Final Environmental Impact Statement Sublette County, Wyoming

United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental

Forest Service Impact Statement

November 2005 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project

Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Sublette County, Wyoming

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: Gregory Clark District Ranger Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 218 Big Piney, WY 83113

For Information Contact: Jeff Laub P.O. Box 218 Big Piney, WY 83113 307.276.3375

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of alternative vegetation management strategies to manage vegetation resources in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages on the Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-TNF). The Big Piney Ranger District is proposing to implement vegetation management in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages over the next 5 to 10 years. Management opportunities, practices, standards and guidelines, and mitigation have been developed to help achieve desired resource conditions. These are the basis for this proposal and for further site-specific analysis of effects. Eleven comment letters were received via standard mail or e-mail. Reviewers provided the Forest Service with a total of 455 comments during the review period of the Draft EIS. This enabled the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of this Final EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers were obligated to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it was meaningful and alerted the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 [1978]). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the Draft EIS stage have been waived (City of Angoon v. Hodel [9th Circuit, l986] and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc., v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 [E.D. Wis. 1980]).

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Summary...... Summary-1 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Document Structure ...... 1-1 1.2 Background...... 1-2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action...... 1-7 1.4 Proposed Action...... 1-7 1.5 Decision Framework...... 1-9 1.6 Management Direction and Relationship to Other Plans and Documents...... 1-9 1.6.1 The Land and Resource Management Plan for the B-TNF ...... 1-9 1.6.2 The Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study (CPIS)...... 1-9 1.6.3 The North Cottonwood and South Cottonwood Allotment Management Plans...... 1-10 1.6.4 MA 25 Oil and Gas Leasing and Cottonwood Field Permitting...... 1-10 1.6.5 The Bridger West Travel Plan ...... 1-10 1.7 Decision to be Made ...... 1-10 1.8 Public Involvement ...... 1-10 1.9 Issues...... 1-11 1.9.1 Significant Issues ...... 1-11 1.10 Supporting Documents and Past Analysis ...... 1-12 1.10.1 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190)...... 1-12 1.10.2 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 4-588)... 1-13 1.10.3 Forest Restoration Act (Healthy Forests Initiative)...... 1-13 1.10.4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as Amended...... 1-13 1.10.5 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 ...... 1-13 1.10.6 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) as amended in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and 1987 (P.L. 100-4), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)...... 1-13 1.10.7 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ...... 1-14 1.10.8 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)...... 1-14 1.10.9 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) ...... 1-14 1.10.10 Consumers, Civil Rights, Minorities, and Women...... 1-14 1.10.11 Environmental Justice...... 1-14 1.10.12 Bridger-Teton National Forest Responsibility to Federally Recognized Tribes ...... 1-15 1.11 Other Agencies Having Permit or Review Authority...... 1-15 1.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ...... 1-15 1.11.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)...... 1-16 1.11.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)...... 1-16 1.11.4 Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)...... 1-16 1.11.5 Wyoming State Engineers Office (WSEO) ...... 1-17 1.11.6 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)...... 1-17

TOC-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Chapter Page

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction...... 2-1 2.2 Desired Future Conditions (DFC)...... 2-1 2.2.1 DFC 1B—Substantial Commodity Resource Development with Moderate Accommodation of Other Resources...... 2-1 2.2.2 DFC 10—Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big Game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species...... 2-1 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-2 2.3.1 Maximum Timber Harvest Alternative...... 2-3 2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail...... 2-3 2.4.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative (No Vegetation Management or Road/Trail Improvements)...... 2-3 2.4.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action ...... 2-4 2.4.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads...... 2-10 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-15 2.5.1 Vegetation...... 2-17 2.5.2 Wildlife ...... 2-18 2.5.3 Fire ...... 2-18 2.5.4 Soils...... 2-21 2.5.5 Hydrology ...... 2-21 2.5.6 Fisheries ...... 2-22 2.5.7 Sensitive Species...... 2-22 2.5.8 Transportation...... 2-23 2.5.9 Heritage Resources ...... 2-23 2.5.10 Environmental Justice...... 2-24 2.5.11 Recreation ...... 2-24 2.5.12 Visual Resources...... 2-24 2.5.13 Economics...... 2-25 2.6 Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 2-25 2.6.1 Recreation Mitigation ...... 2-25 2.6.2 Scenic Resources Mitigation...... 2-26 2.6.3 Heritage Resources Mitigation ...... 2-26 2.6.4 Watershed Mitigation...... 2-27 2.6.5 Fisheries and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Mitigation...... 2-28 2.6.6 Timber Harvest and Prescribed Fire Mitigations...... 2-28 2.6.7 Roads Mitigations ...... 2-28 2.6.8 Wildlife Mitigation and Design Criteria...... 2-29 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction...... 3-1 3.1.1 Project Area Location and Management History...... 3-2 3.2 Forest Wildlife and Vegetation (Habitat) Resources...... 3-2 3.2.1 Introduction...... 3-2 3.2.2 Issues...... 3-3

TOC-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter Page 3.2.3 Existing Conditions...... 3-3 3.2.4 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-33 3.2.5 Environmental Consequences...... 3-35 3.3 Forest Fuels and Fire...... 3-58 3.3.1 Introduction...... 3-58 3.3.2 Existing Conditions...... 3-58 3.3.3 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-69 3.3.4 Environmental Consequences...... 3-69 3.4 Soils, Hydrology, and Water Quality...... 3-70 3.4.1 Introduction...... 3-70 3.4.2 Issues...... 3-71 3.4.3 Existing Conditions...... 3-71 3.4.4 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-91 3.4.5 Environmental Consequences...... 3-92 3.5 Fisheries ...... 3-111 3.5.1 Introduction...... 3-111 3.5.2 Issues...... 3-111 3.5.3 Existing Conditions...... 3-111 3.5.4 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-115 3.5.5 Environmental Consequences...... 3-116 3.5.6 Summary...... 3-122 3.6 Special Status Species...... 3-123 3.6.1 Introduction...... 3-123 3.6.2 Issues...... 3-123 3.6.3 Existing Conditions...... 3-123 3.6.4 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-140 3.6.5 Environmental Consequences...... 3-141 3.7 Roads and Transportation ...... 3-157 3.7.1 Introduction...... 3-157 3.7.2 Existing Conditions...... 3-157 3.7.3 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-159 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences...... 3-159 3.8 Heritage Resources ...... 3-161 3.8.1 Introduction...... 3-161 3.8.2 Existing Conditions...... 3-161 3.8.3 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-163 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences...... 3-163 3.9 Environmental Justice...... 3-165 3.9.1 Introduction...... 3-165 3.9.2 Existing Conditions...... 3-165 3.9.3 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-165 3.9.4 Environmental Consequences...... 3-165 3.10 Recreation and Visual Resources...... 3-166 3.10.1 Introduction...... 3-166 3.10.2 Existing Conditions...... 3-166

TOC-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Chapter Page 3.10.3 Desired Future Conditions ...... 3-174 3.10.4 Environmental Consequences...... 3-178 3.11 Economics...... 3-188 3.11.1 Introduction...... 3-188 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences...... 3-188 3.12 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...... 3-190 3.13 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 3-190 3.13.1 Alternative A—No Action...... 3-191 3.13.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action ...... 3-191 3.13.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads...... 3-192 3.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-192 3.15 Cumulative Effects...... 3-192 3.16 Other Required Disclosures ...... 3-193 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination...... 4-1 4.1 Preparers and Contributors ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Forest Service ID Team Members ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Consultant ID Team Members...... 4-1 4.2 Entities Consulted ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Tribes ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies...... 4-2 4.2.3 Congressional Delegates...... 4-2 4.2.4 Organizations ...... 4-2 4.2.5 Private Businesses...... 4-3 4.2.6 Media ...... 4-3 4.2.7 Others...... 4-4 4.3 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ...... 4-4 Chapter 5. Responses to Comments...... 5-1 Chapter 6. References...... 6-1 Chapter 7. List of Acronyms...... 7-1

Appendices A Selected Forest Plan Goals B USFWS Letter C Biological Evaluation D Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class Descriptions E Visual Quality Objectives Descriptions

TOC-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Tables Page 1-1 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators.. 1-4 1-2 Significant Issues...... 1-12 2-1 Vegetation Treatment Areas, Methods, and Extent Under the Proposed Action...... 2-4 2-2 Proposed Action Treatment Areas and Treatment Percentage in the Cottonwood II Analysis Area ...... 2-7 2-3 Stream Crossing Improvements Associated with the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project...... 2-13 2-4 Comparison of Proposed Action (Alternative B) and Alternative C Vegetation Treatments...... 2-14 2-5 Roads Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative C ...... 2-15 2-6 Alternative C Treatment Areas and Treatment Percentage in the Cottonwood II Analysis Area ...... 2-15 2-7 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators...... 2-16 3-1 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Cottonwood II Project...... 3-1 3-2 Properly Functioning Conditions for Cottonwood II Analysis Area...... 3-4 3-3 Treatment Areas in the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project...... 3-9 3-4 Summary of Conifer Stands Proposed for Treatment...... 3-10 3-5 Herds and Herd Units Within the Cottonwood Watershed...... 3-31 3-6 FVS Summary...... 3-35 3-7 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Treatment Area for Alternative B— Proposed Action (Acres)...... 3-39 3-8 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative B—Proposed Action (Acres) ...... 3-40 3-9 Summary of Vegetation Treatments for Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (Acres)...... 3-49 3-10 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (Acres)...... 3-50 3-11 Soil Mapping Units and Soil Characteristics...... 3-71 3-12 Soil Mapping Units, Soil Characteristics, and Extent of Soil Mapping Units Within Stands to be Treated...... 3-72 3-13 Area of Soil Limitation Ratings for Selected Soil Characteristics Within Stands to be Treated...... 3-74 3-14 Watersheds Within the Analysis Area ...... 3-83 3-15 Existing Road Density ...... 3-84 3-16 Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) Within the Analysis Area ...... 3-87 3-17 Estimated Fine Sediment Component of Inventoried Redds of North Cottonwood Creek and Predicted Survival Of Trout Embryos ...... 3-89 3-18 Designated Uses for Selected Use-Based Classifications...... 3-90 3-19 Classification of Waters Having Designated Uses ...... 3-91 3-20 Comparison of Road Density by Alternative...... 3-98 3-21 Open Road Density for the Cottonwood II Project...... 3-99 3-22 Comparison of Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) by Alternative ...... 3-101

TOC-5 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Tables Page 3-23 Sediment Discharge (tons/year) Due to Treatment Units from the Cottonwood II Project ...... 3-107 3-24 Summary of Evaluation Criteria Assessment ...... 3-110 3-25 Fishes from Selected Streams Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area...... 3-112 3-26 Applicable Forest-Wide and MPs for Issue-Related Fisheries Habitat Resources Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area...... 3-115 3-27 Applicable Forest-Wide and MPs for Issue-Related Fisheries Stream Barriers Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area ...... 3-116 3-28 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species that may Occur Within the Analysis Area or be Impacted by the Proposed Project...... 3-124 3-29 Lynx Habitat Following Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy Criteria.... 3-129 3-30 Sensitive Plants That Are Known or Expected to Occur Within the Project Analysis Area...... 3-130 3-31 Forest Service, Region 4 Sensitive Species, Suitable Habitat, and Known or Expected Presence in the Analysis Area ...... 3-132 3-32 Plant Management Indicator Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest with Habitat Description...... 3-136 3-33 Wildlife Management Indicator Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest...... 3-138 3-34 Acres of Lynx Denning and Foraging Habitat Within the Cottonwood Creek LAU that would be Affected by the Alternatives (includes only mapped denning and foraging habitat and does not include lynx habitat in unsuitable condition)...... 3-147 3-35 Cumulative Effects of Vegetation Treatment on Lynx Habitat in the Cottonwood Creek LAU...... 3-153 3-36 Recreation Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines ...... 3-168 3-37 Trails Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines ...... 3-169 3-38 Acres of MA 25 Assigned to the ROS Classifications ...... 3-171 3-39 Acres and Percent of the B-TNF Assigned to the Visual Quality Objectives ...... 3-172 3-40 Visual Quality Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines ...... 3-172 3-41 Acres of MA 25 Assigned to the VQOs ...... 3-174 3-42 ROS Classifications Associated with the DFCs of MA 25...... 3-175 3-43 Recreation Prescriptions Associated with Management Prescriptions...... 3-175 3-44 Common Recreation Activity Associated with the DFCs of MA 25...... 3-176 3-45 VQO Classifications Associated with the DFCs of MA 25...... 3-177 3-46 Visual Prescriptions Associated with Management Prescriptions...... 3-177 3-47 Economic Comparison of Alternatives A, B, and C for the Cottonwood II Management Project ...... 3-188 3-48 Economic Effects on Local Communities of Alternatives A, B, and C for the Cottonwood II Management Project...... 3-190 5-1 Individuals Who Commented on the Cottonwood II DEIS...... 5-1 5-2 Comment Letters Summary ...... 5-2

TOC-6 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Figures Page 1-1 Project Vicinity ...... 1-3 1-2 Analysis Area and Treatment Areas ...... 1-5 2-1 Vegetation Treatments Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...... 2-5 2-2 Proposed Stream Crossing and Road Improvement Locations ...... 2-11 2-3 Vegetation Treatments Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Reduced Temporary Roads) ...... 2-17 3-1 Vegetation Types within the AnalysisArea ...... 3-5 3-2 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Management Indicator Species - Birds ...... 3-15 3-3 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Management Indicator Species - Mammals (1 of 2) ...... 3-17 3-4 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Management Indicator Species - Mammals (2 of 2) ...... 3-19 3-5 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Animal Species - Birds (1 of 2) ...... 3-21 3-6 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Animal Species - Birds (2 of 2) ...... 3-23 3-7 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Animal Species - Mammals/Amphibians ...... 3-25 3-8 Lynx Habitat and Occurrences ...... 3-27 3-9 Management Indicator and Sensitive Species Occurrences ...... 3-29 3-10 Erosion Hazard Potential ...... 3-75 3-11 Areas Susceptible to Soil Productivity Loss ...... 3-79 3-12 Subwatersheds within the Analysis Area ...... 3-81

TOC-7

SUMMARY

The Big Piney Ranger District on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-TNF) proposes to implement vegetation management in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages over the next 5 to 10 years. Management opportunities, practices, standards and guidelines, and mitigation have been developed to help achieve desired resource conditions. These are the basis for this proposal and for further site specific analysis of effects.

