BLM
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Billings Field Office/Montana
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area
Draft Travel Management Plan
Environmental Assessment
DOI-BLM-MT-C010-2019-0029-EA
October 2019
Prepared by:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Billings Field Office 5001 Southgate Drive Billings, MT 59101 Phone: 406-896-5013 Fax: 406-896-5281
It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
DOI-BLM-MT-C010-2019-0029-EA Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Background ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.3 Decision to be Made ...... 1-2 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plan ...... 1-2 1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policies, and Other NEPA Documents ...... 1-2 1.6 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination ...... 1-2 1.7 Resource Issues Identified for Analysis ...... 1-3 1.8 Resource Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 1-4 1.9 Resource Issues Carried Forward for Further Analysis ...... 1-4 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Route Designations ...... 2-1 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ...... 2-3 2.3.1 Revised Statute 2477 ...... 2-3 2.4 No Action Alternative ...... 2-4 2.5 Proposed Action (Alternative D) ...... 2-6 2.5.1 Minor Realignments ...... 2-8 2.5.2 Route Closures ...... 2-8 2.5.3 Authorizations ...... 2-9 2.5.4 Cultural Resources ...... 2-9 2.5.5 Future Improvements ...... 2-10 2.6 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-10 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 3.1 Soils ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-5 3.2 Wildlife (Bighorn Sheep and Greater Sage-Grouse) ...... 3-8 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-8 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-9 3.3 Cultural Resources ...... 3-11 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-11 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-14 3.4 Areas with Special Designations ...... 3-16 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-16 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-18 3.5 Transportation and Access ...... 3-20 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-20 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-21
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 i 3.6 Recreation and Visitor Services ...... 3-22 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-22 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-23 3.7 Wilderness Characteristics ...... 3-24 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-24 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-27 3.8 Invasive, Non-native Species ...... 3-29 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-29 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-29 4.0 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 4-1 4.1 Cumulative Projects ...... 4-1 4.2 Soils ...... 4-1 4.3 Wildlife (Bighorn Sheep and Greater Sage-Grouse) ...... 4-1 4.4 Cultural Resources ...... 4-2 4.5 Transportation and Access ...... 4-2 4.6 Recreation and Visitor Services ...... 4-2 4.7 Invasive, Non-native Species ...... 4-2 5.0 List of Preparers ...... 5-1
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 ii List of Tables
Table 1-1. Key Issues and Indicators Developed for the Proposed Action ...... 1-5 Table 1-2. Resources Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ...... 1-7 Table 1-3. Resources Carried Forward for Analysis ...... 1-9 Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration...... 2-3 Table 2-2. Miles and Percentages of Route Designations under the No Action Alternative ...... 2-4 Table 2-3. Miles and Percentages of Route Designations under Proposed Action ...... 2-8 Table 2-4. Resource Issues and Indicators under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives . 2-10 Table 3-1. Water and Wild Erosion Potential on BLM-Administered Land within the TMA ...... 3-5 Table 3-2. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Wind Erosion Potential – No Action ... 3-6 Table 3-3. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Water Erosion Potential – No Action 3-6 Table 3-4. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Wind Erosion Potential – Proposed Action ...... 3-7 Table 3-5. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Water Erosion Potential – Proposed Action ...... 3-7 Table 3-6. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat within the TMA ...... 3-8 Table 3-7. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the TMA ...... 3-8 Table 3-8. Miles of Routes in Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat within the TMA ...... 3-9 Table 3-9. Miles of Routes in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and GHMA within the TMA ...... 3-10 Table 3-10. Miles of Routes within two miles of an Active Greater Sage-Grouse Lek ...... 3-11 Table 3-11. Miles of Route Type within 100 feet of a Cultural Site ...... 3-15 Table 3-12. Miles of Route Type within 0.25 Mile of a Cultural Site ...... 3-15 Table 3-13. Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACECs) within the TMA ...... 3-16 Table 3-14. Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments within the TMA ...... 3-18 Table 3-15. Miles of Routes in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) within the TMA3-19 Table 3-16. Route Type in the TMA ...... 3-21 Table 3-17. Total Miles of Open, Limited, and Closed Routes by Alternative ...... 3-21 Table 3-18. Total Miles of Open, Limited, and Closed Routes by Alternative ...... 3-23 Table 3-19. Wilderness Study Areas within the TMA ...... 3-25 Table 3-20. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the TMA ...... 3-27 Table 3-21. Miles of Routes in WSAs within the TMA...... 3-28 Table 3-22. Miles of Routes in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the TMA ...... 3-28 Table 5-1. List of Preparers ...... 5-1
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 iii List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Pryor Mountain TMA Overview ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2. No Action Alternative ...... 2-5 Figure 2-3. Proposed Action ...... 2-7 Figure 3-1. Water Erosion Potential ...... 3-3 Figure 3-2. Wind Erosion Potential ...... 3-4 Figure 3-3. ACECs ...... 3-17 Figure 3-4. Wilderness Study Areas ...... 3-26
Appendices
Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary and References
Appendix B – Travel Management Plan
Appendix C – Executive Orders
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 iv 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Background The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Billings Field Office (BiFO) Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area (TMA) has been prepared considering the direction of the Billings Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/Final EIS) (BLM 2015a) and associated Appendix O of the RMP. Appendix O outlined how travel management would be addressed for the BiFO and included management considerations, route inventory and evaluation assessments, designation of non-motorized trails, and implementation level impacts and maintenance. The travel management decision for the Pryor Mountains TMA was to be made during the RMP process; however, the travel management decision was tabled. Thus, information from Appendix O will be carried forward in the Proposed Action (Alternative D in the RMP). This Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides analysis for the implementation of the Proposed Action with additional management actions and the No Action Alternative.
Four alternatives were considered in the BiFO RMP/Final EIS and Appendix O TMP. The Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives are the only two being carried forward in this EA. The Proposed Action is the action alternative that conforms best to the purpose and need for BLM land management decisions. The Proposed Action includes the preferred alternative from Appendix O in the RMP and additional implementation plan actions contained in Appendix B, and in Chapter 2 of this EA. Additionally, the Proposed Action follows management guidance outlined in the RMP/Final EIS for the approximately 80,711 acres of BLM-administered land within the Pryor Mountain TMA. This EA tiers to the RMP/Final EIS and incorporates analysis results by reference from the EIS.
1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the action is to provide logical and sustainable travel and transportation networks that address transportation diversity, and access and recreational needs for the public while protecting sensitive natural and cultural resources on public lands administered by the BiFO.
Due to population increases and the wide variety and availability of Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs), there has been increased demand for public land use, which could adversely affect resource conditions. Action is needed to determine routes appropriate for use; identify the appropriate use level for each route; designate routes; and determine route maintenance. Routes are cooperatively managed with other agencies, including the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the National Park Service (NPS).
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-1 1.3 Decision to be Made When the TMP process concludes, the BLM Authorized Officer (AO) would decide whether to designate and implement identified routes as open, limited (to only a certain type of user, or a certain type of vehicle, or based on season or time of day), or closed to vehicles. Routes designated as open or limited could be subject to additional management measures (e.g., mitigation, monitoring). In addition to route designations, the AO would determine whether or not to implement actions outlined in Appendix O of the RMP, and actions outlined in the TMP developed in conjunction with this EA.
1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plan The BLM currently manages the Pryor Mountain TMA under the RMP/FEIS, which provides long-term goals specific to the BiFO’s resources and uses. Travel and transportation goals and objectives are presented in the TMP (Appendix B of this EA).
1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policies, and Other NEPA Documents National and State goals, regulations, and polices regarding travel management are established in several documents including, but not limited to, the following: • Travel and Transportation Handbook (BLM 2012a); • Travel and Transportation Manual (BLM 2016a); • National Management Strategy for Motorized OHV Use on Public Lands (BLM 2001); • Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005); • National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan (BLM 2002); • National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (BLM 2001); and • Executive Orders 11644/11989. • Secretary’s Order 3376 Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes (SO 3376)
1.6 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination Extensive public input was gathered and documented in the RMP/FEIS. Route designations and alternatives were evaluated during the public involvement process. The Notice of Availability for the RMP/FEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2013, initiating the 90-day public comment period. The comment period ended on June 29, 2013. The BLM held six public meetings in Billings, Bridger, Big Timber, Red Lodge, and Roundup, Montana; and Lovell, Wyoming. A total of 190 people attended the meetings. Written public comments were reviewed and considered by the BLM. For additional details, please refer to Chapter 5 of the RMP/FEIS. Notification for the release of the public draft EA was posted on the BLM ePlanning website, followed by a 30-day public comment period.
Tribes, agencies, organizations, businesses and individuals were consulted or participated during the scoping process for the RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2015a). Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-2 In addition, tribal letters were sent to the Blackfeet Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Crow Tribe of Indians, Fort Belknap Indian Community, Fort Peck Tribes, Little Shell Chippewa Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, on March 28, 2019. Kyle Felsman, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes emailed the BiFO archaeologist on May 7, 2019, to verify he looked at the geographic area. His tribe would defer management recommendations to other tribes in the area.
Gerald Gray from Little Shell Chippewa noted the tribe is not interested in this particular project and that the Pryors are more associated with Crow and Northern Cheyenne tribes.
The BiFO archaeologist emailed William Big Day, Crow THPO, and Teanna Limpy, Northern Cheyenne THPO, with a copy of the letter and a map. Via a phone call on May 13, 2019, Ms. Limpy requested a copy of the draft EA, and expressed interest in information about where surveys occurred, and how that has been assessed cumulatively (i.e. where unknown sites might occur and how that would be handled in the future). Furthermore, on June 20, 2019, the BiFO archaeologist sent shapefiles of the proposed route changes to Ms. Limpy in order for her to be able to view the routes on her computer.
Michael Blackwolf, THPO, and Emma Filesteel, Section 106 Coordinator for the Fort Belknap Indian Community were contacted and did not have comments for the TMA.
The BiFO archaeologist met with Mr. Big Day and Veronica Spotted Bear on July 2, 2019 and provided each with copies of the draft EA. Roads that were scheduled to be closed under the TMA/EA for cultural reasons, including the Water Canyon and Demijohn Flats sites, were discussed during this meeting.
Mr. Big Day explained that when he was a child he met an old rancher in the Bowler Flats area who told him about the Water Canyon site. Mr. Big Day also discussed Chief Washakie and gift exchanges that occurred in this area. Ms. Spotted Bear also discussed the River Crow and explained that this group would exchange with Chief Washakie. Mr. Big Day further discussed the Arapaho’s interest in the northern area under discussion and stated that the Arapaho were from the Colorado area and the current Wind River Reservation is on traditional Crow land. Mr. Big Day also discussed oral histories from trappers regarding the extent of the Water Canyon site. Lastly, Ms. Spotted Bear stated that the rock art in Water Canyon was created to recognize the birth of a child named Matilda (last name withheld), or “the snake that jumps.”
Regarding Demijohn Flats, Ms. Spotted Bear stated that the location was good camping for the Crow, as it was easy to keep the horses contained due to the topography of the site.
1.7 Resource Issues Identified for Analysis Table 1-1 presents key issues and indicators developed for the Proposed Action. Resource issues were analyzed in Chapter 3.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-3 1.8 Resource Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis The RMP/FEIS provides a comprehensive list of issues that are outside the scope of the RMP or addressed through administrative or policy action. Some issues were considered but not analyzed because of inconsistencies with existing laws, higher-level management direction or beyond the scope of the purpose and goals of this EA. Resource issues that were considered but eliminated from analysis and rationale for elimination are presented in Table 1-2.
1.9 Resource Issues Carried Forward for Further Analysis Resources that would be affected by the Proposed Action and carried forward for analysis are identified in Table 1-3.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-4
Table 1-1. Key Issues and Indicators Developed for the Proposed Action
Issue Number Issue Indicator Resource Potentially Affected Issue 1 How would construction of reroutes Total miles of open routes through Soils affect soils within the TMA? sensitive soils. Issue 2 How would greater sage-grouse breeding Number of routes within a 0.25 mile Wildlife and nesting success be affected by route radius of leks. Total miles of open routes designations under the TMP? within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. Issue 3 How would bighorn sheep be affected by Total miles of open routes in bighorn Wildlife route designations under the TMP? sheep habitat Issue 4 How would construction of reroutes Total miles of reroutes through greater Wildlife affect greater sage-grouse within the sage-grouse habitat. TMA? Issue 5 How would the change in use (route Total number of cultural sites with Cultural Resources designations) affect cultural resources? increased impact, number of sites with less impact. Viewshed. Issue 6 How would opportunities for a remote Total acres available in a primitive Wilderness Study Areas recreational experience be affected by the setting (greater than or equal to a distance Lands with Wilderness Characteristics implementation of the TMP? of 0.5 mile from any road). Recreation and Visitor Services Special Designations Issue 7 How would non-motorized public Total miles open to non-motorized use Recreation and Visitor Services recreation opportunities be affected by within the TMA. Transportation and Access the implementation of the TMP? Issue 8 How would motorized public recreation Total miles open to motorized use within Recreation and Visitor Services opportunities be affected by the the TMA. Transportation and Access implementation of the TMP? Issue 9 How would public access be affected by Total number of routes rerouted from Recreation and Visitor Services reroutes under the TMP? private to public land. Transportation and Access Issue 10 How would wilderness characteristics be Total miles of new non-motorized trails Wilderness Study Areas affected by establishing new hiking trails within the TMA. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the TMA? Recreation and Visitor Services Issue 11 How would public safety be affected by Total miles within the TMA. Recreation and Visitor Services reroutes under the TMP?
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-5
Issue Number Issue Indicator Resource Potentially Affected Issue 12 How would the distribution and spread of Total number of routes designated as Invasive, Non-native Species invasive weeds be affected under the closed or limited. TMP? Issue 13 How would the Pryor Mountain wild Total number of open routes within the Considered but eliminated from further horse herd be affected by route Pryor Mountain Herd Management Area. analysis designations under the TMP? Issue 14 How would socioeconomics be affected Total revenue from SRPs, applications Considered but eliminated from further by the implementation of the TMP? for SRPs, and State Economic Impact analysis Data. Issue 15 How would cave access be affected by Total miles of open routes near named Considered but eliminated from further the implementation of the TMP? caves within the TMA. analysis
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-6 Table 1-2. Resources Considered but Eliminated from Analysis
Resource Rationale Air Quality (including The TMP would determine which routes would be open to motorized Greenhouse Gases) use, but has no authority over the amount of motorized use within the TMA. Floodplains No threat to human safety, life, welfare, and property related to flooding and floodplains would result from implementing the Proposed Action. Hydrology and Ground Water There would be no impact to ground water hydrology from Quality implementation of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action consists of surface altering activities. The establishment of a travel network would not impact ground water quality because the Proposed Action would only result in surface disturbances. Water Resources, Including The TMA is located just west of Bighorn Canyon within portions of Wetlands and Riparian the Shoshone and Bighorn Lake Hydrologic Unit Code 8 watersheds. Riparian communities occur along the watercourses in the TMA and are largely confined to the banks of Sage Creek, Crooked Creek and Gypsum Creek. There are approximately 46 acres of riparian communities and 11 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands in the TMA. There would be a negligible impact to water resources and wetlands and riparian areas from implementation of the Proposed Action. Geology No geologic resources would be impacted under the Proposed Action. Minerals, Fluid Access for any exploration and development activity is described and approved in Geophysical Notice of Intent or Applications for Permit to drill. There would be no impact to fluid minerals by the Proposed Action. Minerals, Solid (Leasable) Access for any mining activity is described and approved in mining plan(s) or oil and gas lease(s). There would be no impact to solid minerals by the Proposed Action. Vegetation and Special Status It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Plant Species Action would result in negligible impacts to vegetation and special status plant species, thus it was not carried forward for analysis in this EA. Wildlife, Terrestrial, Aquatic, It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Migratory Birds, and Special Action would result in negligible impacts to general wildlife Status Species (except bighorn including terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, migratory birds, and sheep and greater sage-grouse) most special status species (except bighorn sheep and greater sage- grouse, which are analyzed in Section 3.2). Native American Concerns It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts cultural resources (including sites of traditional religious and cultural importance) that are of concern to Native American tribes. The Proposed Action would emphasize multiple-use by protecting sites of Native American concern while providing recreation and travel opportunities.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-7 Resource Rationale Paleontological Resources It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on paleontological resources. The increase in route closures under the Proposed Action would benefit paleontological resources due to a reduction in access to potential sites likely resulting in a reduction in damage or unauthorized collection. Indirect impacts from visitation, collection, and/or vandalism would also be reduced. Hazardous or Solid Wastes There is potential for hazardous or solid waste issues under the Proposed Action. Hazardous or solid wastes would be handled according to the appropriate corrective action for releases. Environmental Justice Implementation of the Proposed Action would not disproportionally impact low-income populations because they are dispersed throughout the entire BiFO. Social and Economic There would be no substantial changes to social conditions under the Conditions Proposed Action. Visual Resources It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on visual resources. The density and location of routes on the landscape impact visual resources by creating contrasting elements of form, line and color. With implementation of the Proposed Action, the amount of visual contrast would diminish over time as a result of reclamation efforts. Reducing contrasting elements and improving visual quality creates a more positive recreation experience for public land users by creating a more cohesive and appealing visual environment. Fire Ecology and Management Fire Ecology and Management are not expected to be impacted by route designations. Emergency fire suppression activities are an authorized use, regardless of route designation. Forest Management Forest Management is not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action . Forest management activities are an authorized use, regardless of route designation. Livestock Grazing It was determined through preliminary analysis that the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on livestock grazing, thus it was not carried forward for analysis. There are a total of 14 grazing allotments and 74,721 acres currently permitted for livestock grazing within the TMA. Re-designation of routes as limited or closed to OHVs benefits forage availability and AUMs through increases in vegetation production and composition on routes no longer receiving motorized traffic. The beneficial effects of these designations on forage availability would vary depending on soil type, level of initial disturbance and ability of the site to recover. Prime or Unique Farmlands No prime or unique farmlands exist within the TMA. Cave and Karst There would be no impact to caves under the Proposed Action. Realty and Lands Route designations would not impact existing lands and realty authorizations (existing rights) within the TMA. National Monument Pompeys Pillar National Monument is located outside of the Pryor Mountain TMA boundary. National Natural Landmark No National Natural Landmarks exist within the Pryor Mountain TMA boundary.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-8 Resource Rationale National Historic Trails No National Historic Trails exist within the Pryor Mountain TMA boundary. Wild Horses and Wild Horse The travel management and wild horses decision was already made in Management Area the RMP and there would be no new impacts due to implementation of the TMP, thus it was not carried forward for analysis. Burnt Timber Road from the East Pryor Mine (the abandoned uranium mine) to the USFS boundary and Sykes Ridge Road from horse trap to USFS boundary would be closed to wheeled vehicles and motorized vehicles to protect wild horse foaling and their habitat (April 15 to June 15) providing consistency with the USFS seasonal closures as per the RMP Management Decision Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (PMWHR-3). This area is a Wilderness Study Area (WSA); therefore, no new routes would be created.
