especially important for moose.

Indicators Addressed Indicators used in the wildlife analysis are:

1. Habitat effectiveness

a) Route-densities (including open, used, closed, and/or unauthorized)

b) Distance-bands (including open, used, closed, and/or unauthorized)

c) Miles of perennial streams within 100 m and 200 m of motorized routes

d) Potential for pioneering and potential for use of closed and unauthorized routes by vehicles

e) Human access

f) Disturbance effects of heavy equipment and trail maintenance

2. Amount of habitat lost

3. Change in habitat quality

a) Herbaceous species composition, and noxious weed introduction and spread

b) Fire regimes

c) Thermal cover

4. Proportion of area providing secure elk habitat

5. Potential for elk wallows to be impacted by motorized routes

6. Season of motorized use

Not all indicators are addressed in the summary of the analysis presented in this environmental assessment. See DeLong and Egan (2017) for a detailed analysis of effects using these indicators.

69 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment

Suitable Conditions by Indicator Group

A. Motorized Routes, Motorized Use, & Habitat Effectiveness 1. Habitat Effectiveness ― Habitat effectiveness refers to the proportion of use by native ungulates, grizzly bears, and other wildlife that occurs in a particular area compared to the use that would occur in that same area in the absence of any motorized routes or motorized use (Lyon 1983). Distance band analysis was used to evaluate the of habitat effectiveness in existing conditions (Alternative 1) and action alternatives (Alt. 2, 3, and 4). The Forest Plan (USFS 1990a:109; and Habitat Effectiveness Standard, USFS 1990a:124) defines the minimum suitable habitat effectiveness for elk in each DFC area as follows:

• DFC 1B areas — A minimum habitat effectiveness of about 53%.

• DFC 10 areas — A minimum habitat effectiveness of 60%.

• DFC 12 areas — A minimum habitat effectiveness of about 84%.

2. Miles of perennial streams within 100 m and 200 m of motorized routes ― The Forest Plan does not provide any specific direction on this, but the Forest Plan provides general direction in the Habitat Effectiveness Standard for native ungulates. The Habitat Effectiveness Standard generally requires “non-motorized and motorized vehicle access [to] be regulated either seasonally or year-round to protect such important big game habitat components as primary feeding areas,… calving/fawning/lambing areas” to provide for habitat effectiveness. Riparian areas provide important feeding areas and calving areas for moose.

A minimum threshold for this element has not been established and no scientific information was found to define a minimum threshold for suitable conditions for this analysis. Nonetheless, given the importance of riparian areas to moose, substantial displacement effects of motor vehicles on moose, and the disproportionately large proportion of riparian habitat that is located within 100-200 m of motorized routes (just under half the mileage of streams in the project area are located within 200 m of an open motorized route), existing conditions already exceed the threshold for suitable conditions for moose with respect to this element.

3. The Elk Wallow Standard requires that “Trail and open-road locations will be designed and managed to protect elk wallow complexes” (1990:124). Therefore, at a minimum for the Middle Greys Motorized Trail project, any new route must be designed to meet this minimum standard.

4. Potential for Pioneering and Potential for Use of Closed and Unauthorized Routes by Motor Vehicles ― Beyond the density of open routes, use of closed roads and unauthorized routes and pioneering can affect the potential use of an area by elk, mule deer, and moose since they do not distinguish between motorized use on open routes and motorized use on closed and unauthorized routes. Non-use of closed roads and unauthorized routes and no pioneering of new motorized routes represent suitable conditions for all three species. Any use of closed roads or unauthorized routes and

70 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

pioneering of new motorized routes constitute less-than-suitable conditions for elk, mule deer, and moose.

5. Human Access — Suitable conditions for this element involves having motorized access and associated human use being low enough to allow habitat effectiveness to remain within suitable limits identified above.

B. Amount of Habitat No upper limits of habitat loss for elk, mule deer, and moose were found in the scientific literature. If no more than 5-10 acres per section are lost (which is the maximum lost under any alternative in this project), this constitutes ≤1-2% of available habitat, which would appear to be well within an acceptable level of impact at a landscape level.

C. Habitat Quality Objective 2.1(a) of the Forest Plan (USFS 1990a) calls for suitable habitat to be provided to meet WGFD objectives for elk, mule deer, and moose. An approximation of the conditions under which native ungulate communities formed in this part of the Rocky Mountains constitutes suitable conditions for these species. The 2012 Planning Rule explains that “…native species evolved and adapted within the limits established by natural landforms, vegetation, and disturbance patterns prior to extensive human alteration.

Mix of Succession Stages — An approximately natural herbaceous species composition constitute suitable conditions for elk, mule deer, and moose.

Mix of Succession Stages — As part of desired conditions for the Middle Greys watershed, approximately 38% of forestland should be in late succession, about the same proportion should be in mid succession, and the remaining 24% should be in early succession (USFS 2005a). These are midpoints; the range around each midpoint may be 10-15% or more.

Mix of Foraging Habitat and Hiding/Thermal Cover — Thomas et al. (1979a) identified an “optimum” mix of cover types for elk and mule deer as being 40% in hiding and thermal cover and 60% in foraging habitat. By combining all non-forestland habitat and including 75% of aspen habitat as foraging habitat, the desired mix of succession stages for wildlife in general would maintain an average of about 54% in foraging habitat for elk and mule deer, which is just under the optimum mix identified by Thomas et al. (1979a). Some of the mid-seral forestland likely provides foraging habitat, meaning the desired mix of success stages provides conditions close to optimum conditions identified by Thomas et al. (1979a).

D. Elk Security Cover Security cover is a necessary component of elk habitat year-round (Hillis et al. 1991, Wisdom and Cook 2000, Skovlin et al. 2002). The Forest Plan defines security area as “An area to which big game retreat for safety when disturbance in their usual range is intensified such as by logging activity or during the hunting season” (USFS 1990a:95). Hillis et al. (1991) defined suitable security cover as blocks of forestland of ≥ 250 acres that have a minimum of 40% canopy cover and that are more than ½ mile from open roads. This has been used on the Bridger-Teton as desired conditions for elk.

71 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

While the Forest Plan does not define a minimum threshold for elk security cover, Hillis et al. (1991) recommended that security cover comprise a minimum of 30% of an analysis unit, and this is what has been used in other parts of the Bridger-Teton.

E. Season of Motorized Use Suitable conditions for this element are seasonal closures from either September 10 or October 10 to June 30, especially in DFC 10 and 12 areas.

Existing Conditions

Elk The project area is within the Afton elk herd unit (EHU 105). At an estimated 1,837 individuals in 2015 the Afton elk herd currently is just above the population objective of 2,200 (Fralick 2016a). The herd averaged 2,432 animals in 2014, and averaged 2,045 animals during 2010-2014. During 2007-2009, the 3-year average herd was just below the herd objective of about 2,200, and the number declined slightly to a low of 1,823 in 2009-2011, and then increased to a 3-year average of 2,185 in 2012-2014.

The Afton elk herd unit is bounded on the west by the Idaho state line, on the north by the Snake River, the crest of the Wyoming Range and on the east, and is bounded on the south by the headwaters of the Greys River and Salt River. The Bridger-Teton National Forest administers 79% of the Afton elk herd unit. There are two elk feed grounds located within Afton Elk Herd Unit: The Forest Park Feedground located near the upper Greys River, also within Hunt Area 90, and the Greys River Feedground located near the town of Alpine.

The project area is within a broad geographic area used by elk for spring/summer/fall range, including calving (parturition) and migration habitat. The documented calving areas within the project area comprise nearly half of the project area, but much of the rest of the project area contains habitat well suited for calving. Because the project area includes the Forest Park elk feedground, elk inhabit the project area year-round. Elk inhabit the project area outside the elk feedground from the time snow clears (e.g., May) until snows push them to the feedground (e.g., October-November).

Elk primarily occur at higher elevations during summer and fall, feeding in mountain meadows, forest openings, big sagebrush, herblands, and on open ridge-tops (Boyce 1989). Table 10 and Figure 12 presents a breakdown of vegetation types in the project area.While contiguous forestland used as security cover (needed year-round) can be relatively large (particularly during the hunting season), nearby edges or small forest openings are necessary for foraging. Transition ranges are generally lower in elevation than summer habitat except when crossing mountain ranges to reach winter range. The nutritional quality of forage on late summer and fall habitats is critical to elk, particularly for elk that winter on native winter range (Boyce 1989, Wisdom and Thomas 1996, Cook et al. 2004). Research indicates that fat reserves gained during the summer and fall play an important role in winter survival.

72 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 12. Vegetation types in and around the MGMT project area

73 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Most elk that inhabit the project area during spring, summer, and fall likely winter on the Forest Park elk feedground. However, a portion of these elk either move north to native winter range at the south end of Middle Ridge (just north of the project area), migrate south to native winter range north of the town of Cokeville, or migrate east to winter feedgrounds along the Big Piney Front (east slope of the Wyoming Range). A small number of elk may winter along the eastern side of the project area and other parts of the crucial winter year-long range along the Greys River and toe slopes and lower canyons along the river. The proportion of elk in the project area that winter on the different native winter ranges is unknown.

Mule Deer The Wyoming Range mule deer herd (mule deer herd 131) currently has 38,000 individuals, approximately 24% below the population objective of 50,000 (Fralick 2016b). The population has been below objective for 23 years. Population estimates averaged about 34,450 between 2010 and 2015, and averaged approximately 34,200 in 2104.

Mule deer numbers exceeded the herd objective in the late 1980s, but they declined during the early 1990s to below the herd objective, and they have not rebounded. Factors contributing to a depressed population include reduced quality and quantity of winter ranges combined with prolonged periods of sub-zero temperatures and deep snows, as well as other possible factors including reduced quality of spring/summer/fall ranges (Fralick 2016b). Following a small increase in the population in 1998-2001, populations declined substantially following the winters of 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 due to extreme losses on the Cokeville, Kemmerer, and Evanston winter ranges (Fralick 2016b). Following these declines, fawn:doe ratios have not rebounded to levels observed prior to 1990. Fawn:doe ratios in the Wyoming Range herd unit have not exceeded 70 fawns per 100 does and it has mostly been below 65 in the main part of this herd unit. Prior to 1990, fawn:doe ratios were typically >75 fawns per 100 does.

Mule deer in the Middle Greys Motorized Trails project area are part of the Wyoming Range mule deer herd unit, which covers approximately 3,824 square miles (nearly 2.5 million acres). Mule deer use a wide variety of vegetation types including aspen, several conifer types, big sagebrush, several mountain shrubland types, meadows, grasslands, herblands, and tall forbs (Table 10). Within woody vegetation types, mule deer use all seral stages and do best in areas where there is a mix of seral communities. Wallmo (1978, as cited by Kie and Czech 2000, page 643) stated “three general axioms applicable to habitat management for mule deer: (1) early stages of plant succession are more beneficial than climax vegetation, (2) a mixture of plant communities provides better habitat than any single community, and (3) more browse is preferable to less browse.” The third axiom is most applicable on winter range (which does not exist in the project area), and is not as applicable in early spring and summer when mule deer favor succulent and highly digestible forbs.

The project area is within a broad geographic area used by mule deer for spring/summer/fall range, including fawning and migration habitat. Mule deer inhabit the project area from the time snow clears (e.g., May) until snows push them out (e.g., October-November). Seasonal range maps of WGFD reveal that spring, summer, fall range encompasses the entire project area. Fawning habitat for mule deer consists of foraging areas and hiding and thermal cover, and is typically on spring transition range with mild slopes and abundant succulent vegetation within 600 feet of water. An important component of hiding cover includes herbaceous vegetation in some areas (Robinette et al. 1977). While many habitats are used for fawning and fawn-rearing, those providing relatively large quantities of nutritious forbs are most important. Fawning range

74 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

encompasses most of the project area; i.e., all of the project area except approximately 20% of the area along the western side where only a small proportion of the motorized route system exists. Several mule deer stopovers have been identified from an ongoing radio-telemetry study. This and other recent research is demonstrating that stopover areas are disproportionately important to mule deer.

Table 10. Estimated breakdown of vegetation types in the Middle Greys River Watershed, based on the 2007 BTNF vegetation layer. Percent of Percent of Total Percent of Vegetation each Vegetation Vegetation Type Acres Total Group Group Lodgepole Pine Mix 12,187 44% 54% Aspen (minimum acres) 1,163 4% 5% 82% Whitebark Pine 228 1% ˂1% (22,537 ac.) Spruce/Subalpine Fir 7,499 27% 33% Douglas-fir 1,459 5% 6% Mtn. Big Sagebrush/Mtn. Shrubland 2,493 9% 75% 12% Grassland/Forbland (incl. Tall Forb) 842 3% 25% (3,335 ac.) Silver Sagebrush/ShrubbyCinquefoil 289 1% 20% 5% Riparian Herbland 20 ˂1% ˂1% (1,377 ac.) Willow 1,068 4% 80% Barren Rock, Sparse Vegetation 126 ˂1% 100% <1% Water 20 ˂1% 100% <1% Total ― All Types 27,395 100% 100% Source: VegetationTypesMGMT032117.xlsx

Moose The most recent 3-year average (2013-2015) Sublette moose herd 105 currently is about 23% below the population objective of 1,500 animals and 33% below average for 2015 with 999 individuals. The herd averaged about 1,129 animals during 2009-2011. In 2005-2007, the 3-year average population size was estimated to be about 1,133, and during 2008-20010, the 3-year average population size was an estimated 1,137. The 3-year average increased somewhat to an estimated 1,323 animals in 2011-2013.

The project area is within a broad geographic area used by moose year-round, and it includes calving and migration habitat. Seasonal ranges delineated by WGFD include spring, summer, and fall range; parturition range; winter year-long range; and crucial winter year-long range.

Peek (1997) characterized moose as “‘selective generalists’ — capable of using forage and other habitat components in higher proportions than they occur in the environment, and adept at selecting seasonally advantageous habitats.” They do best in areas with relatively “stable” habitats (e.g., willow bottoms) and transitory habitats, particularly post-fire conifer forestland and aspen. Vegetation types used by moose on the Bridger-Teton include aspen, many conifer types, several mountain shrubland types, herblands, and forblands (Table 10). Within woody vegetation types, moose use all seral stages and do best in areas where there is a mix of seral communities. An important characteristic of moose habitat across their range is periodic disturbance, such as fire (Peek 1997; Franzmann 2000).

During spring, summer, and fall, moose use a variety of habitats (e.g., aspen, willow, mountain shrubland, and forbland communities) where they have access to dense timber that provides thermal cover (i.e., cooler temperatures). Female moose use a variety of habitats when calving

75 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

and raising calves, but they tend to seek out dense cover (Peek 1997), such as closed-canopy shrub communities and understories. The effects of nutritional quality and availability of forage during winter and spring on calf production and survival is not fully understood, but Schwartz and Renecker (1997, page 166�167) suggested it could potentially be a factor. There are very few year-long diet studies on moose in the Rocky Mountains, but it appears browse (shrubs and trees) is the most important component of their diet year-round, except that forbs may comprise the bulk of the diet when they are available and succulent (Renecker and Schwartz 1997). Moose feed on graminoids to a very limited extent. Fat reserves gained during the summer play an important role in winter survival; body condition can serve as an indicator of range quality.

Because thermal stress for moose begins at approximately 57-68°F during summer months (Renecker and Schwartz 1997, Schwartz and Renecker 1997), thermal cover is especially important during the hottest months of summer. In montane regions, moose may seek cool mountain valleys and shade provided by aspen and spruce to escape high temperatures and gain “comfort” while foraging (Renecker and Schwartz 1997). Aquatic habitat (e.g., beaver ponds) can also be important for cooling. Transition range is likely similar to summer habitat, except extends further down gradient as animals move toward winter range in the fall and the reverse in spring.

General Habitat Conditions The project area contains a wide range of habitat for elk, mule deer, and moose, including forest openings and rangelands, mature and old-age conifer forestland, aspen stands, riparian meadows, and riparian willow communities. Habitat in the project area currently is in less-than-satisfactory condition for these species due primarily to the under-representation of early- and mid-seral plant communities (except in the lodgepole pine type where there is a suitable mix), reduced condition of aspen habitat, and reduced habitat effectiveness (especially for elk and moose). Although mule deer and moose are affected by motorized use to some extent, they are not as sensitive to it as elk.

The geographic scope for this part of the analysis is the Middle Greys Watershed Area, as defined in USFS (2005a) for all vegetation types and in Loosen et al. (2009) for the aspen type. This geographic area was used because it encompasses the MGMT project area, is close in size to the MGMT project area, and the MGMT project is not a vegetation project and does not warrant the additional time that would be needed to ascertain the mix of succession stages for the project area. Much of the needed information is in USFS (2005a). Because a new vegetation layer was developed after 2005, Table 10 presents acreages from USFS (2005a) and from the new vegetation layer.

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences

Determinations

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) No actions would be taken under Alternative 1 that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to elk, mule deer, and moose, although inaction (i.e., not taking action to curb unauthorized motorized use) has potential to conflict with Forest Plan direction since the mileage of closed roads and unauthorized routes used by the public would continue to increase.

76 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 is not consistent with Forest Plan direction as it applies to native ungulates in the DFC 10 portion of the project area for several reasons. Habitat effectiveness for elk in the DFC 10 area during summer months is currently estimated to be 55% (i.e., below the minimum 60% identified for elk in the Forest Plan for DFC 10 areas), and this would decline to 53% under Alternative 2 (Table 11, Table 12, and Figure 14); i.e., the trend would be away from suitable conditions which means the Habitat Effectiveness Standard would not be met, nor would the Road Location Guideline. These percentages are well below the 100% potential elk use that occurred prior to any road development, which represents a 45-47% reduction in potential elk use (and there would be a 70% reduction in the project area compared to this time). In the DFC 10 area of the project area, habitat effectiveness would be reduced considerably by the new Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route for approximately half the time they spend in the project area (i.e., not including winter months and seasonal closure periods). The Habitat Effectiveness Standard does not only cover crucial winter range and calving/fawning areas, it also covers primary feeding areas and big-game rearing areas. Therefore, even though the seasonal closure that lasts until June 30 mitigates impacts during the calving/fawning season (thereby meeting the Elk Calving Area Standard), it does not provide for satisfactory habitat effectiveness for elk, mule deer, and moose rearing areas and primary feeding areas between July 1 and September 10. As such, the new Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route was not “…located to avoid key areas described in the Habitat Effectiveness Standard,” which conflicts with the Road Location Guideline. The area below the new route is currently heavily used by elk during summer months, and this use likely would decline sharply. Also, while the new route would be created through any known elk wallow complexes, it is possible motorized use on the new route would disrupt use of wallows in nearby areas, especially downslope of the new route. Establishment of the new route could potentially conflict with the Elk Wallow Standard.

In summary, opening/creating the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route would conflict with Forest Plan direction for DFC 10 areas to provide long-term habitat to meet wildlife needs, and “…to allow for… some roads while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife.” Even with seasonal restrictions, the new route would result in adverse effects on elk, mule deer, and moose in this important area for these species and, when discussing balancing among uses, motorized recreation was not one of the uses to be balanced in DFC 10 areas. Also, the Recreation Prescription for DFC 10 areas (as well as Objective 4.1(a)) puts constraints on just continuing existing roaded recreation in DFC 10 areas, which means that a higher bar is placed on expanding roaded recreation (and this higher bar is reinforced by the management theme and management emphasis of “no adverse effects or beneficial effects”). Opening/creating the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route does not make it over this bar. Alternative 2 meets the Elk Calving Area Standard since the new route would be seasonally closed until June 30 and, even though the amount of security habitat in the DFC 10 area and in the Afton elk herd unit would remain under 30% under Alternative 2 (with no seasonal closures accounted for), the new route would be closed before the elk and deer hunting seasons begin (Table 15, which would result in no net reduction in secure habitat in the DFC 10 area. (Table 11, Table 12, and Figure 18)

Specifically because concerns arose early in the planning process about Alternative 2 potentially not meeting Forest Plan direction for elk, Alternative 3 was developed in part to meet this direction. Consequently, Alternative 3 meets Forest Plan direction as it applies to native ungulates, including in the DFC 10 area portion of the project area. While habitat effectiveness for elk in the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32 would continue to be below the minimum 60% identified for elk in the Forest Plan for DFC 10 areas (USFS 1990a:109), habitat effectiveness would increase from an estimated to be 55% to an estimated 56% under this

77 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Existing and Alternative 1: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes and accessible unauthorized routes. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level. Potential Elk Use Acres of Maximum Estimated Maximum Estimated Area Analysis Area for the Alternative Suitable Percent Elk Security Cover Project Area 27,395 36% n/a 17% 10 (within MA 32) 49,927 55% ≥60% 35% 1B (within MA 35) 56,263 35% ≥53% 21% Afton Elk Herd Unit 142,121 — n/a 21% (Source: MGMT_DistanceBandAnalysis_Egan2017 and MGMT_ElkSecurityAnalysis_Egan07112017)

Table 12. Alternative 2: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level. Potential Elk Use Acres of Maximum Estimated Maximum Estimated Area Analysis Area for the Alternative Suitable Percent Elk Security Cover Project Area 27,395 30% n/a 27% 10 (within MA 32) 49,927 53% ≥60% 39% 1B (within MA 35) 56,263 35% ≥53% 23% Afton Elk Herd Unit 142,121 — n/a 23% (Source: MGMT_DistanceBandAnalysis_Egan2017 and MGMT_ElkSecurityAnalysis_Egan07112017)

Table 13. Alternative 3: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level. Potential Elk Use Acres of Maximum Estimated Maximum Estimated Area Analysis Area for the Alternative Suitable Percent Elk Security Cover Project Area 27,395 33% n/a 17% 10 (within MA 32) 49,927 56% ≥60% 38% 1B (within MA 35) 56,263 34% ≥53% 19% Afton Elk Herd Unit 142,121 — n/a 21% (Source: MGMT_DistanceBandAnalysis_Egan2017 and MGMT_ElkSecurityAnalysis_Egan07112017)

Table 14. Alternative 4: habitat effectiveness (based on distance bands) and percent elk security cover within the project area, DFC area within management area, and the Afton elk herd unit, assuming open routes only. Suitable security cover for elk = 60% at the herd unit level. Potential Elk Use Acres of Maximum Estimated Maximum Estimated Area Analysis Area for the Alternative Suitable Percent Elk Security Cover Project Area 27,395 26% n/a 9% 10 (within MA 32) 49,927 53% ≥60% 33% 1B (within MA 35) 56,263 34% ≥53% 20% Afton Elk Herd Unit 142,121 — n/a 20% (Source: MGMT_DistanceBandAnalysis_Egan2017 and MGMT_ElkSecurityAnalysis_Egan07112017)

78 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Table 15. Open season of use between alternatives. These seasonal dates represent most of the route system, see Maps A.1 – A.4, and Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA for more detail.

Existing Conditions Route Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Greys River Road May 1 ─ No CDA May 1 ─ No CD May 1 ─ No CD May 1 ─ No CD

Blind Bull Road May 1 ─ No CD May 1 ─ No CD May 1 ─ No CD May 1 ─ No CD East of Greys River Rd. NA NA July 1 ─ Dec. 1 May 1 ─ No CD (Eastside Loop) Cabin Creek May 1 ─ No CD July 1 ─ Oct. 10 July 1 ─ Sept. 10 May 1 ─ No CD Lower Cabin Creek – May 1 ─ No CD July 1 ─ Sept. 10 NA May 1 ─ No CD Deadhorse Creek Bear Creek June 1 ─ Oct. 10 July 1 ─ Sept. 10 July 1 ─ Dec. 1 June 1 ─ Oct. 10 Elk Creek to North NA July 1 ─ Sept. 10 July 1 ─ Dec. 1 June 1 ─ Dec. 1 Three Forks North Three Forks (and May 1 ─ No CD July 1 ─ Oct. 10 July 1 ─ Dec. 1 May 1 ─ No CD extension for Alt. 4) South Three Forks May 1 ─ No CD July 1 ─ Oct. 10 July 1 ─ Sept. 10 June 1 ─ Sept. 10 Loop and Barstow Lake Forest Park Feedground June 1 ─ Sept. 10 June 1 ─ Sept. 10 June 1 ─ Sept. 10 June 1 ─ Sept. 10

alternative Table 11, Table 13, and Figure 15. These percentages are well below the 100% potential elk use that occurred prior to any road development, which represents a 44-45% reduction in potential elk use (and there would be a 67% reduction in the project area compared to this time). Even though habitat effectiveness would remain below 60%, management of motorized routes in the project area only affects a small portion (<15%) of the 49,400-acre DFC 10 area of Management Area 32, and actions in Alternative 3 would trend toward 60% habitat effectiveness. More importantly, no new motorized routes would be opened/created in an area where the Habitat Effectiveness Standard is already exceeded and Forest Plan direction for DFC 10 areas is for actions to result in no adverse effects or beneficial effects. By not opening/creating the Upper Cabin Creek –Deadhorse Creek route in the DFC 10 portion of the project area, the area would continue to “…to protect such important big game habitat components as primary feeding areas,… calving/fawning/lambing areas, big-game rearing areas, rutting complexes, and big-game migration corridors,” as required by the Habitat Effectiveness Standard. In so doing, Alternative 3 would also meet or would not be inconsistent with the Security Area Standard, Elk Calving Area Standard, Elk Wallow Standard, Road Location Guideline, Recreation Prescription for DFC 10 areas, and it would contribute to meeting Forest Plan Objectives 2.1(a) and 4.1(a). The amount of elk security cover would increase slightly in the DFC 10 portion of the project area and would decline slightly in the DFC 1B portion of the project area and, on balance, would result in no measurable change in the percent security cover at the scale of the Afton herd unit (Table 11, Table 13 and Figure 19).

79 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 13. Map 3d. Road effect zones (distance bands) under existing conditions and Alternative 1 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area. Distances are 0-100 m, 101-200 m, 201- 360, etc., based on Rowland et al. 2012 (except that the 0-360 m band was split three ways for this analysis based on Table 5 and DeLong 2015:68-74).

80 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 14. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 2 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area. (DeLong and Egan 2017)

81 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 15. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 3 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area.

82 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 16. Road effect zones (distance bands) under Alternative 4 — open motorized routes only — in the MGMT project area.

83 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 17 Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 1, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Note seasonal routes and effects on security cover if it were not for these closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991).

84 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 18. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 2, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991)

85 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 19. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 3, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures.

86 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 20. Modeled elk security cover within the MGMT project area and areas to the north and south under Alternative 4, assuming only open routes are used by vehicles except during seasonal closures. Modeled security cover is based on criteria in Hillis et al. (1991).

87 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Habitat effectiveness in the project area (36%) as a whole and in the DFC 1B area (35%) of Management Area 35 are currently well below the 60% threshold for elk and this level of habitat effectiveness would continue under Alternative 3, but this DFC area does not emphasize wildlife.

Alternative 4 is not consistent with Forest Plan direction as it applies to native ungulates in the DFC 10 area portion of the project area for the reasons outlined for Alternative 2, above, except the degree to which the alternative conflicts with Forest Plan direction would be greater than for Alternative 2 because (1) habitat effectiveness would decline even further (down to an estimated 52%, assuming no motorized use of closed roads and unauthorized routes, Table 14, Figure 16); (2) Alternative 4 conflicts with the Elk Calving Area Standard since the new route in the DFC 10 area would not be closed from May 15 to June 30 as required by the standard; (3) Alternative 4 conflicts with the Security Area Standard since the proportion of secure habitat in the DFC 10 area and in the Afton elk herd unit are already below 30%, and the new route in the DFC 10 area would reduce the amount of secure habitat even further (Table 14, Figure 20) since the route would not be closed during the hunting season to help mitigate this gap; and (4) the lack of seasonal closures would expand the lowered habitat effectiveness to nearly 100% of the time that elk, mule deer, and moose inhabit the DFC 10 portion of the project area. In summary, a large number of elements of Alternative 4 conflict with Forest Plan direction for DFC 10 areas. The above percentages are well below the 100% potential elk use that occurred prior to any road development, which represents a 47% reduction in potential elk use (and there would be a 74% reduction in the project area compared to this time).

Alternative 4 was developed after Alternative 3 had been developed to meet Forest Plan requirements (as a consequence of concern about Alternative 2 not being able to meet several standards for native ungulates). Starting with Alternative 2, Alternative 4 increased motorized- route mileage and density and reduced seasonal restrictions.

Determination for NEPA In the absence of additional open motorized routes and in the absence of rehabilitation of closed and unauthorized routes, Alternative 1 would not have any added impacts on elk, mule deer, and moose, or their habitat, relative to existing conditions, and would continue to negatively affect these species in the project area, relative to suitable conditions. This is due to current levels of motorized use that is occurring on open, closed, and unauthorized routes under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would not contribute to the upward trend in the Afton elk herd that has occurred since 2009, and negative effects of motorized use would continue to be at least partly offset by winter feeding of elk. Alternative 1 would not contribute to any rise in the Wyoming Range mule deer population or the Lincoln moose population, and would have the potential to contribute to factors limiting the upswing in mule deer and moose numbers. Reduced habitat effectiveness and habitat security as influenced by the existing open motorized-route system and use of closed and unauthorized routes would continue to displace individual animals, alter habitat use patterns, reduce forage intake and increase energy expenditure and stress, and potentially contribute to reduced physiological condition and weight gains prior to winter, which in turn could potentially affect calving and fawning rates and survival. However, these effects would not result from any action that would be taken under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individual elk, mule deer, and moose, or small parts of their habitat, would likely not measurably affect numbers of elk in the Afton elk herd — due in part to the offsetting effects of winter feeding of elk — and may either (1) contribute further to cumulative factors limiting an upswing in mule deer and moose numbers, or (2) contribute to

88 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

slight reductions in the Wyoming Range mule deer herd and Lincoln moose herd, relative to existing conditions and ongoing cumulative effects. At the Bridger-Teton level, effects would be small enough that any changes in population levels of elk, mule deer, and moose would be immeasurable, but this is an artifact of assessing changes in abundance at such a large scale. Of the action alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have lower negative impacts than Alternative 4 and, therefore, would contribute the least toward cumulative effects on mule deer and moose; Alternative 3 would have a beneficial effect in an area emphasizing management of native ungulates whereas Alternative 2 would have a net negative effect here. Alternative 4 would contribute the most to cumulative negative effects. Alternatives 2 and 3 would mitigate effects negative effects of increased motorized use in part through seasonal closures during the calving/fawning season and during the hunting season. See also reasons summarized in “Forest Plan Direction,” above.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have the least amount of negative impacts on elk, mule deer, and moose, followed by Alternative 3, then Alternative 2, and Alternative 4 would have the largest negative impacts on these species. Compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would reduce the habitat effectiveness in the project area by a small degree and would negligibly increase habitat effectiveness in the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32, while Alternative 2 would reduce habitat effectiveness in the project area by a moderately-small degree in the DFC 10 area by a small degree (Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14). Alternative 4 would reduce habitat effectiveness in these areas by a moderate and small degree, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would mitigate negative effects by having a large majority of the motorized-route system closed to prior to July 1, a large majority after September 10 and October 10 (Alternative 2 only), and a little less than half after these dates (Alternative 3 only) (Table 15). As such habitat effectiveness would increase markedly (by a major degree) during the calving/fawning season under Alternatives 2 and 3, compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1, and habitat security would increase markedly under Alternative 2 and by a small degree under Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would not have any seasonal closures in the early summer for calving/fawning, despite a much larger addition of new open routes than any other alternative, and would only have about 1/3 of the mileage closed after September 10 and October 10. Increases in security habitat, compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1 would be similar to that of Alternative 3.