The area affected by the proposal includes the North and South Cottonwood Creeks watersheds and is located approximately 25 miles northwest of Big Piney, Wyoming, in the Green River drainage, on the east slope of the Wyoming Range (see Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1). The analysis area is approximately 48,541 acres within this watershed and includes the tributary creeks of North and South Cottonwood Creeks, including Nylander, Ole, Hardin, Irene, Lander, Eagle, and Bare Creeks (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1). Lander Peak and Bare Mountain are within this area, as is Soda Lake. There are approximately 30,894 acres in the treatment area portion of the analysis area. The legal description includes portions of: T32N, R115W; T32N, R116W; T33N, R114W; T33N, R115W; T34N, R115W.

The Proposed Action can be summarized as follows: Approximately 1,116 acres of aspen stands would be treated to regenerate healthy aspen and remove conifers that are growing into the stands and replacing the aspen component. Approximately 581 forested acres would be treated using a partial-cut treatment to thin overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance. Most merchantable trees would be removed through a commercial timber sale on approximately 402 acres to provide for regeneration of declining lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests and to enhance age class diversity across the landscape. Approximately 1.0 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which is to be used as a timber haul road for this project and to provide access to the Nylander Creek Trailhead, would be relocated out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. Twelve culverts and two bridges along the timber haul routes would be replaced or modified to either act as fish barriers or to allow passage of fish, as identified in the 1998 to 1999 road and stream crossing inventory. Reconstructing the South Cottonwood Road from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing (approximately 1.0 mile) would provide safe access for log trucks, livestock haulers, and recreation traffic.

This action is needed, because of the following conditions: Aspen forests are predominantly old age classes, are being encroached by conifers, and are in declining growth and health. Desired conditions would maintain 50 to 55 percent of aspen stands in younger age classes.

Summary-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

A majority of conifer forests are in older age classes with declining growth and health, heavy forest fuel loads, and high tree densities for site conditions. Desired conditions would maintain 15 to 20 percent of stands in seedling/sapling stages, maintain forest structure in snags, down logs and tree clumps, maintain lower tree densities in many areas, and promote natural regeneration.

Many of the reforested areas have high tree densities that will not support optimal tree growth or sustained big game hiding cover. Desired conditions would maintain lower tree densities to sustain hiding cover longer and improve tree growth and health. Pre-commercial thinning is often used to achieve lower tree densities and was identified as a need for this project. However, no pre-commercial thinning was included in the project because of a conflict with habitat goals of the Lynx Conservation Strategy. Some roads and road culverts are substandard and contribute to sedimentation in streams, damage riparian areas, and impair fish passage and habitat. Desired conditions would bring roads and culverts up to standard or rehabilitate them to reduce sedimentation and improve adjacent resource conditions.

The need for vegetation management in this area has previously been identified and studied in the Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan implemented in 1990 (Forest Service 1990), in the Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study (CPIS) (Forest Service 1993), conducted from 1991 to 1993, and in the Cottonwood/Maki Environmental Assessment conducted from 1999 to 2003 (Forest Service 2003a). Each effort included extensive public and Forest Service interdisciplinary input, as well as use of the best data available on Forest resources.

Public scoping for the Cottonwood projects began during the CPIS phase in 1991. Throughout 1991 and 1992, a series of public mailings, meetings, and field trips were completed to discuss implementation of the Forest Plan in the Cottonwood area. Public input received during this period was used to develop desired future resource conditions and site objectives to reach the desired conditions. Projects originally proposed and scoped included vegetation management, improvement of recreational facilities, and road rehabilitation and improvement work in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. The original Cottonwood project was divided into two separate projects: the Maki project and the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management project. The first proposed project from the planning described above was to conduct a detailed analysis focusing on management activities only in the Maki Creek area, a portion of the North Cottonwood Creek drainage. Scoping for the second Cottonwood project, the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management project, was initiated by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on December 24, 2003, (Vol. 68, No. 247) to prepare an EIS. A public scoping letter was sent to individuals, interest groups, Shoshone-Bannock and Nez Perce Tribes, local governments, and other agencies. Thirteen letters from 14 individuals or groups were received.

Summary-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and Tribal Nations, the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed the following list of significant issues to address: Old Growth and Canada Lynx. The project area has been documented as occupied Canada lynx habitat. Effects of the proposed activities on lynx habitat should be addressed. The link between old growth forest and lynx habitat concerns maintenance of suitable denning habitat conditions. Lynx denning habitat is defined by the presence of ground-level structures that provide security and cover for lynx kittens. Suitable structures are often found in old and mature forests with substantial amounts of coarse woody debris on the ground because of the presence of wind throw and snags (Aubry et al. 1999). Big Game. The effects of the proposed activities on big game populations. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (CRCT). The effects of the proposed activities on CRCT habitat. Watersheds. The effects of the proposed activities on the functions and values of watersheds including vegetation, wildlife, aquatic species, water quality, wetlands, and bank stability.

These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to Alternative B, Proposed Action, including: Alternative A, No Action. There would be no vegetation management activities in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages with implementation of the No Action Alternative. Alternative C, Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads. The management objective of Alternative C is the same as the Proposed Action. However, in response to public scoping comments suggesting an alternative with less timber harvesting using clearcutting, the Forest Service IDT developed Alternative C. Alternative C reduces the number of acres where vegetation management is conducted, reduces the number of acres clearcut, increases the acres of aspen treatment for habitat improvement, and reduces temporary road miles needed.

Major conclusions are described in the following text.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary comparison of the effects that would result from implementing Alternatives A (No Action), B (Proposed Action), and C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) on the resource areas analyzed in this EIS. Table S-1 very briefly summarizes and compares the effects of implementing Alternatives A, B, and C on the significant issues and indicators analyzed in this EIS.

Summary-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE S-1 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

(Reduced Harvest Issue Indicator (No Action) (Proposed Action) and Roads)

Old Growth Lynx foraging - Gradual loss over - 1,630 acres treated - 1532 acres treated and Canada habitat change time Lynx

- More short-term - Less short-term displacement displacement

- More long-term - Less long-term positive trend positive trend

Lynx denning - Gradual loss over - 307 acres treated - 230 acres treated habitat change time

- More short-term - Less short-term displacement displacement

- More long-term - Less long-term positive trend positive trend

Big Game Direct and indirect - No overlap with - No overlap with - No overlap with effects on winter winter range winter range winter range range

Direct and indirect - Gradual decline - 1,041 acres of - 974 acres of conifer effects on summer over time conifer treatment treatment habitat

- 1,058 acres of - 1,058 acres of aspen burned aspen burned

- 2,099 acres lost for - 2,032 acres lost for 1-2 years 1-2 years

- 2,099 acres of - 2,032 acres of improved forage after improved forage after 1-2 years 1-2 years

Effects on Direct and indirect - No change from - No direct impact - No direct impact Colorado effects on CRCT existing conditions from vegetation from vegetation River habitat treatments treatments Cutthroat Trout (CRCT)

- Short-term sediment - Less than the increase from road Proposed Action work

- Slight long-term - Same as Proposed improvement in Action watershed health

Barriers and - No change from - 11 fish passage - Same as Proposed access restored to existing conditions structures improved Action habitat

- 3 fish barrier - Same as Proposed structures improved Action

Summary-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE S-1 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

(Reduced Harvest Issue Indicator (No Action) (Proposed Action) and Roads)

Watersheds Sediment - No change from - More short-term - Less short-term deposition into existing conditions increase from road increase from road streams work work

Miles of road - None - One mile of road - One mile of road moved from moved to uplands moved to uplands riparian corridor

Protection of - No change - Designated uses - Designated uses stream designated protected protected uses

Peak discharge - No change - No change - No change changes in N. and S. Cottonwood Creeks

Wetland/riparian - No change - Improved riparian - Improved riparian impacts habitat in road habitat in road relocation section relocation section along Nylander Creek along Nylander Creek

Vegetation

Under the No Action Alternative, no effects from vegetation management treatments would occur except for occasional removal of dead trees along roads for firewood under personal use firewood permits. However, fire disturbance would continue to not be allowed to play its historic role. Vegetation manipulation using timber harvest, which began in the 1920s, would discontinue. Stands already changed by harvest would receive no further management or maintenance. Conifers would continue to grow into the aspen stands, replacing the aspen component. The risk of stand replacing wildfire, in the absence of smaller scale disturbances, particularly in older conifer forests would continue and increase.

Manipulation of vegetation on 2,099 acres under the Proposed Action would help achieve desired conditions in the five treatment areas. The effects would be to thin overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance; regenerate declining lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests and to enhance age class diversity across the landscape; and to regenerate healthy aspen and remove conifers that are growing into the stands and replacing the aspen component. The risk of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced on a small scale. The construction of temporary roads and skid trails would result in the temporary loss of forest productivity and habitat for 5 to 10 years. Relocation of a portion of Nylander Road out of the riparian area would restore riparian habitat.

Summary-5 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Manipulation of vegetation is proposed on 2,032 treatment acres under Alternative C to help achieve desired conditions and respond to project issues in the five treatment areas. Additional acres of aspen would be treated with this alternative and less forested area would be disturbed by clearcutting and constructing temporary roads and skid trails. Other effects to vegetation would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action.

Wildlife

There would be no direct impacts on wildlife from the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Over time, lack of forest management actions is likely to indirectly contribute to the decline in habitat values for elk and migratory birds that use aspen. The current conditions of dense mature conifer stands that often have limited herbaceous and shrub understories—which limits use by a number of species because of lack of cover and food—would continue.

With implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative B), prescribed burns would reduce habitat for species that use mature aspen stands. However, in the absence of treatments, the quality of this habitat is declining. Primary and secondary cavity nesting birds would benefit from prescribed burns for several years. Declining aspen areas that are burned would provide renewed habitat for many species after they regenerate over a period of many years. Timber harvest and temporary roads would result in short-term increases in water temperature and sediment, with adverse effects on spotted frogs and other amphibians. Timber harvest would also remove habitat for species that use mature conifer forest. Aspen burning and timber harvest would increase herbaceous and shrub growth for 5 to 15 or 20 years, with benefits for big game and ground- and shrub-nesting species.

Direct and indirect impacts to all wildlife species from implementation of Alternative C would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action from aspen treatment, except for a greater area of aspen treated. Effects from logging and mechanical treatment would be somewhat less than under the Proposed Action, because fewer acres of coniferous forest would undergo treatment and there would be fewer created openings. Beneficial impacts would be approximately the same as under the Proposed Action. Long-term habitat improvement and progress toward desired future conditions (DFCs) would be somewhat less than under the Proposed Action, but greater than under the No Action Alternative.

Fire

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in a continued increase in fuel loading within timbered stands, loss of fire resistant aspen communities to succession, and decadence. Continued fire exclusion of all types would continue to exclude fire from playing its historical ecological role in the analysis area.

Summary-6 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

modify fuel characteristics and help break up fuel continuity within the analysis area. Future expected fire behavior in treatment areas would be reduced. Fuel loads would continue to increase in unmanaged timber and aspen stands. Fire would be reintroduced under a controlled scenario to play its historical role in the analysis area. Aspen stands would be regenerated by commercial harvest and prescribed fire, providing forage and renewed cover for elk, which migrate through the area, and other wildlife. Density and coverage of encroaching conifers would be reduced by the Proposed Action. Surface fuel in aspen stands would be reduced, thus reducing potential fire behavior. Partial-cut treatments would be used in conifer forests to remove insect and disease-infested trees, further reducing future fuel loads.

Alternative C does not meet project purpose and need as well as Alternative B (Proposed Action). Under Alternative C, reduced harvest levels of 974 acres of conifer forest and meeting the proposed 1,058 acres of aspen burning only meets project need in part. Thinning overstocked stands and harvesting timber (with an effective activity fuel treatment) would modify fuel characteristics and help break up fuel continuity within the analysis area. Future expected fire behavior in treatment areas would be significantly reduced. Fuel loads would continue to increase in unmanaged timber and aspen stands. Fire would be reintroduced under a controlled scenario to play its historical role in the analysis area.

Overall, Alternative B proposes the most modification and reduction of fuels among the alternatives evaluated, and would therefore reduce future fire behavior within the analysis area the most. Commercially harvested units with post-activity fuels treatment also would be anticipated to reduce future expected fire behavior. Thinning regenerating stands would promote stand resiliency by reducing crown densities and promoting health of the stand. The reduction of crown densities would decrease the chance of a stand-replacing crown fire.

Soils

The extent of detrimentally disturbed soils is within regional guidelines. There would be no change under the No Action Alternative. Detrimentally disturbed soil would increase slightly in the short-term with implementation of the action alternatives, but there would be no long-term impact.

Hydrology

Road density is not expected to increase with implementation of the No Action Alternative. One subwatershed currently exceeds the desired standard of 2.5 road miles per square mile. Road density would increase slightly with both action alternatives. Three subwatersheds would exceed the desired standard under the Proposed Action and two subwatersheds would exceed the desired standard under Alternative C. For broad scale evaluation, road densities should be maintained below 2.5 mile/square mile (Forest Service 2003a). At the watershed scale, this guideline will not be exceeded under any of the alternatives. However at the smaller subwatershed scale, some areas exceed the

Summary-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

guideline because of localized activities. Because the guideline is based on a broad scale evaluation, these exceedances at the subwatershed level are not significant.

Hydrologically connected roads would decrease with implementation of both action alternatives. Equivalent clearcut area would not exceed 30 percent with implementation of any alternative. There would be a short-term increase in sediment deposition into streams with both action alternatives at culvert and bridge improvement locations. Overall, sediment deposition would decrease with action alternative implementation.

Fisheries

Currently suppressed CRCT population conditions in the analysis area are likely to continue with the No Action Alternative. Both action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) are expected to result in short-term disturbances to the aquatic system and, thus, CRCT and their habitat from sediment input into the streams. However, fewer acres would be treated with timber harvest under Alternative C compared to Alternative B, resulting in approximately 3.5 fewer miles of temporary roads. The long-term benefits of Alternatives B and C should lead to a reduction in chronic sediment inputs. Both action alternatives would improve CRCT access to other potentially important habitats that are currently unavailable within the Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Overall, the expected effects (benefits) to CRCT habitat and passage from the action alternatives would provide a better opportunity for the recovery of the local CRCT populations than that of the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Both Alternatives B and C equally improve access to upstream habitats.

Sensitive Species

There are unlikely to be any direct or indirect adverse impacts to any federally listed wildlife threatened, endangered, or candidate species; Forest Service wildlife sensitive species; or wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) under the No Action Alternative.

During implementation of the Proposed Action treatments, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and Canada lynx may be disturbed. Grizzly bear foraging habitat may temporarily improve and snowshoe hare habitat should improve in burned aspen areas. Snowshoe hares are the primary prey for Canada lynx. The potential exists for impacts on several sensitive species. The determination for these species was that the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Wildlife sensitive impacts from implementation of Alternative C would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action.