Table 1-3. Resources Carried Forward for Analysis
Resource Section Soils Section 3.1 Wildlife: Bighorn Sheep and Greater Sage-Grouse Section 3.2 Cultural Resources Section 3.3 Areas with Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Section 3.4 Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers Transportation and Access Section 3.5 Recreation and Visitor Services Section 3.6 Wilderness Characteristics Section 3.7 Invasive, Non-native species Section 3.8
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 1-9 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction This chapter includes the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives for the Pryor Mountain TMA (TMA). An overview of the TMA is provided in Figure 2-1. The Proposed Action was selected from a range of reasonable alternatives to address the relevant travel and transportation planning issues identified in the RMP/FEIS. The Proposed Action designates routes as open, limited, or closed, and provides management actions associated with those designations.
The four alternatives considered in the RMP/FEIS include: • The No Action Alternative, which would carry forward current management (Alternative A); • An alternative emphasizing non-motorized recreational opportunities and natural resource protection (Alternative B); • An alternative emphasizing motorized access (Alternative C); and • The Proposed Action, which emphasizes a balanced approach (Alternative D).
The No Action and Proposed Action alternatives were carried forward for analysis.
2.2 Route Designations The closed designation category includes those routes that would be closed to motorized use, some of which are already naturally reclaiming. Although some of the routes designated for closure may currently be used by the public, these routes are redundant; traverse through sensitive resources; create a public health and safety issue (e.g., excessive erosion, user conflict, etc.); or are not in accordance with criteria outlined in the TMP. The open category includes routes that would require additional management actions from BLM, such as routine maintenance and improvement. The limited categories are defined as follows: • Limited (Administrative and Authorized Users): Routes designated as limited to administrative and/or authorized use. This designation category includes motorized uses by BLM, permittees, private property owners, and other authorized users on routes with or without additional management actions by BLM. • Limited (Administrative and Seasonal): Routes designated as limited to administrative and/or seasonal use. This designation category includes emergency administrative use, seasonal motorized use, temporary motorized use, administrative and permittee motorized use, and temporary closures to public use. This category includes routes with and without additional management actions by BLM. • Limited (Non-Motorized): Routes designated as limited to non-motorized use. This designation category includes hiking, cycling, and equestrian trails for use by the public and routes with and without additional management actions by BLM.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-1
Figure 2-1. Pryor Mountain TMA Overview
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-2 • Limited (OHV Width): Routes designated as limited to 4WD-modified and high clearance vehicles, ATV use, and/or motorcycle use by the public. This designation category includes routes with and without additional management actions by BLM.
The RMP/FEIS states that all designated motorized routes, whether open or limited, are also available for non-motorized travel, regardless of designation as non-motorized trails.
In many cases, impacts are analyzed qualitatively; quantitative impacts are evaluated when possible. Evaluation focuses on direct and indirect effects on specific resources, where they occur, and cumulative impacts when applicable. Data for the existing road network was collected by the BLM BiFO and its contractors. Additional Geographic Information System (GIS) databases were used for mapping, describing relevant resources, and calculating mileages and acreages.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration Three action alternatives were evaluated under the RMP/FEIS. Alternatives B and C were considered as possible alternatives for the establishment of a route network within the TMA; however, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration based on resource considerations and public input. Table 2-1 presents Alternatives B and C and the rationale for elimination.
Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration
Alternative Considered Rationale Alternative B – Emphasizes conservation of physical, This alternative was analyzed under the biological, and/or cultural resources over commodity RMP/FEIS and was not selected by the BLM as production mineral extraction, and motorized the Preferred Alternative. Alternative B does recreation. Under this alternative, production of food, not represent the preferred set of goals and fiber, minerals, and services would be more management actions needed to guide the future constrained than in the other alternatives. In some management of BLM-administered public lands areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive or and resources in the TMA. fragile resources. Alternative C – Emphasizes commodity production This alternative was analyzed under the (e.g., forage, minerals), motorized recreational access, RMP/FEIS and was not selected by the BLM as and services. Under this alternative, constraints to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative C does protect sensitive resources would likely be not represent the preferred set of goals and implemented in specific geographic areas rather than management actions needed to guide the future across the entire TMA. management of BLM-administered public lands and resources in the TMA.
2.3.1 Revised Statute 2477 A TMP is not intended to provide evidence, bearing on, or address the validity of any Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process independent of the BLM's planning process. Consequently, this TMP did not consider R.S. 2477 evidence. The
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-3 BLM bases travel management planning on purpose and need related to resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters. When a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM would adjust its travel routes accordingly.
The BLM would continue to consider granting Right-of-Way’s (ROWs) for, or including, vehicular use. ROWs would be processed under project-specific NEPA analysis and be subject to any requirements resulting from analysis. Upon granting of ROWs, they would be incorporated into this TMP on a case-by-case basis.
2.4 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative presented in the RMP/FEIS is the same alternative carried forward for this TMP. Per the RMP, a Federal Register Notice published in September 2001 updated and corrected errors in the September 25, 1979 and August 4, 1987 road designations based on decisions from the 1984 RMP (BLM 1984). The notice provided a list of routes in the Pryor Mountains that were designated as open, leaving the remaining roads in the Pryor Mountains designated as closed. Designations such as limited and administrative use were not used for travel management at that time and it was implied that administrative use would have fallen under the closed designation in 2001. The analyzed No Action Alternative shows routes that were designated as closed under the 2001 Federal Register notice as limited to administrative use, since these routes are currently used by BLM for administrative use.
The No Action Alternative would maintain existing conditions, use management, and resource development as currently inventoried. No route improvements would occur under this alternative. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for a route network comparison and would maintain existing route network and designations. It would not include proposed reroutes, establishment of additional non-motorized opportunities, Appendix O of the RMP, or implementation actions identified in the TMP. Figure 2-2 depicts the No Action Alternative. Table 2-2 includes miles and percentages of route designations in the TMA under the No Action Alternative.
Table 2-2. Miles and Percentages of Route Designations under the No Action Alternative
Percentage * Designation Miles of Total County Road, Highway, ROW 13.4 6 Open 114.9 47 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 112.5 47 Limited Non-Motorized 2.3 <1 Closed 0.0 0 Total 243.1 100 * Any discrepancies in this table are due to rounding. Note: The No Action Alternative analyzed in this EA shows the routes that were designated as closed under the 2001 Federal Register notice as limited to administrative use, since these routes are currently used by BLM for administrative use.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-4
Figure 2-2. No Action Alternative
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-5 2.5 Proposed Action (Alternative D) The Proposed Action emphasizes balanced levels of public access and resource protection. Opportunities for public recreation would be improved by providing more efficient route networks and additional user information. This alternative emphasizes multiple-use management by protecting sensitive resources, while providing recreation and travel opportunities.
The Proposed Action reroutes the Stockman Trail, which would confine the route to BLM- administered land. The proposed reroute of Stockman Trail would be designated for motorized use and would extend east to west approximately 1.7 miles from Rail Bed Road to the Stockman Trail, as shown in Figure 2-3. The Stockman reroute would provide access to the existing route from BLM land, replacing the current access across private land.
The 2.55 mile Red Pryor Road would be rerouted under the Proposed Action to minimize current erosion issues. The proposed reroute of Red Pryor Road would be designated for motorized use, as shown in Figure 2-3. The reroute of Red Pryor Road would improve erosion issues and lessen current resource impacts. The current route goes straight up hillsides, creating fall lines for water drainage and forms deep tread ruts. The mileage of the reroute would not change considerably and would minimize rutting created from runoff, and minimize soil displacement.
The Demijohn Loop Extension Route and Sykes Arch Route were proposed by the public and would be designated as non-motorized. The proposed Demijohn Loop Extension Route would add a 4.3 mile segment to create a loop with the existing route, as shown in Figure 2-3. The proposed Sykes Arch Route would be approximately two miles long and located on the eastern edge of the TMA. The trailhead would be on the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, almost a mile of the trail would extend beyond the TMA boundary onto NPS lands, as shown in Figure 2-3. The shown route in Figure 2-3 would be vetted and/ or modified by the NPS before trail implementation begins. The two new routes would be delineated by rock cairns or other minimal structures to provide waypoints for users. No new trail treads would be constructed. These routes would be established to create safe, efficient, and maintained paths on BLM- administered land.
Under the Proposed Action, route designations for the Water Canyon and Demijohn routes would be changed from open to limited and the Timber Canyon Ridge route segments PM 1122 and 1123 would be changed from open to limited administrative use.
The Proposed Action would also include the implementation of seasonal closures, speed limits, proposed maintenance intensities, education, enforcement, signage, and other TMP components. It would maintain connection to USFS routes.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-6
Figure 2-3. Proposed Action
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-7 The Proposed Action includes the results of route evaluations conducted by BLM in 2009, which change those existing closed designations (from the 2001 Federal Register) to limited administrative use or non-motorized use. While the designations have changed, uses remain the same because the definition of closed under the 2001 Federal Register included only closed to public use, while routes remained open to administrative use. Coordination would occur to ensure consistent signage and public information across BLM and USFS. Table 2-3 includes miles and percentages of route designations under the Proposed Action.
Table 2-3. Miles and Percentages of Route Designations under Proposed Action
Percentage * Designation Miles of Total County Road, Highway, ROW 13.4 5 Open 112 45 Limited Non-Motorized 54.3 22 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 63.8 26 Limited Seasonally 0.1 <1 Closed 3.1 1 Total 246.7 100 * Any discrepancies in this table are due to rounding.
2.5.1 Minor Realignments The Proposed Action would include minor route adjustments to address erosion issues, access issues, or other resource concerns. Route adjustments would not change more than 0.25 mile of a designated route. These adjustments could also include opening a separate existing route that serves the same access need as the route that is to be realigned. Minor realignments of the route network would be considered to be maintenance actions under the TMP, consistent with the BLM NEPA Handbook (BLM 2008).
Maintenance would not include new surface disturbance for the construction of new routes except where new construction would be necessary for the following situations: • Minimize effects to cultural resources; • Reduce impacts to sensitive species or their habitats; • Increase the quality of a recreational experience, while not affecting sensitive species or their habitats or any other sensitive resources; and • Opening or limited opening of a route where valid ROWs or easements of record were not accurately identified in the route designation process.
2.5.2 Route Closures The BiFO strategy for restoring closed/decommissioned or unauthorized travel routes would be accomplished as time and funding permit. Travel routes identified for closure under the Proposed Action would be allowed to naturally recover. Passive restoration would be implemented and could incorporate natural features to close the route to OHV use. Per 43 CFR 8341.2 (a), if it is
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-8 determined that OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable adverse effects to resources along a route, the affected area would be immediately closed to the type(s) of OHVs causing the adverse effects until the effects are eliminated and measures are implemented to prevent recurrence. These closures would not prevent designation of the route in accordance with 43 CFR 8342. These areas would not be opened to the type(s) of OHVs for which they were closed unless the AO determines that the adverse effects have been eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent recurrence.
2.5.3 Authorizations Under the Proposed Action, routes that were not included in the inventory or documented during the BiFO travel management planning process would be considered on a case-by-case basis with written approval from the AO. Travel management designations would not affect valid existing rights for permitted uses, including ROWs, county or State roads, grazing authorizations, or current easements. Routes designated as authorized and administrative use only are also subject to seasonal closures, vehicle size class restrictions, and ongoing monitoring.
Authorizations for route uses that provide necessary access to authorized or permitted range improvement projects would be incorporated into the travel management network via administrative access during implementation and/or plan maintenance unless detrimental resource concerns require analysis or cannot be mitigated. These projects would be documented in the Rangeland Improvement Project System (RIPS) and/or have a signed cooperative agreement, range improvement permit, or other documentation requiring maintenance. These routes, which may provide important access for required maintenance activities, are used intermittently and could have been missed during field inventories.
Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use, maintain, and/or modify removable range improvements that are necessary to achieve management objectives for the allotment. If maintenance is no longer possible, access may be necessary for potential removal and abandonment of these range improvement projects and reclamation. Any new range improvement projects installed during the life of the TMP should have administrative access for maintenance. Any new projects would require site-specific NEPA analysis.
Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would continue to consider granting ROWs for, or including, vehicular use. Approved ROWs, including roads or vehicular ways, would automatically be incorporated into the TMP on a case-by-case basis.
2.5.4 Cultural Resources BLM would consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in order to fulfill the process required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The exact nature and extent of this consultation is defined in the programmatic agreement regarding cultural resources, with additional ongoing consultation with SHPO.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-9 2.5.5 Future Improvements The TMP provided specifications for associated BiFO maps and signage, including signage for ports-of-entry. The TMP considered routes that provided access to public lands, recreational opportunity areas (e.g., hunting, fishing, boating, camping), and allowed for future funded improvements (e.g., staging areas, non-motorized trails). Any improvements beyond those discussed would require separate site-specific NEPA analysis.
Mitigation measures for all resource sections are outlined in Appendix B of the RMP/FEIS.
2.6 Summary Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-4 presents the resource issues and indicators and provides a comparison of the alternatives.
Table 2-4. Resource Issues and Indicators under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives
Resource Issues/Indicators No Action Proposed Action How would the The No Action Alternative would Under the Proposed Action, the proposed travel network maintain existing conditions and use proposed travel network would or its alternatives affect management and resource emphasize multiple-use management motorized or non- development as currently by protecting sensitive resources motorized access on inventoried. No improvements or while providing recreation and travel public lands? minor limited closures would occur. opportunities. The Proposed Action The No Action Alternative includes includes reroutes, route the routes that were closed under the improvements, and implementation 2001 Federal Register as closed of seasonal closures, speed limits, even though these routes are proposed maintenance intensities, currently used by BLM for education, enforcement, signage, and administrative use. other TMP components. It would maintain connection to USFS routes. How would non- Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action motorized public the existing non-motorized public approximately 52 miles of additional recreation opportunities recreation opportunities would be non-motorized public recreation be affected by the maintained and no improvements opportunities would be implemented. implementation of the would occur. TMP? How would motorized Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, public recreation the existing motorized public additional motorized public opportunities be recreation opportunities would be recreation opportunities would be affected by the maintained and no improvements implemented. implementation of the would occur. TMP?
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-10 Resource Issues/Indicators No Action Proposed Action How would the change Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, route in use (route management of cultural resources closures and limited designations designations) affect would maintain existing conditions would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources? as inventoried. No additional cultural resources. improvements or changes in route designations would be implemented. How would Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, opportunities for remote existing opportunities for remote opportunities for remote recreational recreational experiences recreational experiences would be experiences would increase due to be affected by the maintained and no additional changes in route designations and implementation of the improvements would be improvements proposed in the TMP. TMP? implemented. How would greater Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, route sage-grouse breeding existing greater sage-grouse closures and limited designations and nesting success be breeding and nesting habitat would would reduce or eliminate potential affected by route be maintained and no additional impacts to greater sage-grouse designations under the improvements or changes in route breeding areas. This is based on 1.3 TMP? designations would be implemented. miles of route closures within two miles of an active lek and associated decrease in habitat degradation, loss, fragmentation, noise, and human disturbance. How would bighorn Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, the sheep be affected by existing bighorn sheep habitat miles of open routes within bighorn route designations would be maintained and no sheep habitat would be reduced by under the TMP? additional improvements or changes approximately two miles and an would be implemented. additional 15.8 miles of existing motorized routes would be designated for non-motorized use only. How would the Pryor Under the No Action Alternative, The travel management and wild Mountain wild horse existing Pryor Mountain wild horse horses decision was already made in herd be affected by habitat would be maintained and no the RMP and there would be no new route designations additional improvements or changes impacts from implementation of the under the TMP? in route designations would be TMP. implemented. How would wilderness Under the No Action Alternative, The Proposed Action would impact characteristics be existing wilderness characteristics existing wilderness characteristics affected by establishing within the TMA would be within the TMA from designation of new hiking trails within maintained and no additional hiking new non-motorized trails within the TMA? trails would be implemented. these areas, resulting in more use. How would the Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, existing distribution and spread there would be no improvements or distribution and spread of invasive of invasive weeds be changes made to the existing weeds would be increased during affected under the distribution and spread of invasive reroute construction. However, TMP? weeds. impacts are expected to be temporary and would not result in long-term or irreversible impacts.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-11 Resource Issues/Indicators No Action Proposed Action How would Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, construction of reroutes construction would not occur within construction of reroutes could result affect greater sage- identified greater sage-grouse in adverse impacts to existing greater grouse within the habitat and no additional sage-grouse populations. However, TMA? improvements or reroutes would be impacts would be temporary and implemented. would not result in long-term or irreversible impacts. How would Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, construction of reroutes existing routes would be maintained construction of reroutes would not affect soils within the and no additional improvements or impact soils. Soil erosion would be TMA? changes to existing routes would be improved by the Red Pryor Road implemented. Impacts to soils reroute. Passive reclamation would would remain the same under the occur on the current route after No Action Alternative. closure. How would public Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, public access be affected by public access within the TMA access would be improved by reroutes under the would be maintained and no relocating routes onto BLM- TMP? additional improvements or changes administered land and off of private would be implemented. land.
How would Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, socioeconomics be socioeconomic conditions would be opportunities for dispersed affected by the maintained and no changes would recreation and permitted uses would implementation of the be implemented. increase. TMP? How would access to Under the No Action Alternative, Under the Proposed Action, existing caves be affected by the current access to existing caves access to caves would be maintained implementation of the would be maintained and no and there would be no potential TMP? additional improvements or changes impacts to cave access. in route designations would be implemented.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 2-12 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter includes the affected environment of the TMA and provides analysis of impacts (environmental consequences) that would result from implementation of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives (Chapter 2). An environmental impact or consequence is a modification or change to the existing environment resulting from an action. Impacts can be direct, indirect, short-term, long-term, or permanent. Definitions of these impact classifications are included in the glossary under “Impacts (Common Terms)”. “Affected environment” issues are stated as questions for each resource category. Unless otherwise specified, the analysis area is defined as lands and water within the Pryor Mountain TMA boundaries (Figure 2-1).
Issue 11: How would construction of reroutes affect soils within the TMA?