The major increases in habitat effectiveness during the calving/fawning season under Alternatives 2 and 3, as a consequence of a large majority of the motorized-route system being seasonally closed until June 30 would likely result in a large increase in the ability of elk, mule deer, and moose to calve/fawn without being displaced or disturbed by motor vehicle use, and to begin regaining weight lost the preceding winter (except for most elk, which were artificially fed). This accounts for roughly 25-30% of the time spent in the project area. Under Alternative 4, there would be a moderate reduction in habitat effectiveness, which would increase the potential for disturbance and displacement of calving/fawning female elk, mule deer, and moose, and would reduce the potential for mule deer and moose to begin regaining weight lost after the preceding winter.

During the period July 1 through September 10 / October 10 (roughly 40-50% of the time spent by elk, deer, and moose on the project area), habitat effectiveness in the project area would decline from an estimated 35.8% to an estimated 30.2% (Alternative 2), 33.0% (Alternative 3), and 25.8% (Alternative 4) (Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14); this builds in reductions in the

89 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

use of closed and unauthorized routes in the project area. While these reductions are relatively small (Alternatives 2 and 3) or moderate (Alternative 4), they contribute further to factors that have been limiting the ability of mule deer and possibly moose to build fat reserves prior to the winter season. (Preliminary information from an ongoing mule deer study is showing that most females in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges have lower-than-expected fat reserves going into winter.) Reduced habitat effectiveness as influenced by the existing open motorized-route system and use of closed and unauthorized routes would continue under Alternatives 2-4 to displace individual animals, alter habitat use patterns, reduce forage intake and increase energy expenditure and stress, and potentially contribute to reduced physiological condition and weight gains prior to winter, which in turn could potentially affect calving and fawning rates and survival. Negative effects would be least pronounced in Alternative 3 and most pronounced in Alternative 4.

The alternatives, therefore, compound (by a minor to small degree, depending on alternative) the disturbance effects of the existing motorized-route system, historic sheep grazing that substantially reduced the productivity of moderate- and high-elevation forbland communities, a history of fire suppression that has reduced the amount of productive early-seral communities and the amount of aspen communities, and reduced amount and quality of winter ranges, as well as the same patterns of cumulative impacts at larger geographic scales. Many of these factors are discussed in WGFD mule deer habitat strategy for the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd. Timber harvest that mostly occurred decades ago and establishment of Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas have offset some of these negative impacts, and it is possible that predator control has offset impacts to a small degree. The net effect of the various factors has been a reduction in available habitat, reduced habitat effectiveness, and reduced availability of suitable forage during the summer period and on winter ranges. Fat reserves built-up during summer (and fall) months pays its dividends on winter range and, conversely, insufficient build-up of fat reserves during summer and fall months increases the susceptibility of animals to die on winter range. Thus, incremental increases in motorized use across mule deer and moose summer ranges, including as a consequence of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, will incrementally reduce the capability of these species to build fat reserves to better survive winters on winter ranges that are declining in condition.

During the period September 10 / October 10 through late October / mid-November (roughly 20- 30% of the time spent by elk, deer, and moose on the project area), there would be a large increase in security habitat provided under Alternative 2, a small increase under Alternative 3, and a net reduction in security habitat under Alternative 4 (due to a small increase in motorized routes closed during the fall, but a larger increase in the mileage of open routes) (Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Figure 17,Figure 18,Figure 19,Figure 20). Under Alternative 2, about half the mileage of the motorized-route system would be closed starting September 10 and nearly the remainder would be closed on October 10 (Table 15), meaning that nearly all forestland stands over 250 acres in the project area would be more than 0.5 miles from a used motorized route. This would be a large increase compared to existing conditions (many forestland stands larger than 250 acres are currently within 0.5 miles of an open motorized route during the hunting season). Although this would contribute to reduced displacement, foraging rates, and stress, the areas with seasonal closures would still get hunted (e.g., hunters on horseback and on foot), but the net effect would likely be animals in somewhat better physiological condition compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1; this is an important time of year, especially for mule deer and moose, since it can have a large influence on the condition in which they go into the winter. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, approximately 35-38% of the mileage of motorized routes in the

90 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

project area would be closed during the hunting season. However, while this would represent a small increase in security habitat under Alternative 3, compared to existing conditions, the increase in open motorized routes under Alternative 4 would result in a net decline in security habitat compared to existing conditions even taking into account curtailment of closed and unauthorized routes. Because the areas with seasonal closures would still get hunted (e.g., hunters on horseback and on foot), benefits of Alternative 3 would not be as high as identified above (i.e., somewhat lower than a small increase). Nonetheless, this would translate into reduced displacement, foraging rates, and stress, leaving animals in somewhat better physiological condition compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would contribute to animals being in somewhat lower physiological condition compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1.

Specific to the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32, where wildlife is a management emphasis, there would be a net benefit under Alternative 3 due to curtailment of motorized use on closed and unauthorized routes and no new open routes. Conversely, there would be net negative effects under Alternatives 2 and 4 due to a higher mileage of routes being opened/created than the mileage of closed and unauthorized routes on which motorized use would be curtailed. Negative effects under Alternative 4 would be outright greater than for Alternative 2; furthermore, design features would be less aggressive under Alternative 4 than would occur under Alternative 2, which could lead to a lower mileage on which illegal use is effectively curtailed.

Noxious weeds are already well distributed in the project area and are mainly associated with motorized routes (Table 16). Increases in the density of noxious weeds reduces available forage for elk, mule deer, and moose, and at high levels would impact the ability of animals to build fat reserves for the winter. The potential for noxious weeds spreading would be least under Alternatives 2 and 3, and would be highest under Alternative 4.

Table 16. Acreage of each noxious weed species, by distance band, in the Middle Greys Motorized Trails project area; open motorized routes only under existing conditions and Alternative 1.

Distance Dalmation Dalmation Toadflax Band Canada Thistle Musk Thistle Yellow Toadflax Leafy Spurge Houndstongue Spotted Knapweed Miscellaneous Totals Percent 0 - 100 m 290.40 58.18 22.27 3.01 11.74 10.36 7.01 1.20 404.55 77% 101 - 200 m 78.57 9.15 3.56 0.51 3.13 0.81 0.16 0.28 96.17 18% 201 - 360 m 15.12 0.52 2.33 0.48 0.43 0.21 0.03 0.14 19.26 4% 361 - 720 m 0.86 1.53 0.45 0.22 0.01 0.63 0.04 0.36 4.10 0.8% 721 – 1,080 1.16 0.2% m 0.22 0.67 0.19 0 0 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,081 – 0.16 0.03% 1,440 m 0 0 0.13 0 0.01 0 0.02 0 1,441 – 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.1 0.01% 1,800 m >1,800 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Total 385.17 70.05 28.93 4.22 15.32 12.07 7.28 2.37 525.40 Percent 73% 13% 6% 3% 2% 1% 0.4%

91 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects Elk numbers in the Afton elk herd unit appear to be primarily influenced by the level of hunter harvest, high winter survival (due in large part to winter feeding by WGFD), and an abundance of spring, summer, and fall habitat that currently appears to adequately meet the needs of the elk population when numbers are at or just below the herd objective and when most are fed during winter. WGFD adjusts hunting regulations to attempt to keep the population as closed to the herd objective as possible. If, in the future, winter feeding of elk were discontinued, condition of elk going into the winter season (which is influenced by availability of herbaceous vegetation and motorized-route densities), availability and condition of winter range, and other related factors would begin having a much larger influence on elk populations.

The two human-related factors that likely have had (and continue to have) the most substantial effect on elk habitat and use of this habitat on the MGMT project area and throughout the Greys River watershed are fire suppression and motorized use. Fire suppression has dramatically altered the mix of age-classes in most of the major vegetation types in the Greys River watershed and has allowed conifer to expand into a variety of types, including big sagebrush, grassland, meadow, willow, and aspen, thereby reducing their acreage. Conversely, the amount and quality of foraging habitat for elk (e.g., early seral communities, meadows, grasslands, sagebrush, aspen stands) has declined and continues to decline. These effects of fire suppression have been offset in the project area by enough clearcutting in the past to bring the proportions of the lodgepole pine type in the project area up to desired levels, although this is not the case for the spruce-fir and aspen types.

Motorized routes and motorized use has been shown in numerous studies to markedly affect the movements, habitat use, and distribution of elk (see subsection B of the “Review of Scientific Information” section). In and around the project area and in much of the Greys River watershed, the main purpose of establishing roads was timber harvest, but since then, the pioneering of motorized trails has expanded the footprint of motorized use, which likely has reduced elk use in affected areas. There continues to be an incremental expansion of the unauthorized motorized trail network in several places in the Greys River watershed, which incrementally reduces habitat effectiveness for elk. The removal of trees near roads, temporary roads, and skid trails associated with recent timber sales (e.g., Spring Creek south of the project area) and upcoming timber sales (e.g., Tri-Basin Divide south of the project area) have potential to facilitate this expansion. As the density of used motorized routes increases in an area, elk use of the area declines, with the largest declines happening nearer motorized routes and the smallest declines happening further from motorized routes. Used motorized routes in the project area are currently high enough to reduce potential elk use of the area by an estimated 65%; in the DFC 10 area of MA 32, the reduction in potential elk use is estimated to be about 45%. Alternatives 2 and 3 would further reduce potential elk use in the project area by a small degree and Alternative 2 would further reduce it in the DFC 10 area by a negligible degree, but Alternative 3 would result in an actual increase in potential elk use in the DFC 10 area. Alternative 4 would further reduce potential elk use in the project area by a moderately-small degree and in the DFC 10 area by a negligible degree. All action alternatives would offset the growth of user-created unauthorized routes, especially Alternative 2. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would compound negative effects of motorized use on elk in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013).

Past clear-cuts in the project area served to reduce the proportion of forestland in late succession and increase the proportion in early and mid succession; some clearcuts have had a relatively low recruitment of trees and continue to produce grass and other herbaceous forage, which likely has benefitted elk. This is especially important since an estimated 80% of the project area is

92 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

forestland. On the other hand, most of the roads in the project area are associated with the old clear-cuts, meaning that motorized use in the summer likely reduces use of the old clear-cuts by elk. The Bear Creek aspen treatment project was a pilot project and, while it was beneficial to elk, it affected a small number of acres.

Noxious weeds in the project area (Table 16) and other parts of the Greys River watershed (especially yellow toadflax and Canada thistle) are reducing the availability of high-quality forage by at least a small degree, and Alternatives 2-4 have the potential to worsen this situation by a small degree if surveys are not conducted and noxious weeds are not effectively treated.

The two biggest factors affecting the Wyoming Range mule deer population, including on the MGMT project area, appears to be a combination of the amount and quality of winter range and the ability of deer to build fat reserves prior to the winter. Compared to elk, mule deer rely much more heavily on winter ranges on BLM lands which are in relatively poor condition and some have been and are being lost to oil and gas development (WGFD 2007, Sawyer et al. 2006, Scribner 2006, Sawyer et al. 2009, WAFWA 2009). The relatively poor conditions of winter range is due to a long history of livestock grazing (both cattle and sheep in many places), fire suppression, mortality of shrubs due to disease and old age (due mostly to fire suppression), and browsing by elk and mule deer (Scribner 2006, WAFWA 2009). Drought many times is identified as a contributing factor, but this would not be near the problem if a combination of fire suppression, cattle grazing, sheep grazing, and grazing/browsing by native ungulates had not impacted rangelands. The BLM has implemented several large prescribed burns, which are starting to contribute to improved winter range conditions (although it is yet to be seen whether livestock grazing offsets gains made by the prescribed burns). Given depleted winter range conditions, it has become increasingly important for mule deer to enter the winter in good physical condition. Mule deer, as well as elk and moose, in higher fitness have been shown to be more able to survive the winter and produce healthier fawns, even with reduced winter range conditions (Julander et al. 1961, Schwartz and Renecker 1997, Cook et al. 2004, Lomas and Bender 2007, WAFWA 2009). A study being conducted by the University of Wyoming is showing female deer to be entering the winter with lower fat reserves than would occur if summer and fall ranges were providing high-quality forage as they had prior to Euro-American settlement.

The two factors that have the highest probability of inhibiting fat-reserve build-up in doe mule deer (and likely bucks as well) are (1) historic sheep grazing in forbland communities of the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges (likely in combination with today’s sheep grazing); and (2) more than a century of reduced fire frequency and spread, which has caused an underrepresentation of the herbaceous-dominated seral stage and expansion of conifer forestland into plant communities that formerly had productive herbaceous understories. Both of these contributed to reduced amount and quality of herbaceous forage (WAFWA 2009); habitat loss due to motorized routes further contributes to this reduction, albeit negligibly. Forbland and big sagebrush-forb communities in the two ranges were naturally very productive, but decades of heavy to severe grazing by sheep on an annual basis greatly reduced herbaceous species richness, abundance of a range of herbaceous species, and the productivity of these communities (USFS 1997, USFS 2004a, USFS 2005a, WAFWA 2009), which led to the closure of some allotments and the conversion of some allotments to forage reserves with criteria-for-use to allow recovery (USFS 2004c, USFS 2005b, USFS 2008). Over time, herbaceous species richness, abundance of a range of herbaceous species, and herbaceous production in forbland communities on closed allotments and forage reserve allotments will continue to trend upward, with full recover not expected for several decades to well over 100 years. Permits for seven additional allotments were waived to

93 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

the Forest Service this past year, which will initiate the recovery process on these allotments in the Wyoming Range (and one in the Salt River Range that encompasses the north end of the MGMT project area). How these seven allotments will be managed, and whether sheep grazing would return, has not been determined. If sheep grazing is returned to these allotments or any of the forage-reserve or closed allotments in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges, recovery of forbland communities will likely be slower and less forage would remain for mule deer, although improvements made to sheep grazing management (e.g., to prescribe utilization limits that retain forage and cover for mule deer and other wildlife prior) would mitigate some of the impacts.

Fire suppression activities and increase in fire breaks (e.g., motorized routes adjoined by heavy grazing and removal of snags, reduced herbaceous cover and increased bare ground on some rangelands) has dramatically altered the mix of age-classes in most of the major vegetation types in the Greys River watershed and has allowed conifer to expand into a variety of types, including big sagebrush, grassland, meadow, willow, and aspen, thereby reducing their acreage. Conversely, the amount and quality of foraging habitat for elk (e.g., early seral communities, meadows, grasslands, sagebrush, aspen stands) has declined and continues to decline. These effects of fire suppression have been offset in the project area by enough clearcutting in the past to bring the proportions of the lodgepole pine type in the project area up to desired levels, although this is not the case for the spruce-fir and aspen types.

Other factors that affect or have the potential to affect mule deer populations include hunting, introduction and spread of noxious weeds, proliferation in motorized recreation, and predation (Trammell and Butler 1995, Canfield et al. 1999, Kie and Czeck 2000, Forman et al. 2003, WGFD 2007, WAFWA). Because does are not hunted and buck:doe ratios are meeting objectives, hunting likely has only limited effects on mule deer abundance. Noxious weeds have potential to contribute substantively to the apparent inability of mule deer to build adequate fat reserves prior to winter, but continued treatment of noxious weeds would prevent this from having a large effect. Predation likely has some effect on mule deer numbers, but predation typically does not have large influences on mule deer numbers where suitable habitat exists.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have potential to contribute to the cumulative negative effects that are inhibiting mule deer from building adequate reserves prior to the winter, with Alternative 3 contributing the least and Alternative 4 contributing the most, with Alternative 2 fitting between the two and closest to Alternative 3. Three cases of chronic wasting have now been reported in western Wyoming (two from the Salt River Range and one near Pinedale); once this disease becomes established, it has the potential to have major negative impacts on the mule deer population.

Moose numbers throughout the region ― to the south, west, and north ― have declined, and the situation continues to be studied by the WGFD, University of Wyoming, Wildlife Conservation Society, and other partners. The carotid artery worm (Elaeophora scneideri) likely has played a major role in declines; a high prevalence of this worm has been found in moose in the Greys River watershed. Other likely and possible factors contributing to the decline in moose numbers include declines in habitat conditions (due to fire suppression and possibly sheep grazing of forbland communities, as discussed for mule deer, above), disturbance by motor vehicles during winter as well as during summer, and disease. As noted by Franzmann (2000), moose population fluctuations are the norm. Franzmann (2000) stressed that habitat typically is the primary limiting factor of moose populations, and for a nearby study area (Jackson Hole), Becker (2008) concluded that “habitat quality and its effects on the physical condition, survival, and

94 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

reproductive success of adult female moose appeared to be the primary factor limiting population growth.” It is not clear the extent to which forage resources are limiting moose numbers in the MGMT project area, but the low proportion forestland in early- and mid-succession, and the expansion of conifer forestland into mountain shrubland, willow, and forbland communities may currently limit summer and fall forage resources for moose. Most experts agree that mosaics that include early seral communities are optimum for moose (Thompson and Stewart 1997, Franzmann 2000). Forbland communities also can provide nutritious forage when forbs are succulent, but historic sheep grazing reduced forb species richness and productivity in many parts of the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges, and current sheep grazing may further reduce availability of forbs to moose, which contributes to depleted forage resources.

Motorized routes and motorized use has been shown to affect the movements, habitat use, and distribution of moose, and it is likely they are physiologically affected from stress and from being displaced from preferred foraging areas and cover; moose appear to be as sensitive to motorized activity as elk (see subsection B of the “Review of Scientific Information” section). In and around the project area, the main purpose of establishing roads was timber harvest, but since then, the pioneering of motorized trails has expanded the footprint of motorized use, which likely has reduced moose use in affected areas and may contribute to reduced physiological condition, which in turn can affect winter survival. As the density of used motorized routes increases in an area, negative effects on moose has likely increased, especially during summer when they can easily be heat stressed, which compounds negative impacts on animal condition. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would compound negative effects of motorized use on moose in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013).

Due to a variety of constraints, progress toward increasing the proportion of early- and mid-seral conifer forestland communities will likely be slow. Future mechanical treatments, particularly clearcuts in areas where treatments would produce a response by aspen and deciduous shrubs, and prescribed burning would tend to benefit moose. Increased management of lightning-strike-fires for resource benefit would similarly benefit moose, except that there is a greater likelihood with these fires for thermal cover to be reduced over large areas. Climate change will increase the potential for more fires in the future under both alternatives.

Snowmobiling along the Greys River Road and on roads in major drainages (those with wide riparian-willow bottoms) will continue to displace moose from valley-bottom areas (Colescott and Gillingham 1998) and require that moose rely more heavily on subalpine fir as their major winter-time food source. Displacement also increases energy expenditure at a time when moose typically minimize their travel. The harvest quota for moose in hunt areas encompassing the Greys River watershed has declined considerably, which likely has helped the population to stabilize.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have potential to contribute to the cumulative negative effects that negatively affect moose, with Alternative 3 contributing the least and Alternative 4 contributing the most, with Alternative 2 fitting between the two and closest to Alternative 3. Grizzly Bear (Sensitive), Wolverines (Proposed), and Gray Wolves Grizzly bears were de-listed on July 31, 2017, and are now a sensitive species in Region 4. They were also identified in the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan as a MIS (USFS 1990a). The analysis for

95 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

grizzly bears was conducted when they were a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but parts of the analysis were changed to reflect their new status. North American wolverines have been proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act and are a sensitive species in the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service. Gray wolves had been classified as an experimental species under the Endangered Species Act until early February 2017 when they were removed from the list. The analysis for gray wolves had been completed prior to their delisting, but the analysis was adjusted to reflect their de-listing.

Indicators Addressed Indicators used in the wildlife analysis are:

1. Habitat Effectiveness:

a) Route-density index of habitat effectiveness

b) Elevation of Motorized Routes

c) Amount of habitat within 360 m and beyond 1,800 m of motorized routes

d) Route closure dates for motorized use as a supplemental proxy for human disturbance

e) Potential for pioneering and potential for use of closed and unauthorized routes by motor vehicles

2. Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Native Ungulates

3. Direct Mortality

Not all indicators are addressed in the summary of the analysis presented in this environmental assessment. See DeLong and Egan (2017) for a detailed analysis of effects using these indicators.

Affected Environment

Suitable Conditions

A. Habitat Effectiveness 1. Route-density index of habitat effectiveness

Grizzly Bears ― The USFS (2006:10) defined secure habitat for grizzly bears as “…open motorized access route density (OMARD) greater than one mile/square mile, and total motorized access route density (TMARD) greater than two miles/square mile,” and this is the same as identified by the Interagency Conservation Strategy Team (2007) as maximum biological thresholds for the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) for grizzly bears. By maintaining motorized use below these thresholds, secure habitat would more likely to be provided and human-bear interactions would be minimized.

Wolverines and Gray Wolves ― Suitable conditions span from a complete absence of motorized routes (0 miles of motorized routes per mile2 of land) up to 0.73 mile/mile2 for wolverines (Raphael et al. 2001, Rowland et al. 2003) and up to 0.75–1.0 mile/mile2 for gray wolves (Thiel 1985, Mech et al. 1988, Fritts et al. 2003). Motorized route densities in excess of these densities constitute less-than-suitable conditions. Therefore, adherence

96 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

to maximum road densities in the Forest Plan for DFC 2A areas (max. 0 mile/mile2) and 12 areas (max. 0.25 mile/mile2) would help maintain wolves and wolverines on the landscape, and adherence to the maximum road densities for DFC 10 areas (max. 1.0 mile/mile2) would be close to helping maintain wolves and wolverines on the landscape.

2. Elevation of Motorized Routes ― Densities of motorized routes need to be examined, to some degree, in the context of current elevational preferences of wolverines. Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, of which the project area is a part, prefer areas above 8,530 feet in elevation, although they have shown “weak” selection for areas between about 8,040 and 8,530 feet (Inman et al. 2011). Even though wolverines appear to have evolved to inhabit relatively-high elevation areas, the low-end elevational threshold of 8,530 feet identified by Inman et al. (2011) likely is influenced by the prevalence of motorized use and other human activity below this elevation.

Nearly all of the project area is below about 8,500 feet in elevation. The west edge of the MGMT project area is roughly situated along the east edge of the portion of maternal wolverine habitat in the Salt River Range, modeled for the Bridger-Teton based on Inman et al. (2011) (DeLong and Egan 2017, Figure 21).

3. Amount of habitat within 360 m and beyond 1,800 m of motorized routes ― Habitat effectiveness thresholds, using a distance-band analysis, have not been defined for grizzly bears, gray wolves, and wolverines, but suitable conditions generally entail minimal acreage within 360 m and a large proportion of acreage beyond 1,800 m. There is sufficient information to show that attaining suitable conditions for elk would generally provide suitable conditions for grizzly bears. First, the road density threshold for grizzly bears (1 mile/mile2) is the same as the road density threshold for maintaining 60% habitat effectiveness for elk. Second, published road effect zone distances are similar (DeLong and Egan 2017, Table 7).

4. Route closure dates for motorized use, as a supplemental proxy for human disturbance ― No information was found on suitable closing and opening dates for grizzly bears, gray wolves, or for wolverines, but it is recognized that (1) the longer the opening date goes into the summer (e.g., July 1 vs. June 1) and the sooner motorized trails are closed in the late summer (e.g., September 10 vs. October 10), the better the situation is for gray wolves and wolverines.

5. Starting and ending dates for construction and maintenance ― Similarly, the longer the starting date for construction activities goes into the summer (e.g., July 21 vs. June 1), the better the situation is for grizzly bears, gray wolves, and wolverines that occur in the area. No information was found that supports a particular date.

6. Potential for Pioneering and Potential for Use of Closed and Unauthorized Routes by Motor Vehicles ― Beyond the density of open routes, use of closed roads and unauthorized routes and pioneering can affect the potential use of an area by grizzly bears, gray wolves, and wolverines since they do not distinguish between motorized use on open routes and motorized use on closed and unauthorized routes. Non-use of closed roads and unauthorized routes and no pioneering of new motorized routes represent suitable conditions for all three species. Any use of closed roads or unauthorized routes and pioneering of new motorized routes constitute less-than-suitable conditions for grizzly bears, gray wolves and wolverines. This was clearly articulated for grizzly bears

97 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

in USFS (2006); use of closed roads and unauthorized routes was identified as an important issue.

Figure 21. Modeled wolverine habitat on the BTNF, based on modeled by Copeland et al. (2007) and Inman et al. (2011).

B. Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Native Ungulates Of secondary importance to the level of human activity in and around the project area is the seasonal distribution and abundance of elk, mule deer, and moose. This is mainly applicable to gray wolves and wolverines. Even though the distribution and abundance of native ungulates, at

98 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

different seasons, affect the distribution and abundance of gray wolves and wolverines over large areas, minimum thresholds for suitable conditions for this element are not known. However, it appears that the distribution and abundance of elk, mule deer, and moose are well within suitable conditions for gray wolves and wolverines, and there is no indication this will change in the foreseeable future.

C. Direct Mortality The four main sources of direct mortality stemming from motorized routes and motorized use are vehicle-wildlife collisions (all three species), legal harvest during an established hunting season (gray wolves only), legal killing as a predator (gray wolves only), and illegal killing (taking of a gray wolf without a hunting license during the hunting season, and grizzly bears and wolverines any time). The last three for gray wolves is totally dependent on location and timing. Hunting of grizzly bears may be initiated by WGFD in the near future; at this time, legal harvest will apply to grizzly bears as well.

Suitable conditions for this element entail no vehicle-caused mortality within the project area, no illegal killing of any of the species, legal harvest of gray wolves within the context of the entire hunt area, and minimal legal killing of wolves as “predators.”

Because genetic interchange between wolves in Wyoming and Idaho has been identified as such an important factor in the long-term sustainability of gray wolves in the southern Greater Yellowstone area (WGFC 2011), allowing some wolves to move back and forth between Wyoming and Idaho without being killed during the hunting season (October 15 – February 28) is critical. Some harvest is permitted (hence the hunting season), but suitable conditions is deemed to be minimal harvest of wolves that move east-west through the northern portion of the Wyoming Range and Salt River Range during October 15 – March 15, of which the MGMT project area is a part. This has limited application to wheeled-motorized use in the project area, however, since most of this time-frame occurs during the winter.

During March 1 – October 14, when gray wolves are managed as “predators” by the State of Wyoming throughout the project area (including the area south of North Three Forks which does not have seasonal restrictions), suitable conditions in the project area and surrounding area includes minimal killing of wolves during this period, which would be facilitated by lower densities of motorized routes (i.e., reduced access by those using motor vehicles to find wolves).

Suitable conditions for wolverines, with respect to this element, is no killing of wolverines by collisions with vehicles or by being shot, trapped, or poisoned, whether accidental or intentional.

Existing Conditions

Population Status

Grizzly Bears Grizzly bears once roamed the Wyoming, Salt River Ranges and Commissary/Tunp Ridges, but were extirpated from much of their historic range by the middle of the twentieth century (USFWS 1993). A small population persisted in Yellowstone National Park during this period. The population since this time expanded from Yellowstone National Park to other areas in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and the overall Greater Yellowstone population now appears to be

99 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

increasing at about 4-6% per year as of 2002 (Moody et al. 2002). There currently are estimated 500-700 grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

The MGMT project area is approximately 55 miles south of the grizzly bear recovery zone, and is approximately 10 miles south of an area delineated by USFWS (2007b) as suitable and acceptable for grizzly bears. The project area is within several miles of occupied grizzly bear habitat delineated by IGBST (2012). There have been no verified grizzly bear occurrences in the project area, but one was shot in 2002 within 2 miles of the north end of the project area.

Wolverines As outlined in the Federal Register (USFWS 2014:47522), The “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, withdraw the proposed rule to list the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) occurring in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This withdrawal is based on our conclusion that the factors affecting the DPS as identified in the proposed rule are not as significant as believed at the time of the proposed rule’s publication (February 4, 2013). We base this conclusion on our analysis of current and future threat factors. Therefore, we withdraw our proposal to list the wolverine within the contiguous U.S. as a threatened species.” This leaves the status of the North American wolverine as a proposed species.

Wolverines occasionally pass through or inhabit high elevations in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, especially the former. The WNDD database includes two records of wolverines in the project area (Cabin Creek and along the Greys River near Bear Creek), and several others records near the project area (e.g., upper Sheep Creek). Of seven young wolverines radio-tagged and tracked in the Greater Yellowstone Area during 2001-2008, four inhabited areas south of Yellowstone National Park, and two of these visited the Salt River Range (Inman et al. 2011). One inhabited the area between Mount Wagner and Virginia Peak for a period of time, and this included areas immediately west of the MGMT project, and most or all locations were above 8,500 feet in elevation. It is unknown whether wolverines have bred in the Salt River Range or Wyoming Range in recent years, but available denning habitat exists in both ranges, although if wolverines have bred in either range, the more likely range is the Salt River Range because it has more high-elevation cirque habitat and portion of these are hard to reach by snowmobile as opposed to the Wyoming Range.

Gray Wolves Historically, wolves were found throughout Wyoming. In 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for gray wolves under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. This designation was removed in September 2012, but in September 2014, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the delisting of wolves in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act, which reinstated their status as a nonessential experimental population. However, in February 2017, gray wolves in Wyoming were again removed from the list of species classification as an experimental population under the Endangered Species Act.

They are now managed by the State of Wyoming and have “dual” status in different parts of the state (WGFC 2011). The State’s wolf management plan again commits the WGFD to manage wolf harvest in a “Seasonal Wolf Trophy Game Management Area” that encompasses the north end of the Greys River Ranger District and the north half of the MGMT project area. South of this area and throughout most of the state, wolves are now being managed within a “zone where

100 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

wolves were managed by Wyoming Department of Agriculture as “predators” under Title 11, Chapter 6 of Wyoming Statutes. Under predator status, wolves in the predator zone could be killed by a variety of means at any time of year without a license or permit. The State of Wyoming is required to maintain a minimum of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside of Yellowstone National Park to contribute to the state-wide objective of at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs.

At the present time, there is no evidence of pack formation and establishment of a home range in the vicinity of the project area. Even though wolves likely will not become reestablished in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, it is likely they will routinely occur in the vicinity of the project area during dispersal or exploratory movements.