There are no adverse impacts expected to any federally listed plant species from implementation of any alternative. Although there are known occurrences of Payson’s milkvetch, Payson’s bladderpod, and Shultz’s milkvetch inside the analysis area, these occurrences are not located within proposed treatment areas and no adverse impacts from implementation of any alternative are expected. Habitat criteria for these species would

Summary-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

predict that unknown populations of Payson’s bladderpod and Shultz’s milkvetch are unlikely to occur within the treatment areas. Payson’s milkvetch is an early succession species and unknown populations of Payson’s milkvetch may occur within treatment areas, but are not likely to be adversely impacted by any alternative.

Transportation

The only treatment activities identified for implementation in inventoried roadless areas are some aspen prescribed burns, not requiring roads, under Alternatives B and C. Therefore, no impacts to roadless areas would occur. No permanent roads would be constructed under any alternative. A total of 13.8 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed under the Proposed Action. A total of 9.3 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed under Alternative C. All temporary roads would be restored to their original contour and vegetation type to avoid permanent impacts from road construction. Two bridges would be improved and one culvert would be replaced with a bridge. There would be a short-term sediment discharge increase to North Cottonwood Creek during construction, but no instream construction would be allowed. Traffic patterns would be disrupted during construction.

Heritage Resources

There is no potential for direct impacts on heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. Cultural resource sites would continue to be located, recorded, and protected from loss of integrity and physical damage primarily in reaction to ongoing resource management activities. There is the potential for indirect impacts to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. If vegetation treatment projects are not implemented, then the increase in dead and dying trees and accumulation of fuels could lead to large stand replacing wildfires that could destroy the many historic tie hack cabins that are present throughout the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action, clear cutting on three units may result in an adverse effect to the Old Indian Trail because these harvest units may be visible from the trail. There would be no impact to other heritage resources because those sites would be avoided by project activities. Indirect impacts may include increased damage to historic properties, such as the tie hack cabins, because of increased public use or activities in the analysis area. The risk of stand replacing wildfires would be reduced, resulting in lower potential for indirect effects to historic cabins in the event of wildfires. The removal of vegetation through prescribed burns may expose and facilitate the discovery and removal of artifacts. No cumulative impacts on heritage resources are anticipated under the Proposed Action.

Under Alternative C, the proposed harvest units in the vicinity of the Old Indian Trail would have only dead and dying trees removed, thereby reducing the visual intrusion to the trail compared to the Proposed Action. There would be no direct impacts on heritage resources under this alternative because all sites would be avoided. Indirect and cumulative effects would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

Summary-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Environmental Justice

None of the alternatives would cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to minority or low-income populations. During implementation of Alternatives B and C there is the potential for employment of members of minority groups. Minority groups would not be disrupted by project implementation under either Alternative B or C, because implementation would occur in a completely rural setting where there are no permanent human residents and the population in adjacent areas is widely dispersed.

Recreation

Implementation of Alternative A (No Action) would not change existing recreation opportunities. Adverse impacts to existing hunting opportunities would be expected from the lack of vegetation management activities. Adverse impacts to fishing opportunities are expected to continue from the ongoing sedimentation into Nylander Creek from Nylander Road. Existing fishing opportunities along the creeks in the treatment area would not be improved through culvert and stream crossing replacements. Recreation traffic safety would continue to be less than desired on South Cottonwood Road because of the road’s current width and configuration. Implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative B) would result in some short-term disruption of spring, summer, and fall recreation opportunities and use in the treatment area through the closure of certain areas, trails, or roads, or through required detours. Habitat quality within the treatment area is expected to improve, which could result in more wildlife species inhabiting the area. Big game hunting opportunities may then improve, and an associated benefit to hunters in the area may occur. A long-term reduction in potential for large-scale wildfire in the area is expected as a result of implementation of Alternative B, which would be a benefit to recreationists.

The action alternatives’ (Alternatives B and C) vegetation management activities would potentially improve existing hunting opportunities, and provide associated benefits to hunters. The proposed relocation of Nylander Road and replacement of culverts and improvements to stream crossings could potentially improve fishing opportunities. Recreation traffic safety on South Cottonwood Road could potentially improve and provide associated benefits to recreationists traveling on that road.

Visual Resources

Vegetation management would not occur under the No Action Alternative and therefore, no visual impacts would be expected. Vegetation management under Alternatives B and C would result in some visual impact, particularly where the regeneration harvests are visible. Habitat quality within the treatment area is expected to improve, which could result in more wildlife species inhabiting the area.

Summary-10 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Economics

There would be many non-market benefits from implementing the proposed project (Alternatives B and C), in addition to the market costs and benefits. The most important non-market benefit would be improvements in aspen stands, which would benefit wildlife and livestock. Estimated net revenue for the three alternatives is (minus) $238,852 for Alternative A, (plus) $284,283 for Alternative B, and (plus) $216,048 for Alternative C. The estimated value to the community and taxes generated for the proposed project would be $5,968,500 and $895,275, respectively, under Alternative B, and $5,190,000 and $778,500, respectively, under Alternative C.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide if an action alternative (Alternatives B and C) should be implemented or if No Action (Alternative A) is warranted at this time.

Summary-11

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. The document is organized into seven chapters as follows, with appendices: Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action. This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Forest Service’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal, how the public responded, and lists applicable laws and regulations. Chapter 2, Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public, other agencies, and the Forest Service’s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes the human and natural environments in the analysis area and the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a summary of the public involvement measures used to consult with and inform the public. A list of preparers, as well as agencies consulted during the development of the EIS, are included. Tribal consultations are also discussed. Chapter 5, Responses to Comments. This chapter lists the individuals and/or agencies who provided comments to the Draft EIS. This chapter also provides, in table form, responses to these comments. Chapter 6, References. This chapter lists references used in preparing the EIS. Chapter 7, Acronyms. This chapter lists terms used in the EIS. Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the body of the EIS. Summary. A summary is located at the front of this EIS.

1-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Big Piney Ranger District office, Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-TNF) in Big Piney, Wyoming.

1.2 Background

This FEIS was prepared to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of alternative vegetation management strategies to manage vegetation resources in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages on the Big Piney Ranger District, B-TNF.

The Big Piney Ranger District is proposing to implement vegetation management in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages over the next 5 to 10 years. The need for vegetation management in this area has previously been identified and studied in the Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan implemented in 1990 (Forest Service 1990), in the Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study (CPIS) (Forest Service 1993), conducted from 1991 to 1993, and in the Cottonwood/Maki Environmental Assessment conducted from 1999 to 2003 (Forest Service 2003a). Each effort included extensive public and Forest Service interdisciplinary input, as well as use of the best data available on Forest resources. Management opportunities, practices, standards and guidelines, and mitigation have been developed to help achieve desired resource conditions. These are the basis for this proposal and for further site specific analysis of effects.

The Cottonwood Creek watershed is approximately 25 miles northwest of Big Piney, Wyoming, in the Green River drainage, on the east slope of the Wyoming Range (Figure 1-1). The analysis area is approximately 48,541 acres within this watershed and includes the tributary creeks of North and South Cottonwood Creeks, including Nylander, Ole, Hardin, Irene, Lander, Eagle, and Bare Creeks (Figure 1-2). Lander Peak and Bare Mountain are within this area, as is Soda Lake. The treatment area within the analysis equals 30,894 acres. The legal description includes portions of: T32N, R115W; T32N, R116W, T33N, R114W, T33N, R115W, T34N, R115W.

Existing and past uses of this area are detailed in the CPIS and other studies. Forest Roads 125 and 050, as well as numerous collector roads, access the area, which has approximately 51.7 miles of open and restricted access roads. Many roads have been closed by gating or rehabilitation. The area is used extensively for dispersed camping, hunting, snowmobiling, and other recreational pursuits. Approximately 2,064 acres of timber harvest and 600 acres of wildfire disturbance have occurred in the last 50 years (Forest Service 1993, Forest Service 1990). These areas are currently in various stages of forest re-growth, with young trees beginning to restore a forested appearance and wildlife hiding cover. Most areas have achieved sufficient regeneration and tree growth to be considered wildlife cover under B-TNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards. In addition, many acres were partial cut in the first half of the 20th century for railroad ties and currently consist of multi-storied forested stands with subalpine fir understory. Permitted and regulated grazing of sheep and cattle occurs on grazing allotments located throughout the area. Important habitat for elk, deer, moose, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and many other species of wildlife is present and utilized. Approximately 70 percent of the area is forested and 30 percent is sagebrush/grasslands.

1-2 26 Dubois

TETON Jackson

Rafter J Ranch CDP FREMONT

Alpine

352

Thayne

Pinedale

SUBLETTE Afton 189

G 351

M H Marbleton

Y D Big Piney

89 191

LINCOLN

La Barge

Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Cokeville Cottonwood II Vegetation Management EIS SWCEiEtiTeWsATER Counties Major Roads

240 Analysis Area

DiamondvilleKemmerer Opal 0 10 20 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_1-1.mxd

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

No rth N C y k o l tt a e Mc o n e D n d r oug w al e C Cr o r eek o e d C s C r a re e h ek e C k ek re C d oo nw to k ot Ole Cree C h ort N

Creek Hardin

k e e r k C k e e e e re l C r e C O n Ire n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

eek Cr a od L nder Cree nwo k otto th C Sou

e r

Soda Lake e r a B

West Fork

a H

g i l d e k d r

e C o n r F e B e h a t k s u in o C S r e e k Bare Mountain Figure 1-2

Analysis Area and

Treatment Areas

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management EIS Analysis Area Streams Open Roads Treatment Area Halverson McDougal Gap Nylander Sjhoberg South Cottonwood 0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_1-2.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

The main tree species present is lodgepole pine, with significant amounts of Engelmann spruce, aspen, and subalpine fir; minor amounts of Douglas-fir and whitebark pine also present. Seventy-nine percent of acres suitable for timber harvest in the analysis area are more than 100 years old.

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve Forest resource conditions in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages and bring them closer to desired conditions. Desired conditions were identified in the CPIS and refined during the environmental analysis through public input and extensive interdisciplinary review. Attaining desired conditions for each of the Forest resources would help restore healthy ecosystem functioning and support sustainable resource use.

Current conditions in need of improvement include the following: Aspen forests are predominantly old age classes, are being encroached by conifers, and are in declining growth and health. Desired conditions would maintain 50 to 55 percent of aspen stands in younger age classes. A majority of conifer forests are in older age classes with declining growth and health, heavy forest fuel loads, and high tree densities for site conditions. Desired conditions would maintain 15 to 20 percent of stands in seedling/sapling stages, maintain forest structure in snags, down logs and tree clumps, maintain lower tree densities in many areas, and promote natural regeneration. Many of the reforested areas have high tree densities that will not support optimal tree growth or sustained big game hiding cover. Desired conditions would maintain lower tree densities to sustain hiding cover longer and improve tree growth and health. Some roads and road culverts are substandard and contribute to sedimentation in streams, damage riparian areas, and impair fish passage and habitat. Desired conditions would bring roads and culverts up to standard or rehabilitate them to reduce sedimentation and improve adjacent resource conditions. Existing trailhead in Nylander Creek is not adequate for expected levels of use and is contributing to resource damage.

The vegetation site objectives and management opportunities identified in the CPIS to improve resource conditions in the area formed the basis for this proposed project. The original objectives and project design from the CPIS were updated and refined for the Cottonwood II Project, using issues from the initial CPIS public scoping, IDT input, and updated resource information.

1.4 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action was developed in response to issues raised during initial public scoping, changes in resource demand since the CPIS, and recently identified resource

1-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

issues. The Proposed Action is also designed to improve Forest resource conditions as identified in the CPIS.

Approximately 1,116 acres of aspen stands would be treated to regenerate healthy aspen and remove conifers that are growing into the stands and replacing the aspen component. The primary treatment would be prescribed fire (1,058 acres), facilitated by some mechanical treatment to increase ground fuels that are needed to provide a fuel bed for better burning. Commercial harvest of conifers would occur in approximately 58 acres (5 percent) of aspen stands.

A partial-cut treatment is proposed on approximately 581 forested acres to thin overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance. The objective is to leave the healthiest trees of diverse species while reducing losses caused by insects and disease and allow for the salvage of wood products. Treatment techniques would include thinning, shelterwood harvest, salvage harvest, and group selection harvest. Approximately 3 to 10 thousand board-feet (MBF) would be removed per acre, dependent on the site and numbers of healthy trees required to be left to provide a forested appearance and habitat. No new permanent roads would be constructed to complete the treatments. Harvesting trees by removing most merchantable trees through a commercial timber sale is proposed on approximately 402 acres to provide for regeneration of declining lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests and to enhance age class diversity across the landscape. Regeneration of healthy new stands in openings ranging from 5 to 20 acres would be ensured by planting with lodgepole pine or Engelmann spruce or providing for natural regeneration, depending on site conditions. No new permanent roads would be constructed.

Pre-commercial thinning is often used to achieve lower tree densities, and was identified as a need for this project. However, no pre-commercial thinning was included in the project because of a conflict with habitat goals of the Lynx Conservation Strategy.

Approximately 1.0 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which is to be used as a timber haul road for this project and to provide access to the Nylander Creek Trailhead, would be relocated out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The relocation would reduce sediment into Nylander Creek. The existing road would be reclaimed. A low- standard road beyond an existing dispersed camping area, which crosses boggy, wet soils, would be closed. Twelve culverts and two bridges along the timber haul routes would be replaced or modified and designed to either act as fish barriers or to allow passage of fish, as identified in the 1998 to 1999 road and stream crossing inventory. Reconstructing the South Cottonwood Road from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing (approximately 1.0 mile) would provide safe access for log trucks, livestock haulers, and recreation traffic.

1-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

1.5 Decision Framework

This Cottonwood II Vegetation Management EIS is the specific decision-making tool for proposed vegetation management activities in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. The EIS provides the linkage between the B-TNF Forest Plan (Forest Service), vegetation management activities, and requirements established by NEPA to consider and inform when making decisions on federal actions. The analysis will identify specific vegetation treatments at specific project locations, best management practices (BMPs), and project design features to be used to manage vegetation or improve road and trailhead conditions. The responsible B-TNF official will use this information to make decisions for managing vegetation in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. 1.6 Management Direction and Relationship to Other Plans and Documents

1.6.1 The Land and Resource Management Plan for the B-TNF

The B-TNF Forest Plan was approved in 1990. The goals and objectives of the Forest Plan guide all management on the B-TNF and this analysis tiers to the Forest Plan. This analysis area is in Management Area (MA) 25, Cottonwood Creek, in the Forest Plan. The proposed projects identified here are consistent with standards and guidelines and management direction in the Forest Plan. The Forest was mapped into Desired Future Condition (DFC) areas to guide management of Forest resources. The following DFC areas are in the analysis area and the Maki Creek drainage and include all acres: B-TNF MA 25 (Cottonwood Creek). Management direction is to achieve the following desired future conditions: DFC 1B: 19,604 acres (40 percent of the analysis area); substantial commodity resource development with moderate accommodation of other resources. DFC 10: 18,207 acres (38 percent of the analysis area); some resource development while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife. DFC 12: 5,769 acres (12 percent of the analysis area). high-quality wildlife habitat, escape cover, dispersed recreation. DFC 2A: 4,920 acres (10 percent of the analysis area); unroaded area, for primitive recreation experience.