3.1 Soils 3.1.1 Affected Environment Soil resources have formed within three Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) (NRCS 2006) as described below. The majority of the TMA is located within the Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills MLRA, an area of eroded plateaus and terraces.
3.1.1.1 MLRA 32 – Northern Intermountain Desertic Basin The northern two-thirds of this MLRA is in the Bighorn Basin. It is in the Middle Rocky Mountains Province of the Rocky Mountain System. Elevation ranges from 3,900 to 5,900 feet. This portion of the MLRA is an elevated, dissected basin surrounded by mountain ranges to the east, west, and south and situated in a syncline between anticlinal mountain ranges. The surface is covered with old deposits of sand and gravel washed into the basin by the streams and rivers draining from surrounding mountains. The present-day rivers and streams have excavated old pediment surfaces, forming terraces. Alluvial fan deposits grade into the valley fill pediments. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Entisols and Aridisols. They are generally shallow to very deep, well drained, and loamy.
3.1.1.2 MLRA 46S – Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills, South The Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills MLRA, with elevations ranging from 3,600 to 7,870 feet, is in the south and northwestern region of the TMA. The foothills east of the Northern Rocky Mountains are on an old plateau of uplifted marine sediments. The rugged hills and low mountains are cut by many narrow valleys with steep gradients. Broad floodplains and fans border a few of the major rivers These marine sediments are primarily sandstones and shales with some layers of chalk and conglomerate. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Mollisols and Entisols, and soils are shallow to very deep, generally well drained, and loamy or clayey.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-1 3.1.1.3 MLRA 58A – Northern Rolling High Plains, Northern Part This area is in the Missouri Plateau, unglaciated section of the Great Plains Province of the Interior Plains. It is an area of old plateaus and terraces that have been deeply eroded. Elevations range from 2,950 to 5,900 feet, increasing gradually from north to south. This MLRA is an important mining (coal and uranium) and petroleum district. The largest deposits of coal in the United States occur in this area. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Aridisols and Entisols. The soils in the area predominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aridic soil moisture regime that borders on ustic, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They are shallow to very deep, generally well drained, and loamy or clayey.
The main characteristics for evaluating the suitability of soils are their susceptibility to erosion, or the capacity of a site to limit redistribution and loss of soils (including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water. Water erosion is the detachment and movement of soil by water. Natural erosion rates depend on inherent soil properties, slope, soil cover, and climate. The water erosion hazards from unsurfaced roads and trails are based on soil factors such as slope, rock fragment content, and the K factor (soil erosion factor). Water-erodible soils are rated as having a high, medium, or low potential for water erodibility. Figure 3-1 shows the areas within the TMA with high, medium, and low potential for water erosion. As shown in Figure 3-1, most soils in the TMA have low water erosion potential. Areas with medium water erosion potential are distributed throughout the TMA, while most of the high erosion potential areas are located within two to three miles of the Wyoming state line. Table 3-1 presents the number of acres within the TMA in each of the water erosion risk classes. Note that approximately half of the TMA consists of areas with no available water erosion data.
Wind erosion is physical wearing of the earth’s surface by wind. Wind erosion removes and redistributes soil. Small blowout areas may be associated with adjacent areas of deposition at the bases of plants or behind obstacles, such as rocks, shrubs, fence rows, and road banks. Wind erodible soils are rated as having a high, medium, or low potential for wind erodibility. Figure 3-2 shows distribution of areas within the TMA with high, medium, and low potential for wind erosion. Most of the TMA falls into the medium potential for wind erosion class. Only a few isolated areas have high wind erosion potential. Table 3-1 presents the number of acres within the TMA in each of the wind erosion risk classes. Note that approximately half of the TMA consists of areas with no available wind erosion data.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-2
Figure 3-1. Water Erosion Potential
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-3
Figure 3-2. Wind Erosion Potential
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-4 Table 3-1. Water and Wild Erosion Potential on BLM-Administered Land within the TMA
Water Erosion Potential Wind Erosion Potential Rating (Acres) (Acres) High 8,331 835 Medium 6,411 23,785 Low 25,658 15,778 No data for this area per NRCS 41,000 41,000 Source: BLM 2018.
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences Soils within the TMA are susceptible to impacts from compaction and disturbance, which can lead to accelerated erosion and soil loss, changes in soil chemistry, and/or disturbance of soil crusts. Surface disturbances generally increase soil susceptibility to erosion and compaction, which increases the potential for offsite movement, salinity, and sediment delivery to streams. Management actions that involve surface disturbing activities; a reduction in vegetation cover; trampling; and the use of vehicles and heavy machinery can result in such impacts. This is especially true in areas where natural erosion rates are high because of soil type, condition or slope.
The effects of travel on unmaintained routes are similar to the effects of cross-country travel. The greater the number of unmaintained routes, the greater the adverse impacts to soils from compaction and erosion. Motorized routes vary within the TMA, with two tracks creating a wider footprint than a single track for motorcycles or non-motorized travel. Routes located on steep slopes and in areas with fragile, exposed soils are vulnerable to disturbance. The displaced soil particles can be transported by wind, water, or other natural and anthropogenic forces. Traveling on routes during the spring season, or other times of year with high soil moisture content (i.e., after a recent precipitation event), could lead to rutting, compaction, accelerated runoff, erosion, and increased sedimentation in rivers and streams. Drainage crossings are a key contributor of sediment to waterways. Sediment transport can be reduced by road maintenance, including installation of culverts where appropriate, and other Best Management Practices (BMPs).
3.1.2.1 No Action Alternative As illustrated in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, the No Action Alternative would have the greatest impact on soils, with nearly 165 miles of open or limited routes located on soils with high or moderate wind and water erosion potential. Under the No Action Alternative, nearly two miles of open routes (including County Roads, Highways, and ROWs) would cross through areas of high wind erodibility, and 57.8 miles would cross through areas of moderate wind erodibility. Additionally, 8.2 miles of open routes would cross through areas of high water erodibility, and 16 miles would cross through areas of moderate water erodibility. These routes would be more susceptible to erosion and would contribute to sedimentation into nearby rivers and streams.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-5 Soil compaction and rutting of existing routes would continue and unauthorized cross country travel would continue to compact soils and damage vegetation. Compaction would decrease infiltration of moisture, and increase runoff and erosion. Routes located on steep slopes would also be prone to increased runoff and erosion, leading to the formation of rill and gullies if left unmitigated.
Table 3-2. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Wind Erosion Potential – No Action
High Wind Moderate Wind Designation Erodibility Erodibility County Road, Highway, ROW 1.3 5.0 Open 0.6 52.8 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 0.7 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 0.0 52.6 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 0.0 Source: BLM 2018.
Table 3-3. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Water Erosion Potential – No Action
High Water Moderate Water Designation Erodibility Erodibility County Road, Highway, ROW 0.1 4.9 Open 8.1 11.1 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 0.0 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 17.1 10.0 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 0.0 Source: BLM 2018.
3.1.2.2 Proposed Action Impacts to soils would occur from the Proposed Action due to the overall mileage of open and limited routes through areas of high erosion hazard, measured by wind and water erosion potential. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 provide a summary of route mileage of open or limited routes located on soils with high or moderate wind and water erosion potential under the Proposed Action.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-6 Table 3-4. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Wind Erosion Potential – Proposed Action
High Wind Moderate Wind Designation Erodibility Erodibility County Road, Highway, ROW 1.3 4.9 Open 0.2 52.3 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 29.8 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 0.3 23.1 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 2.1 Source: BLM 2018.
Table 3-5. Route Miles through Areas of High and Moderate Water Erosion Potential – Proposed Action
High Water Moderate Water Designation Erodibility Erodibility County Road, Highway, ROW 0.1 4.9 Open 6.0 7.4 Limited Non-Motorized 2.6 5.5 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 15.5 8.2 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.1 Closed 1.0 0.03 Source: BLM 2018. As described in Chapter 2, the Red Pryor Road would be rerouted to minimize current erosion issues. This proposed reroute would improve erosion issues and lessen current resource impacts. The current route goes straight up hillsides, creating fall lines for water drainage and forms deep tread ruts. A reroute would greatly minimize rutting created from runoff, and minimize soil displacement. The Stockman Trail would be rerouted under the Proposed Action and would provide access to the existing route from BLM administered land, replacing the current access across private land.
Construction of the reroutes and new non-motorized routes would result in soil disturbances from construction related activities and long-term compaction; however, the mileage of new routes and reroutes within the TMA travel system is negligible when considered with the benefits from the Red Pryor reroute and the miles of other routes that would be decommissioned and passively restored. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in long-term, irreversible impacts.
As decommissioned routes are naturally restored, soil erosion would be reduced, if infiltration is impacted by compaction, as vegetation regrows. Seasonal closures, during the late spring months, would provide a beneficial effect to soil resources due to the reduced potential for compaction, rutting, and erosion during the wettest periods of the year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2019).
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-7 Issue 5: How would greater sage-grouse breeding and nesting success be affected by route designations under the TMP?
Issue 6: How would bighorn sheep be affected by route designations under the TMP?
Issue 10: How would construction of reroutes affect greater sage-grouse within the TMA?
3.2 Wildlife (Bighorn Sheep and Greater Sage-Grouse) 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2.1.1 Bighorn Sheep Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep typically inhabit cliffs, mountain slopes, and rolling foothills with open to semi-open conditions. Within the TMA, there are 13,878 acres of general bighorn sheep habitat that is occupied for part or all of their year-round range (Table 3-6) (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2019).
The Pryor Mountain bighorn sheep herd is the only population known on BLM-administered lands managed by the BiFO. This herd occupies areas on USFS, NPS, BLM, state, and private lands surrounding the east and west Pryor Mountains. As of 2015, bighorn sheep population trends in the TMA have been increasing, with 78 bighorn sheep counted in 2008 (BLM 2015a). Hunting was initiated in 1990. Bighorn sheep habitat is generally located along the eastern edge of the TMA near Bighorn Canyon and Crooked Creek where remote and complex mountainous terrain is found. Table 3-6. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat within the TMA
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Type Acres Percentage of TMA General Habitat 13,878 17 Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2019
3.2.1.2 Greater Sage-Grouse The greater sage-grouse is a sagebrush obligate species that depends on sagebrush habitats for cover, nest success, and winter forage. Approximately 23,973 acres, or 29 percent of the TMA, is identified as a Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) for the species and approximately 9,172 acres, or 11 percent of the TMA, is identified as a General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) (Table 3-7; BLM 2018). The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) statewide monitoring dataset identifies two active Greater Sage-Grouse leks within the TMA (MFWP 2018). Specific goals for trails and travel management can be found in the BLM 2015 Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan.
Table 3-7. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the TMA
Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Type Acres Percentage of TMA General Habitat Management Area 9,172 11 Priority Habitat Management Area 23,973 29 Source: BLM 2019
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-8 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2.2.1 Bighorn Sheep Both alternatives would result in the continuation of travel routes that are located within bighorn sheep habitat. These uses impact bighorn sheep though habitat loss and fragmentation, degradation, and noise, limiting the ability of bighorn sheep to travel freely within and between habitat patches.
Route limitations would benefit bighorn sheep and habitat in the long-term by removing vehicular disturbance on routes designated as non-motorized and by allowing vegetation and soils to passively restore over time. Route maintenance and reroute activities within bighorn sheep habitat could have short-term adverse impacts but would result in long-term benefits to the species due the reduction in erosion, resource damage and noise from the existing alignment.
Disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep is an on-going concern that can decimate bighorn sheep populations.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing route network and continued vehicular travel on the approximately 20.7 miles of open routes and 18.9 miles of routes limited to administrative and authorized users within bighorn sheep habitat would not benefit the species within the TMA.
Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the length of open routes within bighorn sheep habitat would be reduced by approximately two miles and an additional 15.8 miles of existing motorized routes would be designated for non-motorized use only (Table 3-8). These changes would benefit bighorn sheep habitat through reduced human disturbance. Passive restoration of vegetation and soils along routes no longer being impacted by vehicle travel would also benefit habitat. The rerouting and maintenance of Red Pryor Road would temporarily disturb to up to 2.55 miles of bighorn sheep habitat, but benefit habitat over time by reducing erosion and wash-outs through improvement of the road alignment.
Table 3-8. Miles of Routes in Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat within the TMA
Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway 0.0 0.0 Open 20.7 19.1 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 15.8 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 18.9 6.7 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 0.0 Source: BLM 2018
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-9 3.2.2.2 Greater Sage-Grouse The types of impacts to greater sage-grouse and its habitat from route uses include: • Mortality from collision with vehicles (adults and less mobile young); • Destruction of active nests; • Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; • Reduced connectivity among habitats and populations (restricting gene flow); • Decreased nest initiation/success and lower population survival and growth rates resulting from disruption of seasonal movement, brooding, wintering, or lekking activities; and • Increased susceptibility to disease and predation resulting from habitat fragmentation and loss and physiological stress induced by noise and human activity.
Both alternatives would result in continued use of routes located within greater sage-grouse habitat. These uses would continue to cause habitat fragmentation, and potential mortality from vehicle collisions.
Route closures and limitations would have long-term beneficial effects to greater sage-grouse and its habitat through reduction or removal of impacts that are listed above. Table 3-9 includes miles of route designations within greater sage-grouse PHMAs and GHMAs in the TMA (BLM 2019). Table 3-10 includes miles of route designations within two miles of an active greater sage-grouse lek (MFWP 2018).
No Action Alternative Potential impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat under the No Action Alternative would continue in the same manner and intensity as currently occurs, including 37.5 miles of open routes within PHMAs and 15 miles within GHMAs. In addition, 19.9 miles of open routes and 24.4 miles of routes limited to administrative and authorized users would remain within two miles of an active greater sage-grouse lek. This alternative would not benefit greater sage-grouse or sagebrush habitat.
Table 3-9. Miles of Routes in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and GHMA within the TMA
Priority Priority General General Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Management Management Management Management Route Area Area Area Area Designation Proposed Proposed No Action Action No Action Action County Road, Highway 3.6 3.6 0.2 0.2 Open 37.5 35.5 15.0 14.5 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 8.3 0.8 8.0 Limited Administrative and 19.3 12.3 38.0 30.8 Authorized Users
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-10 Priority Priority General General Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Management Management Management Management Route Area Area Area Area Designation Proposed Proposed No Action Action No Action Action Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 Source: BLM 2019
Table 3-10. Miles of Routes within two miles of an Active Greater Sage-Grouse Lek
Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway 4.7 4.7 Open 19.9 17.9 Limited Non-Motorized 1.0 6.7 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 24.4 19.3 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 1.3 Source: MFWP 2018
Proposed Action The Proposed Action would benefit greater sage-grouse due to 1.3 miles of route closures within two miles of an active lek and associated decrease in habitat degradation, loss, fragmentation, noise, and human disturbance. Passive restoration would be implemented on the closed routes, which would increase sagebrush habitat for the species. The Proposed Action would result in 35.5 miles through PHMAs and 14.5 miles through GHMAs.
Issue 3: How would the change in use (route designations) affect cultural resources?
3.3 Cultural Resources 3.3.1 Affected Environment Cultural resources are locations where humans worked, subsisted, traveled, lived, slept – the whole spectrum of human activity. These resources can be identified through field inventory (survey), historic documentation, and sometimes oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific uses, and may include definite locations (sites or places) of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. Cultural resources are concrete, material places and things that are located, classified, ranked, and managed through the system of identification, protection, and utilization for public benefit.
Relevant laws, ordinances, Executive Orders (EO), policies, regulations and agreements other than NEPA include the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431–433); NHPA of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 306101 et seq.); EO 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (May 13, 1971); American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 469:
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-11 42 U.S.C. 1996); Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPA) of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013); EO 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (May 24, 1996); and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1701). The State of Montana uses “The State Protocol Agreement between the Montana State Director, Bureau of Land Management and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office Regarding the Manner in which the Bureau of Land Management will meet its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act as Provided for in the National Programmatic Agreement” that outlines implementation of the BLM National Programmatic Agreement (2015)Archaeologists have documented a long history of human occupation in Montana. The cultural history of the region, which spans approximately 12,000 years, is divided into numerous periods that reflect changing adaptations and lifeways. The TMA is located in the Pryor Mountains of south central Montana south of Billings.
Archaeologically, this area falls within the Plains Culture (Driver and Massey 1957) or Northwest Plains (Dyck and Morlan 2001). The Northwest Plains prehistory is divided into three periods (Dyck and Morlan 2001). The three divisions include Paleoindian (Early [12,000 – 10,000] Late [10,000 – 8,000]), Archaic (Early Plains [8,000-5,000], Middle Plains [5,000 – 3,000] and Late Plains [3,000 – 1,500]) and Late Prehistoric (1,500 – 300) periods (MacDonald 2012). The cultural history of the TMA is summarized below to provide an understanding of the cultural resources present within areas that could be affected by implementation of the TMP.
In the south central region of Montana, there is little evidence of Paleoindian Period occupation; the time when the earliest humans in North America traveled in small, mobile groups. Playas, streams, and springs were important variables to determine Paleoindian settlement patterns. Subsistence focused on large megafaunal species such as mammoths, camels, and bison, and use of the landscape was based on the pursuit of these animals (MacDonald 2012). Land use changed as climate and topography variations occurred. Paleoindian hunters exploited bighorn sheep, marmot, jackrabbit, deer, and to a lesser extent bison (MacDonald 2012). Evidence also suggests that berries, tubers, seeds, and nuts were subsistence resources (Huckell and Judge 2006).
Overall, the intensity of human occupation increased during the Archaic Period, though there is a significant lack of archaeological sites from the Early Archaic in Montana (MacDonald 2012). This trend is likely related to changes in regional environmental conditions that led to increased diversification of fauna and flora species upon which hunter-gatherer groups relied. It is believed that the change in projectile point morphology was a direct result of a new weapons technology from spears to the atlatl (Dyck and Morlan 2001). Pit houses also make an appearance in the archaeological record during the Archaic Period (MacDonald 2012).
During the Late Prehistoric Period, bison hunting escalated in intensity. Bison kill sites often include hundreds of animals during this period (MacDonald 2012). Population increased, and though people continued to be hunter-gatherers in Montana, the emergence of permanent villages in the region influenced these populations through trade of goods and information. The bow and
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-12 arrow was adopted during this period, which facilitated the hunting of bison, deer, elk, and other game. Consequently, the archaeological record of this period yields smaller projectile points than earlier periods. Pottery, though fairly rare in Montana, emerges in the archaeological record of this period. The Pryor Mountains were named for Sergeant Nathaniel Pryor, who was a member of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Lewis and Clark arrived in Montana in 1805 to 1806 (DeVoto 1952). Interest in Montana increased with reports from the Lewis and Clark expedition that described large numbers of fur bearing animals that were available for exploitation. The first attempt in the Montana fur trapping industry was by Manuel Lisa of the St. Louis Missouri Fur Company, whose earliest fort (known variously as Fort Remon, Lisa’s Fort or Fort Manuel) was established in 1807 at the confluence of the Bighorn and Yellowstone rivers (Malone and Roeder 1976).