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences Table 17. Motorized route densities in the project area and in two DFC areas. Project Area DFC 1B in Mgt. Area 35 DFC 10 in Mgt. Area 32 Open “Access.” All Open “Access.” All Open “Access.” All Pre-Motorized 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alt. 1/Existing 1.37 1.68 3.14 1.23 1.45 2.32 0.61 0.75 1.26 Alt. 2 1.45 1.59 2.93 1.27 1.42 2.27 0.67 0.76 1.24 Alt. 3 1.57 1.72 3.11 1.34 1.50 2.30 0.59 0.68 1.22 Alt. 4 1.95 2.12 3.23 1.37 1.53 2.31 0.72 0.81 1.24 Alt. 4b 1.95 2.27 3.38 1.37 1.55 2.33 0.72 0.85 1.29 “Access.” refers to open routes and accessible unauthorized routes, and “All” refers to all open, closed, and unauthorized routes.

Determinations

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action (as part of the alternative) that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves, although inaction (i.e., not taking action to curb unauthorized motorized use) has potential to conflict with this direction since the mileage of closed roads and unauthorized routes used by the public would continue to increase.

While Alternative 2 does not appear to be inconsistent with Forest Plan direction as it applies to grizzly bears, gray wolves, and wolverines, except for the objective, standard, and prescriptions dealing with wildlife security as they apply to wolverines in the DFC 10 area. (This determination for wolverines does not go beyond the determination for elk; and the determination for elk, as an indicator of the effects of motorized use on wildlife, supports this assessment.) In the DFC 10 area, the existing density of used motorized routes is estimated to be 0.75 miles/mile2 and the net effect of Alternative 2 would be a slight increase to 0.76 miles/mile2 (Table 17), which is acceptable for grizzly bears and marginally suitable for gray wolves; i.e., route density should remain sufficient (albeit marginally) to provide for east-west movement by gray wolves and genetic interchange. However, given the sensitivity of wolverines to motorized use and their “proposed” status, the recent use of the area immediately west of the project area by wolverines

101 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

(very likely including the upper basins and cirques of the Cabin Creek drainages), and the likelihood that the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route would reduce the capability of the area to support wolverines in the future, opening/creating this route would appear to conflict with Forest Plan direction for DFC 10 areas to provide long-term habitat to meet wildlife needs, and “…to allow for… some roads while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife.” When discussing balancing among uses, the Forest Plan did not identify motorized recreation, or recreation in general, as one of the uses to be balanced in DFC 10 areas. The Recreation Prescription for DFC 10 areas and the Access: Roads Prescription for DFC 10 areas, in combination with Objective 4.1(a) and the Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription, put constraints on continuing existing roaded recreation, which means that a higher bar is placed on expanding roaded recreation (and this higher bar is reinforced by the management theme and management emphasis of “no adverse effects or beneficial effects”). The threshold of 0.73 miles/mile2 for wolverines is also a consideration (existing conditions exceeds this for the DFC 10 area and Alternative 2 would increase it slightly). The motorized route density in DFC area 1B currently is well above suitable thresholds for all three species and they would increase further Alternative 2, but this DFC area does not have any emphasis on wildlife.

Alternative 3 appears to be consistent with Forest Plan direction as it applies to grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves, including in the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32. In the DFC 10 area, the existing density of used motorized routes is estimated to be 0.75 miles/mile2 and the net effect of Alternative 2 would be a small reduction to 0.68 miles/mile2(Table 17). A motorized- route density of 0.68 miles/mile2 is consistent with Forest Plan direction both because (1) it is below the low-end density thresholds all three species, recognizing that this density is sufficient to affect the potential for occupancy to some degree; and (2) it would result from a reduction compared to existing conditions, meaning that Alternative 3 would have “beneficial effects on wildlife,” as prescribed in the management emphasis and theme for DFC 10 areas. With respect to the Recreation Prescription for DFC 10 areas requiring that “Existing roaded recreation opportunities continue where they do not interfere with the objectives for this area,” about 70% of the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route (an existing open road) is within 1 mile of the Greys River Road and the furthest point is about 2 miles from the lodging/housing development on the Box Y property; i.e., maintaining this motorized route contributes comparatively few impacts. Also, adding the seasonal closure (September 10 through July 1) would reduce impacts of this route, and design features would reduce the potential for pioneering into high-elevation areas. The motorized route density in DFC area 1B currently is well above suitable thresholds for all three species and they would increase further Alternative 3, but this DFC area does not have any emphasis on wildlife. Also, (1) opening/creating the South Three Forks Route only extends the open motorized network a little over 1 mile from existing open routes, and (2) creating the route east of the Greys River Road would only extend the motorized network about one-third of a mile for 80% of its length and up to two-thirds of a mile at the furthest point.

Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 4 appears to not be inconsistent with Forest Plan direction as it applies to grizzly bears, gray wolves, and wolverines except for the objective, standard, and prescriptions dealing with wildlife security as they apply to wolverines in the DFC 10 area. (This determination for wolverines does not go beyond the determination for elk; and the determination for elk, as an indicator of the effects of motorized use on wildlife, supports this assessment.) Reasons for this are outlined for Alternative 2, above. Alternative 4 would be less consistent because the used motorized route density in the DFC 10 area would increase to 0.81 miles/mile2, compared to an increase to 0.76 miles/mile2 under Alternative 2 (Table 17), and design features in Alternative 4 are less aggressive which could lead to an increase in use of closed roads and

102 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

unauthorized routes, which would allow the density to increase further, and Alternative 4 could eventually result in unauthorized routes being pioneered to the west into high-elevation areas that currently have high potential for occupancy by wolverines. Motorized-route density should remain sufficient (albeit marginally) to provide for east-west movement by gray wolves and genetic interchange, but the increase in motorized route density has potential to conflict with DFC 10 direction that does not allow negative impacts to wildlife, especially given relatively weak design features and potential for expansion of unauthorized routes.

Determination for NEPA Alternative 1 would have no impact on grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves relative to existing conditions at the project-area and Bridger-Teton scales, because no action would occur that would move conditions away from existing conditions and trends. Habitat conditions and habitat effectiveness would not move further away from suitable conditions than already occurs under existing conditions, except that additional closed roads and unauthorized would be used by the public (i.e., the used motorized-route network would continue to expand). Reduced habitat effectiveness as influenced by motorized use would continue to limit occupation by these species, and would continue to elevate vulnerability of being killed. However, these effects would not result from any action that would be taken under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individual grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves or negligible parts of their habitat, but would not have any population level effects mainly due to reasons summarized in “Forest Plan Direction,” above. At the Bridger-Teton level, effects of the alternatives in-and-of-themselves would be inconsequential. However, in the context of the cumulative effects of countless similar actions that have taken place across many parts of the Bridger-Teton since the 1950s (i.e., creation of roads and motorized trails) and actions taken to create Wilderness Areas and to designate Inventoried Roadless area, all three action alternatives would contribute to a growing extent of impacts that reduce habitat effectiveness for grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves, and that increase vulnerability of being killed. The potential of the project area and surrounding area to be inhabited by grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves would continue to be heavily influenced by direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of motorized routes, motorized use, and associated activities (e.g., firewood cutting). However, although the alternatives would contribute to further reductions in habitat effectiveness and increases in vulnerability, there are no known grizzly bears, wolverines, or gray wolves that would be affected by the new routes.

Endangered Species Act-related Determinations Alternative 3 “may affect – not likely to adversely affect” grizzly bears and would be “not likely to jeopardize” the continued existence of wolverines.

Wolverines would be affected no more than a small degree by Alternative 3 for reasons described under “Forest Plan Direction (NFMA),” above, and because there are no known existing occurrences of wolverines in the project area, there is a low likelihood of this species inhabiting the project area during motorized-trail construction, there is a relatively-low likelihood of wolverines inhabiting parts of the project area where new open motorized routes would be established under Alternative 3, even without the routes being open/created there..

103 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the least amount of negative impacts on the potential for the project area and larger landscape to be occupied by grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves and would have the lowest vulnerability for individuals being killed, legally or illegally, recognizing that motorized-route densities in the project area are high enough under all alternatives to limit occupancy and to elevate vulnerability concerns. However, under Alternative 3, used motorized route densities would decline in the DFC 10 portion of the project area and DFC 10 area of Management Area 32, and one of the two new routes (east of the Greys River Road) would be within one-third of a mile of the main road for about 80% of the length of the new route (i.e., few added impacts due to the proximity to the already-well-traveled Greys River Road). While the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse route added to the DFC portion of the project area under Alternative 2 would be considerably more intrusive than the route east of the Greys River Road, implementation of Alternative 2 would stand a far better chance of successfully curtailing motorized use of closed and unauthorized routes and preventing new routes from being pioneered. This would include a better chance of preventing new unauthorized routes being pioneered into elevations above 8,500 feet on the west side of the project area and west of the project area. These are offsetting benefits / impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3, but the negative effects of opening/creating the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse route under Alternative 2 would override the benefits of the aggressive design features. Seasonal closures in these two alternatives are fairly comparable.

Behind Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 1 would have the next lowest negative impacts on the potential for the project area and larger landscape to be occupied by grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves, and Alternative 4 would have the largest negative impacts on this potential. This is because used motorized-route densities would be comparable to Alternative 1 (at the lower edge of suitability in the DFC 10 area of Management area 32 for wolverines and gray wolves) and, while there would be a higher probability of curtailing use of closed and unauthorized routes under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1, motorized use would be introduced into three fairly large areas now lacking motorized use and a larger mileage of currently-closed roads would be opened under Alternative 4. Also, Alternative 4 makes minimal use of seasonal closures to mitigate impacts of the existing motorized-route network and the large additions to the network, which contributes to the much larger net negative impacts of Alternative 4 compared to Alternatives 2 and 3.

Under existing conditions, the density of used motorized routes is about 0.75 miles/mile2 in the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32 and is 0.82 miles/mile2 in Management Areas 32 and 35 combined, and these would change under Alternative 2 to 0.76 miles/mile2 (an increase) and 0.81 miles/mile2 (a decline), respectively; would change under Alternative 3 to 0.68 miles/mile2 (a decline) and 0.82 miles/mile2 (no change), respectively; and would increase under Alternative 4 to 0.81 miles/mile2 and 0.86 miles/mile2, respectively. These increases would contribute, proportionately by alternative (and as influenced by other factors described above), to an increased potential for grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves to be displaced, their movements and distribution to be altered (e.g., increased potential for the area to be avoided), and to be killed legally or illegally. Alternative 3 is the only alternative in which the open route density would decline in any of the areas examined; they would decline from 0.61 miles/mile2 to 0.59 miles/mile2 in the DFC area of Management Area 32. Used motorized route densities in the project area would be considerably higher than the low-end thresholds for suitable habitat of grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves; about 1.68 miles/mile2 under existing conditions (and Alternative 1), and this would decline to about 1.45 miles/mile2 under Alternative 2 and about

104 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

1.57 miles/mile2 under Alternative 3, but would increase to about 1.95 miles/mile2 under Alternative 4. Densities for Management Areas 32 and 35, combined, are markedly lower because 38% of the area is comprised of DFC 2A and 12 areas, which set limits of call for 0 and 0.25 miles/mile2, respectively.

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have few seasonal restrictions that would mitigate negative effects of motorized-route densities on grizzly bears, wolverines, and gray wolves, combined with the increased mileage of open routes under Alternative 4 (the most of any alternative). Alternatives 2 and 3 would have sufficient seasonal restrictions to mitigate some of the negative effects of motorized use on these species, including mitigation of some of the added impacts of increasing the mileage of open motorized routes. Alternative 3 would have the most miles of any alternative that would be closed until July 1 (slightly more than Alternative 2), but Alternative 2 would have more miles closed starting earlier in the fall.

Cumulative Effects Past federal and non-federal actions that affect grizzly bear use the Greys River watershed and vicinity of the project area include the extirpation of grizzly bears from the area; establishment of sheep and cattle grazing in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges; agricultural production and residential development to the west, south, and east of these ranges; establishment of roads and motorized trails in the mountain ranges and valleys; increases in public use of the area; and the adoption of a recovery area that does not include the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges. Habitat associated with the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges is not considered biologically suitable or socially acceptable for grizzly bears. Many of these factors continue today. Several factors may continue to hinder the establishment of reproducing grizzly bear population in the Greys River watershed, including fairly high motorized route densities and human activity levels (from the standpoint of grizzly bear needs), continual increases in motorized route densities, potential takings resulting from domestic sheep depredations and human-bear conflicts locally and north of the district in travel corridors (e.g., during hunting season), and illegal killing of bears. Of the action alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute the least amount of negative impacts to the grizzly bears and Alternative 4 would add the most. Now that grizzly bears are delisted, it is likely that the Greys River watershed would not be in an area the State of Wyoming would attempt to sustain grizzly bears.

The main factors that have affected the distribution and abundance of wolverines in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges are motorized routes/use, human development, and past predator control efforts and trapping; and the effects of climate change on snowpack likely is a major factor that will affect their distribution and abundance in the future. The USFWS (2013:7871) assessed that “…the southern Rocky Mountain population of wolverines was extirpated in the early 1900s, concurrent with widespread systematic predator control by government agencies and livestock interests,” although it is not clear whether wolverines in Wyoming were completely extirpated. Since then, and after protections were put in place, wolverines became reestablished in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, including in the Teton Range and Yellowstone National Park and to a lesser extent in the Salt River and Wind River Ranges, but likely not in the Wyoming Range. Effects of motorized use on wolverines is a factor that heavily affects the distribution and abundance of wolverines. Most parts of the Salt River Range above about 8,500 feet have no more than limited motorized use, but motorized route densities below 8,500 feet are too high in many places to support wolverines, although wolverines continue to be infrequently observed below 8,500 feet. It likely is motorized use that limits their use below 8,500 feet in these ranges and not habitat conditions. There continues to be an incremental expansion of the unauthorized motorized trail

105 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

network in several places in the Greys River watershed, which incrementally reduces habitat effectiveness for wolverines. The removal of trees near roads, temporary roads, and skid trails associated with recent timber sales (e.g., Spring Creek south of the project area) and upcoming timber sales (e.g., Tri-Basin Divide south of the project area) have potential to facilitate this expansion. Topography has, for the most part, limited expansion of unauthorized motorized routes above 8,500 feet, but the potential consequences are high for any trails that are pioneered into high elevations. The landslide that removed a section of the Blind Bull Road just to the northeast of the project area made the top of the Wyoming Range impassable to motor vehicles, which benefits wolverine use of the area. If reestablishment of the road includes mitigation measures with physical barriers to prevent motorized access to the top of the Wyoming Range, this would help curb unauthorized use that had been occurring until the landslide.

All action alternatives would add more open motorized routes below 8,500 feet, with Alternative 4 having the largest negative impacts, including in a DFC 10 area. Given motorized (dirt bike) routes to the west and northwest of the project area (headwaters of Meadow Creek, Strawberry Creek, and headwaters of Bear Creek), not opening/creating the Upper Cabin Creek –Deadman Creek route (in a DFC 10 area) under Alternative 3 would maintain a sufficiently low density of motorized routes to maintain the Cabin Creek Peak and Upper/Lower Cabin Creek area as capable habitat for wolverines. This area would be bisected by a major motorized route under Alternatives 2 and 4, which could make the area unusable by these species, especially if motorized trails are pioneered. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would compound negative effects of motorized use on wolverines in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013).

It is possible that the level of snowmobile activity is too high in the Wyoming Range to allow for reestablishment, but there likely are places in the Salt River Range that have sufficiently low frequency of snowmobile use to limit impacts on habitat effectiveness. The Wyoming Range allows for extensive north-south travel by snowmobile whereas the Salt River Range involves more up-and-down trips, as the terrain is too rugged to allow extensive north-south travel. This has resulted in less extensive snowmobile use in the Salt River Range. Alternative 3 would contribute the least to potential expansion of snowmobile activity, especially into the Salt River Range because the South Three Forks route would be the only new route established on the Salt River Range side and (1) it would not contribute to an expansion in snowmobile use, and (2) this is the same for all action alternatives. The new route east of the Greys River Road is mostly within 1/3 mile of the main road and would not increase snowmobile access to higher elevations, thereby not reducing the potential for the Wyoming Range to be used by wolverines (this would be the same in Alternative 4). The new Upper Cabin Creek – Deadman Creek route (in a DFC 10 area) under Alternatives 2 and 4 would have the potential to increase snowmobile access to higher elevations in the Salt River Range and, therefore, would reduce the potential for the Salt River Range to be used by wolverines.

The main factors that have affected the distribution and abundance of wolverines in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges are their current status under Wyoming law, motorized routes/use, human development, past predator control efforts that led to their extirpation in Wyoming, and their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. The history and current status of gray wolves was summarized previously. Being classified as a predator year-round south of Willow/Bear/Sheep Creeks and as a predator from March 1 to October 14 in the Trophy Game Management Area north of Willow/Bear/Sheep Creeks will have the biggest impact on the occupancy of this species in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges; there is low likelihood of gray wolves persisting in these

106 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

ranges for this reason. Comparatively, being managed as a trophy game animal during October 15 – April 30 north of Willow/Bear/Sheep Creeks will have little bearing on their persistence. The relatively high motorized route density in many parts of the Greys River watershed will contribute to non-persistence of this species in the watershed since higher motorized-route densities makes them considerably more vulnerable to being killed. Alternative 4 would add more open motorized routes than any other alternative, thereby contributing to the highest degree to negative impacts on gray wolves. Alternative 3 would contribute the least. Canada Lynx (Threatened) Canada lynx are a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Affected Environment

Suitable Conditions Lynx are associated with forestland habitat, and they prefer boreal forestland conditions (e.g., spruce-fir forests and moist lodgepole pine forests), including deep winter snow (USFS 2007c). Lynx seem to prefer moving through contiguous forestland and prefer to avoid large openings. In the Wyoming Range, Salt River Range, and Commissary Ridge, habitat conditions are highly variable across the landscape. Forestland is naturally and relatively-permanently fragmented by big sagebrush and other rangeland types, riparian zones, meadows, and rock bands. This is characteristic of lynx habitat throughout the Rocky Mountains, for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated: “In mountainous areas, the boreal forests that lynx use are characterized by scattered moist forest types with high hare densities in a matrix of other habitats (e.g., hardwoods, dry forest, non-forest) with low hare densities” (Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 36. pg. 8616). So, while lynx prefer large contiguous stands of boreal forest on relatively gentle slopes, the reality in southern parts of their range is a patchwork of boreal forest conditions in a matrix of drier forest conditions, steep slopes, rangelands, and riparian areas.

Lynx use a variety of forest ages and structural stages; they use young regenerating forest and multistoried forests that provide habitat for snowshoe hares (USFS 2007c). On the Bridger-Teton, Berg (2010) found snowshoe hares to be most abundant in regenerating stands of dense lodgepole pine and late-seral forests with dense understories.

The southernmost natural population of Canada lynx in North America is found in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge, although lynx only irregularly occur in this area. Lynx have irregularly passed through this area and some have had kittens in the area. It is unclear whether use of the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge by lynx was historically irregular as it is today or whether a small population existed in conjunction with other parts of this part of the Rocky Mountains. Based on local telemetry data and studies of Canada lynx and snowshoe hare relationships in other areas, it appears that the heterogeneity of topography and vegetation and relatively low densities of snowshoe hares likely is a factor in limiting lynx occupancy and densities in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge, as compared to lynx populations in Canada and Alaska. Snowshoe hares do not appear to exhibit regular, dramatic population cycles as they do in the northern regions. Lynx home ranges in western Wyoming are large.

107 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Several have been observed in the vicinity of the MGMT project area, based on historical records, past radio telemetry studies, and snow tracking. Details of these records are provided in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Therefore, despite a comparatively large number of records of lynx south of the project area and a small number of records just north of the project area, there are few records of lynx in the project area, with all known records at the very south end of the project area. This appears to indicate a relatively low suitability of habitat conditions in the project area for lynx, although it is likely they periodically move through the project area. There likely are not lynx territories currently in or near the MGMT project area. To the extent lynx occur in the project area, the most likely scenario is that one or two individual lynx periodically move through the project area on their way from one location to another location, possibly every few years or so, but probably less frequently.

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are generally addressed under Alternative 1, below, and are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Existing Conditions

Population Status The southernmost natural population of Canada lynx in North America is found in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge, although lynx only irregularly occur in this area. Lynx have irregularly passed through this area and some have had kittens in the area. It is unclear whether use of the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge by lynx was historically irregular as it is today or whether a small population existed in conjunction with other parts of this part of the Rocky Mountains. Based on local telemetry data and studies of Canada lynx and snowshoe hare relationships in other areas, it appears that the heterogeneity of topography and vegetation and relatively low densities of snowshoe hares likely is a factor in limiting lynx occupancy and densities in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges and Commissary Ridge, as compared to lynx populations in Canada and Alaska. Snowshoe hares do not appear to exhibit regular, dramatic population cycles as they do in the northern regions. Lynx home ranges in western Wyoming are large.

108 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences

Determinations Canada lynx are a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Of the factors that can change through management actions included in the Middle Greys Motorized Trail project, the following are the main factors that have the potential to affect distribution and abundance of lynx in the project area:

• Acres Lost as Lynx Habitat due to Construction of New Motorized Routes and Widening of Existing Motorized Routes

• Location and Length of Created Corridors through Conifer Stands that could Increase Connectivity of Openings that could Increase the Distribution of Snowmobiling Activity and Snow Compaction

Indicators Addressed The following indicators were considered, but were dismissed from further analysis because roads and motorized use were not identified as issues that have potential for adversely affecting lynx, and the chance of a lynx inhabiting the project area is low.

1. Route-density index of habitat effectiveness (including open, used closed, and/or unauthorized).

2. Potential for pioneering and potential for use of closed and unauthorized routes by motor vehicles.

3. Route closure dates for motorized use.

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to lynx.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not conflict with direction in the Forest Plan pertaining to Canada lynx. Standard ALL S1; Guidelines ALL G1, HU G3, and HU G7; and Objectives ALL O1, HU O1, HU O2, and HU O3 would be met. This is mainly because none of the motorized routes would be wide enough to inhibit movement of lynx across the landscape, expand snow- compaction activities into winter foraging habitat of lynx, and loss of lynx habitat would be negligible (<0.01% of lynx habitat in the Greys River Middle LAU). Also, no lynx have been documented in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges since 2010.

Determination for NEPA Alternative 1 would have no effect on Canada lynx relative to existing conditions at the project- area and Bridger-Teton scales, because no action would occur that would move conditions away from existing conditions and trends. Habitat conditions, including the distribution and extent of

109 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

snow compaction in lynx habitat, would not move further away from suitable conditions than already occurs under existing conditions. Snow compaction as influenced by roads and motorized trails (i.e., corridors through forestland that are readily accessible by snowmobiles) would continue to artificially increase the potential between lynx and other predators like coyotes. However, this would not result from any action that would be taken under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no more than a negligible potential to negatively affect Canada lynx and their habitat. The very small degree of effect is mainly a consequence of none of the motorized routes being wide enough to inhibit movement of lynx across the landscape, low potential of snow-compaction activities expanding further into winter foraging habitat of lynx, and the loss of lynx habitat be negligible (<0.01% of lynx habitat in the Greys River Middle LAU). As discussed in USFS (2007a), motorized routes and motorized use, at the levels addressed in Alternatives 2-4 do not measurably affect lynx. Also, the new motorized route immediately east of the Greys River Road (Alternative 3) would not have negligible potential of affecting lynx since the route would be gated during the winter. This route would not be created under Alternative 2, and the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse route of Alternatives 2 and 4 would be created through forestland that is already fairly open and that is intermixed with openings (i.e., snowmobilers can already travel through the area without the route). No lynx have been documented in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges since 2010.

ESA-related Determination Alternative 3 may affect, but would not likely adversely affect Canada lynx. This is because the alternative would have no more than negligible adverse effects on lynx habitat due to all objectives and guidelines being met, and no other pertinent issues being of concern. No more than 0.006% of lynx habitat in the Greys River Middle LAU would be impacted and the new motorized routes would not impede lynx movements, the potential for lynx to be displaced by construction activities would be very low, and there would be a very low risk of vehicle-lynx collisions along the new routes.

Alternative 3 may affect, but would likely not adversely affect critical lynx habitat because construction of motorized routes would result in a loss of less than 0.01% of lynx habitat and matrix habitat in the Greys River Middle LAU, and because the potential for any expansion of snow-compaction activities would be very low since the new route east of the Greys River Road would be gated and barricaded during winter months.

Direct and Indirect Effects Motorized routes and motorized use, at the levels addressed in the MGMT project would not measurably affect lynx. The potential for lynx to be struck by vehicles and the potential for lynx to be displaced by motor-vehicle activity is only of concern in dealing with highway and interstate projects, and not of concern for motorized trails (USFS 2007a).

The only issues that need to be addressed in this lynx analysis were loss of lynx habitat and matrix habitat, potential for motorized routes to inhibit lynx movement (i.e., impacts on connectivity), and the potential for new routes through forestland to expand the footprint of snow- compaction activities. Loss of lynx habitat would be negligible under all alternatives (<4 acres of lynx habitat in all alternatives), which is <0.01% of lynx habitat in the Greys River Middle LAU. Less than 0.01% of matrix habitat would be lost. Connectivity is not an issue until motorized- route corridors are as wide as a highway or wider (USFS 2007a), and the new motorized routes (and corridor in which trees would be removed) would be no more than 10-12 feet wide.

110 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Expansion of snow-compaction activities would be non-existent under Alternative 1 and would be no more than negligible under Alternatives 2-4. The only forest that the new construction portion of the South Three Forks route (Alternatives 2-4) only passes through is a dry, south-slope, open- canopied conifer forestland with low densities of understory trees; i.e. it is of low suitability for lynx. Therefore, the acreage of habitat loss is not estimated as part of this assessment. The Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse route of Alternatives 2 and 4 would be created through forestland that is already fairly open and that is intermixed with openings; i.e., snowmobilers can already travel through the area without the route. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the motorized route that would be constructed immediately east of the Greys River Road would pass through three lynx-habitat (forested) patches that, added to together, would total about 1.8 miles. It would be possible for this route to create a permanent travel route that encouraging snow compaction, but this would have no more than negligible potential effects on lynx because access points would be gated and barricaded in ways to prevent snowmobile access. Furthermore, (1) 80% of the new route would be within 1/3 mile of the Greys River Road, which receives fairly heavy snowmobile traffic with considerable “playing” (i.e., compacted snow) to the sides, and (2) even if snowmobiles could access the new route, they would not be able to access other forested areas given tree densities (snowmobiles would be restricted to the trail).

Cumulative Effects The distribution and abundance of Canada lynx in the Greys River Middle LAU and surrounding LAUs are influenced by the long distance to large populations of lynx in the boreal forests of Canada (nearly 1,000 miles to the north), connectivity and quality of habitats between these forests and the project area (including many highways and interstates), and the area’s biogeographic characteristics, combined with the culmination of a variety of past and present human activities and management decisions. These include a long history of fire suppression, timber harvest during the mid-1900s through the 1980s, increasing proportion of late-seral forestland, recent insect epidemic, improved road conditions, trapping through the early 1970s, increasing amount and distribution of snowmobile activity, and increasing summer recreational use.

It is not expected that mortality due to accidental trapping or shooting is affecting lynx numbers in the Greys River LAU and Wyoming and Salt River Ranges as a whole (no records of any mortality due to trapping or shooting, and none suspected). Given the low density of lynx and the higher-elevation habitat they occupy relative to the road types and non-existence of roads in these habitats, direct mortality from vehicle collisions is likely a minor factor in survival rates.

Cumulative effect factors were considered in assessing potential effects of the Proposed Action on conservation objectives, standards, and guidelines, above. Bald Eagles and Harlequin Ducks (Sensitive)

Indicators Addressed A. Effects in the context of road effect zones:

1. Miles of perennial streams within 200 m of motorized routes and beyond 360 m.

2. Amount of upland habitat within 200 m of motorized routes.

3. Route closure dates for motorized use as another proxy for human disturbance.

111 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

B. Within-community habitat conditions:

1. Fish distribution and abundance.

2. Water quality, as affected by sedimentation.

Not all indicators are addressed in the summary of the analysis presented in this environmental assessment. See DeLong and Egan (2017) for a detailed analysis of effects using these indicators.

Affected Environment

Suitable Conditions

A. Effects in the Context of Road Effect Zones 1. Miles of Perennial Streams within 200 m of Motorized Routes and Beyond 720 m ― Suitable conditions for bald eagles, with respect to motorized routes and motorized use, entails having (1) a large proportion of the rivers, large streams, and large beaver pond complexes near rivers that are at least 200 m from motorized routes, and (2) at least some summer foraging habitat (rivers, large streams, and large beaver pond complexes near rivers) that are further than 720 m from motorized routes. These thresholds are based on (1) Marr et al. (1995) that found that sheep carcasses less than 200 m from roads or houses were rarely used by bald eagles; (2) studies cited in Richardson and Miller (1997) supporting buffer zones for bald eagle nests; 400-500 m, 800 m, and Grubb and King (1991) recommended a buffer of 450 m for vehicles; (3) a maximum flush distance of 990 m (Fraser 1983, as cited by Richardson and Miller 1997); and (4) other research that shows that bald eagles are sensitive to motor vehicle and other human activities. The USFWS (2007:13) recommended, “During the breeding season, do not operate off-road vehicles within 330 feet of [a bald eagle] nest. In open areas, where there is increased visibility and exposure to noise, this distance should be extended to 660 feet.” These suitable conditions would need to be measured at a geographic scale comparable of the size of a home range, at a minimum.

No research was found that could be used to identify distances between suitable nesting habitat and used motorized routes that would allow a relatively-high proportion of harlequin ducks (migrating through the area) to establish nests and for no more than a small proportion of these to abandon their nests due to disturbance. However, rivers and streams with suitable physical and vegetation characteristics that are ≥200 m from used motorized routes would appear to be biologically supportable as a threshold based on distance identified for bald eagles, recognizing however, that harlequin ducks are more sensitive to this use.

2. Amount of Upland Habitat within 200 m of Motorized Routes ― Habitat effectiveness thresholds, using a distance-band analysis, have not been defined for bald eagles, but results of the distance-band model can be used to assess changes in habitat effectiveness for bald eagles while they hunt for food in upland areas. When searching for and feeding on the remains of elk and mule deer shot by hunters, bald eagles can be found virtually anywhere elk and mule deer are found in the project area. The amount of upland habitat within the project area that is within 200 m of motorized routes provides a general index of habitat effectiveness for foraging bald eagles (see citations listed above).

112 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

This indicator does not apply to harlequin ducks.