1.6.2 The Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study (CPIS)

The CPIS was completed in 1993 using an interdisciplinary process and public input. It identifies objectives and potential management opportunities and practices that will implement the Forest Plan and achieve desired resource conditions in this area. The action alternatives in the original proposal would help meet objectives 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21-25, 34, and 36, as listed in the CPIS. Potential management opportunities are the basis for most resource projects in this proposal.

1-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

1.6.3 The North Cottonwood and South Cottonwood Allotment Management Plans

These plans set direction for improving rangelands in the area and managing grazing use in the analysis area. An Environmental Assessment to set direction for grazing in the area was completed in 1998. Grazing, as allowed for in these plans, will continue.

1.6.4 MA 25 Oil and Gas Leasing and Cottonwood Field Permitting

These processes provide direction for management of the oil and gas resources in the area. Leasing and management of the oil and gas resources will continue and be guided by these processes.

1.6.5 The Bridger West Travel Plan

The plan sets direction for road management and use in the area. An environmental analysis was completed for this Plan in 1991. Additional watershed restoration projects will be considered under this current analysis.

1.7 Decision to be Made

Following a public review of the draft version of this EIS, the Big Piney District Ranger is issuing this EIS and a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will document what actions, if any, should be taken to manage vegetation in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages on the B-TNF, where vegetation management treatments should be applied, when vegetation treatments will occur, and what associated road and trailhead improvements will be included. These decisions will be based on the purpose of and need for the proposed project, a review of the Proposed Action and alternatives, and consideration of the environmental consequences, both beneficial and adverse, associated with each. 1.8 Public Involvement

Public scoping for the Cottonwood projects began during the CPIS phase in 1991. Throughout 1991 and 1992, a series of public mailings, meetings and field trips were completed to discuss implementation of the Forest Plan in the Cottonwood area. Public input received during this period was used to develop desired future resource conditions and site objectives to reach the desired conditions. These were then carried forward to the development of specific project proposals that were analyzed in the Draft EIS and this Final EIS as part of the NEPA process. Projects originally proposed and scoped included vegetation management, improvement of recreational facilities, and road rehabilitation and improvement work in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. The original Cottonwood project was divided into two separate projects: the Maki project and the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management project.

1-10 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

The first proposed project from the planning described above was to conduct a detailed analysis focusing on management activities only in the Maki Creek area, a portion of the North Cottonwood Creek drainage. Those activities were designed to improve the vegetation, wildlife habitat, and watershed resources in that area, using timber harvest, tree cutting, prescribed fire, and associated road and culvert work. An initial scoping letter, describing proposed actions in the Maki Creek area of the Cottonwood watershed, was sent to the Big Piney District mailing list on May 14, 1999. The list of 127 individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies notified can be found in the project file. A news release was issued at the same time. A field trip to the area was conducted on August 10, 1999. Comments were requested on the proposal by September 1, 1999. Eight comment letters were received.

Scoping for the second Cottonwood project, the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management project, was initiated by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on December 24, 2003, (Vol. 68, No. 247) to prepare an EIS. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from December 24, 2003, through February 3, 2004. A public scoping letter was sent on December 26, 2003, to 95 individuals, interest groups, Shoshone-Bannock and Nez Perce Tribes, local governments, and other agencies. Thirteen letters from 14 individuals or groups were received.

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and Tribal Nations, the Forest Service IDT developed the following list of issues to address.

1.9 Issues

Significant issues were defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects that are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Significant issues are issues used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed Action, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. Indicators are measures used to track the effects of the Proposed Action on the significant issues. The significant issues and indicators are summarized below.

1.9.1 Significant Issues

Table 1-1 lists the issues identified by the Forest Service during scoping as significant, a brief description of each, and indicators.

The IDT considered other issues and concerns raised by the public. These issues include some which, though important, were outside the scope of this analysis (for example, those dealing with grazing management and off-road vehicle management). Other comments concerned standards or guidelines, which will be incorporated as requirements in all alternatives of the analysis (for example, compliance with cultural resource regulations, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and conducting required wildlife assessments). Some comments were voices of support for particular parts of the proposal or objected to parts of the proposal. The Cottonwood II Vegetation Management EIS Scoping Report—Content Analysis (Forest Service 2004a) lists and discusses all

1-11 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management comments provided during scoping. A few comments will be dealt with by applying mitigation measures or project design criteria to all alternatives.

TABLE 1-1 Significant Issues Issue Issue Indicators Estimated change in lynx foraging habitat from 1 Old Growth and Canada Lynx. The project activities project area has been documented as occupied Canada lynx habitat. Effects Estimated change in lynx denning habitat from of the proposed activities on lynx project activities habitat should be addressed. Percent of designated old growth habitat affected (old growth forest is potential lynx denning habitat)

2 The direct and indirect effects of vegetation Big Game. The effects of the proposed management on big game winter range. activities on big game populations. The direct and indirect effects of vegetation management on big game summer habitat.

3 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. The The direct and indirect effects of vegetation effects of the proposed activities on management on CRCT habitat. Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) Barriers habitat. Access restored to miles of habitat Sediment deposition into streams 4 Watersheds. The effects of the proposed activities on the functions Miles of road moved from the riparian corridor and values of watersheds including vegetation, wildlife, aquatic species, Protection of designated stream beneficial uses water quality, wetlands, and bank Change in peak discharge in North and South stability. Cottonwood Creeks Wetland/riparian impacts

1.10 Supporting Documents and Past Analysis

This EIS also adheres to the federal legal requirements described below.

1.10.1 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190)

The purposes of this Act are “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). NEPA establishes the format and content requirements for environmental analyses and documentation. The entire process of preparing an EIS was undertaken to comply with NEPA.

1-12 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

1.10.2 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 4-588)

This Act guides development and revision of National Forest Land Management Plans and contains regulations that prescribe how land and resource management planning is to be conducted on National Forest System lands to protect National Forest resources. The different alternatives for this project were developed to comply with the NFMA, and represent varying degrees of resource protection.

1.10.3 Forest Restoration Act (Healthy Forests Initiative)

The President’s Healthy Forests Initiative will expedite federal and local efforts to restore forest and rangeland health and reduce fire risk with thinning and fuels reduction. Currently, an estimated 190 million acres of public lands and the surrounding communities are at increased risk of extreme fires because of overgrown forests and rangeland fuel loads. More than 35 million acres are infested by fire-prone invasive species and noxious weeds. Federal lands in the West are 15 times more dense than they were 100 years ago. The purposes of the action alternatives for this project are consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests Initiative.

1.10.4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as Amended

The purpose of this Act is to provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their habitats. The B-TNF is required by the ESA to ensure that any actions it approves will not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries share authority to list endangered species, determine critical habitat, and develop species’ recovery plans (USFWS 2004a).

Consultation with the USFWS is required under the ESA for this proposed project and will be completed prior to any decisions made as a result of this analysis.

1.10.5 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The purpose of this Act is to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds. Additional information on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can be found in Section 3.2, Wildlife and Vegetation Resources.

1.10.6 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) as amended in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and 1987 (P.L. 100-4), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)

The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the Nation’s waters by: 1) eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters; and 2) achieving water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This Act establishes a

1-13 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects to be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of BMPs. Identification of BMPs is mandated by Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act), that states, “It is national policy that programs for the control of non-point sources of pollution be developed and implemented.”

1.10.7 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

This Act requires federal agencies to consult with state and local groups before nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological sites and historic structures, are damaged or destroyed. Section 106 of this Act requires federal agencies to review the effects that project proposals may have on the cultural resources in the project area. It requires agencies to consider the effects of undertakings on properties eligible to or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by following the regulatory process specified in 36 CFR 800.

1.10.8 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)

This Act makes it illegal to excavate or remove any archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands without a permit. It also provides for criminal penalties for the vandalism, alteration, or destruction of historic and prehistoric sites on federal and Indian lands, as well as for the sale, purchase, exchange, transport, or receipt of any archaeological resource if that resource was excavated or removed from federal or Indian lands or in violation of state or local law.

1.10.9 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)

The AIRFA seeks to protect and preserve traditional Native American spiritual beliefs and practices by providing access to sites and providing for the use and possession of sacred objects.

1.10.10 Consumers, Civil Rights, Minorities, and Women

All Forest Service actions have the potential to produce some form of impacts, positive or negative, on the civil rights of individuals or groups, including minorities and women. The need to conduct an analysis of this potential impact is required by Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook direction (see Section 3.8, Heritage Resources).

1.10.11 Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs each federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The President also signed a memorandum on the same day emphasizing the need to consider these types of effects during NEPA

1-14 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

analysis. To meet this direction, the USDA requires, where proposals have the potential to disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income populations, these effects must be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through the NEPA analysis and documentation. Additional information is provided in Section 3.15, Required Disclosures.

1.10.12 Bridger-Teton National Forest Responsibility to Federally Recognized Tribes

American Indian Tribes are afforded special rights under various federal statues that include: the NHPA of 1966 (as amended); the NFMA of 1976; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and Regulations 43 CFR Part 7; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 and Regulations 43 CFR Part 10; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141); and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978. Federal guidelines direct federal agencies to consult with modern American Indian Tribal representatives who may have concerns about federal actions that may affect religious practices, other traditional cultural uses, as well as cultural resource sites and remains associated with American Indian ancestors. Any tribe whose aboriginal territory occurs within a project area is afforded the opportunity to voice concerns for issues governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA.

Federal responsibilities to consult with American Indian Tribes are included in the NFMA, Interior Secretarial Order 3175 of 1993 and Executive Orders 12875, 13007, 12866, and 13084. Executive Order 12875 calls for regular consultation with tribal governments; and Executive Order 13007 requires consultation with American Indian Tribes and religious representatives on the access, use, and protection of American Indian sacred sites. Executive Order 12866 requires that federal agencies seek views of tribal officials before imposing regulatory requirements that might affect them; and Executive Order 13084 provides direction regarding consultation and coordination with American Indian Tribes relative to fee waivers. Another Executive Order that pertains to American Indian Tribes is Executive Order 12898, which directs federal agencies to focus on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities, especially in instances where decisions may adversely impact these populations (see the “Environmental Justice” discussion above). The 40 CFR 1500-1508 regulations of NEPA invite American Indian Tribes to participate in Forest Service management projects and activities that may affect them.

1.11 Other Agencies Having Permit or Review Authority

1.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The USFWS has responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), ESA (1973), and Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940). Responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act require federal agencies issuing permits (for example, Corps of Engineers § 404 Permit) to consult with the USFWS to prevent the loss of or damage

1-15 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

to fish and wildlife resources where “waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed…to be impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified.”

The Forest Service must prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to comply with the ESA. A BA evaluates potential effects on threatened and endangered species that may be present in the project area. The USFWS decides if implementation of the selected alternative would jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed or proposed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. This decision is issued as a Biological Opinion (BO). The BO includes terms and conditions that must be complied with in order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Article 9 of that Act. The BO may include conservation recommendations, which are suggestions regarding discretionary activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of the Proposed Action on listed species or critical habitat. If it is determined that the alternative would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, the agency must offer a reasonable and prudent alternative that would, if implemented, preclude jeopardy. The USFWS has 60 days from initiation of formal consultation to issue a BO. If the USFWS decides that implementation would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, a letter of concurrence will be issued after a 30-day informal consultation period. Additional information is provided in Section 3.2, Forest Wildlife and Vegetation (Habitat) Resources, and Section 3.5, Fisheries.

1.11.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

The COE is the permitting authority for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetland and non-wetland waters of the United States (Waters). Any activity that would result in disposal of dredged or fill materials into wetlands or Waters would require a “404 permit” under § 404 of the CWA. Additional information is provided in Section 3.2, Forest Wildlife and Vegetation (Habitat) Resources.

1.11.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA has oversight responsibility for federal CWA programs. EPA may also intervene to resolve interstate disputes where discharges of pollutants in an upstream state may affect water quality in a downstream state. EPA reviews 404 dredge and fill permit applications and provides comments to the COE. EPA has veto authority under the federal CWA for decisions made by the COE on 404 permit applications. EPA also has responsibilities under NEPA and the federal Clean Air Act to cooperate in the preparation of an EIS and evaluates the adequacy of information in the EIS, the overall environmental impact of the Proposed Action, and various alternatives.

1.11.4 Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Actions that are permitted, approved, or initiated by the Forest Service and that may affect cultural resources must comply with provisions of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and as implemented by federal guidelines 36 CFR 800. Section 106 of the NHPA requires a federal agency to take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking on properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP. Before any federal undertaking

1-16 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

begins, cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP must be identified and documented. Cultural resources recorded in the project area are evaluated in consultation with SHPO or the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

1.11.5 Wyoming State Engineers Office (WSEO)

WSEO administers water rights in the State of Wyoming. The Wyoming Constitution defines all natural waters within the boundaries of the state as the property of the state. The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office is charged with the regulation and administration of the water resources in Wyoming.

Water rights can be issued to anyone who plans to make beneficial use of the water. Recognized beneficial uses include: irrigation, municipal, industrial, power generation, recreational, stock, domestic, pollution control, instream flows, and miscellaneous. Water rights holders are limited to withdrawals necessary for the purpose.

1.11.6 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)

WDEQ is responsible for implementing environmental protection laws and programs for the State of Wyoming. WDEQ administers water quality monitoring for compliance with Wyoming water quality standards.

1-17

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the proposed Cottonwood II Vegetation Management project. It includes a description of each alternative considered and maps of the project area. This chapter also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences in features and effects among alternatives.

2.2 Desired Future Conditions (DFC)

The B-TNF has been mapped into DFC areas to guide management of Forest resources. Although four DFCs are found within Management Area 25 (see Section 1.6.1, The Land and Resource Management Plan for the B-TNF), only two DFCs are addressed through implementation of the action alternatives: DFC 1B and DFC 10. Each DFC has a theme and management prescription that ties the DFC to specific Forest Plan goals. Forest Plan goals applicable to DFC 1B and 10 are described in Appendix A.