John Jacobs and John M. Bozeman set out in 1863 to find a better route connecting the Oregon Trail to the gold fields in Montana (McCraig 2000). The Bozeman Trail crossed the Bighorn River and was located south of the Pryor Mountains. The Bozeman Trail passed through Lakota and Cheyenne territory.
The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie established the Crow tribe’s territory that encompassed 38 million acres. In 1868, the Crow territory was reduced to eight million acres with the second Fort Laramie Treaty. In 1882 and again in 1904, Congressional Acts reduced, the size of the Crow Reservation. The 1904 act reduced the lands to 2.3 million acres (Indian Education 2010). Currently, the Crow Reservation covers 3.8 million acres in south central Montana. (Indian Education 2009).
Many Native American tribes have migrated through or near the TMA in the last several hundred years. However, the Crow are considered to have traditional lands in the vicinity. The Pryor Mountains are scared and known as the Arrow Shot Into Rock Mountains by the Crow people. Other recognized tribes in Montana that should be considered for NAGPA consultation include: Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.
Approximately 47 percent of the 81,383 acres of the Pryor Mountain TMA has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; 594 miles of existing routes have been inventoried. A previously recorded site was reevaluated for significance as part of this project. Some of the previous inventory was outdated and areas where projects would be implemented would be assessed for any inventory needs. The need for additional inventory would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. There are 166 previously recorded sites present in the TMA. Of the 166 previously recorded sites, 141 are prehistoric sites that include; lithic concentrations (81), tipi rings (26), rock cairns (eight), hearths or roasting pits (two), petroglyphs and pictographs (seven), rock
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-13 shelters (seven), vision quest structures (four), surface stone quarries (four), an ambush game drive site (one) and a conical timber lodge. Three are temporally unaffiliated rock structures. Six are historic-age and include; a railroad (one), roads/trails (two), homesteads/farmsteads (one), a cribbed log structure (one), and the Bean Post Office. One is a paleoanthropological resource recorded as a fish fossil bed. There are four sites that are documented as “other” and eleven additional sites with spatial data but no additional information. There are 23 sites that have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 143 sites with eligibility undetermined or unresolved. All of the previously identified sites that have been found not eligible for the NRHP have been omitted.
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences As stated in Section 2.5.4, BLM would consult with the SHPO in order to fulfill the process required by Section 106 of the NHPA. The exact nature and extent of this consultation is defined in the programmatic agreement regarding cultural resources, with additional ongoing consultation with the SHPO. Future revisions to the TMP, the addition of new roads, reroutes of existing roads, and any new disturbances would require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA on a case-by-case basis. NRHP eligible sites discovered along roads during future surveys, after designation of an official road network, may warrant additional road closures to avoid unacceptable impacts to sites.
Routes limited or closed by the Proposed Action would be signed, and closed routes may be barricaded, where feasible, and passively restored. This would give BLM the ability to better manage and enforce route closures. Although route limitations and closures lower the potential for damage to cultural sites, the risks to cultural resources caused by vehicular traffic and illegal collecting would remain under the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives.
In the analyses in this section, a 100 foot wide buffer surrounding each route is considered to be an area of direct impact, while a 0.25 mile buffer surrounding each route is considered to be an area of indirect impact. Access to sites can host a range of potential impacts, including direct effects e.g., artifacts and/or features being displaced, broken, or eroded out from route development and use, parking areas, and vehicle pull-off/turnaround areas. Indirect effects include collection and looting; inadvertent damage to sites resulting from off-road driving; and visual, audible, and atmospheric effects that may diminish integrity of setting or feeling. Higher levels of human traffic may pose greater risks to cultural resources. Access to routes may be altered to lessen resource impacts.
The proximity of routes to cultural resources can be used as an indicator of the potential direct impacts that the proposed action may have on cultural resources in the TMA. To assess direct impacts to cultural resources, Table 3-11 lists mileages of each route designation category for the Proposed Action and No Action that intersect or lie within 100 feet of previously recorded cultural resources. This includes sites that have been recommended or determined eligible for
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-14 listing in the NRHP, and sites that have not had their NRHP-eligibility evaluated or status is unknown.
3.3.2.1 No Action Alternative To assess impacts to cultural resources, Table 3-11 lists mileages of each route designation category for the Proposed Action and No Action that lie within 100 feet or 0.25 mile of previously recorded cultural resource sites. As shown in Table 3-11, the No Action Alternative would have 6.5 miles of open routes and 5.2 miles of limited routes located within 100 feet of a cultural site. In addition, the No Action would have 40 miles of open routes and 46 miles of limited routes located within 0.25 mile of significant or potentially significant cultural sites (Table 3-12).
Table 3-11. Miles of Route Type within 100 feet of a Cultural Site Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway, ROW 1.7 1.7 Open 6.5 5.6 Limited Non-Motorized 0.1 4.1 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 5.2 2.2 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 0.3
Table 3-12. Miles of Route Type within 0.25 Mile of a Cultural Site Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway, ROW 5.0 5.0 Open 40.3 41.2 Limited Non-Motorized 0.9 30.1 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 45.5 15.1 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 1.7
3.3.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in a slight decrease in mileage of open routes (0.9 mile) within 100 feet of a cultural site from the No Action Alternative. In addition, this alternative would close 0.3 mile of routes within 100 feet of a cultural site (Table 3-11). Overall, the combined mileage of motorized routes (open routes including County Road, Highway and ROW, and routes limited to administrative and authorized users) within 100 feet of a cultural site would decrease by 3.9 miles under the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would designate 4.1 miles of non-motorized routes that would be located within 100 feet of a cultural site (Table 3- 11).
The proposed action would result in 1.7 miles of route closures, an increase of 0.9 miles of open routes, and a decrease of 30.4 miles of routes limited to administrative and authorized users within 0.25 mile from cultural sites. (Table 3-12).
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-15 The proposed action would result in fewer direct and indirect impacts to significant or potentially significant cultural resources due to the decrease in the mileage of open routes within 100 feet (0.9 mile). There would be a slight increase in indirect impacts within 0.25 mile (0.9 miles) of a cultural site. However, the closure of 0.3 mile of routes within the 100 foot buffer and 1.7 miles of routes within the 0.25 mile buffer, the reduction in mileage of routes limited to administrative and authorized users, and the designation of non-motorized routes, would offset these impacts. The overall impact is anticipated to be minimal.
Issue 4: How would opportunities for a remote recreational experience be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
3.4 Areas with Special Designations 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4.1.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are areas where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent damage to important historical, cultural, and scenic values; fish, or wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes (BLM 2017). Managing ACECs to protect and prevent damage to the resources and values for which they were designated is part of BLM’s multiple-use mission. Routes to and within these areas provide important public access for their use and enjoyment.
There are three ACECs designated within the TMA (Table 3-13, Figure 3-3). The smallest, Petroglyph Canyon ACEC (239 acres), is located along the Montana/Wyoming border and was designated in 1999 for its important cultural value. The East Pryor Mountain ACEC (11,040 acres) consists of several non-contiguous tracts that comprise much of the lands in the eastern portion of the TMA adjacent to the Pryor Mountain WSA. It was designated in 1999 for its scenic, geologic, cultural, paleontological and biological values. The Pryor Foothills ACEC (2,607 acres) was designated in the 2015 RMP for its significant biological and cultural values. OHV travel is limited to designated routes in the East Pryor Mountain and Pryor Foothills ACECs. Petroglyph Canyon ACEC is closed to OHVs.
Table 3-13. Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACECs) within the TMA
ACEC Acres Percent of TMA Miles of Routes East Pryor Mountain ACEC 11,040 14% 42.6 Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 239 < 1% 0.3 Pryor Foothills ACEC 2,607 3% 6.8 Source: BLM 2018
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-16
Figure 3-3. ACECs
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-17 3.4.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers The Wild and Scenic River Act directs Federal agencies to consider potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in their planning process. The inventory and study process determined that two segments of Crooked Creek located within the TMA met the eligibility criteria (Table 3-14). The first segment, 1.59 miles of Crooked Creek above the fish barrier, contains free flowing determination, scenic, recreation, fish, and cultural eligibility (BLM 2015a). The second segment, 1.56 miles of Crooked Creek below the fish barrier, contains free flowing determination, scenic, recreation, and cultural eligibility (BLM 2015a). There are no designated Wild and Scenic River segments in the TMA. Both eligible segments are located within the roadless Burnt Timber Canyon WSA.
Table 3-14. Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments within the TMA
Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments Miles Crooked Creek (above fish barrier) 1.59 Crooked Creek (below fish barrier) 1.56 Total 3.15 Source: BLM 2015c
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.2.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Designating routes within ACECs in the TMA would enhance visitor experiences and benefit unique natural and cultural resources by limiting public OHV use on some routes to specific sizes of vehicles, limited seasons, or to non-motorized travel only. Designating routes as non- motorized would decrease soil erosion, reestablish and stabilize vegetation on parts of the route no longer in use (e.g. conversion from two-track to single-track over time), and improve wildlife habitat through the removal of full-sized vehicle traffic. Restricting full-sized vehicle travel would also help protect nearby paleontological, cultural, and historic resources from potential collection, degradation or damage.
Travel on open and limited routes would continue to pose a risk of damaging natural and cultural resources in ACECs within the TMA.
Routes designated as open would continue to provide public access to ACECs and allow BLM to concentrate management and resources on the designated transportation network, and provide accurate maps to users of the area.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in no change to current management of the route network and leave approximately 29 miles of routes within ACECs open to OHV use, and 18 miles of routes within ACECs limited to administrative and authorized users.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-18 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would designate approximately 24 miles of routes as open, 14 miles as limited non-motorized, and eight miles as limited to administrative and authorized users within ACECs in the TMA. A reduction in the length of open routes would improve scenic and ecological integrity of the landscape and improve plant and wildlife habitat. In addition, the Proposed Action would result in unique recreation and travel opportunities by balancing non- motorized vs. motorized uses. The great majority of currently open routes would remain available for motorized uses, while new opportunities would be created for travel along routes limited to non-motorized use only. The non-motorized designation would allow two-track routes to passively restore to single-track non-motorized trails.
Under the Proposed Action, rerouting and maintenance of Red Pryor Road would result in a temporary disturbance to the East Pryor Mountain ACEC, but would benefit both natural resources and recreational setting by improving the alignment and mitigating existing erosion and wash-out issues.
Adverse impacts and beneficial effects from routes and route use on various ACEC resources and values are also described in the Wildlife, and Cultural Resources sections. Table 3-15 presents route mileage and OHV usage limitations within ACECs under the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.
Table 3-15. Miles of Routes in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) within the TMA
Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway 4.2 4.2 Open 28.6 24.4 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 14.3 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 17.7 7.5 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.1 Closed 0.0 0.0 Source: BLM 2015
3.4.2.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Potential impacts to eligible Wild and Scenic River segments within the TMA from designated routes would be minimal. The nearest roads are located on the boundaries of the Burnt Timber WSA. One of these is the Demijohn Flat Road, which is located approximately 0.25 mile to the west of Crooked Creek. The other route (PM 1019 and PM 1022) splits off of Demijohn Flat Road (used only for administrative access under both alternatives) and parallels Crooked Creek approximately 0.1 miles to the west. Burnt Timber Ridge Road is another nearby road that is located approximately one mile to the east of Crooked Creek.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-19 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes or alterations to current management of the route network. This alternative would leave approximately 1.25 miles of Demijohn Flat Road open to public OHV use. An additional 1.25 miles of routes that parallel Crooked Creek along the edge of the Burnt Timber WSA (approximately 0.1 miles west of Crooked Creek) would continue to be limited to administrative and authorized users. The segment of Demijohn Flat Road that remains open under the No Action Alternative could have indirect impacts to the eligibility criteria of Crooked Creek, including scenic and cultural resources, through continued disturbance associated with unrestricted full-sized vehicle travel.
Proposed Action The Proposed Action would change the designation of approximately 1.25 miles of Demijohn Flat Road along the edge of Burnt Timber WSA from open to limited to administrative and authorized users. The public would still be able to access the area by foot or horse but potential indirect impacts to resources such as scenic and cultural eligibility would be reduced by limiting the number of vehicles driving near the eligible Wild and Scenic River segments.
Issue 1: How would non-motorized public recreation opportunities be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 2: How would motorized public recreation opportunities be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 13: How would public access be affected by reroutes under the TMP?
3.5 Transportation and Access 3.5.1 Affected Environment The Pryor Mountains TMA extends eastward from US Highway 310 to Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Most of the access to the TMA extends from US HWY 310, Custer Gallatin National Forest, Wyoming State Highway 37, Rail Bed Road, and Crooked Creek Road.
A comprehensive route inventory was completed to include all motorized and non-motorized routes used by the public and for permitted uses within the TMA. Within the TMA, 243 miles of existing routes were identified and evaluated. Through the evaluation process, 3.6 miles of new routes were added to the network. The routes have been classified based off a maintenance level, jurisdiction, and whether the route permits motorized or non-motorized use. Within the TMA, a maintenance level of one through five was considered, with one representing the lowest level of maintenance and five representing the highest. The Pryor Mountains TMA only has roads with a maintenance level of one through three and are managed by either the county or BLM. Table 3-16 includes route mileage by route type in the TMA. There are currently no facilities within the Pryor Mountains TMA.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-20 Table 3-16. Route Type in the TMA
Route Type Miles BLM Road 222.3 County Road 13.4
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences Table 3-17 includes total miles of open, closed, and limited routes for the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. Travel management designations would not affect BLM ROWs, permitted uses, county or State roads, or other valid existing rights. Restrictions apply only to motorized public access and recreational OHV use. All roads designated as open, closed or limited for motorized use are available for non-motorized use.
Table 3-17. Total Miles of Open, Limited, and Closed Routes by Alternative
Designation Category No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway, ROW 13.4 13.4 Open 114.9 112 Limited Seasonal 0.0 0.1 Limited Non-Motorized 2.3 54.3 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 112.5 63.8 Closed 0.0 3.1 1 Total 243.1 246.7 Differences are due to rounding
3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain existing conditions and management and would not result in any route closures. Use and travel by motorized and non-motorized vehicles would be allowed on all existing routes except where not currently permitted. Route proliferation would continue and there would be no change in existing access and uses (Figure 2-2, Table 3-17).
3.5.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes proposed reroutes to keep the transportation network on BLM- administered land. In addition, two new non-motorized routes are proposed to connect existing routes. The Proposed Action would also include the implementation of seasonal closures, speed limits, proposed maintenance intensities, education, enforcement, signage, and other TMP components. It would maintain connection to USFS routes. The proposed reroute of the Stockman Trail would be designated as open for motorized use and would extend east to west approximately 1.7 miles from Rail Bed Road to the Stockman Trail as shown in Figure 2-3. The proposed reroute of the Red Pryor Road would be designated for motorized use and is shown in Figure 2-3.
The two rerouted trails would provide access to the existing routes from BLM land, replacing the current access across private land. The two proposed new routes, the Demijohn Loop Extension Route and the Sykes Arch Route, were proposed by the public and would be designated as non-
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-21 motorized. The proposed Demijohn Loop Extension Route would add a segment to create a loop with the existing route as shown in Figure 2-3. The proposed Sykes Arch Route would be located on the eastern edge of the TMA as shown in Figure 2-3. These routes would be established to create a safe, efficient, and maintained path on BLM land. The route designation for the Water Canyon and Demijohn routes would be re-designated from open to limited and the Timber Canyon Ridge route would be re-designated from open to limited administrative use.
Issue 1: How would non-motorized public recreation opportunities be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 2: How would motorized public recreation opportunities be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 4: How would opportunities for a remote recreational experience be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 8: How would wilderness characteristics be affected by establishing new hiking trails within the TMA?
Issue 12: How would public safety be affected by reroutes under the TMP?
Issue 13: How would public access be affected by reroutes under the TMP?
3.6 Recreation and Visitor Services 3.6.1 Affected Environment Federal lands in the TMA provide a broad spectrum of outdoor opportunities that give visitors a range of recreational choices. Recreational opportunities are offered to the public on all BLM- administered lands in the TMA where legal access exists. Primary recreational activities include hiking, camping, picnicking, fishing, caving, OHV riding, hunting, target shooting, and wild horse, wildlife and landscape viewing. The TMA is part of a larger complex of federal lands, including Custer National Forest (managed by the USFS) and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (managed by the NPS), both of which are adjacent to the TMA. These collective lands draw recreational visitors for picnicking, boating, camping, and other activities. Therefore, the TMA receives more visitor use than other BLM-administered lands in the BiFO.
3.6.1.1 Recreation Management Areas A Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is an area with a commitment to provide specific recreational activities and opportunities. These areas require a higher level of recreation management. Each SRMA has a distinct primary set of objectives, recreation opportunities, and character settings, and a corresponding and distinguishing management strategy. The entire Pryor Mountain TMA is designated as a SRMA (BLM 2015). The objective of the SRMA is to manage the lands in primitive and natural landscapes concurrent with other management
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-22 priorities to provide wildlife habitat; protect historic, cultural, and scenic values; balance the widest range of beneficial uses with the least amount of degradation possible without risking health and safety; and provide dispersed recreation experiences. The northwest portion of the TMA is closed to target shooting, due to its proximity to other federal public lands and facilities.
BiFO’s visitation data for the Pryor Mountains for 2018 shows 17,496 visitors. In 2017, there were 16,643 visitors. These visitation levels reflect the area’s close proximity to urban areas and the range of recreation activities and experiences offered. Viewing the wild horse herd is one of the Pryor Mountains’ largest draws. Visitation to the area is especially heavy during late spring when foals are born and through the summer months when horses are in the high open meadows. Other recreation opportunities include hiking, backcountry camping, and viewing wildlife. Other seasonal activities include upland bird and big game hunting, cross country skiing, and snowmobiling. Motorized use is limited to designated roads. A historic cabin is located off of Skyes Ridge Road, which receives a lot of day use visits. Additionally, there are numerous caves that attract recreational users.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences The public lands administered by the BLM provide many of the recreational and tourism opportunities in the TMA and BiFO. All current recreational activities would still be allowed throughout the TMA. There is a trend of shifting from more primitive to more developed (rural) experiences as populations grow and motorized recreation becomes more popular and accessible. As outdoor recreational use increases on public lands, the demand for developed recreation sites would increase accordingly.