3. Route Closure Dates for Motorized Use, as a Supplemental Proxy for Human Disturbance ― No information was found on suitable closing and opening dates for bald eagles, but it is recognized that two things would benefit bald eagles, compared to no seasonal closures: (1) the longer the opening date goes into the summer (e.g., July 1 vs. June 1), the better the situation for bald eagles along streams in the project area; and (2) closure of motorized routes prior to the beginning of the hunting season would reduce disturbance effects on bald eagles searching for and feeding on the remains of hunter- killed elk and mule deer.

Because nesting begins sometime between mid-May and mid-June, a July 1 opening date for motorized use would facilitate nesting by harlequin ducks, but because hatching dates for harlequin ducks appear to range from late June to late July (Wiggins 2005:19), a July 1 opening would have the potential to set the stage for nest abandonment. Wiggins (2005:24) recommended “…regulating the activities of humans along mountain rivers and streams from May to July. While a mid-July or late-July opening date would be much preferable for harlequin ducks, this is non-issue at this point because harlequin ducks do not appear to be nesting in the project area or vicinity of the project area.

B. Within-Community Habitat Conditions Suitable conditions in this subsection are limited to water quality and elements that affect fish habitat (including water quality and stream channel integrity as affected by motorized routes), which were addressed in Barry (2017) and Robertson (2017). The degree to which water quality is maintained and the degree to which fish population distribution and abundance are maintained at satisfactory levels, foraging habitat quality would be maintained for bald eagles and harlequin ducks.

1. Water quality. This is addressed in Robertson (2017).

The proportions of perennial stream miles that are closer than 200 m and that are further than 360 m (see A.1, above) also provides an indication of the potential for sediments reaching streams. There is a relatively high probability of excessive sedimentation in streams where a high proportion of stream miles occurs within 200 m of used motorized routes, and elevated sedimentation can happen where motorized routes are as far as 1,000 m (Foreman et al. 2003).

2. Fish habitat as reflected by distribution and abundance of fish in the project area. This is addressed in Barry (2017).

Existing Conditions

Population Status The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database contains 11 records of bald eagles in the MGMT project area and numerous observations in other parts of the Greys River, and the lead author has seen two bald eagles during the elk hunting season within the project area, one of which was flushed from a gut pile near the existing (but closed) Upper Cabin Creek Road. There is only one known nesting location of bald eagles in the Greys River watershed, and it was located on the west side of the Greys River near the confluence of Blind Bull Creek; i.e., just inside the north

113 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

end of the MGMT project area. The nest has been inactive for several years. The Greys River is mostly used by immature and adult bald eagles during the fall and winter months, and by immature bald eagles during summer months. During summer and winter, cutthroat trout likely are the main prey species, and during the mule deer and elk hunting seasons, remains of hunter- shot deer and elk are the main food eaten. Elk carcasses likely supplement bald eagle diets during the winter.

Although the WGFD surveys bald eagles in other parts of western Wyoming, they do not survey eagles in the Greys River watershed. Therefore, no numeric information is available on population size or trend for this area.

Harlequin ducks have been reported on the Greys River Ranger District in past years (Gruell 1975, USFS 2004a), but no documentations of harlequin ducks have been recorded in the Greys River watershed since 1995 (USFS 2004a). The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database contains two occurrences of Harlequin ducks near the MGMT project area, one about 1 mile north of the project area at the confluence of Deadman Creek with the Greys River and one about 3 miles south of the project area on the Greys River just above Crow Creek. Harlequin ducks typically migrate from coastal wintering areas to nesting areas during late April-May and breeding is typically initiated in May-June (Bellrose 1976).

Even though Harlequin ducks have not been observed along the Greys River or its tributaries during the last 20 years, it is possible — but possibly unlikely — they migrate through the area and/or breed unobserved somewhere in the Greys River. Also, Harlequin ducks are included in the analysis because the project being evaluated is a motorized-use project that involves expanding open motorized routes into areas that are currently do not have any motorized use and because motorized use likely is the main reason Harlequin ducks no longer occur in the Greys River watershed. It is likely that motorized use and associated human activity along the Greys River and tributaries led to the near-disappearance or disappearance of Harlequin ducks from the Greys River watershed.

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences

Determinations

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action (as part of the alternative) that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to bald eagles and harlequin ducks (e.g., Objectives 3.2(c-e) and 3.3(a), Sensitive Species Management Standard, Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription). The most suitable nesting habitat in the Greys River Ranger District exists along the Greys River and Snake River, and both of these are paralleled closely by roads. The Greys River Road will continue to be the main limitation to meeting Objective 3.2(e).

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not conflict with direction in the Forest Plan pertaining to bald eagles and harlequin ducks (i.e., Objectives 3.2(c-e) and 3.3(a), the Sensitive Species Management Standard, and Fisheries and Wildlife Management Prescription), and taking action

114 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

to curtail motorized use of closed roads and unauthorized routes (all alternatives) would generally support this direction. Open roads already parallel a large proportion of river and stream miles in the project area that are most suitable as foraging habitat for bald eagles and nesting habitat for harlequin ducks, and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would open an existing closed road along South Three Forks that would result in nearly all river and stream miles being paralleled by open roads. However, South Three Forks is not high quality bald eagle foraging habitat or harlequin duck nesting habitat, and it is in a DFC 1B area, which does not emphasize wildlife. Other new routes would not measurably add to disturbance potential along water courses, and disturbance effects in upland areas is less of an issue. The Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route to be opened/created in the DFC 10 portion of the project area (Alternatives 2 and 4) would not be inconsistent with Forest Plan direction on DFC 10 areas because the route would not affect habitat effectiveness along streams favorable by bald eagles and harlequin ducks, and the route would be seasonally closed starting September 10, resulting in no potential for negative impacts on upland-foraging bald eagles during the hunting seasons.

Biological Evaluation Determination Alternative 1 would have no impact on bald eagles or harlequin ducks, relative to existing conditions at the project-area and Bridger-Teton scales, because no action would occur that would move conditions away from existing conditions and trends. Relative to suitable conditions, bald eagles would continue to be negatively affected and harlequin ducks would continue to not occur mainly as a consequence of the Greys River Road and roads paralleling major tributaries in the project area (Bear Creek, North Three Forks), but this would not result from any action that would be taken under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individual bald eagles and harlequin ducks or negligible parts of their habitat, but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability mainly. At the Bridger-Teton level, effects of the action alternatives in-and-of-themselves would be inconsequential. While bald eagle populations appear to continue increasing on the Bridger- Teton, the action alternatives would contribute to an increasing number and mileage of motorized routes, especially in the southern portion of the Bridger-Teton; these effects are offset to some degree by large areas of non-motorized use in Wilderness Areas (north end of the Bridger-Teton) and some Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have the lowest level of negative impacts on habitat effectiveness for bald eagles and harlequin ducks, recognizing that the locations and distribution of motorized-route densities are already high enough to have markedly reduced habitat effectiveness for bald eagles and high enough to have kept harlequin ducks from nesting in the project area and throughout the Greys River drainage. Alternative 4 would have the largest negative impacts on habitat effectiveness for bald eagles in the project area. The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 fit between Alternatives 1 and 4, and Alternative 2 would have a slightly higher potential to negatively affect bald eagles than Alternative 3. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would fairly equally further reduce the potential for harlequin ducks to nest in the project area since they all add the South Three Forks route.

Under existing conditions, the proportion of the project area’s mileage of perennial streams within 200 m of open motorized routes (50.2%) is already high, and this percentages would increase to 57% under Alternative 2, to 60.7% under Alternative 3, and to 63.6% under Alternative 4, respectively. These increases would contribute, proportionately by alternative, to small increases

115 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

in the potential for bald eagles to avoid the project area or to be displaced or physiologically stressed. The percentage estimates are only a general indicator because, if only rivers, large streams, and large beaver pond complexes are considered, a much larger proportion of stream miles are currently within 200 m of open motorized routes, meaning that (1) bald eagles foraging in this project area already have fairly regular disturbance by motor vehicles and (2) a high proportion of stream miles potentially available to harlequin ducks have roads running alongside them; and these effects would increase to nearly all stream miles (i.e., all those providing foraging habitat for bald eagles and nesting habitat for harlequin ducks) that are within 200 m of an open motorized route under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would all convert the existing closed road along the South Three Forks Creek to open status, which currently is the only major tributary in the project area without a motorized route paralleling it. Increased traffic volumes on the Bear Creek and North Three Forks Roads would contribute to increased disturbance potential under all alternatives.

Most foraging opportunities for bald eagles occur along the Greys River, except that the river is within 100 m of the Greys River Road for most of its length through the project area (13 miles), and it is open from May 1 until snow becomes too deep (i.e., high potential for disturbance by motorized vehicles). For motorized routes along major tributaries that provide secondary foraging areas for bald eagles, Alternatives 1 and 4 would have few seasonal restrictions that would mitigate disturbance effects of motorized use along two of three of these routes (Bear Creek and North Three Forks). Of the 7 miles of motorized routes along the three main tributaries (including South Three Forks which would be opened under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4), Alternatives 2 and 3 would delay the opening date to July 1 and would close the routes for the big game hunting season on about 5 of these miles (except a smaller portion would be closed in the fall under Alternative 3), which would mitigate effects to some degree. Few seasonal restrictions would be added under Alternative 4, thereby not mitigating the addition of any of any open motorized routes.

The amount of upland habitat within 200 m of used motorized routes would increase from an estimated 29.7% of the project area (Alternative 1) to an estimated 32.9% (Alternative 2), 34.1% (Alternative 3), and 40.0% (Alternative 4). Upland habitat is searched by bald eagles for the remains of hunter-killed mule deer and elk during the respective seasons (starting September 15 and starting October 15, respectively). These increases (increases of 11%, 15%, and 35%, respectively, for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) would contribute, proportionately by alternative, to an increased potential for bald eagles to be displaced from deer and elk carcasses and gut piles, except that this effect would be mitigated to a small extent under Alternatives 1 and 4, moderate degree under Alternative 3, and large degree under Alternative 2, as a consequence of fall closures.

The availability of fish would appear to be suitable for bald eagles and water quality would appear to remain suitable for harlequin ducks, and this would continue under all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects The main local factors that have affected and that will continue to affect the potential of bald eagles and harlequin ducks to use the MGMT project area and the Greys River watershed are (1) motorized use on the Greys River Road and major tributary roads, including effects that widening the Greys River Road in 2000 had on traffic volumes; and (2) human activity along the Greys River and major tributaries, for example, fishing, camping, motorized recreation, kayaking and rafting, and firewood cutting, as well as development on the Box Y and Deadman Ranch

116 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

properties. Other factors that have affected or have potential to affect the occurrence, distribution, and abundance of bald eagles and harlequin ducks include livestock grazing including herding activities, mule deer and elk hunting, and possibly feeding of elk by WGFD in the Forest Park area. The distribution of bald eagles and harlequin ducks in the Greys River watershed are affected by factors happening at larger scales, including the major decline of bald eagle populations nationwide due to DDT and other factors, protection of bald eagles under the Endangered Species Act and banning of DDT, loss and degradation of habitat, and reduced habitat effectiveness due to expansion of motorized routes.

Locally, motorized travel on the Greys River Road and associated human activity undoubtedly has had the largest impact of any factor on the occurrence and abundance of bald eagles and harlequin ducks in the watershed. If it were not for the road and associated human activity (e.g., camping, fishing), there likely would have been more bald eagle nests during recent years, bald eagles may be more common at other seasons, and it is likely harlequin ducks would still be nesting in the watershed. Houses, cabins, and agricultural production on the Box Y and Deadman properties (private) also contributes to disturbance effects, but in small localized areas just north of the project area. Recent development on the Deadman property, including additional houses on the valley bottom and an air strip have added to the disturbance effects, which also adds to traffic along the Greys River. Alternatives 2-4 would contribute further to the upward trend in the mileage of open motorized routes, with Alternative 2 making the lowest contribution and Alternative 4 making the highest; compounding this is Alternative 2’s more aggressive design features for curtailing use of closed roads and unauthorized routes. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would compound negative effects of motorized use on bald eagles and harlequin ducks in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013).

It is also possible that water quality has been lowered sufficiently — due to elevated sedimentation caused by historic and present-day livestock grazing, motorized routes, and other activities — to contribute to harlequin ducks no longer using the watershed, but there is less information supporting this. Because the cutthroat trout population remains large and apparently healthy, any changes in water quality have not affected the ability of the watershed to support bald eagles.

In addition to the effects of livestock grazing on water quality, grazing of streamside vegetation and impacts on willow structure can alter nesting habitat (Wiggins 2005). This is much less of a factor than human disturbance in contributing to an apparent lack of harlequin ducks in the Greys River watershed.

Deer and elk hunting affects bald eagle distribution and abundance in the fall, as a consequence of gut piles and carcasses left by hunters. Winter feeding of elk may also influence their distribution by a small degree during winter because elk that die at the feedground may supplement the diet of wintering bald eagles. Elk that winter at the Forest Park feedground (located just south of the project area) would otherwise have migrated to areas outside of the Greys River watershed.

Timber harvest at the levels it has occurred likely has had little if any impact on the occupancy and abundance of bald eagles and harlequin ducks in the Greys River watershed.

117 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Columbia Spotted Frog and Boreal Toad (Sensitive) Columbia spotted frogs and boreal toads are on the Region 4 sensitive species list, and boreal toads are former ecological indicator species (MIS). Boreal chorus frogs also are former MIS; chorus frogs are included in some of the discussion below, given their former status as MIS.

There is no one or two indicators that would adequately provide a proxy for the effects on these species. First, roads, including forest roads, is one of the biggest risk factors for amphibians (deMaynadier and Hunter 1995, Maxell and Hokit 1999, Maxell 2000, Jochimsen et al. 2004, Patla and Keinath 2005, Andrews et al. 2008, PARC 2008, Beebee 2013). Second, amphibians are not affected by a single factor related to motorized routes and motorized use, and there is no single motorized-use related factor that “indicates” effects on amphibians (deMaynadier and Hunter 1995, Jochimsen et al. 2004, Andrews et al. 2008, Bennett 2017).

This assessment examines the effects of all aspects of motorized routes and motorized use that could potentially affect frogs and toads cumulative with other past, present, and foreseeable future effects.

Indicators Addressed Indicators used in the amphibian analysis are:

1. Effects in the Context of Road Effect Zones

a) Amount of bird habitat within 200 m of motorized routes and beyond 720 m

b) Miles of perennial streams within 200 m and 360 m of motorized routes

c) Route closure dates for motorized use as a supplemental proxy for direct effects

d) Starting date for construction

2. Amount of habitat lost due to route placement

3. Habitat Connectivity and Mix of Succession Stages:

a) Habitat connectivity and fragmentation

b) Effects on fire ecology, and mix of succession stages

4. Within-Community Habitat Conditions:

a) Herbaceous vegetation, soils, and wetland disturbance

b) Density of logs

c) Altered hydrology and longevity of wetlands as affected by sedimentation

d) Water quality

e) Introduction and spread of noxious weeds (within 100 m, and up to and beyond 1,800 m)

5. Direct Mortality (Survival as Affected by Crushing by Motor Vehicles)

118 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Not all indicators are addressed in the summary of the analysis presented in this environmental assessment. See DeLong and Egan (2017) for a detailed analysis of effects using these indicators.

Affected Environment This analysis was undertaken in the context of assessing effects on amphibians as sensitive species (spotted frogs and boreal toads) and as management indicator species (boreal toads and chorus frogs); even though boreal toads and chorus frogs no longer are MIS, effects of motorized routes and motorized use on all three species provide useful indicators of the effects on a range of other small wildlife species. Given the large volume of scientific information on the effects of motorized routes on amphibians, use of amphibians as a proxy for other small wildlife allows for potential effects to be identified that may otherwise be missed if it were not for their use as a proxy. For example, Gaines et al. (2003) included water shrews in their analysis for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, and effects on boreal toads have potential to indicate effects on this and similar small animal species. Also, spotted frogs likely were more widespread in the vicinity of the project area and boreal toads likely also inhabited the area prior to Euro-American settlement. Given emigration capabilities of Columbia spotted frogs (Turner 1960, Engle 2001, Pilliod et al. 2002, Patla and Keinath 2005) and boreal toads (Muths 2003, Keinath and McGee 2005, Bull 2006, Pierce 2006, Bull 2009), it is feasible for new breeding sites of spotted frogs to be established, for any abandoned historic sites (if there are any) to be reestablished if habitat conditions are suitable in the project area, and eventually for boreal toads to inhabit the project area or vicinity. The project area is only about 7 miles north of a probable boreal toad breeding site (juveniles found there) and about 5 miles north of a known historic (1970s) breeding location of boreal toads (and it is very likely boreal toads occurred throughout the Greys River drainage. The scope of the analysis was not expanded by including boreal toads since their habitat and survival elements are similar to those of spotted frogs.

While the effects of motorized routes and motorized use on amphibians may at first appear to pale in comparison to effects of chitrid fungus, the multiple stressor concept demonstrates that a hard look needs to be given to all factors having potential to impact sensitive amphibian species given their status and trends (Maxell 2000, Collins and Storfor 2003, Corn 2003, Rohr et al. 2004, Sih et al. 2004, Boone et al. 2007, Bancroft et al. 2008, Chen et al. 2008, Salice 2012, Reeve et al. 2013). Effects of motorized routes and motorized use is among the top factors impacting amphibians (see references cited in the following review of scientific information), and has high potential to (1) have already contributed, as one of several stressors, to declines in the distribution and abundance of spotted frogs and boreal toads; and (2) negatively impact spotted frogs, as one of several stressors, in and around the project area in the future. Of all factors negatively impacting boreal toads and spotted frogs, it is recognized that chitrid fungus likely has had the largest negative impact on their distribution and abundance in the Greys River watershed, but available scientific information indicates the impacts could very well have been less pronounced if it were not for motorized use and several other stressors.

Existing Conditions All three of the amphibian species in this section are known to occur on the Greys River Ranger District, and spotted frogs and chorus frogs are known to exist in the MGMT project area. Tiger salamanders also exist in the project area.

A large number and variety of multiple stressors have likely been acting on these amphibian species within the Greys River watershed, with diseases like chitrid fungus and ranavirus likely

119 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment being top contributors. A large number of scientific studies demonstrate that, if frogs and toads are not being impacted by human-related stressors and if habitat is in suitable, healthy condition, impacts from diseases are not as severe. Other stressors in the Greys River watershed include loss of habitat due to road construction and widening, reduced habitat quality due to factors like off- road vehicles and livestock grazing, altered hydrology due to road construction, increased UV radiation, mortality due to motorized vehicles and livestock (trampling), reduced water quality due to sedimentation, reduced distribution of beaver pond complexes, and overrepresentation of late-seral vegetation conditions (DeLong 2015). Spotted frogs and boreal toads primarily inhabit riparian areas, and riparian habitat in the Greys River watershed are disproportionately negatively impacted by a range of activities and facilities, including roads, major trails, motorized use (on and off roads), dispersed camping associated with motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, expansion of conifer trees, and reduced distribution of beaver pond complexes (DeLong 2009)

Population Status

Columbia Spotted Frogs Columbia spotted frogs are classified by Region 4 as a sensitive species, and they are also classified in Region 2 as a sensitive species (Keinath and McGee 2005). Seventeen years ago, Patla (2000:5), assessed that “Within the zone of the main population (central and north Idaho, western Montana, and northwestern Wyoming) spotted frogs are generally believed to be widespread and/or common, with only localized declines.” But it needs to be recognized that the population status of spotted frogs in Wyoming was downgraded between 2005 and 2010. They are on WGFD’s list of Species of Special Conservation Concern with a NSS Cell rating of NSS3 (Bb), and are classified as a Tier II species, meaning that declining populations and/or habitat losses are not suspected (WGFD 2010a). However, the 2010 rating is a down-grade from 2005 when the species was rated as NSS4. Columbia spotted frogs are also on the sensitive species list of the Wyoming Natural Heritage Program, and the statewide population is ranked as S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe 2002). Vulnerable is defined as “At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. Such species are often rare or found locally in a restricted range.” (NatureServe 2002).

Columbia spotted frogs are distributed across most of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, except the Wind River Range and the very south end of the Bridger-Teton (e.g., the Kemmerer Ranger District, except for one breeding site at the north end of the district) (Map 14.a). They may also be absent on the west slope of the Salt River Range and on the east slope of the Wyoming Range south of Cottonwood Creek. However, there is a reasonable chance they are currently absent from some of these locations but inhabited them prior to Euro-American settlement. Available habitat exists in these other locations, except possibly the Wind River Range where available habitat may be too high in elevation. Breeding by spotted frogs was documented in at least 10 sites in the North Horse Creek, South Horse Creek, and Cottonwood Creek drainages of the east slope of the Wyoming Range prior to 2012, but there were no detections of this species at these locations in 2012 and 2013, possibly indicating another contraction in their distribution on the Bridger-Teton.

There is only one known existing spotted frog breeding sites in the project area, and there are three known breeding sites about 1.5 miles from the northern boundary (and several more beyond this), there is one known breeding site to the east of the project area, and there are known breeding sites about 2 miles and 5 miles south of the project area (and several beyond this). Limited effort has been put into inventories in the project area, and several beaver pond

120 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

complexes (which are notoriously difficult to detect adult frogs and signs of breeding) exist in the project area; i.e., there is a reasonable chance that breeding sites exist in the project area. The sole known breeding site in the project area is small and, because it naturally becomes dry sometime in mid summer, adults and juvenile frogs migrate to wetlands providing aquatic habitat late into the summer (e.g., within 0.3 to 1.5 miles of the breeding site). It is unknown where these sites exist, and it is possible they provide additional breeding habitat. To the extent they are currently absent from large parts of the project area where capable habitat exists, there is a reasonable chance they have disappeared from these locations since prior to Euro-American settlement.

Boreal Toads Boreal toads are thought to have two distinctive population segments in Wyoming, a northern Rocky Mountain population and a southern Rocky Mountain population (WGFD 2010b). The Southern Rocky Mountain population segment, which includes Uinta, Sweetwater, and Lincoln counties, is being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing under the Endangered Species Act due to geographic isolation and disease concerns (USFWS 2012).

Boreal toads are classified by Region 4 as a sensitive species and by Region 2 (Keinath and McGee 2005) due to viability concerns and because it is only found within habitats that encompass a small portion of the landscape, especially capable breeding habitat which comprises a very small proportion of the landscape. Boreal toads are on the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (WGFD’s) list of Species of Special Conservation Concern (WGFD 2010b) with a NSS Cell rating of NSS1 (Aa), and is classified as a Tier I species because of declining population trend and/or habitat in need of conservation management actions. Boreal toads are also on the sensitive species list of the Wyoming Natural Heritage Program, and the statewide population is ranked as S1 (critically imperiled) (NatureServe 2002). Critically imperiled is defined as “Critically imperiled in the jurisdiction because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the jurisdiction.”

According to WGFD (2010b, pg. IV-4-1), “Boreal toad populations appear to be in a state of severe decline. Numerous factors may be contributing to these declines…” The boreal toad population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is declining, which is consistent with documented declines in other parts of the western U.S., including southeastern Idaho. Trend data are not available for boreal toads in the project area or on the Bridger-Teton because occupancy monitoring only just began (in 2014). At this point, there is no evidence showing that statewide assessments of boreal toads are not characteristic of Bridger-Teton populations, particularly since many of the factors that may have contributed to statewide reductions exist on the Bridger-Teton (DeLong 2015) and because breeding sites have not been found in many parts of the Bridger- Teton with capable habitat and, in some places where breeding sites have been found, densities are low.

Boreal toads are distributed across most of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, except much of the Greys River watershed, west slope of the Salt River Range, and much of the Wind River Range. However, they likely inhabited the Greys River watershed prior to Euro-American settlement, and there are anecdotal records of them being present at least in the upper Greys River watershed during the 1970s (e.g., 5 miles south of the project area), and an adult and juveniles were found nearly 7 miles south of the project area several years ago. Suitable habitat exists throughout the Greys River watershed, including in the MGMT project area. There currently is an estimated 1,300 acres of capable breeding habitat, which is riparian and wetland habitat that can potentially

121 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

support breeding, depending on a variety of other factors; for example, most of the estimated acres consists of riparian willow habitat, but this only provides breeding habitat where isolated wetlands exist and where beavers maintain pond complexes. In other words, only a small portion of the 1,300 acres provides conditions conducive to breeding at any given time and locations typically change over time. There is roughly twice as much capable summer habitat as capable breeding habitat. Available inventory and monitoring data appears to show a decline or possible disappearance from the Hoback River drainage and possibly a decline in the LaBarge Creek drainage (i.e., declines may be ongoing on the Bridger-Teton).

There are no known existing boreal toad breeding sites in the project area. The closest known breeding sites are on the east side of the Wyoming Range (5-7 miles from the project area) and upper Greys River (5-8 miles from the project area), including several sites in South Cottonwood Creek, North Cottonwood Creek, in North Horse Creek, and at least one breeding site north of the Corral Creek Guard Station along the Greys River; juveniles and adults have been found at this site, but no breeding sites have been located.

Capable habitat exists in the MGMT project area (Figure 22), and there is a reasonable chance boreal toads formerly occupied habitat in the project area.

Figure 22. Modeled sensitive-amphibian breeding habitat and migration habitat in and near the MGMT project area for spotted frogs and boreal toads, summer habitat for boreal toads, and buffers around known breeding sites.

122 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences

Determinations

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action (as part of the alternative) that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to spotted frogs, chorus frogs, or boreal toads (e.g., Objective 3.3(a), Sensitive Species Management Standard, Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription), although inaction (i.e., not taking action to curb unauthorized motorized use) has potential to conflict with this direction.

While Alternative 2 would have the potential to further reduce the capability of the project area to be occupied by spotted frogs and boreal toads or to sustain breeding populations, there appears to be sufficient design features to meet Forest Plan direction for these sensitive species (i.e., to not substantively diminish the amount of suitable habitat and to protect them from human-related activities, as per Objective 3.3(a), Sensitive Species Management Standard, and Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription). This alternative would not impact the only known existing spotted frog breeding site in the project area. The project area already has a high proportion of perennial stream miles (and associated riparian habitat) within 200 m of open motorized routes, and opening additional motorized routes within 200 m of riparian habitat would add to an already substantively-diminished capacity to sustain spotted frogs and boreal toads in the project area. However, the following would contribute to meeting Forest Plan direction: (1) one of the two new routes to be added would occur in the DFC 1B portion of the project area where wildlife is not emphasized; (2) this new routes is on a relatively-dry south-facing slope where migration potential appears to be low; (3) routes within 200 yards would be mitigated sufficiently to minimize the potential of crushing by vehicles, and no routes would exist within 100 feet of breeding sites; (4) seasonal closures, especially routes that are closed until July 1; and (5) design features (the most aggressive of any alternative) would curtail use of closed roads and unauthorized routes, and would curtail pioneering and establishment of unauthorized routes. The other new route is in the DFC 10 portion of the project area; it would reduce the capability of this area to support breeding populations of sensitive amphibians in this area, which conflicts with Forest Plan direction for this DFC area. However, the seasonal closure and the design feature to avoid/minimize routes within 100 feet and 200 yards should mitigate effects sufficiently.

While Alternative 3 would have the potential to further reduce the capability of the project area to be occupied by spotted frogs and boreal toads or to sustain breeding populations and although a motorized trail would be created approximately 200 m from a known existing spotted frog breeding site, the route would not be accessible until July 1. There are other design features sufficient to meet Forest Plan direction for these sensitive species (i.e., to not substantively diminish the amount of suitable habitat and to protect them from human-related activities, as per Objective 3.3(a), Sensitive Species Management Standard, and Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription). Even though there already is a high proportion of perennial stream miles (and associated riparian habitat) within 200 m of open motorized routes in the project area, and while opening additional motorized routes within 200 m of riparian habitat would add to an already substantively-diminished capacity to sustain spotted frogs and boreal toads, (1) these additions

123 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

would mainly occur in DFC 1B portions of the project area where wildlife is not emphasized, as well as in a DFC 3 area where wildlife is ; (2) one of the two new routes is on a relatively-dry south-facing slope where migration potential appears to be low; (3) the other new route follows a riparian area for about 0.5 miles outside the riparian zone and only crosses two riparian zones; (4) the crossings would be constructed to allow movements of amphibians; (5) the new route on the east side of the Greys River Road would be at least 200 m from an active spotted frog breeding site; (6) routes within 200 yards of other (as yet unknown) breeding sites would be mitigated sufficiently to minimize the potential of crushing by vehicles, and no routes would exist within 100 feet of breeding sites; (7) most routes would be seasonally closured until July 1; and (8) design features would curtail use of closed roads and unauthorized routes, and would curtail pioneering and establishment of unauthorized routes. Maintaining a distance of at least 200 yards between the breeding site and the new route on the east side of the Greys River Road and not opening this route until after July 1 would help meet the Diversity of Wildlife Habitat Guideline for DFC 3 areas (where the breeding site is located). Under this alternative, there would be a net reduction in negative impacts associated with motorized routes in the DFC 10 area, which is consistent with Forest Plan direction for this DFC area.

The Road Management Standard for the DFC 3 area is ≤1 mile/mile2. This is currently exceeded, as (1) the DFC 3 area is about 1 mile wide along its entire 27-mile length, and the Greys River Road runs the entire length of the DFC 3 area (i.e., 1 mile/ mile2), and (2) an additional 3-4 miles of roads exist in the DFC 3 area (i.e., increasing the density beyond 1 mile/ mile2). The new route east of the Greys River Road would increase the route density even further beyond the limit imposed by the Road Density Standard. This may conflict with the DFC 3 Management Emphasis, which states the area is to be “…protected from activities that could diminish or change… the fish and wildlife… values which make the river eligible for designation.”

Alternative 4 would have the potential to further reduce the capability of the project area to be occupied by spotted frogs and boreal toads or to sustain breeding populations, and there are insufficient design features to meet Forest Plan direction for these sensitive species (i.e., no provisions are included in the alternative that would protect sensitive amphibians from motorized activity or that would maintain suitable habitat). The new motorized trail east of the Greys River Road would be created approximately 200 m from a known existing spotted frog breeding site, but there would not be any seasonal restrictions put in place. (This determination does not go beyond the determination for elk; and the determination for elk, as an indicator of the effects of motorized use on wildlife, supports this assessment.) There already is a high proportion of perennial stream miles (and associated riparian habitat) within 200 m of open motorized routes in the project area, and this alternative would add considerably to this and to the already substantively-diminished capacity to sustain spotted frogs and boreal toads in the project area. The new route in the DFC 10 portion of the project area would be added without a seasonal closure and without design features to mitigate effects in the event of one or more breeding sites becoming established along the trail; this conflicts with DFC 10 direction in the Forest Plan to have no net negative impacts on wildlife. When discussing balancing among uses, the Forest Plan did not identify motorized recreation, or recreation in general, as one of the uses to be balanced in DFC 10 areas. Design features applicable to the DFC 10 area and other parts of the project area would not necessarily curtail use of closed roads and unauthorized routes. Only half the mileage of the motorized route system would have a seasonal closure that extends into early summer, but this mileage would open June 1, which is not all that different than allowing vehicles to access the area as snowmelt allows.