2.2.1 DFC 1B—Substantial Commodity Resource Development with Moderate Accommodation of Other Resources

Theme. An area managed for timber harvest, oil and gas, and other commercial activities with many roads and moderate to occasionally substantial emphasis on other resources.

Management Emphasis. Management emphasis is on scheduled wood-fiber production and use, on livestock production, and other commodity outputs.

Forest Plan Goals Addressed (see Appendix A). 1.1(a-d, h, i), 1.2(a-f), 1.4(a), 2.1(a,b), 2.4(a,b), 2.5(a-c), and 4.2(a-c).

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, has vegetation treatments over 979 acres of DFC 1B, which represents 94 percent of the stand area treated. Alternative C, Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads, has vegetation treatments over 915 acres of DFC 1B, which represents 94 percent of the stand area treated.

2.2.2 DFC 10—Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big Game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species

Theme. An area managed to allow for some resource development and roads while having no adverse and some beneficial effects on wildlife.

2-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Management Emphasis. Management emphasis is to provide long-term and short-term habitat to meet the needs of wildlife managed in balance with timber harvest, livestock grazing, and minerals development. The Forest Service (2003b) defines “short-term” as up to 15 years in duration, and long-term as more than 15 years in duration. All surface- disturbing activities are designed to have no effect or beneficial effects on wildlife. If any portion of this area contains grizzly bear habitat, no surface-disturbing activities can occur there until the grizzly bear cumulative effects model can be run to help determine potential affects on grizzly bears.

Forest Plan Goals Addressed (see Appendix A). 1.1(a-i), 1.2(a-f), 2.1(a,b), 2.3(a), 2.4(a,b), 2.5(a-d), 4.1(a,b), 4.2(a,c,d), 4.3(a-c), 4.4(a-c), 4.7(a-d).

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, has vegetation treatments over 62 acres of DFC 10, which represents six percent of the stand area treated. Alternative C, Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads, has vegetation treatments over 59 acres of DFC 10, which represents six percent of the stand area treated.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14).

One alternative, the Maximum Timber Harvest Alternative, was identified and eliminated from detailed study. Reasons for its elimination include the following: While the CPIS did identify greater areas of opportunity for timber harvest, the timeframe envisioned for implementing the opportunities was longer than the 5- to 10-year duration anticipated for projects in this analysis. Future harvest entries would be needed to fully implement the CPIS, which would involve further detailed, site- specific analysis. Implementing all identified harvest opportunity areas in a short time period could result in exceeding created opening standards in the Forest Plan. Wildlife issues that have arisen since the CPIS such as conservation of Canada lynx and Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat, as well as the national roadless initiative, would preclude harvest of all opportunity areas identified in the CPIS. Timber harvest in a short time period, to meet harvest opportunity levels stated in the CPIS, may not fully comply with the purpose and need and desired conditions related to wildlife habitat and watershed conditions.

The Maximum Timber Harvest Alternative is described in the following text.

2-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

2.3.1 Maximum Timber Harvest Alternative

Several responders to scoping requested greater timber harvest levels to implement harvest opportunity areas identified in the CPIS. Harvesting all the harvest opportunity areas would result in 11,339 acres of timber harvest. The public respondents pointed to forest health problems, advanced age of timber stands, meeting desired future vegetation conditions and harvest rotations stated in the Forest Plan, and meeting age class and vegetative diversity goals, as reasons to implement this alternative and apply treatments to a greater area of vegetation. Timber harvest levels proposed in the alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis (and described below) are well below the timber harvest levels identified for harvest opportunity areas.

2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail

The B-TNF Forest Plan (Forest Service) establishes Forest-wide standards and guidelines for management of vegetation and for vegetation management specific to MA 25, Cottonwood Creek.

To follow the revised Forest Plan’s direction in vegetation management, the Forest Service developed three alternatives in response to issues raised during public and internal scoping for the proposed project that are considered in detail in this Draft EIS: Alternative A. No Action Alternative (no vegetation management or road/trail improvements) Alternative B. Proposed Action (1,041 acres of treatment plus 1,058 acres of aspen burn) Alternative C. Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (974 acres of treatment plus 1,058 acres of aspen burn)

Each of the three alternatives is described in the following text.

2.4.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative (No Vegetation Management or Road/Trail Improvements)

Under the No Action Alternative, no vegetation management activities would occur in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Degrading aspen stands would not be regenerated with subsequent improvement of elk habitat. There would be no road or trail improvements and culverts acting as fish passage barriers or not acting as fish barriers would not be addressed. It would likely not be possible under the No Action Alternative to comply with Forest Plan direction relative to vegetation management in MA 25, Cottonwood Creek. Desired future conditions, as described in the Forest Plan and shown above, would not be attained.

Under the No Action Alternative, routine maintenance of existing roads and trails would continue, as would suppression of fire and District-wide Christmas tree and firewood sales. Oil and gas activities, outfitting, and range management covered by other site- specific decision documents would also continue to occur.

2-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

2.4.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action

The Proposed Action was developed in response to issues from initial public scoping, changes in resource demand since the CPIS, and recently identified resource issues. The Proposed Action is also designed to improve Forest resource conditions as identified in the CPIS. Table 2-1 shows vegetation treatments by treatment area that would occur under the Proposed Action and Figure 2-1 shows the location of the treatment areas within the analysis area. Table 2-2 shows the acreage and percent of each treatment area to be affected by vegetation treatments.

TABLE 2-1 Vegetation Treatment Areas, Methods, and Extent Under the Proposed Action Proposed Acres Treated Treatment Method b

Treatment Area DFC 1B a DFC 10 Total CC TH SW S GS Aspen

South Cottonwood 581 22 603 276 123 85 109 10 0

Halverson (Lower North Cottonwood) 177 0 177 41 0 40 30 40 26

McDougal Gap 64 40 104 64 30 10 0 0 0

Sjhoberg 97 0 97 20 34 10 0 0 33

Nylander 60 0 60 0 60 0 0 0 0

Sub Totals (Harvest) 979 62 1041 402 247 145 139 50 58

Aspen Burn 1,058

Total 979 62 1041 402 247 145 139 50 1,116 a Desired Future Condition 1B – Substantial commodity resource development with moderate accommodation of other resources; Desired Future Condition 10 – Simultaneous development of resources, opportunities for human experiences, and support for big game and a wide variety of wildlife species b CC – Clearcut; TH – Thinning; SW – Shelterwood; S – Salvage; GS – Group Selection; Aspen – Aspen Treatment

Proposed Action activities are anticipated to take place over a 5- to 10-year period and include the following: 1,116 acres of aspen treatments including 58 acres of conifer removal within aspen stands 581 acres of partial-cut treatments 402 acres of regeneration harvest 1 mile of road relocation and trailhead improvement in the Nylander Creek drainage 1 mile of road reconstruction in the South Cottonwood Creek drainage Culvert replacement and stream-crossing improvement work on timber haul roads

These activities are described in greater detail in the following text.

2-4 Sjhoberg

S jh o b e r g

C r e e k

N Nylander y la n d e McD r ou C k g r e k e al Cree re e C k e as h C ek re C

N o r McDougal Gap t d h oo nw to eek t Ole Cr C o o C t t o rth n o w N o o d k Cree k rdin e Ha e C r re ek C le O

Halverson

ek re e C k en e Ir e r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

eek Cr ood L nw ander Cree k otto th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H

i k a r d

g o l d e e F

C n h t r B

u e a e o k s in S C re e k Bare Mountain

Figure 2-1 Vegetation Treatments Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Analysis Area South Cottonwood Treatment Area Streams Harvest Type Aspen Treatment Clearcut Group Selection Salvage Shelterwood Thinning Aspen Prescribed Burn Road System Open Restricted Access (Closed) Temporary Roads

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_2-1_tabloid.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

2.4.2.1 Aspen Treatments Approximately 1,116 acres of aspen stands would be treated to regenerate healthy aspen and remove conifers that are growing into the stands and replacing the aspen component. The primary treatment would be prescribed fire (1,058 acres), facilitated by some mechanical treatment to increase ground fuels that are needed to provide a fuel bed for better burning (Table 2-2). Aspen regeneration through commercial harvest (removal) of encroaching conifers would occur on approximately 58 (5 percent) of these acres. Treatment areas where conifer removal would occur include Halverson and Sjhoberg. Slash would be treated with prescribed burning or piling and burning. Some of the areas of aspen identified above could be treated using Knutson-Vanderberg (KV) funds adjacent to areas of harvesting. Elk use these areas for spring calving because of the mixture of sagebrush and aspen, along with the edge effect they offer. These areas also provide forage for elk during their transition from winter feeding grounds. The proposed treatment is intended to promote aspen regeneration from root suckering that would provide increased cover and feed for elk calves, mule deer fawns, and other wildlife that utilize aspen habitat.

TABLE 2-2 Proposed Action Treatment Areas and Treatment Percentage in the Cottonwood II Analysis Area Treatment Type Total Percent of Treatment Treatment Area Acres Harvest Burn Area Treated

South Cottonwood 15,811 603 414 6.4

Halverson (Lower North Cottonwood) 4,556 177 55 5.1

McDougal Gap 4,548 104 0 2.3

Sjhoberg 2,379 97 291 16.3

Nylander 3,600 60 298 10.0

Total 30,894 1,041 1,058 6.8 percent of all areas treated

2.4.2.2 Partial-Cut Treatments Partial-cut treatments are proposed on approximately 581 forested acres to thin overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance. The objective is to leave the healthiest trees of diverse species while reducing losses caused by insects and disease and allowing for the salvage of wood products. These proposed treatments would take place in stands where tree growth is greatly reduced or where mortality of trees exceeds growth. The remaining trees would have improved utilization of resources available to support tree growth on the site, while still providing habitat for forest- dependent wildlife species. Approximately 3 to 10 thousand board-feet (MBF) would be removed per acre, dependent on the site and numbers of healthy trees required to be left to provide a forested appearance and habitat. Slash from harvesting would be treated by piling slash concentrations (35 percent of the area), lopping and scattering along with whole tree harvesting (50 percent of the area), or hand piling (15 percent of the area).

2-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Silvicultural methods used to achieve the partial-cut treatment include group selection, sanitation salvage, thinning, and shelterwood. Group selection would occur in the South Cottonwood and Halverson treatment areas on 50 acres. Group selection would occur in uneven-aged stands with a diverse canopy cover. Trees would be removed in groups up to 2 acres in size, with all other trees on the site retained. At least 60 percent of trees in the entire stands would be retained. A few trees and snags would be retained in the larger groups and Engelmann spruce regeneration would be encouraged where trees are removed.

Shelterwood harvest would occur on 145 acres in all treatment areas except Nylander. This silvicultural option is best utilized where mature, healthy overstory trees are present in sufficient density to help regenerate the site following harvest. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of the healthiest overstory trees would remain following treatment, with Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir favored as leave trees. Snags would be left standing to provide additional habitat and stand diversity. The density of leave tress would be sufficient to maintain a forested appearance, provide wildlife habitat, protect the watershed, and provide seed sources for stand regeneration. Most understory, damaged, and diseased trees would be removed in the harvest.

A total of 139 acres in the South Cottonwood and Halverson treatment areas would be treated using a sanitation salvage silvicultural method. This harvest technique would focus on stands with mature and over-mature trees, where there is significant tree mortality or damage. Standing dead with sound wood, severely damaged, and insect infested trees would be removed, with approximately 50 to 80 percent of the healthiest overstory trees retained. Snags and healthy understory trees would be retained to maintain a forested appearance and structure.

Commercial thinning would occur on 247 acres in all treatment areas except Halverson. Suitable stands for this silvicultural technique are those where healthy, but less than mature, trees exist in dense stands. Trees left standing would be scattered throughout the treatment area, at approximately 20- to 25-foot spacing, with a target residual basal area of 40 to 60 percent of the original stand basal area. This residual density would allow for some variance in selecting healthy leave trees to provide a diverse site. Lodgepole pine would be targeted for removal and some clumps of un-thinned trees and snags would be left. Conifer cutting would be heavier in scattered aspen patches to favor aspen regeneration. Most Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce, which comprise approximately five percent of the stands, would be left. Understory trees would be removed to reduce fuel density, yet still retain stand structure, a forested appearance, and healthy trees. Slash tops would be yarded to a landing area and concentrations of slash would be piled by hand or small equipment and then burned.

2.4.2.3 Regeneration Harvest Harvesting trees using regeneration harvests is proposed on approximately 402 acres to provide for regeneration of declining lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests and to enhance age class diversity across the landscape. This treatment entails removing most merchantable trees through a commercial timber sale on the 402 acres. Regeneration of healthy new stands would be accomplished by planting with lodgepole pine or Englemann spruce or providing for natural regeneration, depending on site conditions.

2-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

KV funds would be used for tree planting, surveys, and site preparation activities to achieve natural regeneration. Individuals and groups of healthy seed trees, snags, and groups of healthy non-merchantable trees would be left for seed, habitat, and diversity, where they are available on up to 15 percent of the stand. Openings created through harvest would range in size from 5 to 20 acres. Age class diversity in the drainage created through harvesting is important to reduce losses caused by insects and disease and would be designed to reflect historically occurring conditions.

Additional uses of KV funds would be to treat noxious weeds, survey partially cut areas, reduce dwarf mistletoe adjacent to harvest areas, and treat other insect and disease conditions adjacent to harvest areas.

Approximately 13.8 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed, over a several year period, to carry out silvicultural activities. Roads would only constructed as needed to access a treatment unit and then closed immediately after treatment. The amount of temporary roads open in any given year is not expected to exceed the Forest Plan road density standards. However, if the situation occurs where the length of open temporary roads does exceed the Forest Plan standard while they are open, the roads would be gated and locked. This would meet the intent of the Forest Plan standard to protect wildlife habitat from disturbance. The temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and the habitat restored immediately after they are no longer required. No new permanent roads would be constructed, except for the Nylander re-location as described below, to complete the treatments as part of the Proposed Action.

2.4.2.4 Road Relocation and Trailhead Improvement: Nylander Creek Treatment Area The Proposed Action includes timber haul road relocation and end-of-road trailhead improvements. Approximately 1 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which is to be used as a timber haul road for tree thinning units, would be re-located out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The relocation would reduce road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek. The existing road, which is easily rutted, difficult to maintain, and contributes sediment directly to Nylander Creek, would be reclaimed. The re-located road would end at an existing dispersed camping area, which would be managed to include trailhead facilities. A low-standard road beyond this point, which crosses boggy, wet soils, would be closed.