Table 3-18 includes miles of route types for the No Action and Proposed Action. All public lands would continue to be available for non-motorized activities such as horseback riding, hiking, and on-foot activities such as game retrieval.
Table 3-18. Total Miles of Open, Limited, and Closed Routes by Alternative
Designation Category No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway, ROW 13.4 13.4 Open 114.9 112 Limited Seasonal 0.0 0.1 Limited Non-Motorized 2.3 54.3 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 112.5 63.8 Closed 0.0 3.1 1 Total 243.1 246.7 1 Differences are due to rounding
3.6.2.1 No Action Alternative All current recreational activities would continue in the TMA, including non-motorized activities such as hiking and mountain biking. Table 3-18 includes miles of route types per alternative. However, the No Action Alternative would not provide routes limited to non-motorized uses. In
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-23 addition, it would not include implementation measures such as reroutes, improved signage, and monitoring and mitigation. Therefore, this alternative would not improve the overall recreational setting or individual experience.
3.6.2.2 Proposed Action Approximately 112 miles of routes would be open under the Proposed Action, three less miles than the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action provides a balanced recreation system for the long-term sustainable management of recreation trails and other resources. The Proposed Action includes reroutes to improve public safety and access. Open routes are distributed throughout the analysis area to provide a complete network of recreational opportunities, including recreational loops for motorized recreation. The 3.1 miles of routes closed under the Proposed Action, do not add to the recreational experience and primarily consist of redundant routes, lack connectivity, or adversely impact soil erosion or special status species. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have beneficial impacts to all recreationists.
Recreation opportunities would increase for multiple types of users. An increase in motorized routes would have a beneficial impact for those seeking a more rural experience. Reroutes and new routes are explained in detail in Section 3.5 Access and Transportation. The designation of routes limited to non-motorized uses would benefit those seeking a more primitive recreational experience.
Issue 4: How would opportunities for a remote recreational experience be affected by the implementation of the TMP?
Issue 8: How would wilderness characteristics be affected by establishing new hiking trails within the TMA?
3.7 Wilderness Characteristics 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas WSAs are managed according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 until Congress acts on their designation. WSAs must have the following characteristics and often contain additional special qualities such as significant ecological, geological, educational, historical, scientific and scenic values (BLM 2015): • Size - Public lands that are roadless and of at least 5,000 acres in area; or areas less than 5,000 acres in area in association with contiguous roadless lands managed by another agency (in the case of the Big Horn Tack-On WSA) or that can be practicably managed to keep those characteristics in an unimpaired condition (in the case of the Burnt Timber WSA). • Naturalness - Generally appears to have been impacted primarily by the forces of nature.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-24 • Opportunities - Provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation.
There are three WSAs located in the TMA (Table 3-19, Figure 3-4).
Table 3-19. Wilderness Study Areas within the TMA Wilderness Study Areas Acres Percentage of TMA Big Horn Tack-On WSA 2,695 3 Burnt Timber WSA 3,517 4 Pryor Mountain WSA 15,668 19 Total 21,880 26 Source: BLM 2018
Big Horn Tack-On WSA The Big Horn Tack-On WSA is a narrow strip of land approximately nine miles long and less than 0.5 mile wide, with 2,470 acres in Montana and 80 acres in Wyoming. The WSA is located between Sykes Ridge Road to the west and the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming to the east. This WSA is primarily in a natural state with a few dispersed, but fairly well screened, human intrusions. These consist of uranium exploration pits; a wild horse trap in the north along the west boundary road; vehicle ways - one in the north and one in the south; and power line on the southeast (BLM 2015).
Burnt Timber WSA The Burnt Timber WSA encompasses 3,517 acres in an extremely rugged and isolated portion of Crooked Creek Canyon just south of the Custer Gallatin National Forest, which has remained relatively free of modern human influences. The WSA is predominantly natural and offers outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The major drainage, Crooked Creek, supports a genetically pure strain of native cutthroat trout.
Pryor Mountain WSA The Pryor Mountain WSA encompasses 12,575 acres and contains some of the most rugged, isolated portions of the Pryor Mountains. The wide expanses and topographic screening in this area offer outstanding wilderness values. Human activity is well distributed throughout the WSA. Vegetation and topographic screening significantly limit any detraction from the WSA’s extensive natural setting. There are 4,352 acres of the Pryor Mountain WSA which are located in Big Horn County, Wyoming.
All routes located within WSAs in the TMA are designated and managed as non-motorized trails or as limited to administrative and authorized users for access to rangeland improvements or existing facilities.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-25
Figure 3-4. Wilderness Study Areas
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-26 3.7.1.2 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics In addition to the three managed WSAs, there are two units of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the TMA (Table 3-20). Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are those that have been inventoried and reviewed by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team to meet the criteria of BLM Manual 6310 that have the appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation; and encompass an area of 5,000 acres, or areas less than 5,000 acres that are contiguous to designated wilderness or WSAs (BLM 2015). The Pryor Mountain Unit is 5,428 acres and includes most of the lands in the eastern portion of the TMA adjacent to the Pryor Mountain WSA. Similarly, the Burnt Timber Unit is 6,075 acres and includes most of the lands adjacent to the Burnt Timber WSA. OHV travel in lands with wilderness characteristics is limited to designated routes.
Table 3-20. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the TMA
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Unit Acres Percentage of TMA Burnt Timber Canyon Unit 6,075 7 Pryor Mountain Unit 5,428 7 Source: BLM 2018
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.7.2.1 Wilderness Study Areas Providing a designated travel network and updated maps for public use within WSAs would concentrate motorized OHV travel on routes designated as open, and remove motorized OHV travel from routes designated as closed. Routes designated as closed or limited within the WSAs would likely experience an improvement in biological function and aesthetics for visitors due to the removal of all or some types of motorized vehicular disturbance. Over time, routes that are closed or limited to non-motorized use would decrease habitat fragmentation, improve scenery, and increase naturalness. Designating non-motorized trails within WSAs in the TMA would increase opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.
There would be no new road construction or route designation changes from ‘primitive’ to ‘maintained’ that would impact the size characteristic of WSAs within the TMA.
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing route network. There would be no beneficial effects to WSAs.
Proposed Action The Proposed Action would provide an equivalent amount of routes designated as open as under the No Action Alternative, while also designating 4.8 miles as limited to non-motorized uses (Table 3-21). The non-motorized designation would provide enhanced opportunities for
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-27 primitive and unconfined recreational experiences. Wildlife would benefit from limitations on motorized use and route closures, which would further enhance naturalness and primitive, unconfined experiences in the WSAs.
Table 3-21. Miles of Routes in WSAs within the TMA
Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway 1.1 1.1 Open 14.6 14.0 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 4.8 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 7.5 5.3 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.0 Closed 0.0 0.0 Source: BLM 2018
3.7.2.2 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managing wilderness values is part of the BLM’s multiple-use mission. Similar to the impacts described for WSA’s, formal designation of the travel network would benefit inventoried wilderness characteristics, such as naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreational experiences. These benefits would result from concentrating motorized OHV use on routes designated as open and enhancing opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation on routes designated specifically for non-motorized use.
There are no newly proposed roads or route designation changes from ‘primitive’ to ‘maintained’ within any areas that contain wilderness characteristics. Table 3-22 includes mileage of routes within areas containing wilderness characteristics by alternative.
Table 3-22. Miles of Routes in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the TMA
Designation No Action Proposed Action County Road, Highway 1.8 1.8 Open 11.7 9.5 Limited Non-Motorized 0.0 4.2 Limited Administrative and Authorized Users 16.9 14.6 Limited Seasonally 0.0 0.1 Closed 0.0 0.3 Source: BLM 2018
No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing route network. There would be no benefits to areas containing wilderness characteristics.
Proposed Action The Proposed Action would reduce the number of routes designated as open and designate 4.2 miles as limited to non-motorized uses. Short routes would be closed within lands with wilderness characteristics (0.3 mile) or limited seasonally (0.1 mile). The designation of
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-28 4.2 miles of non-motorized trails would benefit primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities for users that prefer a trail experience without encountering motorized vehicles. The 0.3 miles of route closures would allow vegetation to passively restore and soil conditions to improve, which would enhance naturalness and scenic qualities of the areas over time.
Issue 9: How would the distribution and spread of invasive weeds be affected under the TMP?
3.8 Invasive, Non-native Species 3.8.1 Affected Environment Invasive, non-native species and noxious weeds are highly competitive and often out-compete native vegetation, especially on disturbed soils such as roadsides. Once established, invasive and noxious weeds decrease wildlife habitat value, reduce livestock range productivity, and increase management costs (BLM 2015).
The State of Montana lists and prioritizes 35 state designated noxious weeds (Montana Department of Agriculture 2017). Of those, four species are classified as Priority 1A (not present or have a very limited presence in Montana, management requires eradication if detected, education and prevention); five species are classified as Priority 1B (limited presence in Montana, management requires eradication or containment and education); nine species are classified as Priority 2A (common in isolated areas of Montana, management requires eradication or containment where less abundant); and 17 species are classified as Priority 2B (abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties, management requires eradication and containment where less abundant).
Noxious and invasive plant species in the TMA are managed according to the cooperative Integrated Weed Management program that was developed for all 434,321 acres of BLM managed lands in the BiFO (BLM 2017). The 2017 programmatic analysis (PA) for weed management identifies appropriate standard operating procedures, analyzes impacts of the various treatment practices, and provides guidance for monitoring, mitigation and public education. Under the PA, the BiFO cooperates with county weed boards and other bordering agencies such as the USFS and NPS on management treatment methods that include: biological control, chemical control, and physical control (BLM 2015, BLM 2017). Most of the weed infestations in the TMA occur along the roads, where the BLM and County regularly patrol and treat as needed.
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences Weeds are naturally spread by water, wind, birds, and animals, but can also be spread by people and/or vehicles. Seeds can be carried in vehicle radiators, undercarriages, or tire treads or attach to clothing, shoes, or equipment. Areas where soil and vegetation have been disturbed are especially susceptible to the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Additionally, routes
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-29 designated as open would continue to be disturbed by vehicle traffic (see Section 3.1 Soils) and would propagate invasive species. Routes designated as closed would be susceptible to non- native species establishment initially, but over time native species would grow as soils and site conditions improve. Routes designated as limited would be less susceptible to invasive, non- native species establishment than open routes. This reduced susceptibility is due to a decrease in the frequency of use, number or size of vehicles permitted to use the route, or change from motorized to non-motorized use. Under the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, noxious weeds and invasive species would be actively treated using methods provided by the Integrated Weed Management PA (BLM 2017).
3.8.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, routes would retain their existing designations and uses. Travel through existing weed infestations by OHVs and other users would continue to pose a risk of distributing seed and plant parts to currently uninfested areas. The No Action Alternative would not result in any substantial use changes within the TMA and current noxious weed infestations would continue.
3.8.2.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, approximately six miles of routes would be closed to motorized OHV use. Route closures alone do not necessarily improve noxious weed conditions. However, over time it is anticipated that closed routes would naturally restore and weed concentrations would diminish along closed routes with treatment efforts. This would increase native plant growth over time. The 54 miles of routes limited to non-motorized use would continue to introduce seed or plant parts to uninfested areas via users’ shoes, clothing, or equipment but the level of disturbance on the routes would be reduced and conditions would improve as routes recover from full-sized vehicle travel to single-track trails.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 3-30 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 4.1 Cumulative Projects Cumulative effects are direct and indirect incremental effects from implementation the proposed changes and projects in each of the alternatives, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs; 40 CFR Part 1508.7). Past activities are effects that are still present on the landscape. Future activities are those RFFAs that may add to cumulative and social effects on the environment.
Cumulative impacts usually occur when a relationship exists between a proposed alternative and other actions that have, or are expected to occur in a similar location, time period, or involve similar actions. The geographic boundary of the cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA) encompasses the BiFO. The BiFO boundary was used to identify past, present, and RFFAs that may have a cumulative impact when considered with the TMP.
The following analyses consider the CIAA and past, present, and RFFAs that may cumulatively contribute to impacts for each resource.
4.2 Soils The TMA contains soils that are erodible by wind and water, and vegetation cover is intermittently sparse in areas. Past and existing actions that affect soil compaction, stability, and quality include livestock grazing, mineral development, ROWs, and recreational off-highway use. RFFAs within the TMA include construction and maintenance of new roads, improvement and maintenance of existing roads, expected yearly mining notices, ROWs (such as powerlines and pipelines), and range improvements. During construction of new roads, range improvements, ROWs, and development associated with mineral exploration, soil would be disturbed and soil compaction would increase. Vegetation would be cleared which would decrease soil cover and increase erosion and sedimentation to waterbodies. The BLM has BMPs and stipulations that would reduce the impacts to soils from RFFAs. Development associated with oil and gas leasing and ROWs would be reclaimed according to “Gold Book” standards. While development may have short or long term effects on the land, successful reclamation can ensure the effect is not permanent. During the life of the development, all disturbed areas not needed for active support of production operations should undergo “interim” reclamation in order to minimize the environmental impacts of development on other resources and uses (BLM and USFS, 2007).
4.3 Wildlife (Bighorn Sheep and Greater Sage-Grouse) The designation of routes as closed allows for rehabilitation of surface disturbances; therefore, the Proposed Action would reduce disturbance to wildlife habitat compared to the No Action Alternative. Past and present actions such as livestock grazing and current transportation network in the area have fragmented, degraded and removed wildlife habitat, and caused disturbance through noise and human activity within the TMA.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 4-1 RFFAs such as new roads, yearly mining activities, ROWs (such as powerlines and pipelines), and range improvements would contribute cumulative impacts to bighorn sheep and greater sage- grouse and their habitat through vegetation removal and surface disturbance. Habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss would continue to increase. RFFAs would decrease grazing, browsing, and foraging habitat and increase potential for mortality from motor vehicle collisions. However, designation of a route system under the Proposed Action, and other BLM travel management planning in the CIAA would reduce existing levels of disturbance and habitat fragmentation and loss by closing or limiting route use and restoring previous disturbance. Management of designated routes would improve habitat by maintaining proper trail width and reducing impacts to vegetation. Seasonal route closures under the Proposed Action would benefit bighorn sheep and greater sage-grouse. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would be decreased when routes are closed or use is limited.
4.4 Cultural Resources Past, current, and future use of the TMA for recreation, ranching, hunting, and vegetation management have negligible impacts on cultural resources within the CIAA. In the past, main impacts to cultural resources were due to route proliferation. Implementing the proposed TMP should reduce route proliferation. All other RFFAs would require cultural inventories and any anticipated impacts would be reviewed at that time. Implementation of the proposed TMP or its action alternatives would reduce these impacts, if not be negligible cumulatively.
4.5 Transportation and Access Past, present, and RFFAs that may impact the transportation network would include new road construction, yearly mining notices, ROWs, and range improvements, which would increase route use and create new routes within the TMA. In general, new routes created for projects in the TMA would be temporary routes or limited to authorized users. These routes would be closed and decommissioned after the project is complete. Similarly, temporary routes may be created for livestock grazing management and would be subject to the grazing permit requirements. Cumulative impacts to access and transportation are expected to be negligible.
4.6 Recreation and Visitor Services Past, present, and RFFAs such as new road construction within the TMA would change landscape characteristics, existing conditions on transportation systems, and wildlife viewing potential, which would contribute to an overall change in the social values for recreation users. The TMP alternatives would enhance recreation experience, depending on recreational use, and when added with other cumulative impacts would not result in any adverse cumulative impacts.
4.7 Invasive, Non-native Species Past and present activities such as livestock grazing, mineral development, ROWs and recreational OHV use have impacted vegetative cover within the TMA. Where public lands are
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 4-2 grazed, invasive weeds may increase in riparian areas and around water sources unless they are actively managed. Impacts from the Proposed Action would be reduced from current conditions as routes are closed through the travel management planning process. RFFAs within the TMA include construction and maintenance of new roads, improvement and maintenance of existing roads on public lands, expected yearly mining notices, ROWs (such as powerlines and pipelines), and range improvements. During construction, vegetation would be cleared, mowed, or trampled. The BLM has BMPs and stipulations to reduce impacts to vegetation from RFFAs. The TMP alternatives would reduce these impacts, if not be negligible cumulatively.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 4-3 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS The table below shows all BLM staff and Logan Simpson staff that were involved and participated in scoping, route evaluation, and preparation of the TMP and EA. Some of the individuals listed in each table no longer work in those positions; titles listed are the individual’s position at the time of their involvement as noted.