124 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Biological Evaluation Determination Alternative 1 would have no impact on spotted frogs and boreal toads or their habitat, relative to existing conditions, and would likely not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. At the scale of the Bridger-Teton, effects of Alternative 1 in-and-of-itself would be inconsequential. While the growing network of motorized use on closed roads and unauthorized trails under Alternative 1 would — on top of the already large effects the motorized-route network and associated motorized use across the Bridger-Teton and other cumulative effects — contribute negligibly to substantive negative impacts on amphibians. This effect, however, would be a consequence of agency inaction.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may impact individual spotted frogs or boreal toads or negligible parts of their habitat, but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. At the Bridger-Teton level, effects of the alternatives in-and-of-themselves would be inconsequential . However, in the context of the cumulative effects of numerous similar actions that have taken place at the project level across many parts of the Bridger-Teton since the 1950s (i.e., creation of roads and motorized trails) and other human-caused stressors (e.g., creation of reservoirs, stocking of formerly fishless lakes, livestock grazing, water developments), all three action alternatives would contribute to a growing extent of impacts that appear to increase susceptibility of amphibian populations to disease (e.g., chitrid fungus), climate change, increased ultraviolet radiation, and increased nitrogen levels precipitating from the atmosphere. (The cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple stressors is discussed, relative to the Bridger-Teton, in DeLong 2015). As such, to the extent the distribution and abundance of spotted frogs and boreal toads have declined on the Bridger-Teton, all action alternatives would contribute further to this, albeit only negligibly (Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute the least and Alternative 4 would contribute the most).

Adherence to design features was important in making the above determination.

Overall, Alternative 2 would be least impacting to sensitive amphibians and the added impacts of Alternative 4 (i.e., impacts above-and-beyond those of Alternative 1) would be double those of Alternatives 2 and 3; Alternative 3 is situated between Alternatives 2 and 4, but very close to Alternative 2. Taking cumulative effects into consideration, and assuming that spotted frogs and boreal toads have experienced reductions in their distribution and abundance on the Bridger- Teton, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have the potential to contribute to the downward trends.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have the least amount of negative impacts on the capability of the project area to support breeding populations of spotted frogs and boreal toads (although impacts would continue to be substantive), followed by Alternatives 2 and 3, while Alternative 4 would have the largest negative impacts on this capability. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the capability of the

125 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

project area to support breeding populations of spotted frogs and boreal toads by a minor to small degree (the least of any of the action alternatives), and Alternative 4 would reduce it by a small degree (the most of any action alternative).

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the lowest increase in miles of open motorized routes, highest percentage of routes that are seasonally closed in ways that benefit amphibians, and would have the highest potential for the use of closed and unauthorized routes to be discontinued (due to required patrolling, triggers, and identified consequences of design features not be being met, which Alternatives 3 and 4 do not include). Alternative 3 would be close to Alternative 2 in these regards, but the negative impacts of the route east of the Greys River Road and small loop south of Bear Creek, together, would be smaller than the impacts of the Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route of Alternative 2. All factors considered, impacts of the two alternatives on amphibians would be comparable and it is possible for Alternative 3 to be slightly less impacting. Alternative 3 would have the least amount of negative effects and largest benefits to amphibians in the DFC 10 portion of the project area. Alternative 4 is at the opposite end of the spectrum for all factors considered.

Under existing conditions, the proportion of the project area’s mileage of perennial streams within 100 m and 200 m of open motorized routes (33.3% and 50.2%, respectively) is already high, and these percentages would increase to 37.8% and 57% under Alternative 2, to 42.3% and 60.7% under Alternative 3, and to 43.1% and 63.6% under Alternative 4, respectively (Table 18). These increases would contribute, proportionately by alternative, to a marked increase in the potential for amphibians to be crushed by motor vehicles, especially after metamorphosis, an increased potential for people to drive their vehicles through wet areas (i.e., “mud bogging”), loss of riparian and spring habitat (<0.6 acres), reduced habitat connectivity, an increased potential for sediments from motorized routes to be deposited in streams and wetlands, a potential reduction in snags and logs near riparian areas (due to firewood cutting), reduced herbaceous vegetation cover adjacent to roads (e.g., in and near riparian areas), and an increased potential for noxious weeds to impact amphibian habitat. Roads, including forest roads, is one of the biggest risk factors for amphibians. Reduced connectivity would be partially mitigated by using bridges and culverts that allow passage of amphibians under all alternatives.

The increases in mileage of open motorized-routes added under all action alternatives would be disproportionately added near riparian areas. Opening / creating the new Upper Cabin Creek – Deadhorse Creek route (Alternatives 2 and 4) has the highest potential of any new route to negatively impact amphibians or their habitat, as there are numerous springs and small wetlands along the existing closed road and the new route would directly impact as much as 0.5 acres of wet forb meadow habitat. The new route east of the Greys River Road (Alternatives 3 and 4) crosses two riparian areas, parallels a riparian area for about 0.5 miles, and passes near a wet meadow. The South Three Forks route parallels a riparian area with beaver pond complexes (within 50-100 m) for about 2.5 miles, although the route is located near the bottom of a south- facing slope. On the other hand, few of the closed roads and unauthorized routes that currently are being used by the public are within 200 m of perennial streams, meaning that curtailing motorized use of closed and unauthorized routes would have little effect on the mileage of perennial streams within 200 m of motorize routes and would have few potential benefits to amphibians.

Of the action alternatives, the largest proportion of the project area that is beyond 720 m of used motorized routes would occur under Alternative 3 (23.9%), Alternative 2 (21.9%) would fall close behind this, and Alternative 4 (12.3%) would fall well below Alternative 3 (Table 19). This

126 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

compares with 30.3% under existing conditions and Alternative 1. This indicates the relatively- small amount of the project area that is far enough away from motorized routes whereby crushing by vehicles during amphibian migration would be of little concern.

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have few seasonal restrictions that would mitigate negative effects of motorized use on amphibians, combined with Alternative 4 increasing the mileage of open routes far more than any alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have sufficient seasonal restrictions to mitigate some of the negative effects of motorized use on amphibians, including mitigation of some of the added impacts of increasing the mileage of open motorized routes. Alternative 3 would have the most miles of any alternative that would be closed until July 1 (slightly more than Alternative 2). Changing the opening date from May 1 or June 1 (Alternative 1) to July 1 on 88% and 94% of open-motorized routes under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, would reduce the potential of adult frogs being crushed while they migrate to and from breeding wetlands. Adding closure dates of September 10 to about 46% and 38% of the motorized-route system under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, would reduce the potential for adult and juvenile frogs to be crushed by motor vehicles on their way to hibernation sites. However, adding a closure date of October 10 would have little effect on frogs because nearly all or all frogs would have already migrated to hibernation sites by October 10. Because construction of new routes and major reconstruction of existing routes would not commence until after July 20, the potential for crushing frogs by trail-construction equipment during migrations to and from breeding sites would be minimal. None of the seasonal closures in any of the alternatives would mitigate potential impacts to metamorphs when they move away from breeding sites sometimes in large numbers, which is the biggest risk factor pertaining to crushing by vehicles.

Table 18. Proportion perennial stream miles (within each of three geographic areas) that occur within each Road Effect Zone (open routes only) for each alternative. Table 17b. Proportion perennial stream miles (within each of three geographic areas) that occur within each Road Effect Zone (open routes only) for each alternative (A1, A2, A3, and A4). DFC 1B DFC 10 Project Area in Mgt. Area 35 in Mgt. Area 32 Road-Effect Zone A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 0-100 m 33.3 37.8 42.3 43.1 34.2 36.0 36.0 37.0 24.6 24.9 24.6 24.9 101-200 m 16.9 19.2 18.4 20.5 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 15.0 16.1 15.0 16.1 0-360 m 59.0 70.0 72.4 77.6 59.0 62.0 63.3 63.1 49.1 52.4 49.9 52.9 361 - 720 m 16.7 18.3 16.9 16.5 16.8 17.7 16.9 17.5 12.2 11.5 11.3 10.8 721 – 1,080 m 14.5 7.7 7.1 5.6 11.7 8.8 8.7 8.3 11.5 11.1 11.7 10.9 1,081 – 1,440 m 5.7 1.7 1.8 0.4 6.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 13.2 12.5 13.2 12.5 1,441 – 1,800 m 2.9 1.7 1.2 0 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 5.9 5.3 5.9 5.3 >1,800 m 1.2 0.6 0.6 0 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

127 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Table 19. Percent of each of three geographic areas that would be in each of four road-effect zones relative to open motorized routes, and the percent change from open routes under Alternative 1 to open routes under each of the action alternatives (italicized in parentheses). All numbers in the cells are percentages. DFC 1B in DFC 10 in Road-Effect Zone relative to used Project Area Mgt. Area 35 Mgt. Area 32 motorize routes A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 0-100 m 17.1 18.1 18.9 22.3 15.5 15.2 15.9 16.3 7.8 7.9 6.9 8.3 % change (+6) (+11) (+30) (-2) (+3) (+5) (+1) (-12) (+6) 0-200 m 29.7 32.9 34.1 40.0 28.1 29.1 30.2 31.0 14.2 15.5 13.7 16.1 % change (+11) (+15) (+35) (+4) (+7) (+10) (+9) (-4) (+13) >361 m 54.7 48.9 48.2 39.2 55.1 53.8 52.7 51.1 76.9 74.7 77.5 73.9 % change (-11) (-12) (-28) (-2) (-5) (-7) (-3) (+1) (-4) >720 m 30.3 21.9 23.9 12.3 30.2 28.5 27.0 26.2 59.1 56.1 60.3 55.0 % change (-28) (-21) (-59) (-6) (-11) (-13) (-5) (+2) (-7)

Cumulative Effects As with a large number of amphibian species, there are concerns about declining population levels and distributions of spotted frogs and boreal toads (especially boreal toads), and as is typical of most declines in amphibian abundance and distribution, there is a large number of contributing factors for the declines in spotted frogs and boreal toads in western Wyoming (Patla 2000, Patla and Keinath 2005, Keinath and McGee 2005) and, more specifically, in the Greys River/Tri-basin area (see DeLong 2015). It seems clear that chitrid fungus is the major source of declines in the distribution and abundance of boreal toads, but a large amount of scientific information (summarized in DeLong 2015) demonstrates that (1) these many other factors have had high potential for affecting the degree to which chitrid fungus has impacted boreal toad distribution and abundance, and (2) some reductions in their distribution and abundance may have had more to do with factors other than chitrid fungus. Chitrid fungus may have impacted spotted frogs on the Greys River/Tri-basin area less than it has impacted boreal toads, meaning that other factors may have a contributed proportionately more to reductions in the distribution and abundance of spotted frogs. Some factors may independently have no more than negligible or minor effects (including individual elements of a given alternative), but together with a number of other factors may measurably affect the distribution and abundance of these species.

Factors that affect or have potential to affect amphibian habitat and populations in the project area and Greys River/Tri-basin area include chitrid fungus and other diseases, climate change (e.g., effects on amount and timing of precipitation), elevated nitrogen levels from the atmosphere, increases in ultraviolet radiation, prevalence of roads and motorized trails in riparian zones and near riparian areas (e.g., crushing by motor vehicles on and off roads/trails, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, altered hydrology), dispersed camping associated with these roads and trails, spread of disease (e.g., disease organisms transported on vehicles, boots, equipment, livestock, pets), impacts to wetlands due to mud bogging, historic over-trapping of beavers, a recovering beaver population, declines in the distribution and abundance of aspen and limitations on aspen recovery which in turn may limit reestablishment of beaver in some drainages, fewer acres of early-seral forests and meadow/non-forest habitat, logging and mechanical treatment of forestlands, altered vegetation in wetlands and riparian areas due to historic livestock grazing, lowered retention levels of herbaceous vegetation around wetlands and in riparian areas due to

128 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

livestock grazing, crushing mortality by livestock, possible reductions in water quality and sedimentation (e.g., from roads, trails, lowered ground cover on rangelands, defecation and urination by livestock, livestock trampling), development of private lands immediately north of the project area, coal mining in the Blind Bull drainage (3 miles above the project area) and other nearby areas, fish stocking in ponds and lakes that did not naturally support trout, and poisoning of trout in the LaBarge Creek watershed above the barrier (e.g., Patla 2000, Keinath and McGee 2005, Patla and Keinath 2005; see DeLong 2015 for numerous citations). This is a total of 20 factors that likely have had some effect on amphibians in the Greys River/Tri-Basin area and the vicinity of the project area, and several of these can be subdivided into individual elements that affect amphibians.

While the slight to small negative project-level effects of Alternative 2 and small to moderately- small negative project-level effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 on the suitability of amphibian habitat and potential for increased mortality would translate to near-immeasurable effects of Alternatives 2-4 the Bridger-Teton scale (i.e., seemingly inconsequential effects), this same level of effect — and some larger level effects at the “project” level — is occurring in numerous places throughout the Bridger-Teton and at larger scales, meaning that the project-level effects under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (especially Alternatives 3 and 4) would contribute to substantive population-level effects. While chitrid fungus has likely been driving the population decline of boreal toads on the Bridger-Teton, and possibly spotted frogs, it very likely is the combined effects of chitrid fungus and numerous small impacts throughout their ranges that have caused the downward trend in distribution and abundance that has resulted in the distribution and abundance we see today.

The range of potential effects caused by roads and motorized vehicles has already been discussed. Aside from disease, they likely have had the largest impact on boreal toads and spotted frogs in the project area and possibly throughout the Greys River watershed. The creation of the Greys River Road combined with the widening and straightening that occurred in 2000 likely had major negative impacts on spotted frogs, boreal toads, and other amphibian species, despite the Environmental Assessment or the wildlife report for the 2000 project not identifying any impacts (USFS 2000, Bills et al. 2000). Although the amount of scientific information on the subject has grown considerably since 2000, a large volume of scientific literature existed at that time that existed on the subject… sufficient to clearly show the threat posed by widening and straightening the road (combined with an understanding that traffic volumes and speeds would increase). Impacts included considerable loss of riparian habitat (both from road widening and moving the road from adjoining slopes to the riparian zone in places), a considerable increase in crushing by vehicles, altered hydrology, and reduced habitat connectivity. Several known breeding sites are immediately adjacent to the road, which sets the stage for high mortality when metamorphs emerge and leave the ponds as well as increased mortality of adults traveling to and from the breeding ponds, as well as adults as they travel during the summer. The degree to which the road upgrade contributed to downward trends, including contributions to possible disappearance of some breeding sites, is unknown, but it has the potential to be a major contributing factor. (See subsections “4. Direct Mortality” and “5. Reduced Habitat Connectivity” in the “G. Amphibians” section in Part I for one example of a short section of road that reduced a local population of spotted frogs by 81% or more in Yellowstone National Park).

One of the main impacts likely has been increased mortality of adults and juveniles, and where the road adjoins breeding wetlands, increased mortality of metamorphs. Combined with heavy grazing to the sides of the road (USFS 2004a), the road corridor also can increase the potential for desiccation and increased predation risk. Another important effect has been a larger number of

129 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

OHVs transported further up the Greys River, which has contributed to greater impacts stemming from this increased use. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would compound negative effects of motorized use on amphibians in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013).

Alternatives 2-4 would contribute further to the upward trend in the mileage of open motorized routes, with Alternative 2 making the lowest contribution and Alternative 4 making the highest; compounding this are (1) Alternative 2’s more aggressive design features for curtailing use of closed roads and unauthorized routes, and (2) the creation of a motorized trail about 200 m from the only known existing breeding site of spotted frogs in the project area under Alternatives 3 and 4. All action alternatives would all contribute to the trend of a disproportionate increase in motorized routes near riparian areas. An estimated 50% of perennial stream miles in the project area are already within 200 m of open motorized routes (33% within 100 m), which likely has elevated mortality rates (as a consequence of crushing by motor vehicles), reduced riparian habitat by as much as 200 acres, fragmented habitat and hindered amphibian movements (especially across the Greys River Road), and altered hydrology. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would — proportionate to the degree of effects of each alternative — further increase each of these effects or the potential for them to occur, which reduces the potential for (1) spotted frogs and boreal toads remaining in the project area if a small number of active breeding sites persists, or (2) spotted frogs and boreal toads successfully expanding into the project area if no active breeding sites remain.

Extensive beaver trapping from 1818 through 1840 decimated the beaver population in the Greys River/Tri-Basin area. Wyoming Partners in Flight (2003) listed the removal of beaver as one of the prevailing problems impacting riparian bird communities in the state, and this likely impacted amphibian populations as well (see DeLong 2015 for discussion and supporting documentation). In addition to a lower distribution and abundance of pond habitat, reduced beaver distribution and abundance, especially in narrow valley bottoms, ultimately resulted in a lower acreage of wet meadows and moist meadows which occur at different stages of beaver pond succession. This could affect amphibian populations particularly in tributaries not supporting trout populations. Gruell (1975) observed that beavers are now absent in small, sometimes steep drainages where they historically occurred in the Greys River drainage, as evidenced by remnant dams. He surmised that conifer encroachment and loss of aspen limits reestablishment of beavers in these drainages. The distribution and abundance of beaver pond complexes likely remains lower than what it was under natural conditions, primarily due to the ongoing aging of forests and conifer expansion.

The under representation of early-seral forest communities and expansion of conifer trees into non-forested habitats, including meadows, likely has had a range of effects on amphibians, including Logging throughout the center of the project area from south to north (in association with the extensive road networks south of Meadow Creek and north and south of Bear Creek, North Three Forks, and South Three Forks) and in the northeastern corner. It is possible that the operation of logging equipment directly impacted local spotted frog and/or boreal toad populations (if they existed in these areas), and it is possible that clearcuts indirectly affected them, but the main effect of logging operations was the roads they left behind and the use these have received since then (i.e., impacts of motorized use). Two other sets of effects stemming from these logging efforts are (1) the direct and indirect effects of the roads and associated motorized use, and (2) the foundation of a road system that eventually has led to the MGMT project

130 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

(Alternatives 2-4) and its host of direct and indirect effects. The Bear Creek aspen treatment was very small and likely had no more than negligible effects on amphibians.

Year-to-year effects of cattle and sheep grazing include reduced herbaceous vegetation in and around breeding and summer-long wetlands and in migration habitat, reduced insect habitat, potential for crushing of metamorphs and adults, possible acceleration of water level declines in small isolated pools, caving in of burrows near the ground surface (see DeLong 2015 for citations and more discussion). Creation of permanent open corridors through forestland could facilitate the movement of cattle into capable amphibian habitat currently not used by cattle, especially the route east of the Greys River Road. Historic sheep grazing contributed to reduced ground cover in headwater and other rangeland areas (Cabin, Bear Creek, and Three Forks sheep allotments) (USFS 1997, USFS 2005a), and because depleted ground cover is known to contribute to elevated surface runoff (Thurow 1991, Satturlund and Adams 1992), it has the potential to contribute to reduced water quality which in turn can affect amphibians, especially larva, if breeding pools are located below degraded rangelands (Keinath and McGee 2005). Increased sedimentation of wetlands also has the potential to contribute to premature filling-in of affected wetlands (see DeLong 2015). Negative effects of livestock grazing would be compounded more by the negative effects of Alternative 4 than by the negative effects of Alternative 2, with compounding effects of Alternative 3 falling in-between but closer to Alternative 2. Migratory Birds (E.O. 13186 ) Executive Order 13186 and the MOU 2008 between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires the Forest Service to (1) provide suitable habitat for migratory birds, and (2) evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds as part of the NEPA process.

Indicators Addressed Indicators used in the analysis are:

1. Habitat Effectiveness

(which encompasses fright-flight response, avoidance, change in vigilance and foraging rates, physiological condition, communication effectiveness, and nest abandonment):

a) Amount of bird habitat within 200 m of motorized routes and beyond 360 m.

b) Miles of perennial streams within 100 m and 200 m of motorized routes.

c) Route closure dates for motorized use as a supplemental proxy for human disturbance.

d) Starting date for construction.

2. Amount of habitat lost due to route placement.

3. Habitat Connectivity and Mix of Succession Stages:

a) Habitat connectivity and fragmentation.

b) Effects on fire ecology, and mix of succession stages.

4. Within-Community Habitat Conditions:

131 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

a) Herbaceous vegetation, soils, and wetland disturbance.

b) Altered hydrology.

c) Water quality.

d) Introduction and spread of noxious weeds (within 100 m, and up to and beyond 1,800 m)

e) Density of snags and logs within 100 m of motorized routes.

5. Direct Mortality (e.g., vehicle-bird collisions, running-over nests).

For each of the indicators above, as pertinent, the following elements of the proposed action and alternatives are considered:

• Existing placement and “occupancy” of existing motorized routes.

• Construction phase for new routes, re-routing of existing routes, changes to existing routes; and construction of gates, placement of barricades, and decommissioning activities.

• Placement and “occupancy” of new routes.

• Increased use of motorized routes in project area (i.e., increased traffic volumes).

• Closed routes and unauthorized routes that are being used by the public, and that would continue to be used under different alternatives.

• Pioneering of new motorized routes.

• Changes in the type of vehicle to be accommodated by different motorized route types.

Not all indicators are addressed in the summary of the analysis presented in this environmental assessment. See DeLong and Egan (2017) for a detailed analysis of effects using these indicators.

Affected Environment

Suitable Conditions by Indicator Group A. Habitat Effectiveness

No scientific information was found on road density thresholds for migratory birds, although a large volume of literature on the effects of motorized use on migratory birds shows there to be an increasing level of adverse impacts with an increasing mileage and density of motorized routes. This allowed suitable conditions to be defined in the following subsection.

1. Amount of bird habitat within 200 m of motorized routes and beyond 360 m (the main measure for migratory birds) ― Available information indicates (1) habitat effectiveness for migratory birds to be substantively reduced within 200 m of used motorized routes, especially within 100 m; (2) reduced habitat effectiveness for a range of bird species is likely between 201 and 360 m of used motorized routes; (3) little to no reduction in habitat effectiveness for many bird species, possible reduction in habitat effectiveness for some bird species, and probable reductions for a small number of species between 361 and 720 m; and (4) little to no

132 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

reduction in habitat effectiveness for nearly all bird species and possible reductions for a small number of species beyond 720 m, and accompanying write-up; and section H of the “Review of Scientific Information…” in Part I). Suitable habitat conditions, from the standpoint of habitat effectiveness, is deemed to be areas that are further than 360 m from used motorized routes, for the purposes of this analysis, recognizing that increased vigilance, reduced feeding rates, displacement, reduced nest success can happen beyond this distance. Areas beyond 720 m are deemed to be relatively unaffected by motorized activity on used motorized routes.

Barton and Holmes (2007) is the only study found on the effects of OHVs on nest success, and they found greater nest desertion and abandonment within 100 m of OHV trails; other studies support these findings. Displacement of birds is prevalent within 100-200 m for a wide range of species, and also occurs between 201 m and 720 m for a range of species including several raptor species, and beyond 720 m, to as far as 1,000 to 1,500 m or more.

Increased vigilance and reduced foraging by a range of bird species likely occurs within 200- 360 m of used motorized routes, and has a reasonable likelihood of occurring for some bird species between 361 m and 720 m and possibly beyond this for a small number of species. Vigilance of migrating birds significantly increased and foraging time was significantly lower where traffic noise was 55 dB, compared to where noise was ≤32 dB, and negative effects were even more pronounced at 61dB (Ware et al. 2015a). The noise from ATVs/dirt bikes can be ≥55 dB as far as 60-380 m for 1 moderately-noisy vehicle (noise levels as high as about 61 dB extend as far as about 230-300 m for 1-2 moderately-noisy vehicles), and is ≥55 dB for ≥ 1,500 m for noisy vehicles (noise levels as high as about 61 dB extend as far as about 840- 1,150 m for 1-2 noisy vehicles). Sandhill cranes more than 300 m from the road usually showed no response to passing vehicles, compared to cranes at closer distances, which oftentimes became alert and interrupted feeding.

No scientific studies were found that examined the amount or proportion of geographic areas that need to have suitable levels of habitat effectiveness for migratory birds. For the purposes of this analysis, the threshold identified for elk in DFC 10 areas (i.e., ≥60% habitat effectiveness; USFS 1990a:109) was used as a proxy, recognizing that, if habitat effectiveness for elk was maintained above 60%, this would be retain a relatively large portion of the area at a suitable habitat effectiveness for migratory birds. As such, the following proportions would appear to minimize less-than-suitable habitat and maintain a relatively large amount of suitable habitat for migratory birds while allowing some level of motorized access. In model results , situations having a habitat effectiveness estimate of about 60% (for elk) were found, and the proportion of the area within 200 m and further than 360 m and 720 m were identified. The elk habitat effectiveness for DFC 10 areas was used instead of the threshold for DFC 12 areas because DFC 10 areas emphasize wildlife in balance with providing for other uses, while DFC 12 areas have higher emphasis on wildlife (i.e., ≥85% habitat effectiveness for elk). The following thresholds are those that represent, for the purposes of this analysis, an adequate level of habitat effectiveness for migratory birds with respect to the disturbance effects of motorized use; they probably are conservative toward providing motorized opportunities. The figures are consistent with effects of other aspects of motorized use on migratory birds and their habitat (Table 11). Because most impacts occur within 200 m, the 200 m threshold likely is most important, and habitat beyond 360 m likely represents a fairly high level of habitat effectiveness for most migratory birds.

133 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

<10-15% of the area within 200 m of used motorized routes; and

75-100% of the area that is beyond 360 m of used motorized routes.

2. Miles of Perennial Streams and Associated Riparian Areas within 100 m and 200 m of Motorized Routes ― This is an important indicator for migratory birds because riparian areas comprise such a small portion of the landscape (<5% of landscapes) yet have a higher bird species richness than any other type of habitat except aspen types. Despite occupying <5% of the landscape, Krueper (1993:321) stressed that “Over 60% of the species which Partners In Flight have identified as neotropical migratory birds use riparian areas in the West as stopover areas during migration or for breeding habitat. Ideally, given the high potential for negative effects of motorized routes on birds when motorized routes are within 200 m of habitat they occupy, no motorized routes would be located within 200 m of riparian areas, and few motorized routes would be located 201-720 m of riparian areas. The Forest Plan does not call for ideal conditions, however, nor does migratory bird requirements. The Forest Plan recognizes the importance of riparian areas: “These areas are managed as basic resources for forest management, key to the future productivity of the Bridger-Teton National Forest” (USFS 1990a:133, the Riparian Areas, Wetlands, and Floodplains Prescription). Also, the Streamside Road Standard requires that, “Whenever possible, roads will avoid riparian areas or drainageways…. Roads presently within riparian areas will be relocated outside of riparian areas where possible.”

Little scientific information appears to be available defines suitable habitat in terms of upper thresholds of motorized routes in and close to riparian areas in managed landscapes. On the other hand, the proportion of perennial stream miles in the project area and in the DFC 10 area of Management Area 32 that currently are within 100-200 m of motorized routes (1) are clearly higher under existing conditions than what could be considered within the range of suitability for riparian birds, and (2) the proportions remain the same or increase under all action alternatives. Whether suitable conditions for this habitat element are defined, the analysis will show that suitable conditions are not currently being met and would not be met under any of the action alternatives.

3. Route closure dates for motorized use, as a supplemental proxy for human disturbance ― Ideally for breeding migratory birds, seasonal closures would last until after the nesting season; opening motorized routes on August 15 would ensure that eggs and nestlings would not be impacted directly or indirectly by motorized use. By August 15, nearly all nestling would have left their nests. However, the Forest Plan and migratory bird requirements under Executive Order 13186 do not require ideal conditions to be met.

If motorized route densities are low enough that reduced nest success (caused by motorized use) occurs on only a small proportion of habitat, seasonal closures would not be needed. If, on the other hand, the stage is set for reduced nest success on more than a small proportion of habitat, seasonal closures would help retain suitable conditions for nesting, especially in DFC 10 areas. No information was found on suitable closing and opening dates for migratory birds, but it is recognized that (1) the longer the opening date goes into the summer (e.g., July 1 vs. June 1) and the sooner motorized trails are closed in the late summer (e.g., September 10 vs. October 10), the better the situation is for these species. Fall closure dates help retain suitable conditions for staging and migrating birds.

134 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

4. Starting date for construction ― Similarly, the longer the starting date for construction activities goes into the summer (e.g., July 20 vs. June 1), the better the situation would be for goshawks, great gray owls, and northern three-toed woodpeckers that occur in the project area. For goshawks, suitable conditions include delaying construction activities within 800 m of an active nest until after August 15. Delaying construction until after July 20 would be sufficient for great gray owls and northern three-toed woodpeckers.

B. Amount of Habitat Lost due to Route Placement

While the direct loss of habitat to roads has been identified as one threat to some species of migratory birds, especially where riparian, wetland, and other proportionally small habitat types are lost, no minimum thresholds of habitat retention were found (i.e., how much does it take to retain suitable habitat?). Also, while the acreage of habitat lost at the project level may seem inconsequential, it contributes to a large problem at landscape and regional scales. The compilation of small losses at countless local sites across the Rocky Mountains, in combination with other stressors impacting habitat, can result in large reductions in and impacts to habitats that already comprise small proportions of landscapes. For the purposes of this analysis, suitable conditions would be those whereby no more than a small reduction in riparian or wet meadow habitat occurs. An obvious problem with this approach is that, after several projects have been implemented, less-than-suitable habitat may remain.

C. Habitat Connectivity and Mix of Succession Stages

There appears to only be one habitat-connectivity issue that has potential to affect migratory birds, and that is the facilitation of cowbird nest parasitism by permanent open corridors created in what would otherwise be forestland. Creating openings in otherwise contiguous forestland sets the stage for increased cowbird nest parasitism into parts of forests that otherwise would not have been affected. While implications to migratory bird populations of creating a new permanent open corridor through a forest stand likely is negligible, effects of these corridors at large geographic scales in combination with other factors that increase cowbird nest parasitism at these scales can be large. However, beyond minimizing the degree to which fragmentation occurs that can facilitate cowbird nest parasitism, no information was located to readily define maximum thresholds to help limit nest parasitism to acceptable levels.

Aside from cowbird nest parasitism, there would be no need to define suitable retention of habitat connectivity for migratory birds. There would be virtually no habitat fragmentation under any of the alternatives that would hinder migratory bird movements across motorized-route corridors. While it would be possible for habitat of some prey species (e.g., small mammals, insects) to be fragmented by motorized routes, this would appear to not affect prey distribution and abundance sufficiently to warrant further consideration.