2.4.2.5 Road Reconstruction: South Cottonwood Treatment Area Reconstructing the South Cottonwood Road from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing (approximately 1 mile) would provide safe access for log trucks, livestock haulers, and recreation traffic. Currently the road is narrow, with no turnouts.

2.4.2.6 Culvert Replacement and Stream-Crossing Improvement Culverts would be replaced and stream crossings improved to compensate for potential adverse effects to the Colorado River cutthroat trout from implementation of the Proposed Action (timber harvest). The increased amount of habitat created by improving

2-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

fish passage or preventing upstream migration of undesirable fish will result in an overall positive effect. Culvert replacement is also needed because of road design, access, and the potential for increased flows from the Proposed Action.

The 1998-99 road and stream-crossing inventory and a July 2, 2004, field review were used to identify potential culvert replacements and stream-crossing improvements along the timber haul routes. All culverts along haul routes to be used for this project were evaluated for replacement or improvements during timber sale design. Culverts would be designed to either act as fish barriers where genetically pure populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) occur upstream, or to allow passage of fish, as identified in the inventory and survey. Twelve culverts and two bridges have been identified as needing improvements (Figure 2-2). Table 2-3 presents the details of each improvement.

2.4.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads

The management objective of Alternative C is the same as the Proposed Action. However, in response to public scoping comments suggesting an alternative with less timber harvesting using clearcutting, the Forest Service IDT developed Alternative C, Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads.

Alternative C reduces the number of acres where vegetation management is achieved through harvesting, as well as reduces the number of acres harvested through clearcutting. Alternative C also reduces the number of temporary roads needed for the treatments and increases the number of acres of aspen treated to improve habitat. As shown in Table 2-4, the number of clearcut acres is reduced from 402 to 262 acres. Acres to be thinned increase by 19 acres to 266 acres and 13 fewer acres would be treated using a shelterwood cut (132 acres total). Sanitation salvage tree removal is increased by 18 acres (157 acres total) and there would be 11 additional acres treated through group selection (61 acres total). Acres of aspen treatment through harvesting encroaching conifers would be increased from 58 acres to 96 acres. There would be no change in aspen acres treated by burning. Table 2-5 shows that the length of temporary roads needed to implement the treatments would decrease by 4.5 miles compared to the Proposed Action. No new permanent roads would be constructed as part of this alternative. All other project features, including culvert replacement and stream-crossing improvements, would remain similar to the Proposed Action. Table 2-6 shows the percentage of each treatment area to be affected by vegetation treatments. Figure 2-3 shows the location of treatments and roads for Alternative C.

2-10

S j h o b e r g

C r e e Sjhoberg Creek Crossing k

Nylander Road Upper North Cottonwood Realignment Creek Crossing

No rth N y C k o la t e to n n d e w e r o r o McDouCgal Creek Crossing d C r e e s North Cottonwood Creek Bridge C e a re k h McDougal Creek ek C Crossing (new overflow culvert ek re and remove culvert at junction) C d oo nw to ek ot Ole Cre Hardin Creek CrossingC rth o Ole Creek Crossing N

Creek Irene Creek Crossing Hardin

k e

e r k C e e k e r l C e e e O I r e n r C n Halverson Creek Crossing o s r e lv a Lander Peak H South Cottonwood Creek Crossing Bridge

k ree L a d C n d e r C r e e oo k nw otto th C Hidden Basin Creek Sou Crossing

k e Bare Creek

e r

Soda Lake e Crossing r a B

South Cottonw ood Creek West Fork Road Reconstruction

E Un-named Tributary a H

g i l d to Bare Creek e d

C e k r n r Trailer Creek o e B F e a h k s Crossing t in u o C S West Fork Bare Creek r e e k Bare Mountain

Figure 2-2 Proposed Stream Crossing and Road Improvement Locations

Analysis Area Streams Open Roads 0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_2-2.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 2-3 Stream Crossing Improvements Associated with the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project Road Name and Stream Structure Crossed Type Proposed Improvement

North Cottonwood Road #10125

Irene Creek Culvert Designed fish barrier. Riprap up-stream side of culvert on the right side. Place boulders on the left side of the culvert to protect bank and channel water into the culvert.

Halverson Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Replace with larger squashed culvert and riprap both ends.

Hardin Creek Culvert Designed fish barrier. Riprap steep bank on downstream side of the culvert and clean or replace concrete pad.

Ole Creek Bridge Designed fish passage. Evaluate for a bridge with wings to channel water through or replace with a longer bottomless arched culvert, as road material is being pushed into the creek when bladed. The bridge would be wide enough to provide for snowmobile grooming equipment, as this is part of the groomed snowmobile trail system. If a new longer culvert is used, riprap on both sides of the culvert.

North Cottonwood Creek Bridge Designed fish passage. Replace bridge with a wider bridge to accommodate snowmobile trail grooming equipment. Install new over-flow culvert on road about 100 feet above bridge to provide for waters being backed up as a result of beaver dams.

North Cottonwood Creek and Culvert Designed fish passage. Remove culvert at junction of Nylander Creek junction North Cottonwood Road and Nylander road and re-route new culvert across Nylander road.

Upper North Cottonwood Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Replace culvert with a bridge with wings to channel water through. Design bridge wide enough to accommodate snow grooming equipment.

McDougal Road #10342

McDougal Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Replace existing two culverts with one larger squash culvert and riprap both ends.

Sjhoberg Road #10346

North Cottonwood Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. This is the first culvert on the Sjhoberg road where North Cottonwood Creek crosses: Replace culvert with a larger squashed or bottomless arched culvert and riprap on both ends.

South Cottonwood Road #10050

Bare Creek Culvert Designed fish barrier. Riprap lower end of culvert.

Trailer Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Install new, larger squashed culvert and riprap both ends. Build up road-bed on both sides of culvert to eliminate the bump over culvert.

Hidden Basin Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Install larger squash culvert back to grade of stream and riprap both ends. Also riprap steep banks on lower catch pool.

2-13 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 2-3 Stream Crossing Improvements Associated with the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project Road Name and Stream Structure Crossed Type Proposed Improvement

Bare Creek Road #10046

West Fork Bare Creek Culvert Designed fish passage. Riprap both ends of culvert.

Un-named Bare Creek Tributary Culvert Designed fish passage. Replace culvert with larger and longer squashed culvert. Road material is being pushed into stream when bladed. Realign culvert with stream and riprap both ends.

TABLE 2-4 Comparison of Proposed Action (Alternative B) and Alternative C Vegetation Treatments Vegetation Treatment *

CC TH SW S GS AS Total Treatment Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Acres

South Cottonwood

Proposed Action 276 123 85 109 10 0 603

Alternative C 168 152 73 112 12 68 585

Halverson (Lower North Cottonwood)

Proposed Action 41 0 40 30 40 26 177

Alternative C 26 0 40 45 20 16 147

McDougal Gap

Proposed Action 64 30 10 0 0 0 104

Alternative C 48 30 9 0 19 0 105

Sjhoberg

Proposed Action 20 34 10 0 0 33 97

Alternative C 20 24 10 0 10 12 76

Nylander

Proposed Action 0 60 0 0 0 0 60

Alternative C 0 60 0 0 0 0 60

Total

Proposed Action 402 247 145 139 50 58 1041

Alternative C 262 266 132 157 61 96 974

* CC = Clearcut; TH = Thinning; SW = Shelterwood; S = Salvage; GS = Group Selection; AS = Aspen Treatment Note: Total acres for Alternative C actually add to 973. The difference in calculation reflects rounding for GIS purposes.

2-14 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 2-5 Roads Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative C * Proposed Action Alternative C Roads (miles) (miles)

Open 26.4 26.4

Restricted Access 25.3 25.3

Temporary 13.8 9.3

* All open and restricted access roads currently exist and do not represent new roads to be constructed. Temporary roads would be constructed as part of the proposed project and restored following project implementation.

TABLE 2-6 Alternative C Treatment Areas and Treatment Percentage in the Cottonwood II Analysis Area Treatment Type Percent of Treatment Area Treatment Area Total Acres Harvest Burn Treated

South Cottonwood 15,811 585 414 6.3

Halverson (Lower North Cottonwood) 4,556 147 55 4.4

McDougal Gap 4,548 105 0 2.3

Sjhoberg 2,379 76 291 15.4

Nylander 3,600 60 298 10.0

Total 30,894 974 1,058 6.6 percent of all treatment areas

Note: Total harvest treatment acres for Alternative C actually add to 973. The difference in calculation reflects rounding for GIS purposes.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary comparison of the effects that would result from implementing Alternatives A (No Action), B (Proposed Action), and C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) on the resource areas analyzed in this EIS. Table 2-7 very briefly summarizes and compares the effects of implementing Alternatives A, B, and C on the significant issues and indicators analyzed in this EIS. Detailed information on resource areas, issues, and indicators and the effects of alternatives is presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EIS.

2-15 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 2-7 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

(Reduced Harvest and Issue Indicator (No Action) (Proposed Action) Roads)

Old Growth Lynx foraging - Gradual loss over - 1,630 acres treated - 1532 acres treated and Canda habitat change time Lynx

- More short-term - Less short-term displacement displacement

- More long-term - Less long-term positive positive trend trend

Lynx denning - Gradual loss over - 307 acres treated - 230 acres treated habitat change time

- More short-term - Less short-term displacement displacement

- More long-term - Less long-term positive positive trend trend

Big Game Direct and indirect - No overlap with - No overlap with - No overlap with winter effects on winter winter range winter range range range

Direct and indirect - Gradual decline - 1,041 acres of - 974 acres of conifer effects on summer over time conifer treatment treatment habitat

- 1,058 acres of - 1,058 acres of aspen aspen burned burned

- 2,099 acres lost for - 2,032 acres lost for 1-2 years 1-2 years

- 2,099 acres of - 2,032 acres of improved improved forage after forage after 1-2 years 1-2 years

Effects on Direct and indirect - No change from - No direct impact - No direct impact from Colorado effects on CRCT existing conditions from vegetation vegetation treatments River habitat treatments Cutthroat Trout (CRCT)

- Short-term sediment - Less than the Proposed increase from road Action work

- Slight long-term - Same as Proposed improvement in Action watershed health

Barriers and - No change from - 11 fish passage - Same as Proposed access restored to existing conditions structures improved Action habitat

- 3 fish barrier - Same as Proposed structures improved Action

2-16 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 2-7 Effects of Implementing the Alternatives on Significant Issues and Indicators Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

(Reduced Harvest and Issue Indicator (No Action) (Proposed Action) Roads)

Watersheds Sediment - No change from - More short-term - Less short-term increase deposition into existing conditions increase from road from road work streams work

Miles of road - None - One mile of road - One mile of road moved moved from moved to uplands to uplands riparian corridor

Protection of - No change - Designated uses - Designated uses stream designated protected protected uses

Peak discharge - No change - No change - No change changes in N. and S. Cottonwood Creeks

Wetland/riparian - No change - Improved riparian - Improved riparian habitat impacts habitat in road in road relocation section relocation section along Nylander Creek along Nylander Creek

2.5.1 Vegetation

2-17 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Manipulation of vegetation is proposed on 2,032 treatment acres under Alternative C to help achieve desired conditions and respond to project issues in the five treatment areas. Additional acres of aspen are treated with this alternative and less forested area would be disturbed by clearcutting and constructing temporary roads and skid trails. Other effects to vegetation would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action.

2.5.2 Wildlife

2.5.3 Fire

2-18 Sjhoberg

S jh o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d o e k ug r e a ek C l Cre re r e C e se k a h C ek re C

N o r McDougal Gap t d h oo nw to eek t Ole Cr C o o C t t o rth n o w N o o d

eek rdin Cr Ha C re ek

k e e Halverson r C

e l

O k ee Cr e k en e I r e r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

eek Cr ood L nw ander Creek otto th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H

k i

a r g d d o le e F

C n h t r B e u a e o k s i S n Cr ee k

Bare Mountain

Figure 2-3 Vegetation Treatments Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Reduced Temporary Roads)

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_2-3_tabloid.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative B would meet project purpose and need by treating 1,041 acres of conifer forest and 1,058 acres of aspen forest by burning in the analysis area. Thinning overstocked stands and harvesting timber (with effective activity fuel treatment) would modify fuel characteristics and help break up fuel continuity within the analysis area. Future expected fire behavior in treatment areas would be reduced. Fuel loads would continue to increase in unmanaged timber and aspen stands. Fire would be reintroduced under a controlled scenario to play its historical role in the analysis area. Aspen stands would be regenerated by commercial harvest and prescribed fire, providing forage and renewed cover for elk, which migrate through the area, and other wildlife. Encroaching conifers would be reduced in density and coverage by the Proposed Action. Surface fuel in aspen stands would be reduced, thus reducing potential fire behavior. Partial-cut treatments would be used in conifer forests to remove insect and disease-infested trees, further reducing future fuel loads.

2.5.4 Soils

2.5.5 Hydrology

2-21 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Service 2003a). At the watershed scale, this guideline will not be exceeded under any of the alternatives. However at the smaller subwatershed scale, some areas exceed the guideline because of localized activities. Because the guideline is based on a broad scale evaluation, these exceedances at the subwatershed level are not significant.

2.5.6 Fisheries

Currently suppressed Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) population conditions in the analysis area are likely to continue with the No Action Alternative. Both action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) are expected to result in short-term disturbances to the aquatic system and, thus, CRCT and their habitat from sediment input into the streams. However, fewer acres would be treated with timber harvest under Alternative C compared to Alternative B, resulting in approximately 3.5 fewer miles of temporary roads. The long-term benefits of Alternatives B and C should lead to a reduction in chronic sediment inputs. Both action alternatives would improve CRCT access to other potentially important habitats within the Cottonwood Creeks drainages that are currently unavailable. Overall, the expected effects (benefits) to CRCT habitat and passage from the action alternatives would provide a better opportunity for the recovery of the local CRCT populations than that of the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Both Alternatives B and C equally improve access to upstream habitats.

2.5.7 Sensitive Species

Any direct or indirect adverse impacts to any federally listed wildlife threatened, endangered, or candidate species; Forest Service wildlife sensitive species; or wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) are unlikely under the No Action Alternative.

During implementation of the Proposed Action treatments, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) may be disturbed. Grizzly bear foraging habitat may temporarily improve and snowshoe hare habitat should improve in burned aspen areas. Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) are the primary prey for Canada lynx. The potential exists for impacts on several sensitive species. The determination for these species was that the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Wildlife sensitive impacts from implementation of Alternative C would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action.