Table 5-1. List of Preparers
Name Organization Role Jennifer Alexander BLM (BiFO) Project Contact/Outdoor Recreation Specialist Jennifer Macy BLM (BiFO) Archaeologist/Environmental Coordinator David Lefevre BLM (BiFO) Field Office Manager Shane Trautner BLM (BiFO) Range, Vegetation, Soils Jason Sprung BLM (BiFO) GIS Lead Larry Padden BLM (BiFO) Natural Resource Specialist Shari Ketcham BLM (BiFO) Wildlife & Resources Bruce Meighen Logan Simpson Contract Manager Tom Keith Logan Simpson Senior NEPA Specialist Erin Bibeau Logan Simpson Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Kristina Kachur Logan Simpson Environmental Planner Julie Capp Logan Simpson Senior Wildlife Biologist Elizabeth Sharkey Logan Simpson Senior Archaeologist Casey Smith Logan Simpson GIS Lead Casey Balthrop Logan Simpson Environmental Planner Brian Taylor Logan Simpson GIS Specialist Holly Bagot Logan Simpson Environmental Planner
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment October 2019 5-1
Appendix A
Acronyms, Glossary, References
Acronyms
Acronym Definition ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern AO Authorized Officer BiFO Billings Field Office BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CIAA Cumulative Impact Analysis Area EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Orders GHMA General Habitat Management Area GIS Geographic Information System MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHV Off-highway Vehicle PA Programmatic Analysis PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area PMWHR Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range RFFAs Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions RMP Resource Management Plan ROW Right-of-Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SRMA Special Recreation Management Area THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TMA Travel Management Area TMP Travel Management Plan USFS United States Forest Service WSA Wilderness Study Area
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-1 Glossary
Authorized Users: Those permitted to use routes either through state leases or permits. Routes limited to authorized users are only available for motorized use by those with permits issued by the BLM. Big Game: Indigenous ungulate wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, and pronghorn. Brood: A family of young animals, especially of a bird, produced at one hatching or birth. Closed: Routes closed to motorized and mechanized use due to resource concerns or conflicts. The routes may be available for foot and equestrian travel. These routes will not be signed and will not be included on maps provided to the public. These routes may involve physical closure structures with the ultimate goal of being restored to a vegetated condition. Comment Period: The timeframe in which the public is able to provide general and route specific feedback to the BLM. Cultural Resources: Specific locations of human activity, occupation, or traditional use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, and architectural sites and structures, as well as places with traditional cultural or religious importance within a social or cultural group. Designated Roads and Trails: Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally or year-long. Dispersed Recreation: Camping or recreational uses on public lands away from developed recreation facilities. Emergent Wetlands: Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years and normally dominated by perennial plants. Environmental Assessment (EA): A document prepared early in a planning process that evaluates the potential environmental consequences of a project or activity. An EA results in a decision, based on the assessment of the degree of impact of an action, that an EIS is necessary, or that an action will have no significant effect and a finding of no significant impact can be made. Geographic Information System (GIS): Computer software that is used to map and calculate route and resource data. Habitat: An environment which meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal or spatial characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part or all of their life cycle. Habitat Fragmentation: Process by which habitat loss results in the division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, more isolated remnants. Impacts (Common Terms: • Direct: caused by the action, same time and place. • Indirect: caused by the action, but later in time or further in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. • Short-term: impacts that would be less than 3 years in duration. • Long-term: impacts that would be 3 years or greater in duration.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-2 Invasive Vegetation: Plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health. Interdisciplinary Team: A team of resource specialists with extensive knowledge of the study area who identifies key resources to focus on in the travel management plan and environmental analysis. Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially sage grouse, carry on display and courtship behavior. Limited: Limitation may be based on vehicle type, size, season of use, or users with special authorization. Multiple use: The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (FLPMA). Non-mechanized: Routes limited to hikers and equestrian travel. Non-motorized: Routes limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Noxious weeds: A plant designated by a federal, state, or county government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. Off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any non-amphibious registered motorboat: (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense. Open: Routes where all types of motorized and mechanized vehicle use is permitted at all times, and subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342. Paleontological Resources: Generally considered any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth's crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth. Permitted Use: The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease, and is expressed in Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high-clearance vehicles. These routes do not customarily meet any BLM road design standards. Unless specifically prohibited, primitive roads can also include other uses such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Perennial Stream: Perennial streams carry flowing water continuously throughout the year, regardless of weather conditions. It exhibits well-defined geomorphological characteristics and in the absence of pollution, thermal modifications, or other man-made disturbances has the ability to support aquatic life. During hydrological drought conditions, the flow may be impaired.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-3 Alternatives: The four different scenarios outlined in the Environmental Assessment. Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. Public Scoping: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is designed to ensure that the environmental consequences of major federal decisions are known and available to the public before decisions are made and actions are undertaken. Public scoping assists in the environmental review process by providing a means to inform the public about activities that involve a federal action and solicit their comments regarding the proposed action. Ranching for Wildlife: A program designed to improve public hunting access to private land and to form a wildlife management partnership with participating landowners. Riparian Area: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives, and actions to be achieved. Right-of-Way (ROW): Means the public lands authorized to be used or occupied for specific purposes pursuant to a right-of-way grant, which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, under, or through such lands. Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles which have four or more wheels, and are maintained for regular and continuous use. Routes: Multiple roads, trails, and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive roads that represents less than 100% of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the transportation system are described as “routes”. Route Evaluation: After each individual route within the analysis area has been reviewed by the public, the evaluation process uses route selection criteria to identify resources, develop minimization options, identify route objectives and document the designation process. Route evaluation is conducted by an ID Team consisting of specialists with adequate knowledge of the resource issues. Sedimentation: Deposition of organic or inorganic material that has been transported by wind or water, typically in a river, stream, or in runoff. Socioeconomic: Relating to or concerned with the interaction of social and economic factors Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): A public lands unit identified in land use plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). The BLM recognizes three distinct types of SRMAs: community-based; intensive; and undeveloped big open. Special Status Species: Species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be, or have been, listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the Federal and/or State governments.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-4 Temporary Route: Short-term roads, primitive roads or trails authorized or acquired for the development, construction or staging of a project or event that has a finite lifespan. Examples of temporary routes in the TMA 1 analysis area include oil and gas roads. Trail: A linear route managed for hiking, bicycle, stock, or OHV forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally maintained or managed for use by four-wheel drive or high- clearance vehicles. Transportation Management Plan (TMP): A document that focuses on all aspects of transportation in a land area. Transportation planning can also be accomplished within Integrated Activity Plans, or Coordinated RMPs where multiple resource programs are planned for concurrently. Visitor Use: Visitor use of a resource for inspiration, stimulation, solitude, relaxation, education, pleasure, or satisfaction. Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. Visual Resource Management (VRM): The system by which BLM classifies and manages scenic values and visual quality of public lands. The system is based on research that has produced ways of assessing aesthetic qualities of the landscape in objective terms. After inventory and evaluation, lands are given relative visual ratings (see definition for Visual Resource Management Classes), which determine the amount of modification allowed for the basic elements of the landscape. Wilderness Characteristics: Wilderness characteristics include size, the appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. However Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 has been updated by IM-2003-195, dated June 20, 2003. Indicators of an area’s naturalness include the extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; and the connectivity of habitats. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation may be experienced when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent, in locations where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others, where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered. Wilderness Study Area (WSA): A designation made through the land use planning process of a road- less area found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-5 References
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Resource Management Plan, Final EIS, and Record of Decision. Billings Resource Area, Montana.
. 2001. National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands.
. 2002. National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan.
. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). Available online at: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/360/4_BLM%20Planning%20Handbook%20H-1601-1.pdf. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
. 2008. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (BLM Handbook H-1790-1). Available online at: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/366/NEPAHandbook_H-1790_508.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2019.
. 2011. Roads Design Handbook (H-9113-1). Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_hand book.Par.5566.File.dat/H-9113-1.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2017.
. 2012a. Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342)/ Available online at: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/750/8342%20-%20TTM%20Planning%20Handbook.pdf Accessed: April 29, 2019.
. 2012b. Primitive Roads Design Handbook. 9115-1. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media%20Center_BLM%20Policy_H-9115-1.pdf.
. 2015a. Approved Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Billings Field Office.
. 2015b. Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan.
. 2015c. BLM GIS Data.
. 2015d. Roads Manual. MS 9113. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9113.pdf.
. 2016a. Travel and Transportation Manual (MS 1626). Available online at: file:///C:/Users/ebibeau/Downloads/Media%20Center%20BLM%20Policy%20Manual%20MS%201626 %20(1).pdf Accessed: April 29, 2019.
. 2016b. BLM National Sign Guidebook (H-9130-1). Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/documents/national-office/handbook-public-room/handbook/national-sign- handbook. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
. 2017. Programmatic Analysis Integrated Weed Management in the Billings Field Office. DOI- BLM-MT-A010-2017-0004-EA.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-6 . 2018. BLM GIS Data.
. 2019. BLM GIS Data.
DeVoto, B. 1952. The Course of Empire. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
Driver, H. E. and W. C. Massey. 1957. Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, ns 47(2). Philadelphia.
Dyck, I. and R. E. Morlan. 2001. Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Canadian Plains. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume13, Part 2 of 2. William C., General Editor: Raymond J. DeMallie, Volume Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Gregg, M. 1983 Overview of the Prehistory of Western and Central North Dakota. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 1. US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana.
Huckell, B. B. and W. J. Judge. 2006. Paleoindian: Plains and Southwest. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3. William C., General Editor: Douglas H. Ubelaker, Volume Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Indian Education. 2009. Montana Indians Their History and Location. Internet website: http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/indianed/resources/MTIndiansHistoryLocation.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2019.
Malone, M.P. and R.B. Roeder. 1976 Montana: A History of Two Centuries. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
McCraig, D. 2000. The Bozeman Trail. The Smithsonian Magazine, October 2000. Internet website: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/bozeman-abstract.html. Accessed August 14, 2012.
Miller D. C. and S. B. Cohen. 1978. Military & Trading Posts of Montana. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana.
Montana Department of Agriculture. 2017. Montana Noxious Weed List. Available online at https://agr.mt.gov/Portals/168/Documents/Weeds/2017%20Noxious%20Weed%20List.pdf. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2018. Statewide Monitoring Dataset. Available online at http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/dataResources/. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information. National Climate Report. 2019. Available online at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201903. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. 2006 MLRA Geographic Database, version 4.2. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624. Accessed: April 29, 2019.
Phillips, P. C. 1961. The Fur Trade, Volume II. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-7 Pryor Mountain Wild Mustang Center. 2012. Pryor Mountain Wild Horses. Internet website: http://www.pryormustangs.org/about_horses.shtml, accessed April, 18 2019.
Schwartz, D. W. 1989. On the Edge of Splendor: Exploring Grand Canyon’s Human Past. Annual Bulletin of the School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Secoy, F. R. 1953. Changing Military Patterns on the Great Plains. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society, No. 21. Augustin Publishers, Lucust Valley, NY.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix A – Acronyms, Glossary, and References A-8
Appendix B
Travel Management Plan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
PRYOR MOUNTAIN TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AREA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 2019
Billings Field Office 5001 Southgate Drive Billings, MT 59101
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Overview of the TMP Area ...... 1 1.2 Areas Requiring Special Management ...... 4 1.3 Jurisdictions Adjacent to or Overlapping with the Pryor Mountain TMA ...... 4 2.0 management Objectives/Desired Outcomes ...... 7 2.1 General Goals and Objectives ...... 7 2.2 Area-Specific Goals and Objectives ...... 8 2.3 Overall Travel Network Design ...... 8 3.0 Implementation Priorities ...... 9 4.0 Publication of the Travel Network ...... 12 5.0 Education ...... 12 6.0 Sign Plan Implementation ...... 13 6.1 Scope of Signing ...... 13 6.2 Designated Route Markers ...... 15 6.2.1 Open and Limited Travel Routes ...... 15 6.2.2 Limited (Administrative or Non-Motorized Travel Routes) ...... 15 6.2.3 Closed and Decommissioned Travel Routes ...... 17 6.2.4 Additional Sign Examples ...... 17 6.3 Proposed Sign Locations...... 17 6.4 Maintenance and Monitoring of Travel Management Signs ...... 18 6.5 Information Kiosks ...... 19 7.0 Enforcement ...... 19 8.0 Maintenance ...... 20 8.1 Function Classes ...... 20 9.0 Restoration and Rehabilitation ...... 22 9.1 Substantial Restoration ...... 23 10.0 Monitoring ...... 23 11.0 Adaptive Management ...... 25 12.0 Changes to the Route Network ...... 25 12.1 Reroutes and New Disturbance ...... 25 12.2 Temporary Routes ...... 26 12.3 Necessary Access on Private and State Lands ...... 27 12.3.1 BLM Administrative Determination on Revised Statute 2477 ...... 27 12.3.2 Right-of-Ways ...... 27 12.4 Emergency Closures ...... 27 13.0 Plan Revision and Amendment ...... 28
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan i List of Tables
Table 1. Land Ownership within Pryor Mountain TMA ...... 1 Table 2. Routes Designated as Open, Closed, or Limited in the Pryor Mountain TMA ...... 3 Table 3. Routes Designated as Exclusively Non-motorized Trails in the Pryor Mountain TMA in the 2015 RMP/FEIS ...... 3 Table 4. Proposed Implementation Priorities ...... 10 Table 5. Maintenance Intensity Levels Under Proposed Action* ...... 21 Table 6. Monitoring Elements and Methods ...... 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pryor Mountain TMA Overview ...... 2 Figure 2. Pryor Mountain ACECs ...... 5 Figure 3. Pryor Mountain WSAs...... 6 Figure 4. Identification Sign...... 15 Figure 5. Route Markers ...... 16 Figure 6. Examples of Current Signs within the Pryor Mountain TMA ...... 16 Figure 7. Examples of Area and Route Signs ...... 17 Figure 8. Volunteer Maintenance Efforts ...... 21
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan ii Acronyms
Acronym Definition ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern BiFO Billings Field Office BLM Bureau of Land Management EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement GPS Global Positioning System MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service OHV Off-highway Vehicle PMWHR Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range R.S. Revised Statute RMP Resource Management Plan ROW Rights-of-Way SRMA Special Recreation Management Areas TMA Travel Management Area TMP Travel Management Plan USFS United States Forest Service VRM Visual Resource Management WSA Wilderness Study Area
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION Travel management and access are addressed at two levels in the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/Final EIS) (June 2015a). The RMP provides travel management guidance at the land-use planning level (defining areas as open, closed, and limited) as well as at the route level (specific use types and limitations), including the Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area (TMA) and ten additional TMAs. This Travel Management Plan (TMP), which includes an implementation plan, was prepared to address site-specific TMP decisions for the Pryor Mountain TMA. The TMP conforms to the Approved RMP and is tiered to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis contained in the RMP/Final EIS.
This TMP includes the framework for making final decisions on how the TMP would be implemented. The TMP is the guiding document for implementation of the travel network within the Pryor Mountain TMA. This plan details the procedures to be implemented relating to route conditions and usage. General priorities are based on the following criteria: • Public information needs for the route network, including signing, outreach, kiosks, and other identified strategies. • Need to minimize effects on specific and/or multiple sensitive resources that may be adversely affected or at risk. • Availability of fiscal and human resources, including partnerships. • Meeting access needs that are most evident.
The RMP/Final EIS provides management guidance for the approximately 80,711 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered land located within the Pryor Mountain TMA. This guidance must be considered in any travel management planning and implementation decisions. Surface management in the vicinity of the Pryor Mountain TMA is provided by multiple agencies including BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Tribal Lands, Bureau of Reclamation, state, county, local, and private lands. Table 1 presents land ownership within the TMA.
Table 1. Land Ownership within Pryor Mountain TMA BLM Land Other Federal State Land Private Land (acres) Land (acres) (acres) (acres) Total (acres) 80,711.23 10.09 2.85 677.48 81,401.65
1.1 Overview of the TMP Area The Billings Field Office (BiFO) manages over 434,000 acres of public land in southern Montana as well as a small portion of northern Wyoming (Figure 1). The Pryor Mountain TMA is located south of the Pryor Mountains along the border of Montana and Wyoming. The area is primarily BLM-administered land.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 1
Figure 1. Pryor Mountain TMA Overview
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 2 The route designation process for the BiFO RMP TMP Appendix O is divided into two separate components: a designated non-motorized trail system, which applies throughout the BiFO, and the designated motorized system that applies to vehicle routes within the TMAs. A specific note is included in the RMP that all designated motorized routes, whether open or restricted (closed to all motorized use or for only administrative use purposes) are also available for non-motorized travel, whether designated as non-motorized trails or not. Table 2 presents the total miles of routes designated as open, closed, or limited within the Pryor Mountain TMA. In addition to the designation of existing routes within the TMA, six replacement kiosks, two (Red Pryor and Stockman’s) proposed re-routes, and two new non-motorized routes would be constructed and maintained in accordance with the associated permit requirements and are included in this TMP and implementation plan.
Table 3 presents routes proposed to be designated as exclusively non-motorized trails in the Pryor Mountain TMA in the 2015 RMP/Final EIS. Additional non-motorized routes are designated in this TMP, for a total of approximately 54 miles.
Table 2. Routes Designated as Open, Closed, or Limited in the Pryor Mountain TMA Limited Administrative and Limited Limited Open Closed Authorized Users Seasonally Non-Motorized Total* 125.4 3.1 63.8 0.1 54.3 246.7 * Any discrepancies in this table are due to rounding.
Table 3. Routes Designated as Exclusively Non-motorized Trails in the Pryor Mountain TMA in the 2015 RMP/FEIS
Trail Name Route Number Mileage** Water Canyon (proposed for closure) PM 1121 1.1 Bear Canyon Ridge Road (proposed for closure) PM 1034 0.9 Proposed for closure PM 1024 22.8 Proposed for closure PM 1039 2.4 Proposed for closure PM 1032 0.3 Pygmy Panther Trail PM 1071 0.5 Pygmy Panther Trail PM 1072 1.8 Proposed for closure PM 1073 0.2 Proposed for closure PM 1074 0.4 Pygmy Panther Trail PM 1075 0.2 Proposed for closure PM 1003 1.5 Proposed for closure PM 1013 0.9 Demijohn Flat Road PM 1021, PM1020, 4.0 PM1019 Source: RMP/Final EIS (Parenthesis) denotes Route number of motorized trails inventoried as part of the Billings Field Office Travel Inventory. Route inventory files available. * Denotes motorized roads closed to motorized use and limited to non-motorized use or open for administrative access purposes only. ** Any discrepancies in this table are due to rounding.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 3 1.2 Areas Requiring Special Management Under the proposed alternative (Alternative D) in the RMP/Final EIS, nine areas totaling 110,862 acres are managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), including the Pryor Mountain TMA (80,711 acres). SRMAs are areas that require explicit recreation management to achieve the BLM’s recreation objectives and to provide specific recreation opportunities. Recreation management areas are the primary means of management of recreational use on BLM-administered lands. The Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA includes three Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Under designated WSAs and ACECs, motorized use would be limited to designated roads. These areas within the SRMA would be managed as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II. The remainder of the Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA (all lands outside of ACEC, lands with wilderness characteristics, and WSA) would be managed as VRM Class III.
1.3 Jurisdictions Adjacent to or Overlapping with the Pryor Mountain TMA Routes would be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands. These include:
• State of Wyoming. • State of Montana. • The National Park Service – Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (east), online at www.nps.gov/bica/planyourvisit/hiking.htm • The U.S. Forest Service – Custer National Forest (north). • The Crow Indian Reservation (near, but not adjacent).
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 4
Figure 2. Pryor Mountain ACECs
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 5
Figure 3. Pryor Mountain WSAs
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 6 2.0 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES/DESIRED OUTCOMES The desired future conditions for travel management in the Pryor Mountain TMA are intended to provide essential motorized access to non-federal lands, access to BLM-administered lands, and recognition of prior existing access rights. Specifically, desired future conditions include: • A reduction in the unauthorized proliferation of travel routes and impacts to identified resource values from routes that provide non-essential access. • Adequate access for the maintenance and management of wildlife species and habitat, livestock grazing, minerals, realty, fire, cultural resources, and various recreation activities. • Authorized routes signed and mapped for public use in a manner consistent with other Federal land management agencies. • A wide variety of trail-based recreational opportunities (e.g., hiking, mountain biking, Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) riding, horseback riding) in a manner that reduces existing user conflicts.