Suitable conditions for the mix of succession stages in forest and rangeland types consist of a relatively-natural mix of succession stages for each type. This is important for migratory birds for several reasons including (1) reduced habitat availability for species that depend on or use early- and mid-seral communities, including species that depend on aspen stands; (2) reduced distribution and abundance of beaver ponds due in part to reduced distribution and abundance of aspen, which in turn is a consequence of advanced succession uninterrupted by fire; and (3) reduced acreage and distribution of moist meadow, silver sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and other open habitats.

135 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

D. Within-Community Habitat Conditions

Suitable conditions for the habitat elements included in this subsection consist of the following, as discussed and supported in DeLong (2015). The most important to amphibians, with respect to motorized routes and motorized use in the project area, are numbers 1 and 2 (in riparian areas and adjacent to wetlands), and 3, 4, and 5 wherever streams, wetlands, wet meadows, and springs occur.

1. Herbaceous communities and understories that have approximately-natural compositions of herbaceous species and vegetation structure, allowing for some nonnative species in these communities except noxious weeds, which need to be absent for suitable conditions to exist.

2. No disturbance of wetland, wet meadow, or spring habitat by motor vehicles; i.e., no impacts to soils, vegetation, and water, or to wetland wildlife (e.g., crushing, displacement) caused by vehicles being driven through wetlands.

3. Hydrology of wetlands and springs that is no more than minimally affected by motorized routes, including no more than minor influences on the premature filling of wetlands with sediments due to elevated sedimentation rates coming from motorized routes.

4. Water in streams that meet Wyoming State Water Quality Standards would provide water of suitable water quality for aquatic invertebrates and fish. Water quality in isolated, basin wetlands used by these species meet Wyoming Water Quality Standards for aquatic life other than fish.

5. An approximately-natural density of snags and logs in forestlands, especially near riparian areas and wetlands. Appendix 23 of Thomas et al. (1979c) indicates that 2.25-3 snags (≥10” dbh)/acre would provide for 100% of the maximum potential populations of woodpeckers. Actual figures for maintaining 100% of the maximum potential populations were 2.25 snags (≥10” dbh)/acre for mixed conifer forests and 3 snags (≥10” dbh)/acre for aspen forests.

E. Direct Mortality

Suitable conditions for this element entail environmental conditions in which mortality from collision with vehicles and crushing of eggs and nestlings by vehicles contributes no more than minimally to mortality in local populations of migratory birds, especially during the breeding season and immediately afterward. This is supported by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186, which prohibit the “taking” of migratory birds, even if it is unintentional.

Existing Conditions

Population Status The status (e.g., USFS sensitive species, USFWS species of conservation concern) of many of the project area’s migratory bird species are identified in Table 20, and population trends of 75 migratory bird species are shown in Table 21, based on U.S. Geological Survey’s Breeding Bird Surveys (Sauer et al. 2015).

Table 20. Designations and habitat associations for selected migratory bird species (and one grouse).

136 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Migratory Bird Designations Types of Habitat and Habitat Elements

Lists and , Conserv.

Beaver Ponds

Plans Willow USFWS (Wyoming Seral Communities

A - seral Conifer Big Mountain seral

BMC and Interm. USFS - - and West Joint Sensitive arian A Bird Species BCC Venture) Species Late Snags Aspen Late Sagebrush Forest Meadows and Meadows, Riparian Early Rip Cottonwood Streams & Common Loon* W-II X Trumpeter Swan* M IWJV, W-I X X Canada goose M IWJV X X Mallard M IWJV X X X Gadwall M IWJV X X Green-winged teal M IWJV X X Cinnamon teal M IWJV X X Ring-necked duck M X Harlequin duck M IWJV, W-II X X X Barrow’s goldeneye IWJV X X Common goldeneye M X X Bald eagle M, C W-I X X X X X Golden eagle M W-III X X Northern harrier W-III X Northern goshawk M W-I X X X Sharp-shinned hawk M X X X X Swainson’s hawk* M, C W-I X X Ferruginous hawk* M, C W-I X X Merlin W-II X X X X Peregrine falcon M, C W-I X X Prairie falcon M W-III X X Blue grouseA W-III X Greater sage grouseA W-I X X X X Sora* M X Sandhill crane M X X X Common snipe X Mourning dove M X X X Western Screech Owl W-II X X Flammulated owl M, C X X X X Great gray owl W-II X X X Boreal owl W X X X Short-eared owl* M W-I X X Broad-tailed hummingbird W-II X X X X X Calliope hummingbird M, C W-II X X X X Rufous hummingbird M W-II X X X X X Lewis’s woodpecker* M, C W-II X X Northern flicker X X X Red-naped sapsucker W-II X X X Williamson’s sapsucker C W-II X X Downy woodpecker X X X X Hairy woodpecker X X X N. three-toed woodpecker W-II X X X • Bird species in bold are those that (1) occur in the project area, and that are either (2) identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as being of conservation concernA or management concernA or (2) are a level I or level II species in the Wyoming Partners in Flight Plan and are not represented by BMC or BCC. • Based on Wyo. Partners in Flight 2003 and Cerovski et al. 2004 • A M = Birds of Management Concern, and C = Birds of Conservation Concern in BCR 10, based on E.O. 13186 and MOU (USFS and USFWS 2008).

137 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

• B Grouse are included in the “Migratory Bird” section because, although they are not “migratory birds,” they are the only bird species in this area not classified as migratory birds. With their inclusion, this section covers all bird species. • * Likely not in project area.

Table 21. Estimated trends in populations of 75 bird species known or predicted to occur in the Middle Greys Project Area, based on 1968-2015 Breeding Bird Surveys in Wyoming. SpeciesA N Trend 95% CI Reg. Cred.B Canada Goose 64 9.75 6.56, 13.05 Y Bald Eagle 28 9.70 5.97, 13.48 R Common Raven 85 6.09 4.83, 7.30 B Hammond's Flycatcher 12 5.01 1.18, 9.26 Y Sandhill Crane 54 4.73 2.83, 6.62 B Dusky Flycatcher 36 3.28 1.61, 4.99 Y Williamson’s Sapsucker 6 3.08 -2.15, 8.28 R Brown Creeper 11 2.99 -3.18, 11.83 R Lincoln's Sparrow 34 2.85 0.60, 5.06 B White-crowned Sparrow 44 1.73 0.23, 3.29 B House Wren 81 1.61 0.58, 2.62 B Red-tailed Hawk 120 1.27 0.41, 2.13 B Ruffed Grouse 13 1.18 -4.35, 7.77 R Tree Swallow 75 0.96 -0.42, 2.32 B Warbling Vireo 60 0.90 -0.05, 1.79 B Western Wood-Pewee 79 0.79 -0.34, 1.94 B Black-headed Grosbeak 59 0.70 -0.68, 2.09 Y Olive-sided Flycatcher 18 0.64 -1.70, 3.26 Y Black-billed Magpie 103 0.64 -0.58, 1.69 B Green-tailed Towhee 76 0.54 -0.96, 1.71 B Brown-headed Cowbird 114 0.50 -0.64, 1.65 B Western Tanager 56 0.43 -1.31, 1.91 B Song Sparrow 93 0.39 -0.53, 1.36 B Broad-tailed Hummingbird 28 0.36 -1.46, 2.17 Y Ruby-crowned Kinglet 42 0.32 -0.89, 1.61 B Mountain Bluebird 104 0.24 -0.95, 1.52 B Lazuli Bunting 54 0.21 -1.85, 2.39 B Cooper's Hawk 19 0.05 -4.57, 4.45 R Fox Sparrow 15 0.01 -3.88, 3.79 Y Hairy Woodpecker 37 0.00 -2.02, 1.94 Y Northern Goshawk 19 -0.05 -3.37, 2.80 R Northern Flicker 108 -0.17 -1.10, 0.75 B Red-breasted Nuthatch 37 -0.35 -2.14, 1.44 Y Townsend's Solitaire 34 -0.37 -2.66, 1.68 Y American Dipper 9 -0.41 -4.24, 3.65 R Least Flycatcher 22 -0.42 -3.97, 2.76 Y Great Blue Heron 80 -0.43 -1.90, 1.05 Y Common Nighthawk 121 -0.49 -1.69, 0.71 B Yellow Warbler 97 -0.54* -1.25, 0.13 B Red-naped Sapsucker 40 -0.57 -2.31, 1.27 Y

138 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

SpeciesA N Trend 95% CI Reg. Cred.B Mallard 115 -0.59 -1.83, 0.67 B Sharp-shinned Hawk 19 -0.73 -4.52, 3.06 R Hermit Thrush 27 -0.74 -2.19, 0.71 B MacGillivray's Warbler 35 -0.79 -3.60 1.22 Y Vesper Sparrow 125 -0.81** -1.52, -0.08 B Swainson's Thrush 33 -0.82 -4.20, 1.37 Y Clark's Nutcracker 43 -0.84 -3.08, 1.17 B Rock Wren 109 -0.90* -1.83, 0.06 G Yellow-rumped Warbler 43 -0.92* -2.04, 0.24 B Common Snipe 81 -0.96* -2.19, 0.31 B Mourning Dove 126 -0.96** -1.64, -0.33 B American Kestrel 118 -1.01** -1.87, -0.10 B Spotted Sandpiper 70 -1.02* -2.38, 0.35 Y American Robin 115 -1.02 -1.42, -0.62 B Chipping Sparrow 95 -1.07** -2.12, -0.09 B Dark-eyed Junco (all forms) 42 -1.24* -2.56, 0.07 B Mountain Chickadee 30 -1.41** -2.83, -0.02 B Common Merganser 46 -1.42 -3.98, 1.29 Y Downy Woodpecker 37 -1.42 -4.10, 1.28 R Black-capped chickadee 61 -1.43* -3.08, 0.08 Y Brewer's Blackbird 124 -1.44** -2.34, -0.47 B Belted Kingfisher 35 -1.52 -4.19, 1.37 R Great Horned Owl 67 -1.58* -3.52, 0.39 Y Wilson’s Warbler 22 -1.74* -4.20, 0.72 Y Cassin's Finch 34 -1.80* -4.15, 0.73 B Willow Flycatcher 48 -1.84* -3.83, 0.24 Y White-breasted Nuthatch 27 -2.05* -4.90, 0.76 Y Red Crossbill 36 -2.16 -5.51, 1.14 Y Green-winged Teal 68 -2.86** -5.13, -0.57 Y Pine Siskin 46 -3.06** -5.29, -0.73 B Golden-crowned Kinglet 11 -3.52* -8.81, 1.71 R Steller's Jay 18 -3.82** -7.86, -0.15 R Gray Jay 19 -4.22** -7.39, -1.02 Y Barrow's Goldeneye 12 -4.49* -9.02, 0.20 Y See Table 20 for the basis for bolded species. The list of species is ordered according to trend (from highest positive trend to lowest negative trend).

Thirty species have apparently stable or upward trends and 45 species have apparently stable or downward trends. Table 20 identifies the 95% confidence interval with each trend estimate. Ten of the 30 upward-trends are statistically significant at the 95%-CI level, and 11 of the 45 downward trends are statistically significant at this level (i.e., where the value ‘0’ is not encompassed with confidence interval; Sauer et al. 2014). (Significant negative trends are designated with two asterisks.) However, a 95% confidence interval sets a high bar and can erroneously result in actual downward trends not being treated as downward trends (Finney 1972, Peterman 1990). Sauer et al. (2014) did not provide options for examining trends with a lower confidence interval (e.g., 90%, 85%, 80%, or even 75%), which may be more appropriate for assessing population trends in a wildlife conservation setting where the consequences of

139 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

designating a trend as not being negative may be relatively high. For readers that only want to know which downward trends Sauer et al. (2014) is highly confident about defining, the 11 species with two negative figures in the CI pertain. If other species that likely have downward trends (e.g., where the positive number in the CI range is very low or the negative number is high relative to the positive figure, as designated with one asterisk), the number of species with likely downward trends increases to 24 (however, this does not factor in R’s in the table).

Because BBS surveys began in 1968, no data exists from the late 1800s through 1967. Some populations likely declined substantially during this earlier period due to habitat loss and alteration in Wyoming, habitat loss and alteration on winter ranges (e.g., southern U.S., Central America, and South America), pesticide use in Central and South America, among other factors. Also, trends during 1968 through 2015 do not fully take into account all factors that affect populations such as habitat loss since 1968 in Wyoming since routes many times were located in more natural areas. Also, many migratory bird populations continue to be impacted by habitat loss, reduced habitat quality, contaminants, and other factors in South and Central America (Finch 1991, Wyo. Partners in Flight 2003).

Also, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory began conducting bird surveys in 2010 on the Bridger-Teton (RMBO; http://rmbo.org/v3/avian/Home.aspx); there are 20 survey locations on the Bridger-Teton, although only two were surveyed in 2013 and 2014, and none are located near the MGMT project area. The two closest routes are located near Alpine and near Salt Pass/Smiths Fork Road. Insufficient data exists to determine population trends. Although surveys began in 2010 (after a pilot year in 2009), numbers and locations of sites fluctuated between 2010 and 2012, and there currently are only three years with consistent numbers and locations of surveys (2013 – 2016). Population size and population status have not been determined for the Bridger- Teton using data collected by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

Existing Conditions by Indicator Group These conditions are characterized in detail in the description of existing conditions in the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017).

Environmental Consequences

Determinations

Forest Plan Direction (NFMA) Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action (as part of the alternative) that would conflict with Forest Plan direction with respect to migratory birds (e.g., Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription), although inaction (i.e., not taking action to curb unauthorized motorized use) would continue to result in impacts.

Alternatives 2 and 3, given their seasonal closures and design features, do not appear to be inconsistent with the Fisheries and Wildlife Management Prescription (Bridger-Teton -wide) pertaining to migratory birds and the theme and management emphasis of DFC 10 areas, except that Alternative 2 is inconsistent with the management emphasis and theme for DFC 10 areas. Habitat effectiveness and security cover (with regard to the Habitat Effectiveness Standard and Security Area Standard) have not typically been applied to migratory birds, although the scientific literature indicates this should be done.

140 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

The alternatives vary on the degree to which they align with Forest Plan direction for DFC 10 areas, specifically in regard to direction (1) to provide long-term habitat to meet wildlife needs in balance with timber harvest, grazing, and minerals development (but not motorized recreation); and (2) “…to allow for… some roads while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife.” Alternative 3 is consistent with this direction since the net effect is a reduction in the amount of bird habitat in which habitat effectiveness is reduced by motorized use, as indicated by a reduction in the proportion of the DFC 10 portion of the project area that is within 200 m of used motorized routes and an increase in the proportion that is further than 360 m. The net effect of Alternative 2 would, however, be adverse effects on migratory birds since there would be an increase in the proportion of the DFC 10 portion of the project area that is within 200 m of used motorized routes and a reduction in the proportion that is further than 360 m. Negative impacts would be mitigated in part by a seasonal closure through most of the nesting season and again starting September 10, which covers a portion of the fall migration. As far as balancing among uses goes (as required in DFC 10 areas), motorized recreation, or recreation in general, was not identified in the Forest Plan as one of the uses to be balanced in DFC 10 areas. The determination for native ungulates is that Alternative 2 conflicts with the habitat effectiveness standard as it applies to elk (and moose), and this provides a proxy for the effects of these alternatives on migratory birds and other wildlife that are affected by motorized use. Even though Alternative 2 conflicts with this direction, it is not a standard, prescription, or guideline.

Even though motorized densities are high in the DFC 1B area of MA 35, and although Alternatives 2 and 3 would further reduce habitat effectiveness for migratory birds in this DFC area and would contribute further to other impacts (e.g., reduced snag densities), wildlife is not a management emphasis in DFC 1B areas.

Alternative 4, given the comparatively large increase in motorized routes, no more than limited seasonal closures, and limited design features, does not appear to be consistent with direction in the Forest Plan pertaining to migratory birds. However, because the overarching direction for DFC 10 areas was not stepped down to clear direction for migratory birds in objectives, standards, prescriptions, and/or guidelines, it cannot definitively be stated that Alternative 4 does not meet Forest Plan direction. This issue adds to the importance of the determination for native ungulates, elk in particular. Effects on elk provide a proxy for migratory birds.

In DFC 10 areas, the Forest Plan specifically in regard to direction (1) to provide long-term habitat to meet wildlife needs in balance with timber harvest, grazing, and minerals development (but not motorized recreation); and (2) “…to allow for… some roads while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife.” The net effect of Alternative 4 would be adverse effects on migratory birds since there would be an increase in the proportion of the DFC 10 portion of the project area that is within 200 m of used motorized routes and a reduction in the proportion that is further than 360 m. Negative impacts would not be mitigated by a seasonal closure since motorized use could begin as soon after May 1 as snow melt allows and would not stop until after fall migration is completed. Motorized recreation, or recreation in general, was not identified in the Forest Plan as one of the uses to be balanced in DFC 10 areas. Therefore, (1) it is clear that Alternative 4 would not result in “no adverse effect and some beneficial effects” on migratory birds; and (2) the determination for native ungulates is that Alternative 4 conflicts with the habitat effectiveness standard as it applies to elk (and moose), and this provides a proxy for the effects of these alternatives on migratory birds and other wildlife that are affected by motorized use.

141 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Migratory Bird Requirements: The following are excerpts from the 2008 MOU between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

C. BOTH PARTIES SHALL:

1. Protect, restore, and conserve habitat of migratory birds, addressing the responsibilities in Executive Order 13186.

In Executive Order 13186, several provisions call for the Forest Service to design management actions and plans to be consistent with principles, measures, and practices of migratory bird conservation plans.

D. FOREST SERVICE SHALL:

3. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable:

c) Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:

1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season;

2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented;

Under Alternative 1, the agency would not take any action (as part of the alternative) that would conflict with migratory bird requirements.

Alternatives 2 and 3 do not appear to be inconsistent with direction in Executive Order 13186 and the 2008 MOU, as trail construction activities would take place after July 20, the small reduction in snag densities along some motorized routes would be far outweighed by the high density of snags throughout the project area and Greys River watershed, both alternatives would greatly increase the mileage of routes affected by seasonal closures (e.g., resulting in a low proportion of the project area affected by motorized routes prior to July 1), and both alternatives include design features that would curtail motorized use of closed and unauthorized routes. Both alternatives took serious the need to mitigate adverse effects of motorized use.

Even though Alternatives 2 and 3 include a range of mitigation measures to avoid or lessen impacts to wildlife, including migratory birds, implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would incrementally contribute to downward trends of some bird species and may contribute to limiting recovery of other bird species’ populations. However, contributions would be negligible or small at the scale of the Bridger-Teton and both alternatives would mitigate negative effects substantively, especially Alternative 3 in the part of the project area that emphasizes wildlife (the DFC 10 area).

In contrast, Alternative 4 largely avoided design features that would have avoided or lessened adverse effects of motorized routes and motorized use on migratory birds and other wildlife, on top of adding considerably to the motorized-route network in the project area, although this alternative may still not be inconsistent with migratory bird requirements. This is mainly because

142 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

migratory bird requirements do not specifically address effects of motorized routes and motorized use.

However, even though effects of Alternative 4, relative to existing conditions, may be small enough to not trigger non-compliance with migratory bird requirements, and even though the small effects of the action alternatives on migratory birds in the project area have no more than negligible consequences on bird populations at the Bridger-Teton and state level, all indications are that implementation of Alternative 4 would incrementally contribute to downward trends of some bird species and may limit recovery of other bird species’ populations. And this would be done without any attempt at mitigating impacts that Alternatives 2 and 3 demonstrate can be mitigated. The lack of any attempts to mitigate negative impacts on migratory birds would appear to be in conflict with direction in E.O. 13186 and the 2008 MOU.

Determination for NEPA Alternative 1 would not have any impacts on migratory birds beyond what is already happening under existing conditions, and would continue to negatively affect the migratory bird community as a whole, relative to conditions in the absence of motorized routes and motorized use, except that expansion of motorized use onto more closed roads and creation of incrementally more unauthorized routes would likely continue (which would incrementally reduce habitat effectiveness and habitat quality). The distribution, abundance, and nest-success of some species of migratory birds would remain below the distribution, abundance, and nest-success that would occur in the absence of motorized routes and motorized use. This would have the potential to contribute to downward trends of some bird species at the Bridger-Teton and state scales, and may limit recovery of other bird species’ populations.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may affect individual migratory birds and parts of their habitat, and would likely result in further (incremental) increases in displacement of migratory birds, increases in habitat alteration, reductions in foraging time both by nesting adults and pre- migrating and migrating adults and juveniles, reductions in nest attentiveness, potential increases in cowbird nest parasitism, and potential increases in nest abandonment, which would contribute to reduced survival and nest success of some species. These effects would ultimately affect region-wide population trends (e.g., contributions to downward trends) that are cumulatively affected by an expansive motorized route network in the Rocky Mountains, habitat loss, habitat alterations, and a host of other factors. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have greater impacts than Alternative 1, but substantively less than Alternative 4. Negative effects would stem from an increase in the mileage of open motorized routes, an increase in the proportion of the project area within 200 m of used motorized routes, and an increase in the proportion of perennial stream miles (and associated riparian habitat) within 200 m of used motorized routes, which would be partially offset by curtailment of motorized use of closed and unauthorized routes, and an increase in the mileage of open motorized routes that are seasonally closed, especially prior to July 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar, having several offsetting effects. The increase in mileage of open routes would be higher in Alternative 3, but would be similar to Alternative 2, seasonal closures would be similar, and while Alternative 3 would impact a small portion of a riparian area, most of the mileage of new routes is in lodgepole pine forestland and a substantive portion of the mileage of the new route in Alternative 2 would be in moist aspen woodland (which would impact a greater diversity of birds than Alternative 3). Alternative 4 would impact all areas impacted by both Alternatives 2 and 3, thereby increasing the extent of motorized use more than under Alternatives 2 or 3, but would have few seasonal closures.

143 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have the least amount of negative impacts to migratory birds and their habitat (although negative impacts would be substantive), followed by Alternatives 2 and 3, while Alternative 4 would have the largest negative impacts to migratory birds. Alternative 2 would reduce habitat effectiveness on the least amount of acres, but it would be done in a larger area of higher bird diversity than would occur under Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 would reduce habitat effectiveness and suitability of migratory bird habitat more than any of the action alternatives.

Under existing conditions, the proportion of the project that is within 200 m of used motorized routes (29.7%) is already high, and these percentages would increase to 32.9% under Alternative 2, to 34%.1 under Alternative 3, and to 40.0% under Alternative 4 (Table 19). These increases (increases of 11%, 15%, and 35%, respectively) would contribute, proportionately by alternative, to an increased potential for migratory birds to be displaced, for their habitat use to be altered, their foraging time reduced, for nest success to be lower, and for nests to be abandoned. Negative impacts to nesting birds from motorized use has been demonstrated for a wide range of bird species, especially within 200 m but as far as 1,000 m or more for a small number of species. Because many nests likely would be established near motorized routes when routes are not being used by motor vehicles, the onset of motorized use partway through the nesting season would result in reduced nest attentiveness, reduced feeding of young, and nest abandonment, especially within 100 m, but as far as 200 m for some species (and beyond 200 m for still other species). The loud, intermittent sound associated with OHVs reduces the potential for habituation. Reduced habitat use, and reduced foraging time and weight gains (for those remaining near motorized routes) have even been demonstrated for fall migrating birds in conifer forestland in southwestern Idaho (McClure et al. 2013, Ware et al. 2015a). These results, in combination with documented effects on nesting, strongly indicate that feeding and care of fledglings for a range of bird species would be impacted near motorized routes, especially within 200 m. The proportion of the project area that is beyond 200 m represents suitable habitat effectiveness for migratory birds, recognizing that fairly substantive impacts of motorized use can occur well beyond 200 m for a range of bird species.

Under existing conditions, the proportion of the project area’s mileage of perennial streams within 200 m of open motorized routes (50.2%) is already high, and this percentage would increase to 57% under Alternative 2, to 60.7% under Alternative 3, and to 63.6% under Alternative 4 (Table 18). These percentages, compared to percentages in the previous paragraph, show that riparian birds are disproportionately impacted by the existing motorized-route network and would be disproportionately impacted by the net changes resulting from each action alternative; in other words, the proportion of perennial stream miles (and associated riparian habitat) within 200 m of used motorized routes is much higher than the proportion of habitat — in general — that is within 200 m of used motorized routes.

These changes would contribute, proportionately by alternative, to increased displacement of birds from areas near motorized routes, reductions in foraging rates and nest success, potential increases in nest abandonment (especially within 100 m of routes), and potential reductions in the ability of birds to communicate. Traffic volume would be expected to increase over time under all action alternatives, which would further increase the potential for impacts. In riparian areas, where impacts to habitat effectiveness are disproportionately high, riparian birds would be further impacted by small losses of riparian habitat (especially Alternatives 3 and 4), which can expand in wet areas (e.g., as people drive to the side to avoid wet ruts); matted herbaceous vegetation

144 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment along and to the side of routes; potential alteration of hydrology and reduced water quality; and increased potential for the spread of noxious weeds in an near riparian areas. The level of added impacts would be largest under Alternative 4 and, of the action alternatives, additional impacts in riparian areas would be least under Alternative 2 since the new route east of the Greys River Road would impact the largest amount of riparian habitat, and Alternative 2 does not include this route.

Incremental expansions of the motorized-route network at the local (Middle Greys) level has clear potential to incrementally increase the upward trend in stressors negatively impacting migratory birds in the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West mainly due to (1) motorized routes being such a ubiquitous part of the landscape throughout most of the Rocky Mountains and Intermountain West; (2) such a large proportion of bird habitat being within 200 m of motorized routes and between 200 and 720 m in this region, especially riparian habitat; and (3) the substantive impacts to many bird species within 200 m of motorized routes (including reduced nest success, reduced weight gain for migration) on top of a large number of other factors cumulatively reducing bird populations. About half of the bird species listed in Table 21 of the Wildlife Specialist Report (DeLong and Egan 2017) have downward trends or apparent downward trends in the State of Wyoming, and this only assesses the situation since 1968; estimated populations trends from 1968 to 2015 do not take into account the many factors that affected bird populations prior to 1968. For some bird species, motorized routes and motorized use may be contributing to downward trends.

Habitat loss and habitat alteration along routes in upland areas is not as critical as habitat loss and alteration in riparian areas because acreages are so much larger than in riparian areas, but effects in upland areas can compound the effects of reduced habitat effectiveness in several ways. Expansion of the motorized-route system into areas that currently do not have motorized use or routes can contribute to a greater risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, contribute slightly to reduced fire spread, can reduce snag densities, and creating open corridors through forestland would increase the potential for cowbird nest parasitism above the already unnaturally high levels that are currently happening. Again, level of added impacts would be largest under Alternative 4 given the large number and mileage of new open routes and, of the action alternatives, additional impacts in upland areas would be least under Alternative 2 since it would have the lowest mileage of new routes, would have the most aggressive design features aimed at curtailing use of closed and unauthorized routes, and would not include the relatively large mileage of conifer forestland.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects described for goshawks, great gray owls, and northern three-toed woodpeckers, and for bald eagles and harlequin ducks cover a large portion of the cumulative effects on migratory birds that inhabit mature and late-seral forestland and that inhabit riparian areas. The following discussion addresses cumulative effects on migratory birds in general and on birds that occur in other habitats, as well as cumulative effects on birds inhabiting mature/late- seral forestland and riparian areas in a little more depth.

While the near-immeasurable effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on migratory birds at the Bridger- Teton scale may seem inconsequential, these same levels of effects on nest success, foraging rates, habitat shifts, and other factors (minor to small for Alternatives 2 and 3, and small to moderately small for Alternative 4) are occurring in countless places throughout the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere, meaning that the project-level negative effects under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would likely incrementally affect population trends (e.g., downward trends for some species at the statewide level). These slight or minor effects on nest success, foraging rates,

145 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

habitat shifts, and other factors at the Bridger-Teton scale, when added across the Rocky Mountains for all similar localized actions in countless locations may very well be having substantive effects on some migratory bird populations at this scale. Furthermore, the effects of these countless actions add to the already large negative effects of the existing motorized route system on a range of migratory bird species across the Rocky Mountains. (see H.3.b(7) in the “Review of Scientific Information” section.)

The existing proportion of the project that is within 200 m of used motorized routes (29.7%), which is a consequence of a used motorized-route density of 1.68 miles/mile2. These are underestimates, as there are additional closed roads and associated unauthorized routes that were not included in these calculations (i.e., more than one-third of the project area is within 200 m of used motorized routes). This high density of used motorized routes mainly stems from the Greys River Road and roads that were subsequently constructed for logging operations. Following this, and especially within the last 10-20 years, motorized routes were pioneered off of these roads and some became established unauthorized routes. Compounding the effects of motorized activity along these routes are other activities like camping, firewood cutting, and hunting. Having more than one-third of the project area within 200 m of used motorized routes and 50% or more of the project area that is within 360 m of used motorized routes likely is having considerable negative impacts on migratory birds as discussed earlier.

Furthermore, riparian areas are disproportionately important to migratory birds, and more than 50% of the project area’s mileage of perennial streams is within 200 m of used motorized routes. More than 33% of the mileage of perennial streams is within 100 m of these routes. This also is a consequence of a used motorized-route density of 1.68 miles/mile2, which is a consequence of factors outlined above. While percentages likely are somewhat lower in other parts of the Greys River watershed, a relatively high proportion of perennial stream miles are close to used motorized routes, especially low down in the main tributaries. As discussed earlier, this is likely is having considerable negative impacts on migratory birds as discussed earlier. Any future widening and straightening of the Greys River Road above Forests Park would further increase negative effects of motorized use on migratory birds in the upper Greys River watershed (DeLong 2013); not only is the Greys River Road in or close to the riparian corridor, the increased traffic volume would result in greater impacts away from the main road.

The patterns outlined in the previous two paragraphs are representative of many moderate elevation (7,000 – 8,500 ft.) areas in the Rocky Mountains from Colorado north through Montana, and these effects are compounded by a wide range of factors that have reduced the amount of riparian habitat in the Rocky Mountains (e.g., conversion to agricultural crops and pastureland, reservoirs, residential and commercial development, highways and interstates), altered habitat conditions (e.g., grazing by horses and livestock, altered hydrology due to many factors, conifer encroachment, elimination of willows, dispersed camping, OHV use), and impacted birds in other ways (e.g., cowbird nest parasitism, trampling of nests, depredation by domestic cats). As such, negative impacts of motorized routes/use in combination with all other factors that affect migratory birds at mid elevations in the Rocky Mountains, especially birds associated with riparian areas, are considerable and pervasive. Riparian areas in the Greys River have not escaped these impacts (DeLong 2008). Impacts to riparian habitat and riparian birds in the Greys River watershed are high in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to the ongoing downward trend in the amount and quality of riparian habitat for migratory birds, with Alternative 4 having the largest contributions.