No adverse impacts are expected to any federally listed plant species from implementation of any alternative. Although there are known occurrences of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), Payson’s bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii), and

2-22 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Shultz’s milkvetch (Astragalus sp.) inside the analysis area, these occurrences are not located within proposed treatment areas and no adverse impacts from implementation of any alternative are expected. Habitat criteria for these species would predict that unknown populations of Payson’s bladderpod and Shultz’s milkvetch are unlikely to occur within the treatment areas. Payson’s milkvetch is an early succession species and unknown populations of Payson’s milkvetch may occur within treatment areas, but are not likely to be adversely impacted by any alternative.

2.5.8 Transportation

The only treatment activities identified for implementation in inventoried roadless areas are some aspen-prescribed burns not requiring roads under Alternatives B and C. Therefore, no impacts to roadless area character would occur. No permanent roads would be constructed under any alternative. A total of 13.8 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed under the Proposed Action. A total of 9.3 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed under Alternative C. All temporary roads would be restored to their original contour and vegetation type to avoid permanent impacts from road construction. Two bridges would be improved and one culvert would be replaced with a bridge. There would be a short-term sediment discharge increase to North Cottonwood Creek during construction, but no instream construction would be allowed. Traffic patterns would be disrupted during construction.

2.5.9 Heritage Resources

There is no potential for direct impacts on heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. Cultural resource sites would continue to be located, recorded, and protected from loss of integrity and physical damage primarily in reaction to ongoing resource management activities. There is the potential for indirect impacts to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. If vegetation treatment projects are not implemented, then the increase in dead and dying trees and accumulation of fuels could lead to large stand replacing wildfires that could destroy the many historic tie hack cabins that are present throughout the North and South Cottonwood drainages. There would be no cumulative effects to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative.

Under the Proposed Action, clear cutting on three units may result in an adverse effect to the Old Indian Trail because these harvest units may be visible from the trail. There would be no impact to other heritage resources because those sites will be avoided by project activities. Indirect impacts may include increased damage to historic properties, such as the tie hack cabins, because of increased public use or activities in the analysis area. The risk of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced resulting in lower potential for indirect effects to historic cabins in the event of wildfires. The removal of vegetation through prescribed burns may expose and facilitate the discovery and removal of artifacts. No cumulative impacts on heritage resources are anticipated under the Proposed Action.

Under Alternative C, the proposed harvest units near the Old Indian Trail propose cutting dead and dying trees only. Treatment of these units would reduce the visual intrusion to

2-23 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

the trail compared to the Proposed Action. There would be no direct impacts on heritage resources under this alternative because all sites would be avoided. Indirect and cumulative effects would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

2.5.10 Environmental Justice

None of the alternatives would cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to minority or low-income populations. During implementation of Alternatives B and C, there is the potential for employment of members of minority groups. Minority groups would not be disrupted by project implementation under either Alternative B or C, because implementation would occur in a completely rural setting where there are no permanent human residents and the population in adjacent areas is greatly dispersed.

2.5.11 Recreation

2.5.12 Visual Resources

2-24 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

visible. Habitat quality within the treatment area is expected to improve, which could result in more wildlife species inhabiting the area.

2.5.13 Economics

2.6 Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives

Mitigation measures are designed to prevent adverse impacts or to contain non- significant impacts within acceptable limits during project implementation. Following are project design elements and mitigation measures that would accompany selection of any action alternative. These mitigations are specific to proposed projects and the project area. Standard contract provisions to protect other resources—including those that allow termination of contracts to prevent unforeseen environmental impacts—will be used for any timber sale project. Site-specific modifications to these mitigations may occur during project implementation if deemed necessary by the District Ranger through field reviews by an interdisciplinary team (IDT); team members’ specialties might include Soil Scientist, Hydrologist, and/or Wildlife and Fishery Biologist. Application of BMPs and adherence to Forest Plan standards and current laws, policies, and regulations is assumed for all action alternatives. BMPs are found in: Silviculture Best Management Practices, Wyoming Non-point Source Management Plan, March, 1997, and Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices brochure. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22). Forest Service Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges (Forest Service 1996a).

2.6.1 Recreation Mitigation 1. Timber hauling will not occur on holidays or during deer and elk season opening weekends.

2-25 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

2.6.2 Scenic Resources Mitigation 1. The sale administrator, prior to any ground disturbing activity, shall approve all staging/stock-piling areas. An erosion control plan will be prepared prior to any activity commencing. 2. All staging/stock-piling sites shall be screened from open system roads, trails, and popular recreation areas during all phases of project implementation. 3. Topsoil shall be preserved and utilized for phased rehabilitation. The timing of the phased rehabilitation shall comply with timing and techniques outlined in the rehabilitation mitigation measures. 4. Construct cut slopes no steeper than 2:1, except where the natural slope makes a 2:1 impossible or in areas of rock cuts. In these areas (greater than 2:1), creating serrations, benches, or terraces will be used to help hold the topsoil and vegetation. 5. All cuts/fills shall be shaped to create warped (varied pitches) slopes. The surface shall be left rough (not bladed smooth) so that the topsoil can bond and stay in place. 6. Ditches shall be U-shaped with rounded edges and revegetated. 7. Tops of cuts shall be rounded to blend with uphill topography. 8. Where stable, rock outcroppings on cut and fill slopes shall be retained. 9. All culverts shall have flared ends. 10. Topographic breaks and vegetation providing natural screening from critical viewpoints and corridors shall be maintained. Proposed alterations to the landscape shall be oriented and designed to best utilize natural screening potential. 11. Clumps of trees and individual leave trees within the proposed clearcut units shall be marked and retained. 12. Edges of irregularly shaped cuts shall be feathered to avoid unnatural lines between the cut areas and existing vegetation that remains. When possible, cuts should mimic naturally occurring patterns, such as avalanche path clearings, to minimize visual impact. 13. Flush cutting (stumps no higher than 6 inches max.) shall be practiced within 100 feet of sensitive roads and developments in “Retention” areas.

2.6.3 Heritage Resources Mitigation 1. Historic properties determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be avoided by project implementation. 2. Additional inventory and assessment of effects to heritage resources will be required for prescribed burn treatments once a specific burn plan has been developed. This mitigation measure is identified in the Programmatic Agreement among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, and the Forest Service Regarding Implementation of the Prescribed Fire Program (FS Agreement No. 01-MU-11020000-015).

2-26 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

2.6.4 Watershed Mitigation 1. Where roads are hydrologically connected to the stream system they will be disconnected through various methods to protect aquatic resources. 2. Avoid slopes greater than 30 percent where soil erosion hazard is rated as “High.” If access is needed to conduct management activities, follow the natural landscape contours as much as possible, apply surfacing, and construct rolling dips and/or drainage to prevent excessive sedimentation. 3. Where revegetation is severely limited because of “slope,” avoid ground disturbance on slopes exceeding 24 percent. If these areas cannot be avoided, additional mitigation may be warranted to prevent loss of site productivity once soil is disturbed (that is, seed and mulching, additional tree planting, and/or application of soil stabilizers). 4. Leave adequate slash (10 to 12 tons per acre; greater than or equal to 3-inch-diameter material) to protect soils from accelerated erosion and loss of soil productivity. For lodgepole pine/spruce-fir ecosystems, a minimum of 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris (greater than or equal to 3 inches in diameter) would remain scattered throughout the harvest unit to prevent erosion and provide microsites for new growth as well as short and long term nutrient cycling. This will not apply to areas immediately adjacent to prescribed burn areas. 5. Designate skid trails and restrict mechanical operations to periods of the year when the surface soil is dry, frozen, snow covered, and/or slash covered to reduce the risk of reducing soil porosity and infiltration characteristics. Heavy equipment would not be used when soil conditions are wet enough to rut, displace, and/or bury organic matter and/or in areas where understory vegetation indicates forested riparian conditions. Lopping and scattering limbs and branches on landings and skid trails would be required to help mitigate compaction. 6. Monitor implementation of BMPs. Monitoring of project implementation and watershed protection practices would be developed and included in the KV plan for the timber sale. 7. Meet the Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines (Forest Service 1995b) using the regional Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18) as guidance to determine mitigation needs during project implementation. 8. All temporary roads will be treated to bring the disturbed area back into hydrologic function (ripped and water barred) and where designated, seeded with approved seed mixes. 9. Following project activities, review roads for possible additional closures or obliteration.

Mitigation measures will be applied as part of all action alternatives.

2-27 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

2.6.5 Fisheries and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Mitigation

The primary purpose of these mitigations is to minimize damage to stream channels and fish habitat, and minimize soil loss and water quality deterioration. The following mitigations reference the B-TNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990) and the R1/R4 Soil Management Handbook (Forest Service 1988).

2.6.6 Timber Harvest and Prescribed Fire Mitigations

Removal of vegetation cover from timber harvest and prescribed fire activities has both short and long term potential impacts to aquatic resources. Mitigation to protect aquatic systems includes the following: 1. Prohibit timber harvest on either side of perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands from the outer edges of riparian vegetation to top of inner gorge, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total), whichever is greatest. 2. Prohibit prescribed fire ignition, camps, cleared fire lines, storage of hazardous substances (lubricants, gas, retardant, etc.) within streamside areas as defined in Measure 1 above. 3. In cases where the riparian buffer cannot be protected from prescribed fire within a reasonable cost constraint, or the IDT defines a vegetation prescription that allows/recommends lightly burning through the riparian area, then additional mitigations may apply. These mitigations to minimize soil loss and deterioration to water quality may include seeding and planting disturbed areas, installing water bars, or spreading slash. 4. Livestock grazing would be deferred until ground cover reaches 60 percent. 5. Enhance pool habitat in all perennial streams with resident fish populations within the sale area boundary by placing large woody debris (LWD), through the use of KV funds.

2.6.7 Roads Mitigations

Road design, limitation on use, restoration, and maintenance are the primary factors controlling erosion and sedimentation of stream channels. 1. For each existing and planned road (including temporary roads), avoid adverse impacts to aquatic habitats by development and implementation of a Road/Transportation Management Plan. At a minimum, address the following items in the plan: − Road design criteria, elements, and standards that govern construction and reconstruction − Road management objectives for each road − Criteria that govern road operation, maintenance, and management

2-28 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

− Requirements for pre-construction, construction phase, and post-storm inspections and maintenance − Regulation of traffic during wet periods to minimize erosion and sediment delivery and accomplish other objectives − Implementation of monitoring plans for road stability, drainage, and erosion control − Mitigation plan for road failures − Restoration design for each road not needed for future management activities − Maintenance plan for each road needed for future management activities 2. To avoid sediment delivery to streams from the road surface: − Outslope the roadway surface, except in those cases where it would increase sediment delivery to streams or where infeasible or unsafe − Route road drainage away from potentially unstable stream channels, fills, and hill slopes 3. Avoid disruption of natural hydrologic flow path.

4. Prohibit ditch drainage and road surface drainage into live streams or intermittent stream channels.

2.6.8 Wildlife Mitigation and Design Criteria

Several mitigation measures listed under other resources also apply to wildlife habitat protection. Additionally, design criteria intended to meet project objectives are also listed. 1. Follow Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recommendations and treat a minimum of 1,000 acres of aspen to avoid concentrating elk use because of the nearby Jewett feedground. Treatment may occur over a 1- to 3-year period. Section 3.2.4, Desired Future Conditions in Chapter 3 for big game habitat guidelines to be followed. 2. All roads need to remain closed/gated to maintain wildlife security as per the travel plan. 3. If roads are an erosion/sedimentation concern, they will be rehabilitated and closed once treatments are completed. 4. Forest Plan snag guidelines will be followed. See Section 3.2.4, Desired Future Conditions in Chapter 3. 5. Follow wildlife Desired Future Conditions guidelines in Chapter 3, Sections 3.2.4.2 and 3.6.4.2. 6. Bald eagle conservation measures. The USFWS recommends a 1-mile disturbance-free buffer zone be maintained around eagle nests and winter roost sites.

2-29 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Activity within 1 mile of an eagle nest or roost may disturb the eagles and result in “take.” If a disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile is not practicable, the activity should be conducted outside of February 15 through August 15 to protect nesting eagles and from November 1 through April 15 to protect roosting birds. 7. A 300-foot-wide treatment buffer along streams will avoid or minimize impacts to semi-aquatic wildlife species.

Wildlife mitigation and design features that apply to all alternatives include the following measures: • In order to assess the potential effect of elk browsing on aspen regeneration under the Proposed Action only, monitoring would occur prior to burning and at the end of the second and fifth growing seasons in at least one site per treatment area. On aspen sites where browsing by elk is interfering with the desired regeneration, it is likely that special consideration pre- or post-burn treatments may be required in order to enhance the treatment success. These potential actions are described in Section 3.2.5.1, Forested Vegetation. • Older trees, snags, and down material would be retained on the site following treatments.

2-30 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This chapter is organized by resources and presents the affected environment and the effects of the alternatives related to the purpose and need for the project (Section 1.3) and issues (Section 1.9.1). The affected environment and environmental consequences are included for selected resource areas related to issues identified by the public and the Forest Service. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. Issues, as listed in Section 1.9.1, are referenced where relevant.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are presented in the environmental consequences discussions for issues presented in Section 1.9.1. The other resource areas also are discussed in this chapter, even though the effects of the alternatives on those resources would be minor, because disclosure of all effects must be discussed as per CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.16, p.475). Within a resource area, environmental consequences associated with Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are discussed first. This provides an environmental baseline or benchmark for comparison to Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads). Table 3-1 lists the projects that were considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts. These include relevant projects that were among those listed in the July 1, 2004, to September 30, 2004, Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the B-TNF, as well as relevant past and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The CPIS presented existing and desired future conditions for resources in the analysis area (Forest Service 1993). The analyses presented below use information presented in the CPIS, as well as new information collected since the CPIS was prepared.