Applicable designations and management guidelines outlined in the RMP/Final EIS are included in this TMP. Goals and objectives for this TMP would be achieved using a balanced approach through partnerships with other land managing agencies, local governments, communities, and interest groups. Implementation actions would protect public lands by minimizing impacts to resources while providing opportunities for the safe use and enjoyment of OHVs.
2.1 General Goals and Objectives General goals and objectives for the TMP include: • Establish a travel network, with each route explicitly designated per the requirements of 43 CFR 8342.1, BLM Manual 1626, and BLM Handbook 8342-1. • Comply with the RMP/Final EIS (June 2015a) and the BiFO Approved Resource Management Plan, Attachment 5 (September 2015b). • Manage travel and transportation on public lands and related waters in accordance with law, Executive Order, proclamation, regulation, and policy. • Establish a long-term, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system of areas, roads, trails, and primitive roads that addresses public and administrative access needs to and across BLM-administered lands and related waters. • Convert areas that are currently allocated as "limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails," to areas that are "limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails". • Delineate a transportation system which, through designation of routes, encourages responsible use and meets socioeconomic and access needs, while protecting natural and cultural resources on public lands.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 7 2.2 Area-Specific Goals and Objectives 43 CFR 8342.1 states that all designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands.
The Billings Resource Management Plan outlines 29 specific Travel Management Decisions that pertain to all TMA’s including the Pryor TMA. Additional Implementation Decisions include: • General: o Motorized routes in the Pryor Mountain TMA would be restricted to 35 mph, except in T8S R28E, and in areas otherwise posted. • Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA Management Goals: o Manage these lands for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes concurrent with other management priorities. • Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA Management Objectives: o Provide wildlife habitat. o Protect historic, cultural, and scenic values. o Balance the widest range of beneficial uses with the least amount of degradation possible without risking health and safety and with a minimum of other undesirable or unintended consequences on other resources. o Provide dispersed recreation experiences. 2.3 Overall Travel Network Design A key component of travel management implementation is having an overall network design governed by the following principles: • Provide high quality recreational experiences through a comprehensive, maintainable, road and trail network, while ensuring that additional resource management needs are met. • Provide access to primary gateways, create loops, provide long-distance trail experiences, trails for different types of users, and access to community features. • Reduce redundancy, resource degradation, and habitat fragmentation within the network. • Maintain high quality recreational experiences and provide a range of access opportunities for a wide variety of users. • Develop designated routes and provide continued access and key connections to the following areas: heritage sites, scenic overlooks, hunting areas, wildlife/wild horse viewing areas, recreational areas, dispersed camping areas, private property, management areas, travel routes, and valid existing rights. • Identify the type of road construction and maintenance standards needed to protect resources and accommodate anticipated traffic types and use levels.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 8 • Design a system that is coherent, cohesive, and that recognizes and meets current and anticipated access and recreational needs. • Design a system that can be responsive to identified needs and new decisions as they are made, without significant redesign. • Design a system that recognizes and minimizes impacts to sensitive environmental and cultural resources, and that promotes public safety.
During the route evaluation process under the RMP/Final EIS, each segment was designated as “open”, “limited”, or “closed” based on 43 CFR 8342.1 and the specific evaluation criteria developed by BLM through the process.
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES The travel system would include designations, re-routes, and new routes within the Pryor Mountain TMA. The system includes a re-route of the Stockman Trail in order to confine the route to BLM-administered land. The re-route of the Stockman Trail would be designated for motorized use and would extend east to west approximately 1.7 miles from Rail Bed Road to the Stockman Trail. The Stockman re-route would provide access to the existing route from BLM land, replacing the current access across private land.
The 2.55-mile Red-Pryor Road would also be re-routed to minimize current erosion issues. The proposed re-route of Red-Pryor Road would be designated for motorized use and would improve erosion issues and lessen current resource impacts. The current route goes straight up hillsides, creating fall lines for water to drain forming deep tread ruts. While the mileage of the route would not change considerably with the re-route, the re-route would minimize rutting created from runoff, and minimize soil displacement.
The Demijohn Loop Extension Route and the Sykes Arch Route were proposed by the public and would be designated as non-motorized. The proposed Demijohn Loop Extension Route would add a 4.3-mile segment to the existing route, in order to create a loop. The proposed Sykes Arch Route would be 3.3 miles located on the eastern edge of the TMA. The two new routes would be delineated by rock cairns or other minimal structures to provide waypoints for users. No new construction to create trail tread would occur. These routes would be established to create a safe, efficient, and maintained path on BLM-administered land.
The route designation for the Water Canyon and Demijohn routes would be changed from “open” to “limited” and the Timber Canyon Ridge route segments PM 1122 and 1123 would be re-designated from “open” to “limited administrative use”.
The travel system would also include the seasonal closures, speed limits, maintenance intensities, education, enforcement, and signage as described in this TMP and would maintain connections to USFS routes.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 9 Proposed implementation priorities are defined in Table 4. The tasks and timelines are estimated and would be adjusted as necessary to match funding and staff resource availability. The timeframes for these priorities can be considered in the form of phases: Phase I (one to two years), and Phase II (three to five years). Ongoing tasks would apply to all phases and would be conducted for the duration of the plan.
Table 4. Proposed Implementation Priorities
Timeline Task Description Phase I Assign a unique route number to all Formal route numbers would be used for all roads, primitive roads and trails mapping, signing, and wayfinding purposes. designated as open or limited for Having a logical route numbering system identification and navigation purposes. supports management, public, and commercial uses. Phase I Publish georeferenced online map of Provides the public with an easy way to the Pryor Mountain TMA route navigate the area and follow route network. Provide hard copy maps at the designation restrictions prior to signing. BiFO. Can be printed or may be applied in the future as a mobile application. Phase I Work with staff, cooperating agencies, Utilize local newspapers and social media counties, and volunteer organizations to to present this information. Provides an develop an outreach and education early opportunity prior to signing and program that informs the public of the enforcing the route network. new route designations, regulations and importance of staying on designated routes. Phase I Construction of kiosks. Replacement of six kiosks and development of onsite interpretive panels. Phase I and Construction of reroutes within this Find and secure a funding source for Ongoing travel network. reroutes. Phase II and Secure funding for signing, monitoring See Enforcement Component of this TMP. ongoing and rehabilitating the route network. Develop priorities for signing if it is anticipated to take multiple fiscal years. Seek partnerships with other organizations. Phase II and Sign the travel network and monitor the Allows users with an easy means of Ongoing condition and use of routes designated navigation and is an important step to as closed to prioritize barriers or other enforcing the route designations. See means of prevention if needed. Section 6.4 for guidance on recording data for installed signs.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 10 Timeline Task Description Phase II and Take actions to restore Restoration of the closed/decommissioned Ongoing closed/decommissioned routes that routes would be achieved passively to avoid continue to have evidence of travel. further disturbance and the introduction of non-native species. However, if monitoring shows that certain route segments are continuing to be used, actions can be taken to prevent further travel and facilitate rehabilitation (e.g., rocks/barriers in extreme circumstances or ‘entering restoration area signage’). Phase II and Monitor and maintain the route sign Replacement may be needed for signs that Ongoing network. have been removed or destroyed. Ongoing Enforce the route designations and See Enforcement Component of this TMP. travel network restrictions through BLM law enforcement patrol and public outreach. Ongoing Monitor resource conditions on and See Monitoring Component of this TMP. near open, limited, and closed routes to ensure Public Land Health Standards are met and adequate resource protection is accomplished. Site, survey, and implement minor realignments or re-routes around sensitive resources that are being significantly degraded by increased OHV use. Ongoing Utilize adaptive management practices. See Adaptive Management Section of this TMP.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 11 4.0 PUBLICATION OF THE TRAVEL NETWORK Travel network maps may include both traditional hard copy maps that are provided through BLM, non-BLM outlets, partners, or electronic media versions. For example, electronic maps may be posted on BLM websites in the future.
5.0 EDUCATION An outreach and education program would be developed in coordination with the USFS as a tool to facilitate the public education effort and enlist public support and assistance in maintaining the route network. The BLM would coordinate efforts with the USFS to establish informational kiosks for the outreach and education program. The desired outcomes of the education aspect of implementation are: • Increased understanding of travel management decisions. • Widespread adoption of safe, responsible motorized and non-motorized use. • Promotion of citizen stewardship.
Benefits of these outcomes include increased compliance with route and area designations, decreased vandalism, fewer inadvertent violations, enhanced protection of natural and cultural resources, improved etiquette among visitors, and enhanced safe and responsible recreation experiences. A driving factor for a strong education effort is the resultant reduction in enforcement actions and in resources needed for long-term sustainability.
The education and outreach program would be developed in collaboration with Federal, state, county, established and emerging organizations, and the public, and may include area-specific elements. Sustainable partnerships are essential to the successful implementation of the TMP. These partnerships require coordination and include organizations that contribute various interests and resources. Potential partners include non-profit and other private groups, governmental jurisdictions and organizations, educational groups, users and user organizations, local law enforcement, utilities, and private businesses. Financial resources for programs could be identified and pooled with other partners. To ensure sustainability, programs must be prioritized, with assigned responsibilities. To the extent possible, the BLM would seek to create alliances with local and regional groups and various government entities.
Additionally, the BLM would utilize eight target messages/themes for this educational effort: • Tread Lightly (www.treadlightly.org). • Leave No Trace (www.lnt.org). • Share the Trail (www.imba.com/resources/risk-management/shared-trails). • Respect the rights of private landowners and other users of public land. • Prevent the spread of invasive species. • Prevent wildland fires.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 12 • Ensure OHV safety. • Equestrian use.
Key messages would be developed that reflect the sensitivity of resources in the area, the recreational opportunities the area offers, and important land uses including: • ACECs (3 within TMA). • SRMAs (1 within TMA). • Herd Management Areas (HMA) (1 within TMA). • Grazing allotments (9 within TMA). • Wilderness Study areas (3 within TMA).
The BLM would use emerging technology and current communication methods to convey information and to secure public participation and stewardship for route management and ongoing evaluation of the TMP and Implementation Plan. As time and funding permit, the BLM would establish websites that include downloadable items such as maps, land use ethics, rules, fire prevention restrictions, and emergency announcements. Information would also be available at offices and high-use areas, and BLM staff would provide consistent talking points.
6.0 SIGN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Travel management signage is an important way of communicating with public land users. Signing of travel and transportation networks is necessary for adequate management of public lands. Route users want to know what modes of travel are allowed on routes they intend to use. Directional and informational signs (and the placement of these signs) are critical for the safety and enjoyment of public lands, for compliance with rules and regulations, and for protection of resources. Proper signing can improve visitor experiences by providing the necessary information to ensure that users are aware of regulations, safety, and allowable uses.
Sign plans are the primary components in BLM signage efforts and are required components of TMPs. According to the BLM Sign Guidebook, a sign plan provides for the systematic and uniform development and maintenance of a sign system for a given area (BLM 2016a). A sign plan is necessary to ensure that signs are consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including land use/planning documents. Sign plans also ensure that signs would adhere to consistent themes. Signing is a key element for implementing comprehensive travel and transportation plans. The BiFO Sign Plan was completed in 2017 to comply with the BLM National Sign Guidebook and is a document that requires continual maintenance and is adaptable over time to emerging issues dealing with signage. The TMP strategy conforms to the policy that all open routes would be signed and additional user information would be provided.
6.1 Scope of Signing Under this TMP, various types of signs and markers would be installed according to current BLM policies and guidance such as the BLM National Sign Guidebook and Guidelines for a
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 13 Quality Built Environment. Signs would be placed along roads, primitive roads, and trails. A variety of signs would be placed in the Pryor Mountain TMA, including:
• Area and public land identification signs based on cadastral surveys. • Entry kiosks and informational kiosks. • Bulletin boards. • Signs for routes’ identification numbers and designation statuses. • Area map boards.
Signs would be installed as necessary for visitor management and assistance. Signing would also be used as a tool for resource protection and regulatory and informational purposes. Initially, all designated open routes would be signed at intersections. Then, in situations that necessitate route clarification, signs would be placed every 1 mile beyond intersections. Signing would also occur at other points where following a primitive road or trail might be difficult or confusing to visitors. If necessary, signing or barricades for closures would be placed at reasonable intervals to ensure that users understand where closures exist. Signing would be designed to provide the public with clear and correct information to avoid off-network travel, damage to sensitive resources and areas, to prevent use conflict, and to direct the public to popular destinations.
Through monitoring and ongoing public input, strategies would be developed to constantly improve signing effectiveness. Maintenance procedures and schedules would be developed for signs and markers. Such procedures and schedules would include anticipated replacement needs. A sign inventory and database would be created to facilitate tracking of sign locations and sign maintenance. It is expected that during the first few years following implementation, many signs would be removed or destroyed and would be replaced or updated with a new communication or engineering technique.
Specific sign or communication/engineering would include: • Routes would be marked with brown flexible markers or u-channel posts with flexible brown markers and standard decals or aluminum signage where appropriate. • Open routes would be marked with route identification letters and numbers, arrow decals at intersections, and along the route as necessary to indicate routes that are “open” for vehicle travel. • Non-Motorized Use Only and Non-Mechanized Use Only routes would be marked with standard symbol decals indicating what modes of transportation are allowed. • Limited Use Only routes would be marked with a specific limitation symbol and/or other appropriate information indicating the type of restriction for that route. For example, if the route is available to specified vehicles or that the route is available for limited season of use.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 14 6.2 Designated Route Markers Each travel route would have an identifying number that would be established by the BLM in conjunction with USFS. The route identifying numbers would be maintained in the BiFO Facility Asset Management System database to allow historical tracking of routes from the inventory stage through the implementation stage. A consistent BLM numeric system would be applied to the route network. Long distance routes, touring loops, or routes to specific destinations may have a route name or symbol, in addition to a number. The numbering system would be flexible, and numbers may not always follow in numeric order. Routes that travel between field offices or planning areas would use the navigation number that was assigned in the jurisdiction or area that had the earliest designation date. Figures 4 through 7 present signs and markers that could be used on routes.
6.2.1 Open and Limited Travel Routes Markers for travel routes that are open and/or limited to OHV travel would follow the basic layout depicted in Figure 5. Each marker post would contain an arrow, route number, symbols of allowed uses (Open to) and prohibited uses (Closed to), and the BLM logo. Markers may also have a decal with Global Positioning System (GPS coordinates marked at strategic locations.
6.2.2 Limited (Administrative or Non-Motorized Travel Routes) Markers for travel routes where OHV travel is limited to administrative or non-motorized use could use the sign depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Identification Sign
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 15
Figure 5. Route Markers
Figure 6. Examples of Current Signs within the Pryor Mountain TMA
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 16
Figure 7. Examples of Area and Route Signs
6.2.3 Closed and Decommissioned Travel Routes Markers for travel routes that are closed to all forms of OHV travel (including administrative use) could use the sign depicted in Figures 5 or 7. Markers for travel routes that are closed to all forms of OHV travel and are scheduled to be decommissioned could also use sign depicted in Figures 5 or 7. Once a route has been decommissioned or has reclaimed naturally, these signs would be removed to prevent attracting attention to the fact that a travel route once existed in a particular location.
6.2.4 Additional Sign Examples In addition to portal/entry signs, designated route marker signs, and closure/limitation signs would be used within the Pryor Mountain TMA. Examples of the current and potential signs that may be used within the Pryor Mountain TMA are depicted in Figures 6 and 7.
6.3 Proposed Sign Locations Route markers would be placed (at a minimum) at each major intersection and as needed and noted in the BLM sign database. At each sign placement site, care would be taken to visually ensure that the message conveyed by a particular sign is generally positive (where possible), simple, and easy to read.
To limit the overall number of markers at each intersection, two routes may be identified on one post with arrow symbols. When adding a route name or where more than one or two international symbols are needed to convey a restriction or use, the BLM and USFS may coordinate to develop unique decals that clearly identify needed messages or trail names. Not all route markers need to include a route name and numeric route identifier. Thus, some marker
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 17 information could be used interchangeably on different markers. One route can have more than one identifier (e.g., name, number), and all route markers on a particular route would not be exactly the same.
6.4 Maintenance and Monitoring of Travel Management Signs Generally, maintenance of travel management markers would be completed according to Chapter 8 of the BLM’s Sign Guidebook, which can be found at: https://www.blm.gov/ documents/national-office/handbook-public-room/handbook/national-sign-handbook.
A sign inventory (stored in a database) would be incorporated into the TMA Sign Plan and maintained as time and funding permit. Current markers and signs should be inventoried as soon as possible after acceptance of this Implementation Plan. The database of sign inventory details would include the following information for each sign: • Location/GPS coordinates • Installation date o On larger signs, installation dates should be written on the back of signs. • Inventory date • Name of individual(s) who conducted installation/inventory • All language on the sign • Sign layout o Height o Length o Color o Shape (truncated, rectangle, square, marker) • Lettering o Size o Color o Font • Sign and post materials • Sign condition (good, fair, needs repair or replacement) • Number of times sign has been replaced (via ongoing count) • Photographs of signs
All photographs of signs should be linked to their GPS locations and maintained in the sign inventory database in subfolders labeled by year. All visitors should be encouraged to report missing or damaged signs. Volunteer efforts should be developed to help install, monitor, and replace route markers and signs. Cost of replacement signs should be a line item in annual budget projections. These costs should be identified through the sign inventory database.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 18 6.5 Information Kiosks The BiFO has a standard design and layout for kiosks, which includes a map on the left side, resource information and regulations on the right, and contact numbers on the bottom. Each of the six replacement kiosks include a brown banner along the top with the name of the site in the middle and a BLM logo and American flag on either side. The six kiosks are located at high-use areas, specifically at parking lots, trailheads, staging areas, and entrance portals where vehicle pull-outs are available.
7.0 ENFORCEMENT The BiFO is the primary law enforcement jurisdiction and would monitor the approximately 130-mile route network. Typical BLM Law Enforcement concerns related to public use in the Pryor Mountain TMA include traffic accidents, driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, firearm violations, cross-country OHV use, illegal dumping, resource theft, harassment of wild horses and wildlife, and the creation of new travel routes by visitors. Other agencies also patrol the area, including Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP), Carbon County, NPS, and USFS.