146 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Declining trends and apparently-declining trends of many bird species provide at least some evidence of the effects summarized above. Populations of many species of birds had declined prior to Breeding Bird Surveys being initiated in 1970; i.e., population status since 1970 does not reflect the population level effects from the mid- to late-1800s to 1970.

HYDROLOGY This section presents the environmental effects of each alternative on hydrology and is a summary of the hydrology report (Robertson 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed Issue: The reconstruction, construction, and location of new motorized routes may contribute to soil damage, erosion, and sedimentation into streams and rivers, adversely affecting water quality.

Indicators:

• Miles of motorized routes within 100 feet of perennial streams within 6th field HUCs

• Stream crossing density: number of route stream crossings within 6th field HUCs

• Miles of motorized routes within areas of landslides and unstable or marginally unstable land types.

Affected Environment The Middle Greys River Watershed Assessment provided a summery characterization of the four subwatersheds that occur within the Middle Greys River Watershed (5th Level HUC 1704010305). The Middle Greys Motorized Project area is found within two of these watersheds; Greys River – Blind Bull and Greys River – Bear Creek (Figure 23). Using the Inland West Watershed Initiative (IWWI) to characterize the watersheds, Bear Creek was described as having moderate geomorphic integrity and low water quality integrity and Blind Bull was described as having low geomorphic integrity and low water quality integrity (USDA, 2005).

During this assessment, field crews conducted culvert inventories in 1999 and 2003 to assess whether sediment delivery was occurring at stream crossings. These culverts were assessed by degree of slope, presence of vegetation or rills and if it was a migration barrier for fish. Most culverts inventoried were both delivering sediment to the stream channel and a migration barrier. Only two of the fourteen culverts were not actively inputting sediment into stream channels. One thing to note, there are roads within the Project Area that do not have culverts but are located on unstable/marginally unstable slopes (USDA, 2005).

147 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Figure 23. Streams, 6th Field HUCs, and Wetlands located within the Middle Greys Motorized Travel project area.

148 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative proposes no watershed restoration treatments. Erosion from existing roads within the analysis area would continue at current levels as the primary management-induced cause of sediment generation and delivery to streams.

With this alternative, road density would remain the same within the project area. No new roads or motorized trails would be constructed as a reroute to replace a poorly-located existing road or motorized trail. Unauthorized routes would continue to be utilized by motorized users. No additional road maintenance would occur beyond that normally scheduled. No stream crossings would be removed or improved. The Minimum Road System (MRS) would remain the same (i.e., all the roads currently included on the Forest System for each subwatershed). Erosion from existing roads within the analysis area would continue at current levels as the primary management-induced cause of sediment generation and delivery to streams.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 is the only alternative that provides for seasonal restrictions on all the miles of proposed motorized trails which protects soil and water resources by preventing rutting and trail pioneering. Only 50” trail is proposed for this alternative which provides for a smaller footprint of ground disturbance especially with the new trail construction, which this alternative proposes the least amount (4 miles versus a total of up to 9 miles). Alternative 2 proposes the most miles of road closures which can be a range of fully decommissioning to a gated closure. Fully closing a road by removing it from the landscape would have a short term negative effect by the ground disturbing activities needed to remove the road prism and rehabilitate the landscape but would have the most beneficial effect over the long-term.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 has more road closures proposed, the least amount of miles of routes within 100’ of perennial stream channels, and the least amount of miles of routes in marginally unstable to unstable soils. In turn, Alternative 3 has more new route construction along with up to 15 new stream crossings. The new routes will have short term sediment inputs but in the long term, an overall improvement in soil and watershed condition due to improvement of existing routes, closure of existing routes and identified unauthorized routes, and implementation of BMPs during construction and maintenance.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 provides for the least amount of miles of road closure, 1 mile versus 12 miles in Alternative 2 and 9 miles in Alternative 3. The road closures provide the most benefit (whether a gate or full road removal) to the watersheds and this is seen the least in this alternative.

149 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4 also proposes the most mileage of open roads and least amount of miles of both roads and motorized trails with seasonal use restrictions. Along with the highest amount of open road mileage, Alternative 4 also proposes the highest amount of 64” motorized trail along with the most miles of new trail construction (9 miles versus 4 and 7 miles). By keeping routes open and enlarging the possible footprint for disturbance, this alternative has the least amount of watershed benefit in comparison to Alternatives 2 and 3.

Comparison of Alternatives The difference among the alternatives is the amount of long-term soil disturbance versus short term disturbance. Alternative 2 only proposes 50” motorized routes in comparison to the 64” motorized routes in Alternative 3 and 4. The footprint for soil disturbance would be smaller with the decreased width in route size. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose seasonal restrictions on certain routes which would help protect soil and water resources by preventing the compaction of soils through rutting due to driving on wet or snowy routes.

Alternative 3 proposes more road closures, the least amount of miles of routes within 100’ of perennial stream channels, and the least amount of miles of routes in marginally unstable to unstable soils. In turn, Alternative 3 has more new route construction along with up to 15 new stream crossings. The new routes would have short term sediment inputs but in the long term, an overall improvement in soil and watershed condition due to improvement of existing routes, closure of existing routes and identified unauthorized routes, and implementation of BMPs during construction and maintenance.

Alternative 4 would have more long term soil disturbance which would have a potential long term effect on water quality since more routes and less road closure is proposed in Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would also not include any seasonal restrictions and all of the new motorized routes proposed would be 64” which have a larger disturbance footprint to soils.

Miles of motorized routes within 100 feet of perennial stream channels Overall, the total number of miles within 100 feet of perennial streams does not change by alternative. Most of the changes by alternative are the designation of the routes which can be changing an open road to a 50” motorized trail or a closed road to a 64” motorized trail for example. The only noticeable changes by alternative is that Alternative 3 has the most miles of closed road and seasonal use restrictions in comparison to Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 3 also has the least amount of miles of open roads adjacent to perennial streams. When constructing the new trails BMPs would be applied to both project design and implementation. These BMPs allow for moving trails outside of sensitive riparian areas and improving drainage on trails and roads that are currently either not draining or causing rutting or depositing sediment from the road prism down the hillside or directly into a waterbody due to runoff and improper road and trail drainage.

Stream crossing density: number of route stream crossings within 6th field HUCs The total number of stream crossings by alternative stays the same throughout the range of alternatives. Most routes including the non-motorized, open roads, and motorcycle trails there is not a change in condition with any of the alternatives. The only changes by alternative are the total number of motorized crossings, combining both the 50” and 64” motorized trail routes, with Alternative 1 having the least amount of proposed stream crossings (1) in comparison to Alternative 3 having the greatest number of proposed stream crossings (15). This high number is

150 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

due in part to the proposed East Side loop which would require new trail construction and several stream crossings. The only other noticeable change by alternative is the number of crossings on closed roads, this value includes documented unauthorized routes for Alternatives 2 and 3 because these routes would also be closed if either of those alternatives are chosen. Alternative 3 has the most crossings, 19, in comparison to Alternative 4, which only has 13. This is due to Alternative 4 having the least amount of miles road closures proposed and keeping the documented unauthorized open for further analysis to be added to the motorized travel plan.

There is a range of effect with the newly proposed stream crossings. If only hardened crossings are put in place at the new crossings along with repair at the existing hardened crossings, there is still going to be long term sediment inputs into the stream channels. While the overall volume of sediment may be decreased, hardened crossings may not also be as effective in keeping motorized users on the designated route crossing. Crossing site location will be important when designing the new routes to deter users from creating additional routes as seen on the Barstow Lake Trail. While a hardened crossing decreases the amount of sediment reaching the channel overall, it is not as effective as an ATV/UTV bridge which would remove all motorized traffic outside of the riparian area and would provide for the least amount of sediment potentially to reach a stream channel. Bridges may also be more effective in keeping users within the designated trail and road prisms at the stream crossings.

Miles of motorized routes within areas of landslides and unstable or marginally unstable land types. Along with the other two soil and water indicators, the total number of miles of routes that cross unstable and marginally unstable soils does not vary by alternative. The differences in alternatives are the number of miles within the different route designations. Alternative 3 has the least amount of miles of open motorized trails, 17.88, in comparison to Alternative 2, which has the most miles at 20.81. Alternative 3 proposes to close up to 42.68 miles of closed road (including documented unauthorized routes) in these marginally unstable to unstable soils in comparison to Alternative 4 which only proposes closing up to 30.58 miles. When comparing alternatives, Alternative 3 has the least amount of open road (8.71 miles) identified in these unstable areas.

By re-routing and closing roads in these identified areas, overall watershed health and soil productivity will be improved. Installation of drainage features such as relief culverts and water bars would help prevent mass wasting and slumping from occurring on these routes. There is not an overall benefit in a decrease in total miles within these watersheds by alternative but if BMPs are followed during the design and implementation of the new trail construction and improvement of the existing routes, that will help with overall long term soil health and productivity.

Proposed decommissioning treatments of system roads and unauthorized routes are designed to restore long-term soil productivity and hydrologic function to the road prism—in a majority of cases, the most effective treatment is full obliteration of the road (Lloyd et al 2013). This includes recontouring the road prism as closely as possible to the natural slope profile, restoration of stream crossings to match natural channel dimensions, placement of woody debris as represented in the adjacent forest, methods to relieve soil compaction, closure of the road to motorized use with rocks or natural barriers, and the establishment of native vegetative ground cover. Where a full recontour is not attainable or road conditions warrant a lesser treatment that would still provide for watershed improvement, one or more of the following would be used to achieve restoration over the long term: outsloping, revegetation, stream-crossing restoration, or physically blocking or disguising the entrance.

151 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

The action alternatives propose to decommission up to 12 miles of road along with all documented unauthorized routes except for Alternative 4 which leaves those unauthorized routes open for further consideration. Over the long term, all road treatments would contribute to improving hydrologic function and channel conditions in the project area subwatersheds.

Cumulative Effects Past management activities, including roads, grazing, timber harvest, elk feeding, and recreation, have increased background levels of sediment in streams within the cumulative effects analysis area. Ongoing and proposed actions within the cumulative effects analysis area include the following:

Road Maintenance Routine road maintenance occurs sporadically on most open roads within the project area. The only road that is maintained on a regular yearly basis is the Greys River Road (FS Road 10138). Maintenance, when it does occur, on gravel and native surface roads is mainly surface grading, culvert and ditchline cleaning. Regularly-scheduled road maintenance on NFS roads would not be expected to appreciably affect sediment within the effects area, as long as associated BMPs are followed.

Livestock Grazing Actively grazed range allotments within the cumulative effects area can contribute to loss of ground cover and conversion of desirable native vegetation to less favorable species. Wetlands are at risk for compaction as well, and possible effects to shallow water tables exist. Cattle grazing impacts can be seen along the Greys River and at the tributaries of Cabin Creek and Bear Creek. These observations include multiple livestock crossings on stream channels and trailing alongside the stream channels which can lead to channel instability and loss of ground cover. Sheep grazing impacts tend to concentrate in the higher elevations of the project area on the west side. Sheep tend to avoid riparian areas and mainly utilize the uplands within the allotments.

Proposed and Ongoing Timber Harvest/Vegetation Treatment

The Bug Creek Timber Sale is an ongoing Timber Sale and Fuels Management Project. This project is considered as part of the existing condition baseline for the effects analysis and included in the analysis for cumulative environmental effects.

Recreation Myriad recreational activities occur within the cumulative effects area year-long. One developed campground exists, located near the Forest Park Elk Feedground and dispersed camping is found throughout the entire cumulative effects area during the snow-free months. The area is popular with hunters in the fall and snowmobilers in the winter. Authorized, groomed snowmobile trail routes traverse the area. In general, road and trail use by OHVs, motorcycles, and horseback riders causes erosion and ground disturbance; the use is expected to increase as the human population increases and development continues. These activities are expected to adversely affect sedimentation and water quality in the cumulative effects area. Designation of motorized trial loops, improvement of current open road conditions by implementing BMPs and using seasonal restrictions and closure and rehabilitation of unauthorized motorized routes in the Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project area would result in reductions in soil erosion and improvements to water quality. Effects were assessed in a qualitative manner.

152 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Wildlife There is one Elk Feedground within the project area. The Forest Park Feedground has been in operation for X years and is a winter feeding operation. There are associated impacts to the Greys River channel and riparian vegetation due to this concentration of elk over the winter. This part of the Greys River receives high amounts of willow browse due to the associated wildlife occupancy.

Beaver are present in the project area. No observations were made at the time of field visits of recently disturbed beaver dams or beaver complexes that were affecting road integrity.

Wetlands and Floodplains Within the cumulative effects area, wetlands and floodplains are an important part of hydrologic functionality. Floodplains of varying extent are associated with streams within the cumulative effects area. Past activities have had an effect on wetlands and floodplains. Impacts have been related to road construction, placement of drainage structures, cattle grazing, and flow alteration. The floodplains and wetlands along Lower Cabin Creek have been affected by road fill, which has altered flow patterns and restricted flood flows. Action alternatives propose to decommission up to 12 miles of road within these subwatersheds but overall mileage of motorized routes (both road and trail) that are directly adjacent to riparian areas does not decrease. Removal of roads and trails would improve floodplain function and benefit riparian-dependent species. This could result in an incremental improvement for hydrologic functionality in the cumulative effects area. No adverse cumulative effects on wetlands and floodplains are expected from the proposed project.

Climate Change The broadly agreed expectation of climate forcing in this ecoregion is a gradual increase in average temperature, and an increase in the variability of precipitation (Peterson et al 2014). Especially if this means more rain as part of the precipitation regime, this could affect hydrologic processes at the watershed scale enough to alter watershed condition indicators like sediment and channel conditions, timing of peak and base flows, and bank stability, which could in turn affect water quality and riparian and stream habitat.

Activities proposed in the action alternatives with this project will in part, over the long term, increase resilience to disturbance and/or changed precipitation regimes when considered in the context of natural processes, past management, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Proposed road decommissioning and closure activities will result in improvements in sediment and channel conditions throughout the project area subwatersheds, thus better allowing hill slopes and channels to handle a more variable precipitation regime as more soil is restored to natural infiltration and productivity levels and stream banks revegetate at previously disturbed crossings and where roads were closed adjacent to stream channels.

Summary of Cumulative Effects Road maintenance, livestock grazing, and recreational activities affect stream conditions and watershed indicators within the cumulative effects area and would be expected to continue to affect watershed conditions and water quality parameters such as stream temperature, nutrients, bacteria, and sediment. In combination with the other activities in the cumulative effects area, the proposed project is not expected to have any additional detectable negative cumulative effect on watershed resources or water quality in the Bear Creek and Blind Bull Creek drainages or their tributaries. Road decommissioning, trail maintenance, and road improvements planned within the

153 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

cumulative effects area is expected to result, at the subwatershed scale, in an incremental reduction of sediment produced by roads over time as well as a reduction in risk to channel conditions.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 1 (no action) meets several Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water and soil resources except for the following: stream channel conditions guideline, sediment control standard, road and trail standard, road restriction guideline, streamside roads standard, and road maintenance in riparian areas standard. The standards and guides that are currently not being met are due to lack of maintenance occurring on these existing routes and the presence of unauthorized routes which are causing increased sedimentation along hillslopes and stream channels.

For the action alternatives, consistency with the Forest Plan would be achieved with the implementation of project design features, BMPs, and identification of a regular maintenance schedule for the new and existing routes being proposed. Although temporary and short-term increases in sediment may occur, long-term reductions in road-related sediment would be expected as a result of road decommissioning, long-term closures, seasonal restrictions on roads and trails, and consistent road and trail maintenance practices. Project design features and best management practices are designed to minimize negative effects to water and riparian resources.

All action alternatives would meet Soil and Watershed Forest Plan Standards and Guides. The difference in the alternatives is the amount of long-term soil disturbance versus short term disturbance. Alternative 2 only proposes 50” motorized routes in comparison to the 64” motorized routes in Alternative 3 and 4. The footprint for soil disturbance would be smaller with the decreased width in route size. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose seasonal restrictions on certain routes which would help protect soil and water resources by preventing the compaction of soils through rutting due to driving on wet or snowy routes. Alternative 3 has more road closure proposed, the least amount of miles of routes within 100’ of perennial stream channels, and the least amount of miles of routes in marginally unstable to unstable soils. In turn, Alternative 3 has more new route construction along with up to 15 new stream crossings. The new routes will have short term sediment inputs but in the long term, an overall improvement in soil and watershed condition due to improvement of existing routes, closure of existing routes and identified unauthorized routes, and implementation of BMPs during construction and maintenance. Alternative 4 will have more long term soil disturbance which could have a potential long term effect on water quality since more routes and less road closure is proposed in Alternative 4. Alternative 4 will also not include any seasonal restrictions and all of the new motorized routes proposed would be 64” which have a larger disturbance footprint to soils.

154 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

FISHERIES This section discloses the effects of motorized recreation associated with the four alternatives on water quality and in turn the effects these activities have on individual fish, fish habitat, and the fisheries as a whole. General habitat relationships and habitat needs of the species as well as a description of environmental effects of the alternatives are found in the Fisheries Resource Report (Barry 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed

Issue 1: Effects on Sensitive Species, as well as Other Species of Concern The concern is that motorized travel may affect the recovery of sensitive species, in addition to viability and habitat objectives for other species in the project area. The Forest Plan provides direction for sensitive and management indicator species. Species conservation is directed by laws, regulations, and policies.

Indicators: Compliance with federal law and policy and condition of habitat for threatened and endangered species, management indicator species and sensitive species that are affected by motorized travel. Yellowstone cutthroat trout and rainbow trout– riparian condition, proximity of proposed routes to intermittent and perennial streams, and bank stability (percent).

Issue 2: Riparian and Aquatic Conditions The concern is motorized vehicle traffic can damage riparian areas, riparian vegetation, at stream crossings that can indirectly impact fisheries, overall stream function, and health. Roads and trails with bare soil surfaces are susceptible to erosion that enters streams that also directly impact fisheries and overall stream function.

Indicators: Streambank stability (percent), proximity of proposed routes to intermittent and perennial streams, and riparian function to filter silt and sediment from entering waterbodies.

Affected Environment The project are has 78 acres of lakes, and 130 miles of river and perennial streams. Nineteen streams and an unknown number of springs feed into the Greys River. Barstow Lake is the only fish bearing lake in the project area. Native fish species in the Greys River drainage are Yellowstone cutthroat trout (abundant), mountain whitefish (common), mountain sucker (rare), mottled sculpin (rare), Paiute sculpin (common) and Utah sucker (common). Non-native fish species are brook and rainbow trout (rare). There are no federally listed threatened or endangered fish species in the project area.

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) Yellowstone cutthroat trout are widely distributed within their historic range in the states of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (May et al. 2003). On the Bridger-Teton National Forest Yellowstone cutthroat trout are found throughout their original range in the upper Snake River above Palisades Dam (Van Kirk and Benjamin 2001). There are approximately 1,537 miles of river and streams and 3,116 acres of lake on the Bridger-Teton National Forest that support Yellowstone cutthroat trout. These populations contain both historical and currently occupied habitat and encompass the headwaters of the Snake River, Gros Ventre, Greys-Hoback, and Salt River watersheds.

155 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Typical of other cutthroat trout sub-species, Yellowstone cutthroat trout require relatively clean and cool, well-oxygenated water and the presence of clean, well-sorted gravel with minimal fine sediments to facilitate successful spawning. They generally spawn in clear, cold, shallow riffles of small streams soon after ice is off in the spring. The initiation of spawning is influenced by water temperature, increased water discharge from runoff, elevation and latitude.

Existing Habitat Conditions

Stream Habitat Condition Habitat data have been collected using various methods but generally describe stream in the project area as being natural free flowing systems with high annual stream flow variation that limits the formation of stable stream channels. In addition, unstable geology causes mass soil movement and most upper stream segments are high gradient containing coarse substrates that do not provide good spawning habitat and limit over-wintering adult fish habitat. Human activities (e.g. past timber harvesting activities, livestock grazing, and roads) contribute sediment into streams, limiting available spawning habitat and aggravating mass soil movement (unpublished Bridger-Teton data 1974 &1982) (WGFD 1995). Drought conditions and cold water temperatures also contribute to a low recruitment of juvenile fish into the population (WGFD 2004). Ocular estimates by Forest Service personnel of aquatic habitat quality generalize streams in the project area as being high gradient streams with coarse substrate comprised of cobble/gravel with 60- 90% stable stream banks. There are unstable streambanks associated with road and trail crossings on Lower Cabin Creek (30%), Elk Creek (30%), and the lower portions of the South Fork of Three Forks Creek (Forest Service 2000).

In the project area, trout occupy approximately 74% of the perennial stream length sampled, and cutthroat trout are present in 92% of the perennial stream length occupied by trout. WGFD estimates trout populations of 80 fish per mile for the main channel of the Greys River.

Riparian Condition Riparian vegetation plays an important role in maintaining adequate habitat for fisheries. Riparian vegetation provides root strength, which resists erosion and helps maintain channel form, particularly in low-gradient alluvial valleys. Riparian vegetation provides roughness, thereby reducing flow velocities during high flow conditions and encourages sediment deposition on the banks. Shade provided by streamside vegetation buffers streams from solar heating and effects levels of primary production, which can affect macroinvertebrate community composition. And riparian vegetation is important for many aquatic macroinvertebrate life histories which also serve as an important food source for many native fishes.

Desired Condition Fisheries habitat in the project area varies from high elevation stream and small alpine lakes to mid-elevation rivers and streams. Multiple use management and private in-holdings influence habitat, but across the project area as a whole, the assemblage of native fish and habitat remains intact. Overall aquatic habitat is in good to fair condition. The major causes of degraded habitat in the project area are unstable land mass movement exacerbated by sedimentation and stream channel alteration from constructed roads (1990 USFS p229), past timber harvest, associated roads, past and current livestock grazing, dispersed recreation and travel management issues. The presence of a high standard road along Greys River, livestock use and dispersed recreation has degraded important riparian habitat for wildlife and fish (1990 USFS p. 229). Overall fisheries

156 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

resources in the project area are at or near Desired Future Condition as described in the 1990 Forest Plan (1990 USFS).

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives A study of the effects of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off highway vehicles have on forest and grasslands conclude that the level of ground disturbance between light weight ATV/OHV’s and heaver utility models is negligible. In addition the type of tires (factory or aftermarket) cause the same level of disturbance (Meadows et al. 2008).

The No Action alternative and the three action alternatives are based on using existing road and trail systems that are having a relatively low level of impairment to streams because of culverts, bridges, and having hardened surfaces. The existing road and trail surfaces are prone to become unstable and muddy when wet and contribute silt and sediment to streams impairing fish populations and aquatic habitat. Further, crossing streams before July 15 will negatively affect spawning cutthroat trout (e.g. high potential for disrupted spawning, disturbed nest sites, or potential individual fish mortality from contact with UTV tires). Typically stream crossings are at stream gradient breaks which are also ideal spawning locations for cutthroat trout which are R4 Forest Sensitive, and Bridger Teton National Forest Focal Species. Installing bridges at stream crossings mitigates adverse effects to cutthroat prior to July 15 season of use. There are only insignificant differences in the total amount of mileage within 100 feet of perennial streams; so no distinctions were made among alternatives based on this indicator. The same can be said for the number of crossings of perennial streams by alternative. No significant differences in utilization are proposed in terms of number of crossings by alternative, so no analysis was done to differentiate alternatives by number of perennial stream crossings. Only the designation (e.g. 50” vs. 64” vs. full size vehicle) changes by alternative which doesn’t allow for quantifiable distinctions among alternatives in their effects to fisheries.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action alternative would not improve stream bank stability issues noted on road and trail crossings on Lower Cabin Creek (30%), Elk Creek (30%), and the lower portions of the South Fork of Three Forks Creek (USFS 2000). Unstable stream banks contribute to reduced water quality which impairs fish habitat downstream from the disturbance and can have population level effects difficult to quantify. Further, crossing streams in motorized vehicles before July 15 negatively affect spawning cutthroat trout because it reduces water quality and delivers sediment into streams thereby reducing the quality of cutthroat trout spawning habitat.

Cumulative Effects The No Action alternative may have continued impairment to water quality particularly at points where roads and trails intersect or occur in close proximity to streams. The continued use of unmaintained logging roads and skid trails by full sized vehicles for hunting and fuel wood collection are making the roads impassable when wet and delivering sediment to streams.

157 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 1 remains consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides but falls short of meeting Forest Plan Goal 3.3 for sensitive species. This alternative fails to protect sensitive species from further decline by not reducing road densities or by limiting unauthorized user created motorized trails. Because stream bank stabilities are not all at 90%, this alternative does nothing to improve conditions to trend toward meeting this standard for recreational fisheries.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed alternative of creating a connected loop between Meadow Creek and Upper Cabin Creek would traverse a wet meadow that currently has no existing road or trail. Disturbing the wet meadow would likely reduce water quality in Lower Cabin Creek. Furthermore, crossing streams before July 15 will negatively affect spawning cutthroat trout. This adverse effect will be more harmful to spawning cutthroat in years with above average runoff as fish tend to spawn later in the year because of these conditions. Alternatives 2 and 3 are very similar in terms of effects to fisheries and only minor, unquantifiable difference exist between these two alternatives. Alternative 2 will likely have slightly more adverse effects to fisheries than Alternative 3 because it has more mileage for full sized vehicles (Table 22), but these effects could be mitigated through appropriate crossings (e.g. bridges installed at stream crossings) as described in Appendix A.

Table 22. Number of miles of motorized trail by alternative and by Desired Future Condition habitat type (e.g. Overall, DFC1B, DFC10). The percentage of change is listed below mileage (+%). Sediment delivery is reduced exponentially by distance (m). Table 4. This displays number of miles of motorized trail by alternative and by Desired Future Condition habitat type (e.g. Overall, DFC1B, DFC10). The percentage of change is listed below mileage (+%). Sediment delivery is reduced exponentially by distance (m).

DFC 1B in DFC 10 in Road-Effect Zone relative to used Project Area Mgt. Area 35 Mgt. Area 32 motorize routes A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 0-100 m 17.1 18.1 18.9 22.3 15.5 15.2 15.9 16.3 7.8 7.9 6.9 8.3 % change (+6) (+11) (+30) (-2) (+3) (+5) (+1) (-12) (+6) 0-200 m 29.7 32.9 34.1 40.0 28.1 29.1 30.2 31.0 14.2 15.5 13.7 16.1 % change (+11) (+15) (+35) (+4) (+7) (+10) (+9) (-4) (+13) >361 m 54.7 48.9 48.2 39.2 55.1 53.8 52.7 51.1 76.9 74.7 77.5 73.9 % change (-11) (-12) (-28) (-2) (-5) (-7) (-3) (+1) (-4) >720 m 30.3 21.9 23.9 12.3 30.2 28.5 27.0 26.2 59.1 56.1 60.3 55.0 % change (-28) (-21) (-59) (-6) (-11) (-13) (-5) (+2) (-7)

Cumulative Effects Forest system roads in the project area that have reduced stream bank stability resulting in measurable amounts of sediment delivered to Lower Cabin Creek, Elk Creek and South Three Forks (Forest Service 2000) would continue to impair cutthroat trout populations. The action alternatives would address these problem areas using Best Management Practice’s (BMPs), design criteria (e.g. bridges installed at stream crossings, Appendix B), and monitoring to improve current conditions occurring on these streams and to improve conditions on roads

158 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

converted to trails to minimize stream impairment. The negative cumulative effects on stream bank stability and spawning habitat are similar among alternatives and difficult to differentially quantify. However, relative to one another, the cumulative effects would be in order from least to greatest under alternatives 3, 2, 1 and 4, progressively, due to increasing season of use, road/trail mileage and the implementation of BMPs. The cumulative effects under all alternatives are anticipated to be below a level of significance at the population level for cutthroat trout.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 2 remains consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides but falls short of meeting Forest Plan Goal 3.3 for sensitive species. This alternative reduces dead end ‘open’ routes to protect sensitive species from further decline by reducing road densities or by limiting unauthorized user created motorized trails. However, because stream bank stabilities are not all at 90%, this alternative does nothing to improve conditions to trend toward meeting this standard for recreational fisheries on existing routes.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Constructing a connector loop on the east side of the Greys River from Meadows Creek to Sheep Creek would require new trail construction that would impact Moffat Creek and Black Canyon Creek. Both streams have high stream bank stability and would have lower stream bank stability at the stream crossing sites under Alternative 3 than existing conditions because silt and sediment delivery into the creeks would be greater, thereby impairing resident cutthroat populations. Further, crossing streams before July 15 would negatively affect spawning cutthroat trout. The season of use would begin later on several trails (July 1st) under alternatives 2 and 3 than compared with Alternative 4. Therefore, alternatives 2 and 3 would enable healthier spawning habitat for cutthroat trout than Alternative 4. Potential mitigation for stream crossings prior to July 15th season of motorized use would be to construct bridges or culverts at the stream crossings using design criteria outlined in Appendix A. This would reduce sediment delivery at stream crossings and not adversely affect cutthroat populations while allowing an earlier motorized recreation season of use. Alternative 3 has the least amount of trails/roads within close proximity of perennial streams (Table 22) and is therefore the most favorable alternative for fisheries as long as the proposed route closures and illegal route creation is monitored and maintained.

Cumulative Effects See Cumulative Effects under Alternative 2 (p. 158)

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 3 remains consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides but falls short of meeting Forest Plan Goal 3.3 for sensitive species. This alternative reduces dead end ‘open’ routes to protect sensitive species from further decline by reducing road densities or by limiting unauthorized user created motorized trails. This alternative has the lowest road density of all alternatives (Table 22) making it the most congruent with sensitive species management of all proposed alternatives. However, because stream bank stabilities are not all at 90%, this alternative does nothing to improve conditions to trend toward meeting this standard for recreational fisheries on existing routes unless bridges are installed at stream crossings.

159 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects Constructing a connector loop on the east side of the Greys River from Meadows Creek to Sheep Creek would require new trail construction that would negatively affect Moffat Creek and Black Canyon Creek. Both streams have high stream bank stability and would have lower stream bank stability at the crossing sites causing silt and sediment delivery to the creeks, thereby impairing resident cutthroat populations. And construction and use of the crossings would continually impair cutthroat spawning habitat. Further, crossing streams before July 15 will negatively affect spawning cutthroat trout annually on a continuing basis. This can only be mitigated through construction of bridges or culverts at crossings. Alternative 4 also leaves 18 additional miles of closed roads open (compared to Alternative 1) and will create/continue adverse effects to cutthroat populations. Alternative 4 has the highest density of open routes of all proposed alternatives (Table 22) and is therefore the least desirable alternative to fisheries.

During construction, the connector loop would have an effect at the individual level but not affect the overall cutthroat population. However, continued use of the crossings without culverts or bridges at the crossings would have a small negative effect at each crossing to the overall cutthroat trout population over years of use.