In an effort to enforce the route network, interdisciplinary cooperation among staff is emphasized. As part of this Interdisciplinary Team approach, law enforcement officers work closely with resource, recreation, and maintenance staff to capture information, statistics, and maintenance needs at specific locations. When trends or needs have been assessed, the field manager shall prioritize resources and direct additional patrols in the Pryor Mountain TMA. Increased BLM presence and use of trail stewards would only occur if adequate funding is acquired.
Goals for a successful enforcement plan include: • Improve information on the nature, timing, and location of resource and safety concerns to improve preventive strategies and result in more effective and timely law enforcement response. • Increase the presence of non-BLM law enforcement, including MFWP, Carbon County, USFS, NPS law enforcement, and volunteers. • Improve and expand interagency cooperation in the area. • Increase enforcement capacity, including the use of new technology, modelling, and specific strategies to be used by BLM law enforcement. • Encourage educational and monitoring efforts by volunteer user groups and citizen-based education groups, which can increase law enforcement educational efforts.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 19 8.0 MAINTENANCE Routes would be maintained as funding allows in accordance with TMP guidance and BLM policy. The standards for design, construction, and maintenance of roads and trails within the route system are outlined in the following BLM manuals: • BLM Manual 9113 Roads • BLM Manual 9114 Trails • H-9113-1 Road Design • H 9113-2 Roads National Inventory and Condition Assessment Guidance & Instruction • H-9113-1 Primitive Roads Design • H-9115-2 Primitive Roads Inventory and Condition Assessment Guidance & Instructions
In accordance with the policy outlined above, routes have been assigned maintenance levels. Routes would be managed in accordance with assigned maintenance levels and in consideration of resource issues. The conditions and use levels of routes can determine what maintenance intensities they receive. Travel route conditions, design standards, and guidelines are based on average daily traffic, functional classifications, and terrain type. Physical characteristics of routes help determine what types of use routes receive, and types of route use indicate which vehicles are capable of traveling on particular routes. For example, if a road is passable by a two-wheel drive vehicles it should also be passable by four-wheel drive vehicle. Based on resource management needs and functional classifications, designated routes have been assigned maintenance intensity levels, as presented in the BLM Roads Manual (BLM 2015d). Average Daily Traffic of routes would be monitored throughout the life of this plan and subsequent adjustments could be made to the maintenance intensity of a given route subject to site-specific analysis and consultation. Figure 8 shows volunteer maintenance efforts. Table 5 describes the maintenance intensity levels under the Proposed Action.
8.1 Function Classes Function classes indicate the relative importance of a route’s transportation and access purposes. These classes are the basis for design standards and are defined as collector roads, local roads, and resource roads (see the glossary for definitions). All of the BLM-administered motorized routes in the planning area function as resource roads. These routes are unpaved, typically single lane or narrower, and have low traffic volume and slow traffic speeds.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 20
Figure 8. Volunteer Maintenance Efforts
Table 5. Maintenance Intensity Levels Under Proposed Action*
Maintenance Descriptions of Routes Number of Intensity Under Each Intensity Level Routes Miles Level 0 Existing routes that would no longer be maintained or 14 3 declared as routes. Routes identified for removal from the Transportation System entirely. Level 1 Routes where minimal (low-intensity) maintenance is 357 152 required to protect adjacent lands and resource values. These roads may be impassable for extended periods of time. Level 3 Routes requiring moderate maintenance due to low 143 78 volume use (for example, seasonally or year-round for commercial, recreational, or administrative access). Maintenance intensities may not provide year-round access but are intended to generally provide resources appropriate to keep the route in use for the majority of the year. Level 5 Routes for high (maximum) maintenance because of 27 13 year-round needs, high-volume traffic, or significant use. Also may include routes identified through management objectives as requiring high intensities of maintenance or to be maintained open year-round. *Levels 2 and 4 reserved for future use.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 21 9.0 RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION Seven miles of existing routes would be closed under the Pryor Mountain TMP and Implementation Plan. Part of the process in determining route closure is based off the Route Evaluation Tree Form, which was completed on all 286 miles of routes within the evaluation area, excluding the 7.6 miles of new non-motorized routes proposed through public comment (Sykes Arch and DemiJohn trails). The Route Evaluation Tree rates numerous criteria under six main headings: routes with an existing Right-Of-Way (ROW), access/uses, special resources, whether or not impacts can be avoided, minimized or mitigated to sensitive resources (if present), public uses, and route redundancy.
To prevent and reduce long term impacts to resources, routes that are determined to be closed would be allowed to naturally reclaim. Routes that continue to illegally be used by motorized users would follow the outlined phases and steps as listed. Progressive steps to ensure the most economical and least invasive measures of restoration and reclamation of closed routes would be accomplished through the following phases:
Phase 1: • Signing and otherwise clarifying the open route network. • Removal of foreign debris and trash or other off-route attractants. • Placement of closed signs in appropriate locations.
Phase 2: • Raking or otherwise disguising closed routes with available materials. • Placing native or dead vegetation in appropriate areas. • Placing hardened barriers, fencing, or cables to prevent impacts to the rehabilitation site. • Locked gates may be placed to prevent unauthorized access if monitoring efforts show that the methods listed above are not effective.
Phase 3: • Pursue more active measures of reclamation such as ripping and re-seeding the route surface.
See Section 10.1 for a more detailed explanation of methods and techniques used for substantial restoration.
Key techniques in restoration (or decommissioning) include visually obliterating obvious routes or tracks to blend the disturbed area into the landscape. Methods to accomplish this include: hand-raking; cutting track edges or berms to break up straight lines; placing small rocks on routes; and mulching routes with local vegetation or dead plant materials. To minimize impacts to resources, the work would be limited to existing surface disturbance. Vegetation growing in the path of new primitive roads or trails developed under authorization may be salvaged and
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 22 relocated to routes or other disturbed lands in the immediate area or other areas in need of such vegetation, as determined by the BLM.
A travel route that has historical significance (e.g., an old wagon trail) would not be subject to any surface disturbance. Restoration would typically be limited to that portion of a closed route that is within line-of-sight from an open route. Each decommissioned route would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the most appropriate method of restoration would be used based on geography, topography, soils, hydrology, and vegetation.
9.1 Substantial Restoration Substantial restoration methods to close/decommission routes would take place only after extensive monitoring is completed. Monitoring (Section 10 of this Implementation Plan) would include observing continued signs of unauthorized vehicle use, which could demonstrate that allowing routes to restore naturally is ineffective. Any actions taken would be in conformance with the RMP/Final EIS and NEPA.
Ripping, or subsoiling, the road surface with a small dozer to break up compacted soil and allow maximum moisture retention may also be appropriate. These actions may draw attention to the route itself, so the BLM could provide information signs articulating the need for and value of resource protection. Weed treatments would be implemented as needed to reduce competition and promote re-vegetation with native plants to control existing weed sources and to prevent any new weed establishment.
Closed travel routes could be re-vegetated or seeded where necessary to aid restoration. Only local native seed mixtures would be selected for such sites. These mixtures would be based on individual site conditions. Broadcast seeding would generally be completed in the spring or fall. After the seed has been distributed uniformly over the area, the ground would be raked or dragged to cover the seed. After the first year, seeded areas could be fertilized if seedling establishment is sparse. Hydraulic seeding, seed drilling, mulching, water barring, pitting, roughening, contour furrowing, or similar methods may be used as appropriate to promote soil stability and establishment of native vegetation. Native vegetation could take three to five years to become established based on the type of restoration techniques used, weather, precipitation, and ecological condition of the site.
10.0 MONITORING Implementation monitoring determines whether the management decisions achieve the anticipated desired outcomes. Although proposed management actions are based on the best scientific and commercial information available, conditions may change over time. Implemented management actions can be improved as new technology and information become available. It is also possible that changes in land use would require a different management action to protect the resources.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 23 To address potentially changing conditions and provide management flexibility, implementation would be monitored to determine the effectiveness of management actions. The monitoring and evaluation program would identify and address ongoing and emerging issues that may adversely impact the resource and/or visitor experience. Monitoring would also evaluate implementation progress and the effectiveness of the Implementation Plan in achieving desired outcomes and conditions. Additionally, monitoring would identify adaptive measures if adverse impacts or changing conditions are discovered.
The existing Pryor Mountain TMA route evaluation data provides a baseline for monitoring and includes key data that can be evaluated in the future, including photographic documentation, damage, width, and notes from observers. This data could be used as a baseline against future monitoring data and subsequently compared in order to detect changes and implement more effective management. Monitoring helps to determine whether management actions taken in accordance with this Implementation Plan were productive and, if so, how effective they were in achieving objectives. Furthermore, monitoring can also help to quantify OHV user compliance and the effectiveness of implementation priorities.
Table 6 provides direction for elements to monitor and provides suggestions for monitoring methods and frequency. Monitoring methods may change or improve over time.
Table 6. Monitoring Elements and Methods
Monitoring Element Purpose of Monitoring Methodology Recreation Use Determine recreation use levels; Traffic counters, direct detect trends in use over time. observations, and law Address visitor safety concerns enforcement patrols. Recreation User Assess level of satisfaction with Visitor contacts, surveys, etc. Satisfaction recreation opportunity. Project Assessment Assess effectiveness of signs, Document route proliferation, use barriers, closures, and route of closed routes, and observance designations in meeting their of restrictions during annual route intended objectives. condition assessment. Monitor user conflicts throughout the year. Route Condition Assess the condition of designated On the ground examination of Assessment routes, rehabilitated routes, and routes to detect washouts, proliferation of new routes to drainage problems, cultural site determine needs for maintenance, conditions, vandalism, assess cultural site conditions, effectiveness of closures, vandalism, habitat conditions, development of new kiosks, etc. repairs, etc.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 24 11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Adaptive Management is a structured, incremental process of comprehensive decision making in the face of uncertainty. Adaptive resource management focuses on changing circumstances (e.g. environmental conditions, regulatory/policy changes, etc.) that could affect route designations, and how to manage for those changes.
This TMP recommends an adaptive management process consistent with the RMP/Final EIS that is flexible and generally involves four phases: planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Priority tasks for the Pryor Mountain TMA under this Implementation Plan are listed in Table 4. Unless otherwise specified, timeframes for objectives are discussed in terms of phases: Phase I (1 to 2 years), Phase II (3 to 5 years), and Ongoing.
Through adaptive resource management, the BLM might require changes to its travel management policies or incorporate new and emerging practices/policies into the existing TMP to respond to a variety of unforeseen/unanticipated circumstances that might arise. Some examples that could trigger adaptive management decision making include: • New requests for access; private property, public utilities; mineral resources. • Emergencies or natural disasters. • Resource degradation; proliferation of user-created routes. • Special status plant and animal species; new/revised listings. • Discovery of cultural or historical resources.
As additional monitoring data becomes available, the BLM would make decisions for the protection of resources. As resource conflicts are identified the BLM would continue to evaluate the designated road and trail network to ensure it continues to meet the objectives of 43 CFR 8340, the applicable land use plan goals and objectives, and applicable laws and regulations.
12.0 CHANGES TO THE ROUTE NETWORK 12.1 Reroutes and New Disturbance Future conditions may require the designation or construction of new routes or closure of existing routes to better address resources and resource use conflicts. Actual route designations within the “Limited” category can be modified without completing a plan amendment. The BiFO is aware that the current inventory of roads and trails used for the route designation process is not entirely correct or complete. The BiFO anticipates that in spite of intensive quality control and review, there are errors. Routes currently not included in the inventory may need to be added and designated as part of the implementation process.
The Proposed Action includes minor route adjustments to avoid sensitive resources that were identified during the inventory and evaluation process. Minor realignments of the route network would be considered to be Plan Maintenance actions, consistent with the BLM NEPA Handbook
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 25 (BLM 2008). This could include a change of no more than 0.25 mile of a designated route. It could also include the opening of a separate existing route that serves the same access need as the route that is to be realigned.
Most reroutes focus on situations where new construction is necessary to address resource impacts and maintain access. Minor route realignments include the following: • Address areas with soil erosion or other drainage issues. • Provide public access around private lands. • Minimize effects on cultural resources. • Reduce impact on sensitive species or their habitats. • Increase the quality of a recreational experience, while not affecting sensitive species or their habitat, or any other sensitive resource value. • Opening or limited opening of a route where valid ROWs or easements of record were not accurately identified in the route designation process.
Minor realignments must be documented in the official record. The reason for the alignment change would be recorded and kept on file in the BiFO. Any new routes or connectors would be located in the field and necessary clearances (e.g. cultural, wildlife, invasive species) would be performed. All new routes constructed by BLM in the TMA would meet the standards for design, construction, and maintenance found in the BLM Roads Design Handbook (BLM 2011) and Primitive Roads Design Handbook (BLM 2012b). New routes or facilities, such as cattle guards, may be constructed on BLM-administered lands in association with a written authorization (e.g., permit, ROW, lease, contract). The six new kiosks, a two re-routes and two new routes would be constructed and maintained in accordance with the associated permit requirements and are incorporated into the TMP.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions and projects were addressed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this Implementation Plan. Reasonably foreseeable future actions and projects include ranching, grazing and general maintenance of the existing guzzlers. These projects are further discussed in the EA and would be incorporated into the Implementation Plan upon site-specific consultation (Section 106 and Section 7).
12.2 Temporary Routes Temporary routes and their maintenance may be key components of travel management in the planning area. Temporary routes could be constructed where necessary through approved written authorizations (e.g., permit, ROW, lease, contract). Temporary routes are not intended to be part of the permanent or designated transportation network system and must be reclaimed when their intended purpose has been fulfilled (BLM 2012a). A temporary route would be authorized or acquired for the time period and duration specified in the written authorization and would be scheduled and budgeted for maintenance and reclamation to prevent further vehicle use and soil erosion by providing adequate drainage and reclamation (BLM 2012a).
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 26 12.3 Necessary Access on Private and State Lands Some routes in the Pryor Mountain TMA travel network traverse private and state lands. County roads provide access to some travel routes on BLM-administered land. This TMP does not designate existing routes over private or state property. Route designations only apply on BLM- administered land.
The BLM currently has two permanent easements and one lease that traverse private properties within the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. Additionally, the BLM may seek agency and public easement agreements in order to maintain current access for popular routes, and seek additional site-specific opportunities to gain agency and public access to BLM-administered lands. As the travel network is developed, signs would be placed within the vicinity of non-BLM lands. Travelers would be instructed to respect private holdings.
Landowners with property adjacent to BLM-administered lands are entitled to the same access as any other user and must follow the designated travel network. If a private landowner or permitted user desires to change the type or amount of access on a network route, BLM procedures must be followed to gain that authority. If such use is authorized under a ROW, the holder would be required to seek an amendment if there is a substantial change in location or use per 43 CFR 2807.20. The lands and realty staff in the BLM BiFO are available to clarify the legal access needs and appropriate procedures.
12.3.1 BLM Administrative Determination on Revised Statute 2477 A TMP or Implementation Plan is not intended to provide evidence, bearing on, or address the validity of any Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process that is entirely independent of the BLM's planning process. Consequently, this Implementation Plan did not take into consideration R.S. 2477 evidence. The BLM bases travel management planning on purpose and need related to resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters given consideration to the relevant resources. At such time as a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM would adjust its travel routes accordingly.
12.3.2 Right-of-Ways The BLM would continue to consider granting ROWs for or including vehicular use. ROWs would be processed under project specific NEPA analysis and be subject to any requirements stemming from said analysis. Upon granting of ROWs including roads or vehicular ways, these would automatically be incorporated into this Implementation Plan on a case-by-case basis.
12.4 Emergency Closures In the event of an emergency situation as defined in the BLM NEPA Handbook (BLM 2008), immediate actions (e.g., closures or public land use restrictions) must be taken to prevent or reduce risks to public health or safety, property, or important resources. Emergencies are
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 27 unforeseen events of such severity that they require immediate action to avoid dire consequences.
13.0 PLAN REVISION AND AMENDMENT Modifications to this TMP would be considered if monitoring indicates that management objectives are not being met. When necessary, adaptive management thresholds would trigger a review of this TMP and management actions may be adjusted accordingly.
This TMP would be in effect until rescinded or amended by a future management action. Adaptive management measures may be undertaken with plan maintenance actions and implementation progress. Any person, organization, or governmental body may propose that any current route designation be changed to another designation (“open”, “limited”, or “closed”). Requests to change route designations should be submitted in writing to the BiFO Field Manager. In the context of this TMP, the Field Manager is the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer has the authority to make final decisions on route changes.
Designation of travel routes is a discretionary action and the field manager may determine whether or not proposals have merit and whether or not they constitute significant or minor modifications. If an application proposing a route designation change is rejected, a letter (stating reasons for refusal) would be sent to the applicant. If accepted, the request would be forwarded to appropriate BiFO staff members. When accepting a proposal, the Authorized Officer should determine if the request would necessitate cost recovery based on applicable regulations pertinent to the request. A formal decision to accept or reject a specific request for a route change would only be issued after the occurrence of NEPA analysis and evaluation of a proposal’s effect on the total travel network. Any proposed change to the travel network in this plan would be documented and appended to this plan.
Pryor Mountain Travel Management Area October 2019 Travel Management Plan 28
Appendix C
Executive Orders
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11644
Executive Order 11644 was signed in 1972 by President Nixon. It provided for regulations that designate trails and areas for off-road motor vehicle use. Routes on public lands are required to be designated as “Open”, “Closed” or “Limited.” This applied largely to areas and specific routes in areas designated as “Limited.” Areas designated as “Closed” or “Open” do not require the designation of specific routes and trails. The following criteria are to be applied to “Limited” areas and were excerpted from Executive Order 11644: Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors. Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values. This Executive Order was codified into Title 43 CFR 8340 – Off Road Vehicles (GPO 2014). Thus, it became BLM policy and was implemented at a nationwide scale throughout BLM-administered lands.
All BLM-managed public lands require motorized vehicle use designations. Both areas and routes require such designations in accordance with Title 43 CFR 8340 – Off Road Vehicles (derived from Executive Order 11644). The designation categories (excerpted from Title 43 CFR 8340.0-5 definitions) include:
Open Area. Area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in subparts 8341 and 8342 of this title.
Limited Area Area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions.
Closed Area Area where off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of off-road vehicles in Closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer.
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix C – Executive Orders C-1 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11989
Executive Order 11989 was signed in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. This Executive Order amended and strengthened Executive Order 11644.
The amended order provides that the BLM’s will immediately close any area or route to Off Road Vehicles whenever it determines that Off Road Vehicles use will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources. Under the order, the closure must remain in place until the adverse effects have been eliminated (43 C.F.R. § 8341.2(a)).
Draft Pryor Mountain TMA Environmental Assessment September 2019 Appendix C – Executive Orders C-2