Cumulative Effects Forest system roads in the project area that have reduced stream bank stability resulting in measurable amounts of sediment delivered to Lower Cabin Creek, Elk Creek and South Three Forks (Forest Service 2000) would continue to impair cutthroat trout populations. The action alternatives address these problem areas using Best Management Practice’s (BMPs), design criteria (e.g. bridges installed at stream crossings- Appendix B), and monitoring to improve current conditions occurring on these streams and to improve conditions on roads converted to trails to minimize stream impairment. However this alternative has the most motorized trails mileage and would therefore have greater cumulative adverse effects to cutthroat trout than Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 4 remains consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides but falls short of meeting Forest Plan Goal 3.3 for sensitive species. This alternative increases new routes in close proximity to perennial streams (Table 22) more than any other alternative. However, it still meets trails direction in the Forest Plan. This alternative has the highest road density of all alternatives making it the least congruent with sensitive species management of all proposed alternatives. Stream bank stabilities are not all at 90%, and further this alternative increases an adverse effect of sediment delivery to streams trending away from meeting the standard for recreational fisheries and sensitive species protection in the project area.

160 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

CULTURAL RESOURCES This section presents the affected environment and environmental effects of each alternative on cultural resources in the area of potential effect. It is a summary of the cultural resources report (Schubert 2017), which is incorporated by reference.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Regulations 36 CFR 800, which implements Section 106, outlines the procedures for the identification of historic properties and for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office on the affects the undertaking may have on historic properties. Federal laws and regulations clearly state federal undertakings, such as travel management projects on federal land, shall be evaluated for potential effects to historic properties.

Overview of Issues and Indicators Addressed The resource indicator for cultural resources is defined as cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Each cultural resource indicator is a basic unit of analysis for measuring and assessing effects.

Affected Environment Cultural resources include prehistoric sites, historic sites, buildings, structures, and traditional cultural properties. These resources are the remains of past patterned human activity.

The project area is located in the steep and rugged Greys River Valley in-between the Salt River Range to the west and the Wyoming Range to the east. Cultural resource densities tend to be low in this area. Of the sites in the project area, two prehistoric lithic scatters are unevaluated and are treated as eligible. The one eligible historic site is the Forest Service Meadows Guard Station. Five ineligible prehistoric lithic scatters are in the analysis area.

Prehistoric sites are sparsely located in the area, with lithic scatters being the most common site type and rock cairns are in the broader area. Sites tend to be located along river terraces and benches. The broader area contains a Forest Service Fire Lookout, coal and phosphate mines, and tie hack cabins. The steep nature and typically low site density of much of the project area suggests a low likelihood of encountering sites. However, the survey locations on flat areas adjacent to water sources suggest a low to moderate chance of sites being present.

Environmental Consequences

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundary for analyzing effects are a buffer of 100 m around the area of potential effect because past, present, and future activities outside of this area are not likely to have the potential to effect cultural resources inside the project area.

The temporal boundaries for the past 10 years and future 20 years because these time increments seems reasonable to broadly characterize the impacts of past and foreseeable future trail use practices. Many of the actions listed in the cumulative actions table will likely continue for at least the next future 20 years.

161 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects There is a potential for an absence of change in the motorized travel plan for the Middle Greys River area to have direct effects to cultural resources. User created trails could continue to be formed. New user created trails could damage discovered or undiscovered historic properties. Additionally, existing user created trails could become more established and create more damage to any undocumented historic properties than may currently exist.

The no action alternative would result in no new federally authorized ground disturbing activities such as trail construction or trail rehabilitation. A lack of trail related construction activities would ensure that undiscovered historic properties could not be inadvertently affected by proposed project activities.

Cumulative Effects There are not any cumulative effects for the no action alternative.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The no action alternative would not affect compliance with National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resource polices and regulations because no damage to cultural resources or historic properties has been noted, and no federal undertaking or permit would have the potential to affect historic properties. If damage to a historic properties was discovered under the existing use of the area of potential effect, it would be addressed according to National Historic Preservation Act regulations.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 (Action Alternatives)

Direct and Indirect Effects The action alternatives have the potential to have direct effects to undiscovered cultural resources indicators. Undiscovered historic properties could be inadvertently damaged during project activities such as route construction or closure. Closed and rehabbed routes would not have the potential to cause additional damage to undiscovered sites through continued use. Indirect effects to historic properties could occur if soil and water erosion from project activities effected undiscovered historic properties. New routes have been surveyed, reducing the potential for direct and indirect effects to undocumented cultural resource indicators.

The proposed closure of unauthorized routes is common to all action alternatives. A spatial analysis exercise comparing the Bridger-Teton unauthorized route GIS layer with recorded cultural sites determined that no cultural resource indicators are in the area of potential effect of possible currently documented unauthorized route closure areas. Closure of currently documented unauthorized routes would not affect currently documented cultural resource indicators.

The area of potential effect for closing unauthorized routes is currently unknown. Unauthorized undocumented routes likely exist in the analysis area, and may be closed under this project in the future. Additionally, new unauthorized routes may be created and closed in the future. Any closure of unauthorized routes would assure that implementation does not adversely affect historic properties though following National Historic Preservation Act and the 2008 Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Wyoming Forests, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Most instances of

162 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

unauthorized route closures would include new survey, effects analysis, and consultation with State Historic Preservation Office.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have no direct or indirect effects to documented cultural resource indicators.

Cumulative Effects Previous undertakings in the area have resulted in cultural resource survey, which aids our understanding of the types and locations of cultural resources in the analysis area. Previous undertakings in the area have not adversely effected recorded cultural resource indicators in the analysis area. Previous undertakings in the area have had the potential to effect undocumented cultural resource indicators in the analysis area. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have no cumulative effects to documented cultural resource indicators.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resource polices and regulations because the Forest Service has put forth a good faith effort to identify historic properties. Additionally, no known historic properties would be effected by Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 and project specific protocols are in place in the event of inadvertent discovery and/or damage to cultural resources occurs during or as the result of project implementation.

163 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

References Andrews, K. M., J. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Jochimsen. 2008. Chapter 9: ecological effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles: a literature review. Pages 121-143 in Mitchell, J. C., R. E. Jung Brown, and B Bartholomew (eds.). Urban herbetology; Herpetological Conservation 3:121-143.

Badaracco, R.J. 1976. “ORVs: Often Rough on Visitors.” Parks and Recreation 11(9): 32-35, 68- 75.

Baicich, P. J. and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American birds: 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Bancroft, B. A., N. J. Baker, and A. R. Blaustein. 2008. A meta-analysis of the effects of ultraviolet B radiation and its synergistic interactions with pH, contaminants, and disease on amphibian survival. Conservation Biology 22:987-996.

Barry, P. 2017. Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project- Resource Report, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Afton, Wyoming.

Barton, C. D. and A. L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in Northeastern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1620.

Becker, S. A. 2008. Habitat selection, condition, and survival of Shiras moose in northwest Wyoming. M.S. thesis, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Beebee, T. J. C. 2013. Effects of road mortality and mitigation measures on amphibian populations. Conservation Biology 27:657-668.

Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 543pp.

Bennett, V. J. 2017. Effects of road density and pattern on the conservation of species and biodiversity. Current Landscape Ecology Report 2:1-11.

Berg, N. D. 2010. Snowshoe hare and forest structure relationships in western Wyoming. M.S. thesis, Utah State University, Logan.

Bills, T., B. Smith, and M. Novak. 2000. Biological assessment: Greys River Road reconstruction, Greys River Ranger District, Lincoln County, Wyoming. Unpublished report, U.S. Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

Bishop, M.R., R.C. Drewes, and V.T. Vredenburg. 2014. Food Web Linkages Demonstrate Importance of Territorial Prey for the Threatened California Red-Legged Frog. Journal of Herpetology 48: 137-143.

Boone, M. D., R. D. Semlitsch, E. E. Little, and M. C. Doyle. 2007. Multiple stressors in amphibian communities: effects of chemical contamination, bullfrogs, and fish. Ecological Applications 17:291-301.

164 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Boyce, M. S. 1989. The Jackson elk herd: intensive wildlife management in North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.

Brewer, L. T., R. Bush, J. E. Canfield, and A. R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern goshawk Northern Region overview: key findings and project considerations. U. S. Forest Service, Northern Goshawk Working Group, Missoula, Montana.

Browne, C. and C. Paszkowski. 2010. Hibernation sites of western toads (Anaxyrus boreas): characterization and management implications. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5:49-63.

Bull, E. L. 2006. Sexual differences in the ecology and habitat selection of western toads (Bufo boreas) in northeastern Oregon. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1:27-38.

Bull, E. 2009. Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in nertherstern Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4:236-247.

Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon, J. M. Hillis, and M. J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1-6.25 in G. Joslin 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. 307pp.

Chen, C. Y., K. M. Hathaway, D. G. Thompson, and C. L. Folt. 2008. Multiple stressor effects of herbicide, pH, and food on wetland zooplankton and larval amphibian. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 71:209-218.

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. Journal of Applied Ecology Vol 32, No. 1, pp 203-214.

Cole, D.N. and Bayfield, N.G. 1993 Recreational Trampling Of Vegetation: Standard Experimental Procedures. Biological Conservation 63: 209-215

Colescott, J. H. and M. P. Gillingham. 1998. Reaction of moose (Alces alces) to snowmobile traffic in the Greys River Valley, Wyoming. Alces 34:329-338.

Collinge, S. K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36, 59–77.

Collins, J. P. and A. Storfer. 2003. Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distribution 9:89-98.

Crimmins, T. 1999. Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle User Survey: Summary of Results . Colorado State Parks OHV Program.

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monographs 155:1-61.

Corn, P. S. 2003. Deteriorating status western amphibians: can we generalize about causes? Pages 249-255 in G. Linder, S. K. Krest, and D. W. Sparkling (eds.). Global decline of amphibian populations: an integrated analysis of multiple stressor effects. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Florida.

165 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Davidson, E., and M. Fox, 1974, Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert vegetation and soil: Madroño, v. 22, p. 381–390.

DeLong, D. 2006. Preliminary assessment of cumulative impacts of human activities on riparian/riverine habitat & associated wildlife in the Greys River District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Unpublished report, U.S. Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

DeLong, D. 2012. Importance of composition and structure of herbaceous vegetation to great gray owls and northern goshawks on the BTNF. Unpublished Report, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

DeLong, D. 2013. Memo to District Ranger, Richard Raione. Wildlife Habitat Program, Greys River Ranger District; issue: effects of changes in management of upper Greys River Road on wildlife. Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

DeLong, D. 2015. Literature review and analysis of scientific information for the conservation assessment for spotted frogs and boreal toads on the Bridger-Teton National Forest: a reference document. Unpublished report, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming.

DeLong, D. and A. Egan. 2017. Middle Greys Motorized Trails Project (and Preliminary Travel Planning – Review of the Science), Wildlife Specialist Report: Federally Listed Species, Sensitive Species, several former MIS, and Migratory Birds. Greys River Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Afton, WY 83110. deMaynadier and Hunter. 1995. The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental Review 3:230-261.

Donaldson, J., I Nanni, C. Zachariades, and J. Kemper. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in Renosterveld shrublands of South Africa. Journal of Conservation Biology, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp. 1267-1276.

Duncan, J. R. and P. H. Hayward. 1994. Chapter 14: review of technical knowledge: great gray owls. Pages 159-175 in Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner (eds.). Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-253. 214pp.

Engle, J. C. 2001. Population biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Owyhee uplands of southwest Idaho: implications for monitoring and management. Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.

Finch, D. M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical migratory birds. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-205.

Finney, D. J. 1972. An introduction to statistical sciences in agriculture: fourth edition. Halsted Press Book, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

166 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Forman R. T. T., D. S. Friedman, D. Fitzhenry, J. D. Martin, A. S. Chen, L. E. Alexander. 1997. Ecological effects of roads: towards three summary indices and an overview for North America. See Ref 21:39-54.

Forman, R. T. 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. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.481pp.

Fralick, G. 2016a. 2016 JCR (job completion report) evaluation form for EL105 Afton elk herd. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Fralick, G. 2016b. 2016 JCR (job completion report) evaluation form for MD131 Wyoming Range mule deer herd. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Franzmann, A. W. 2000. Chapter 28: moose. Pages 578-600 in Demarais, S. and P. R. Krausman (ed.). Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 778pp.

Fraser J. D. 1983. The impact of human activities on bald eagle populations – a review. Pages 68- 84 in Gerrard, J. M. and T. M. Ingram (eds). The bald eagle in Canada. Proceedings of Bald Eagle Days, 18-20 August 1983, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. White Horse Publication, Headingly, Manitoba, Canada. (as cited by Richardson and Miller 1997)

Fritts, S. H., R. O. Stephenson, R. D. Hayes, and L. Boitani. 2003. Chapter 12: wolves and humans. Pages 289-316 in Mech, L. D. and L. Boitani. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586.

Grubb, T. G. and R. M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:501-512.

Gruell, G. 1975. Wildlife resource inventory: Greys River planning unit. Unpublished report, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 25pp.

Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and M. H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR.

Harrison, S. and E. Bruna. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: What do we know for sure? Ecography, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp. 225-232.

Inman, R. M., M. L. Packila, K. H. Inman, A. J. McCue, G. C. White, J. Persson, B. C. Aber, M. L. Orme, K. L. Alt, S. L. Cain, J. A. Fredrick, B. J. Oakleaf, S. S. Sartorius. 2011. Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76:778-792.

167 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. 2007. Final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Available from U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). 2012. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations 2012: report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana.

Jennersten, O. 1988. Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): Effects of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conservation Biology, Volume 2, No. 4, pp. 359-366.

Jochimsen, D. M., C. R. Peterson, K.M. Andrews, and J. W. Gibbons. 2004. A literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the use of road crossing structures to minimize those effects. Final draft. Herpetologist Society, Van Nuys, California, Special Publication 4.

Julander, O., W. L. Robinette, and D. A. Jones. 1961. Relation of summer range condition to mule deer herd productivity. Journal of Wildlife Management 25:54-60.

Jules, E. S. 1998. Habitat fragmentation and demographic change for a common plant: Trillium in old growth forest. Ecology, Volume 79, No. 5, pp. 1645-1656, July 1998.

Keil, M. 2017 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project - Botany, Research Natural Area and Special Interest Area Report - Botany Biological Evaluation. Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

Keinath, D. A. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project.

Kie, J. G. and B. Czeck. 2000. Chapter 30: mule and black-tailed deer. Pages 629-657 in Demarais, S. and P. R. Krausman (ed.). Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 778pp.

Krueper, D. J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. In: Finch, D. M., P. W. Stangel (eds.). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: September 21-25, 1992, Estes Park, Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service: 331-338

Kuss, F.R. 1986. A review of Major Factors Influencing Plan Responses to Recreation Impacts. Environmental Management Vol 10, No. 5, pp 637-650.

Meadows, D,; Foltz, R; Geehan, N, 2008. Effects of all-terrain vehicles (ATV) on forested lands and grasslands. 0823 1811 –SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 110p http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/34167.

Lloyd, R.A., K. A. Lohse, and T. Ferre. 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2):75-81.

168 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Lomas, L. A. and L. C. Bender. 2007. Survival and cause-specific mortality of neonatal mule deer fawns, north-central New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:884-894.

Loosen, A., S. Kilpatrick, M. Graham, and B. Younkin. 2009. Aspen assessment and inventory in the Greys River Ranger District Final Report. Conservation Research Center of Teton Science Schools, Jackson, Wyoming.

Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry 81:592-594, 613.

Marr, N. V., W. D. Edge, R. G. Anthony, and R. Valburg. 1995. Sheep carcass availability and use by bald eagles. The Wilson Bulletin 107:251-257.

Marsh, D. M. and P. C. Trenham. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15:40-49.

Maxell, B. and G. Hokit. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 2.1-2.29 in 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. 307pp.

Maxell, B. A. 2000. Management of Montana’s amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to the U.S. Forest Service, Region 1. Order Number 43-0343-0-0224. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.

McClure, C. J. W., H. E. Ware, J. Carlisle, G. Kaltenecker, and J. R. Barber. 2013. An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds: avoiding the phantom road. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20132290.

Mech, L. D., S. Fritts, G. L. Radde and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf Distribution and Road Density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87.

Merigliano, L. 2017. Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project - Resource Report – Roadless Areas. Jackson Ranger District, Jackson, Wyoming.

Moody, D. D. Hammer, M. Bruscino, D. Bjornlie, R. Grogan, and B. Debolt. 2002. Wyoming grizzly bear management plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 48pp.

Moore, J. A., D. A. Tallmon, J. Nielsen, and S. Pyare. 2011. Effects of the landscape on boreal toad gene flow: does the pattern–process relationship hold true across distinct landscapes at the northern range margin? Molecular Ecology. 12pp.

169 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Muths, E. 2003. Home range and movements of boreal toads in undisturbed habitats. Copeia 1:160-165.Neumann, W. G. Ericsson, and H. Dettki. 2011. The impact of human recreational activities: moose as a case study. ALCES 47:17-25.

NatureServe. 2002. NatureServe home website. www.natureserve.org.

Olson, D. H., P. D. Anderson, C. A. Frissell, H. H. Welsh Jr., and D. F. Bradford. 2007. Biodiversity management approaches for stream–riparian areas: perspectives for Pacific Northwest headwater forests, microclimates, and amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 246:81-107.

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z.H.Bowen. 2007, Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007- 1353, 225 p.

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC). 2008. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the northwestern United States and western Canada. Technical Publication HMG-4, Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Birmingham, Alabama.

Patla, D. 2000. Amphibians of the Bridger-Teton National Forest: species distributions and status. Unpublished report, prepared for the Bridger-Teton National forest. Herpetology Laboratory, Idaho State University, Pocatello. 44pp.

Patla, D. A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. 87pp.

Peek, J. M. 1997. Chapter 11: habitat relationships. Pages 351-375 in Franzmann, A. W. and C. C. Schwartz (eds.). Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Peterman, R. M. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 47:2-15.

Pierce, L. J. 2006. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) recovery plan. Prepared for New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Pilliod, D. S., C. R. Peterson, and P. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1849-1862.

Raphael, M. G., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, B. G. and Marcot, T. D. Rich. 2001. Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia river basin. Forest Ecology and Management 5502:1-25.

Reeve, B. C., E. J. Crespi, C. M. Whipps, and J. L. Brunner. 2013. Natural stressors and ranavirus susceptibility in larval wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). EcoHealth. 10 pgs.

170 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Renecker, L. A. and C. C. Schwartz. 1997. Food habits and feeding behavior. Pages 403-439 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz (compilers). Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 733pp.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Basset, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report GTR-RM-217.

Richardson C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3783512.

Robertson, T. 2017. Middle Greys motorized travel project: hydrologist specialist report. Unpublished report, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

Robinette, W. L., N. V. Hancock, and D. A. Jones. 1977. The Oak Creek mule deer herd in Utah. Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 77-15, Salt Lake City.

Rohr, J. R., A. A. Elskus, B. S. Shepherd, P. H. Crowley, T. M. McCarthy, J. H. Niedzwiecki, T. Sager, A. Sih, and B. D. Palmer. 2004. Multiple stressors and salamanders: effects of an herbicide, food limitation, and hydroperiod. Ecological Applications 14:1028-1040.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:672-684. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3802737.

Rowland M. M., M. J. Wisdom, D. H. Johnson, B. C. Wales, J. P. Copeland, and F. B. Edelmann. 2003. Evaluation of landscape models for wolverines in the interior northwest, United Sates of America. Journal of Mammology 84:92-105. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1383637.

Salice, C. J. 2012. Multiple stressors and amphibians: contributions of adverse health effects and altered hydroperiod to population decline and extinction. Journal of Herpetology 46:675- 681.

Satterlund, D. R. and P. W. Adams. 1992. Wildland watershed management (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 436pp.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2013. Version 01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Maryland.

Sawyer, H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006. Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:396-403.

Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, and R. M. Nielson. 2009. Influence of well pad activity on winter habitat selection patterns of mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1052-1061.

Schubert, J.P. 2017. Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project -Cultural Resources Report Bridger- Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming.

171 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Schwartz, C. C. and L. A. Renecker. 1997. Chapter 14: nutrition and energetics. Pgs. 441-478 in Franzmann, A. W. and C. C. Schwartz. Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Scribner, N. 2006. Wyoming Range mule deer habitat summary report. Unpublished report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, Wyoming.

Sih, A., A. M. Bell, and J. K. Kerby. 2004. Two stressors are far deadlier than one. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:274-276.

Skovlin, J. M. and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Chapter 12: Elk Habitat Selection and Evaluation. Pages 531-555 in Toweill, D. E. and J. W. Thomas (ed.). North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 962pp.

Smith, M. A. and D. M. Green. 2005. Dispersal and the metapopualtion paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecograph 28:110-128.

Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 113:404-407.

Thomas, J. W., H. Black Jr., R. J. Scherzinger, R. J. Pedersen. 1979a. Chapter 8: deer and elk. Pages 104-127 in Thomas, J. W. C. (ed.). Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553.

Thomas, J. W., R. G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E. L. Bull. 1979c. Chapter 5: snags. Pages 60-77 in Thomas, J. W. C. (ed.). Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553.

Thompson, I. D. and R. W. Stewart. 1997. Management of moose habitat. Pages 377-401 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz (compilers). Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 733pp.

Thurow, T. L. 1991. Chapter 6: hydrology and erosion. Pages 141-159 in Heitschmidt, R. K. and J. W. Stuth (eds.). Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 259pp.

Trammell, M. A. and J. L. Butler. 1995. Effects of exotic plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal Wildlife Management 59:808-816. (cited in Weed Summit Steering Committee and Weed Management Task Force 2005)

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 1999 2000?. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology Vol 14, No. 1, pp 18-30.

Turner, F. B. 1960. Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog. Rana p. pretiosa Baird and Girard, in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Ecological monographs. 30:251-278.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 181pp.

172 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

USFWS. 2007a. National bald eagle management guidelines. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.

USFWS. 2007b. Grizzly bears; Yellowstone distinct population; Notice of petition finding; final rule. Federal Register 72:14865.

USFWS. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the Eastern or Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad as an endangered or threatened distinct population segment. Federal Register 77:21920-21936.

USFWS. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the North American wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; proposed rules. Federal Register 78(23) (February 4, 2013): 7864-7890.

USFWS. 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the North American wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; proposed rule. Federal Register 79(156) (August 14, 2014): 47522-47545.

US Forest Service (USFS) 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Region 4. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 396pp.

USFS. 1997. Bridger-Teton National Forest PFC Assessment. Unpublished Report, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 41pp.

US Forest Service 2000. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Stream Aquatic Habitat Inventory. Greys River Stream Summary. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming.

USFS. 2004a. Greys River Landscape Scale Assessment. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

USFS. 2005a. Middle Greys River Watershed Assessment. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District. Afton, Wyoming. 86pp.

USFS. 2005b. Decision memo for continuation of forage reserve allotment status on three forage reserve allotments, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Greys River Ranger District, Lincoln County, Wyoming. Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

USFS. 2006. Final environmental impact statement for Forest Plan amendment for grizzly bear habitat conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Dillon, Montana.

USFS. 2007a. Northern Rockies lynx management direction. Attachment 1 in Northern Rockies lynx management direction record of decision. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana (also: Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions). 15pp.

173 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

USFS. 2007c. Northern Rockies lynx management direction final environmental impact statement – volume I. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana (also: Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions). 534pp (plus copy of 50 CFR Part 17).

USFS. 2008. Allotment management plan for the Triple Peak forage reserve, Big Piney and Greys River Ranger Districts. USDA Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Big Piney Ranger District, Big Piney, Wyoming.

USFS 2008. Suggestions for analyzing the effects to wilderness potential from project activities within Inventoried Roadless Areas. Unpublished document. Forest Service Intermountain Region. Randy Welsh, Wilderness specialist.

US Forest Service 2010. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed, and, and sensitive species. March 2010 update. Known / suspected distribution by Forest

USFS. 2016. Bridger-Teton National Forest sensitive species conservation assessment: great gray owl. Unpublished report, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming.

USFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 13pp.

Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology, 21 (4), 986-996.

Ware, H. E., C. J. W. McClure, J. D. Carlisle, and J. R. Barber. 2015a. A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. PNAS, www.pnas.org/cdi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1504710112.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2009. Habitat guidelines for mule deer: intermountain west ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Wiggins, D. A. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): a technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado.

Wilkinson, D. and S. Woods. 2017. Middle Greys Motorized Travel Project -Resource Report- Recreation. Jackson Ranger District, Jackson and Greys River Ranger District, Afton, Wyoming.

Wilshire, H.G, S. Shipley, and J.K. Nakata. 1978. Impacts of Off-road vehicles on Vegetation. Paper presented at the Forty-third North American Wildlife Conference.

Wisdom, M. J. and J. W. Thomas. 1996. Chapter 10: elk. Pages 157-182 in Krausman, P. R. (ed.). Rangeland wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

Wisdom, M. J. and J. G. Cook. 2000. North American elk. Pages 694-735 in Demarais, S. and P. R. Krausman (eds.). Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

174 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual. Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan. 81p. Available at: http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Water%20Quality/Nonpoint%20Source/Best %20Management%20Practices/2004_wqd-wpp-Nonpoint-Source_Silviculture-Best- Management-Practices.pdf

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC). 2011. Wyoming gray wolf management plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 1995. Jackson Fish Management, Sub-Basin Management Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, Wyoming

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2004. Jackson Fish Management Sub-Basin Management Plans. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, Wyoming

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2007. The Wyoming mule deer initiative. Mule Deer Working Group, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne.

WGFD. 2010b. Boreal toad – Anaxyrus boreas boreas. Pages IV-4-1 through IV-4-2 in Wyoming State wildlife action plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming Partners in Flight. 2003. Wyoming Partners in Flight: Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 668pp.

Yorks, T. P., N. E. West, R. J. Mueller, and S. D. Warren. 1997. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: Life form conclusions and summary, extracts from a comprehensive database. Environmental Management pp. 121-131.

Young, A., T. Boyle, and T. Brown. 1996. The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 11, Issue 10, pp. 413- 418, October 1996.

175 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Appendix A: Bridge/Culvert Design Checklist Objective Provide a list of Project Design Criteria for culvert and bridge replacements that the county road crews, state trails engineers, and Forest Service rangers can understand. We are overlooking design features that will cause the structure to fail in high flows- so when in doubt, refer to a Forest Service hydrologist for expertise/clarification.

Direction National Best Management Practices (BMPs) Forest Plan Direction Previous NEPA Documents Aquatic Organism Passage USFS National Policy FSH 7709.56b Transportation Structures Handbook Chapter 65 Aquatic Organism Passage Design Chapter 65.1 Primary Design Priority Aquatic organism passage and ecological connectivity Second only to user safety Stream Simulation Handbook (Forest Service and Department of Transportation 7700-Transportation Management 08771801 SDTDC)

Checklist Items

National BMPs from Hydrology Report of Culvert Replacements Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when preparing the site for construction or maintenance activities.

a) Use crossing structures suitable for the site conditions and Resource Management Objectives.

b) Design and locate crossings to minimize disturbance to the waterbody.

c) Use suitable measures to locate, construct, and decommission or stabilize bypass roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

d) Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to disconnect the road from the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and sediment from being channeled into surface waters and to dissipate concentrated flows.

e) Use suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the waterbody and banks when transporting materials across the waterbody or Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) during construction activities.

f) Avoid scheduling work during periods that could be interrupted by high flows.

176 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

Forest Plan Direction from Hydrology Report of Culvert Replacements 1. Road Maintenance in Riparian Areas Standard – Maintenance, improvement, or repair of roads within riparian zones will avoid or mitigate water quality and fish habitat degradation. Debris from road maintenance, snow removed from roads and earthwork soil materials – except designated for riprap – will be diverted or removed to avoid deposition in ponds, lakes, stream channels, or the 100 year floodplain.

a) Clear-Water-Diversion Standard – Clear-water-diversion methods will be employed whenever building activities such as pipeline trenching must pass through a stream channel.

b) Construction Staging-Area Guideline – Construction staging and equipment service areas will be located outside of riparian areas.

c) Water Quality Standard – Forest Service or permitted activity or project will, at a minimum, adhere to state rules and regulations concerning surface and ground water quality.

Other PDCs from Culvert Replacements 1. Project-caused on-site potential soil erosion should be reduced by 50 percent one year after disturbance, and 95 percent five years after disturbance.

a) Project design must include erosion control and stream diversion to minimize sediment contamination of streams.

b) Use caution in any seed mix selected as noxious weed free seed mixes may contain other undesirable weedy species.

2. Rehabilitation plans will identify quantities of topsoil--A and B horizons--to be reserved for stockpiling prior to project initiation. Rehabilitation seed mixes or other plantings will be designed for each vegetation community type that meets the desired future condition

3. If boreal toad breeding sites are active during the year of construction within 200 yards of construction sites, coordinate with the biologist to protect migrating metamorphs.

4. Project should be conducted under the supervision of a fish biologist or hydrologist.

5. Ensure in-stream construction is conducted consistent with the timing restrictions for cutthroat spawning.

6. Construction equipment used near streams must be free of aquatic invasive species.

AOP Training Culvert should be perpendicular to flow; installation at a bend or on an angle with eventually undermined footers

If that is not possible, increase the length and width of crossing to accommodate

1. Crossing should not be the lowest elevation on bed

2. Culvert should be set at the same gradient and at the same elevation as the channel bed

177 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

3. In channel bed, margin and banks should be constructed to allow passage

a. Streambed simulation analysis should direct the size of material to build the bed

4. 2’ of fill is required over the structure below the road

5. Sized to pass the 100-year flood event

6. Oil spill prevention materials should be on site (e.g. oil absorbent boom placed downstream)

7. Channel dewatering plan will be determined by size and quality of water

8. Timing of dewatering will be determined by a fish biologist and they will undertake the aquatic species removal within the project area

9. There should be a plan for sediment control and the treatment of turbid water (e.g. coir logs, coconut fabric, silt fence, straw bales, or other erosion control measures)

10. Alert public to timing of road closures

11. Re-water slowly and eradicate sign of alternative flow route

12. Roughen, brush and seed as remaining raw earth in the site

13. Dispose of old culvert material and remaining stockpile material

Stream Simulations Handbook Checklist for contracting crossing construction Select the appropriate structure type Consider the fill height Design the crossing installations Setting the foundation Specify streambed materials and placement Gradation Key features, bedforms, banks, grade controls Bed elevation and gradient Grade control structures Specify dewatering and water quality protection requirements Diversion system Animal protection and removal Sediment treatment system Rewatering Short term pollution control Long term stabilization (revegetation)

Construction BMP Checklist (https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/hi_res/%20FullDoc.pdf, 7-5, page 313)

178 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

179 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

180 Middle Greys Motorized Travel Environmental Assessment

181