TABLE 3-1 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Cottonwood II Project Project Location

1. Noxious weed prevention and control Sublette County

2. Hoback Ranches fire plan Big Piney Ranger District and Sublette County approximately 20 miles northwest of project

3. Lower Valley Energy Natural Gas Big Piney Ranger District and Sublette County Pipeline approximately 20 miles north of project

4. Maki Creek vegetation treatment Maki Creek drainage adjacent to and north of the Cottonwood II Project

5. Monument Ridge prescribed burn Big Piney Ranger District and Sublette County approximately 20 miles north of project

6. Wyoming Range (Taliaferro) Grazing Big Piney Ranger District and Sublette County Allotment Complex

3-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-1 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Cottonwood II Project Project Location

7. Beaver Creek Timber Harvest Beaver Creek Watershed 9 to 13 miles north of the project

8. Road maintenance and recreation Cottonwood II Analysis Area activities

9. Domestic livestock grazing Cottonwood II Analysis Area

10. Past and potential timber harvests Cottonwood II Analysis Area and Bridger-Teton National Forest

11. Past and potential wild fires Cottonwood II Analysis Area

12. Potential oil and gas leasing Cottonwood II Analysis Area

3.1.1 Project Area Location and Management History

The analysis area encompasses the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages, which lie within Management Unit 25 (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1). Elevations range from approximately 8000 to 11000 feet, with annual precipitation ranging from 30 to 40 inches at low elevations to 50 to 60 inches at high elevations. Timber harvesting has occurred since 1919, when removal of trees for railroad ties, mine timbers, and saw timber began. Even-aged timber management was initiated in 1956. Major forest types in the analysis area include lodgepole pine stands and stands of spruce/fir. Large areas of aspen occur, as do non-forested habitats including sagebrush/grass and riparian types. Many species of wildlife reside in the analysis area including, mule deer, elk, moose, lynx, and black bear. Colorado River cutthroat trout and other sensitive species reside in the drainages, as do many native fish and introduced trout species. Dispersed recreation is popular and is supported by a network of roads. Livestock grazing is common throughout the drainages on a number of grazing allotments.

The following analyses are focused in the Halverson, Nylander, Sjhoberg, South Cottonwood, and McDougal Gap sub-watersheds. The analysis area includes approximately 48,541 acres and encompasses the Maki Creek drainage, which was analyzed separately in the Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2004b).

3.2 Forest Wildlife and Vegetation (Habitat) Resources

3.2.1 Introduction

Wildlife and vegetation are included in the same section because of the cause and effect relationships between them. These resource areas were identified in several issues in Section 1.9.1, Significant Issues. The issues are stated below. The affected environment and environmental consequences are structured by issue. The discussions are organized around indicators as presented in Section 1.9.1.

3-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.2 Issues

The following two significant wildlife and vegetation issues were identified during public scoping: Old Growth and Canada Lynx (Issue 1, Section 1.9.1). The project area has been documented as occupied Canada lynx habitat. Effects of the proposed activities on lynx habitat should be addressed. The link between old growth forest and lynx habitat concerns maintenance of suitable denning habitat conditions. Big Game (Issue 2, Section 1.9.1). The effects of the proposed activities on big game populations.

In addition to the two issues presented above, a significant watershed issue related to vegetation was identified (Issue 4, Section 1.9.1). Although that issue is mainly addressed in Section 3.4, Hydrology, Soils, and Water Quality, the wetland and riparian resource component is addressed in this section. Issue 4 is as follows: The effects of the proposed activities on the functions and values of watersheds including vegetation, wildlife, aquatic species, water quality, wetlands, and bank stability

Indicators by which the proposed project will be evaluated relative to these issues include the following: Issue 1 − Estimated change in lynx foraging habitat from project activities − Estimated change in lynx denning habitat from project activities − Percent of designated old growth habitat affected (old growth forest is potential lynx denning habitat) Issue 2

− The direct and indirect effects of vegetation management on big game winter range − The direct and indirect effects of vegetation management on big game summer habitat Issue 4 − Wetland/riparian impacts 3.2.3 Existing Conditions

The Cottonwood II analysis area consists of several forest vegetation types interspersed with large openings of sagebrush grasslands (Figure 3-1). Current vegetation types are influenced by soils, precipitation patterns, the broken topography of the east slope of the Wyoming Range, and the recent fire intervals. Forested vegetation is primarily lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), mixed stands of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and aspen (Populus tremuloides). A small amount of Douglas-fir (Pseudostuga menziesii) and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests exist in

3-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

the area. This variety of forested patches and openings with species and age class diversity provides cover and forage habitat for the diverse wildlife species discussed in the Wildlife Section.

3.2.3.1 Forested Vegetation According to 1988 vegetation data used in the Forest Plan, the distribution of vegetation types in the Cottonwood II analysis area and relation to the B-TNF Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment (Forest Service 1997) is summarized in Table 3-2. The analysis area is dominated by lodgepole pine and sagebrush/grass vegetation types, although there will be no harvesting within sagebrush/grass vegetation types, and this community is not included within Table 3-2. The vegetation data are depicted in Figure 3-1.

TABLE 3-2 Properly Functioning Conditions for Cottonwood II Analysis Area Percentage of Type Analysis Area Forest “Properly Functioning Condition” Notes

Lodgepole pine 34 Most lodgepole forests in the analysis area are in the mature and old age classes. Structural stages are not balanced throughout the forest. This includes mixed conifer forests with a significant subalpine fir component.

Low density mixed 16 Only 10 percent of whitebark pine stands are in conifer (lodgepole conifer seedling through mid-aged stages. Mostly limber/whitebark pine and high elevation stands spruce-fir/Douglas-fir)

Spruce/fir 11 Structural stages are not balanced throughout the Forest. The majority (70 percent or more) is in the mature to old age classes.

Aspen 8 85 percent of Forest aspen stands are mature or old. Very few young to mid-age aspen are present.

Douglas-fir <1 Forest-wide Douglas-fir has an average age of 180 with relatively few areas in the seedling-sapling stage.

The condition of vegetation in the analysis area was well described in the CPIS (Forest Service 1993). The data and information gathered during that study were used to develop the Proposed Action. Refer to Chapter 2, pages 1 to 6, of the CPIS (Forest Service 1993) for that information. This description is a summary of that information, stand exam data, and new information available since the CPIS study. Intensive stand exam data were gathered on over 7,000 acres in the Cottonwood analysis area. Appendix C of the CPIS contains a summary of stand exam data for the area. The data are available for review at the Big Piney Ranger District. In addition, 54 aspen community plots were taken in the summer of 2000. This information also is available in the project file.

3-4 S j h Sjhoberg o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k g a ek r e l Cre C re r e C e se k a h C ek re C N o d McDougal Gap r oo t h nw k to ee t Ole Cr C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d

Creek Hardin C re ek

k e e Halverson r C

e l k O e re k C e e e I ren r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H #

eek Cr ood onw Lan der Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H

k a i r g d d o le e F

n C h t r B e u a e o k s S i n C re e South Cottonwood k

# Bare Mountain

Figure 3-1 Lodgepole Pine, Limber Pine, Whitebark Pine Vegetation Types (0-25% Vegetation Crown Density) within the Analysis Area Lodgepole Pine, Limber Pine, Whitebark Pine (25-40% Vegetation Crown Density)* Analysis Area Lodgepole Pine, Limber Pine, Whitebark Pine Treatment Area (40-100% Vegetation Crown Density)* Streams Engelmann Spruce, Subalpine Fir Open Roads (0-25% Vegetation Crown Density) Aspen* Engelmann Spruce, Subalpine Fir Aspen (Seral/Slow)* (25-40% Vegetation Crown Density)* Aspen (Seral/Fast)* Engelmann Spruce, Subalpine Fir Clearcuts/Burns (Post 1980 activity and (40-100% Vegetation Crown Density)* older non-stocked clearcuts, seedling stands)* Douglas Fir (0-20% Vegetation Crown Density) Clearcuts/Burns (Approximately 1975-1980 Douglas Fir (35-100% Vegetation Crown Density)* activity, sapling stands)* Clearcuts/Burns (Approximately pre-1975 Partial Cuts* activity, pole stands)* Non-Forested Riparian Zone 0 1 2 Source: 1988 Vegetation Data used in Forest Service Plan Miles ± Labels followed by (*) denote those types included in tentatively suited land base. P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-1.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

This variety of forested patches and openings with species and age class diversity provides cover and forage habitat for diverse wildlife species discussed below. Forests are mostly lodgepole pine habitat types (see Table 3-2). The forests typically have a dense understory of subalpine fir with some spruce. The fir/spruce forests commonly have a component of older lodgepole or limber pine trees. Most of the aspen forests have an understory or significant component of conifer vegetation. The CPIS (p. 4.1) identified 1,500 acres of aspen in need of treatment (Forest Service 1993). There is also a small amount of Douglas-fir and whitebark pine forests in the area.

Periodic fires occur with probable frequencies of 25- to 150-year intervals (see Section 3.3, Forest Fuels and Fires, for a more detailed description of fire intervals). A majority of forested areas have not experienced fire disturbance for over 150 years. There were 2 large fires in the area. One was the Bare Creek burn, which covered 6,150 acres of the analysis area in 1940. The other was the Cottonwood fire in 1956, covering 1,100 acres. Most of the Bare Creek burn is not included in the suitable timber base used in the Forest Plan and CPIS vegetation analysis. Much of this area is either classified as aspen or has greater than 40 percent slopes. The Bare Creek and Cottonwood areas are now reforested with a diversity of pole size trees, predominantly lodgepole pine, aspen, and diverse shrubs.

Forests in the analysis area are in similar condition as described in the Forest-wide Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment (Forest Service 1997). As with the Forest PFC, all forest types in the analysis area are at some risk for proper ecosystem functioning, with aspen at the greatest risk for a significant loss of habitat and succession to subalpine fir and lodgepole pine. More than 75 percent of the forested stands in the analysis area are greater than 100 years old. Most of these stands have severely reduced tree growth, accelerated tree mortality, a variety of insect and disease problems, and high fuel loading because of dead and down trees.

Even though the Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey (Forest Service 1999a) did not show any new epidemic problems for the analysis area, medium to high hazards for damage from bark beetles in lodgepole and spruce are present in many stands. Most mapped insect and disease occurrence is currently at low levels and in isolated pockets. Mortality in subalpine fir resulting from western balsam bark and other beetles continued to be the major active insect problem, increasing slightly from the previous year. Several large pockets of beetle caused tree mortality, with the largest detected at approximately 1,000 trees. This, however, exists in a portion of the analysis area with no access. The damage in subalpine fir is compounded by recent dry weather and dense, older stand conditions. Some agents, such as dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine, which reduces the health and vigor of trees, occur throughout the area, but did not show up in the detection survey. Mountain pine beetle activity in lodgepole pine is increasing with several years of drought recently. There are also endemic levels of spruce budworm present.

By 2002, results of the Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey (Forest Service 2002a) indicated that populations of mountain pine beetle had concentrated in a number of National Forests, including the Bridger-Teton. An alert was published by the Forest Service in 2003 for mountain pine beetle in the Bridger-Teton, which stated that this species “continues to build in the interior west killing all species of pine” (Forest Service

3-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

2003b). The “2003 Forest Health Highlights – Wyoming” (Forest Service 2003c) mentions increasing mountain pine beetle numbers and subalpine fir mortality, noting “Mountain pine beetle populations in Sublette and Lincoln Counties also increased causing tree mortality . . . Insect and disease agents caused significant subalpine fir mortality on the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests.”

The 2003 Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey (Forest Service 2003d) found patches of insect and disease mortality across the project area and that Forest-wide impacts resulting from insect and disease appear to be expanding over previous year surveys. The project area survey describes scattered subalpine fir mortality within some treatment units of various sizes (Forest Service 2003d).

Approximately 23,388 acres of the Cottonwood II analysis area is classified as suitable timber in the Forest Plan. During the past 40 years, 2,227 acres within the total Cottonwood analysis area have been harvested, primarily with clearcut methods. The last active sales in the area were completed in 1993. Of these harvested acres, approximately 1,907 acres have regenerated sufficient trees to no longer be considered a created opening. The remaining 320 harvested acres (1.4 percent of the suitable timber area) is reforested, but the trees are not tall enough to be considered cover. Most of the initial trees regenerating the harvest areas are lodgepole pine (planted and natural). In many areas, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are beginning to establish in the understory from seed. Selective harvesting of trees for railroad ties (“tie hacking”) occurred in the 1920s and 1930s throughout the area, particularly in the North and South Cottonwood drainages. This harvesting removed lodgepole and Douglas-fir trees of certain sizes suitable for railroad ties but left many larger trees, subalpine fir, and smaller, understory trees on the site. Since this logging occurred, subalpine fir has increased in proportion in these stands. In many areas, there is a dense understory of shade tolerant but released fir growing into the crowns of the remnant overstory.

Approximately 30 percent of the stands dominated by conifer are seral aspen stands. Sufficient aspen exist to successfully reestablish following disturbances, though aspen are rapidly declining with little suckering occurring. The conifers are growing into the crowns and overtopping aspen in most of these areas. The aspen stands are primarily aspen/subalpine fir community types with mountain snowberry and meadow rue understories. Aspen stands are at risk of being converted to conifer and/or losing vigor and reproductive capacity if not treated in the near future. They provide important transition range for elk moving off winter range and the nearby Jewett feedground. The area also serves as summer range for elk and deer. Approximately 675 elk that used the Jewett feedground in 2000/2001 can access the analysis area year round, but predominantly in spring, summer, and fall (Forest Service 2003a). Livestock will also graze in aspen stands. The Cottonwood analysis area includes portions of several livestock allotments with over 2,000 head of cattle and 3,000 head of sheep (Forest Service 1993).

When aspen stands are invaded by conifers, it is typically the result of natural succession in the absence of disturbance because aspen is considered a disturbance species that needs fire, disease, or other disturbances to perpetuate on a site. Of these disturbances, fire regimes, in particular, have been altered by human intervention, which has given

3-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement shade-tolerant conifers a marked advantage (Bartos 2001). Stimulation of vegetative reproduction by aspen suckers generally requires a disturbance or dieback, so that the hormonal balance of cytokinin and auxin are changed. When a mature aspen is killed or stressed, the flow of sucker-suppressing auxins from the crown down to the root system is disrupted, which allows cytokinin to stimulate suckering (Bartos 2001). Fires and other disturbance stimulate aspen suckers, but in areas where there is extensive ungulate pressure (both domestic and wildlife), aspen treatment alone to induce aspen suckering is not enough to regenerate aspen because grazing pressure represses sucker growth or damages suckers (Kay 2001). Increased grazing pressure typically results in increased injury to sprouting stems. Injured stems are invaded by pathogenic fungi, which are part of the natural biota that are found on the trees. Aspen are highly resistant to these secondary pathogens until wounds enable them to succeed. Research has found most injured aspen stems that were not attacked by canker fungi or were able to recover over time (Hart and Hart 2001). In these areas, before treatments are applied, excessive animal use must be addressed so that aspen regeneration can escape destructive browsing (Bartos 2001).

Aspen–Conifer Stands The aspen stands proposed for conifer removal generally have greater densities of older, larger (greater than 8 inches diameter at breast height [DBH]) conifer and flatter slopes and are more accessible to existing roads than those proposed for burning. Some of the aspen stands proposed for burning are located in designated roadless areas.

Treatment Areas The proposed Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project includes five treatment areas based on sub-drainages and timber compartment boundaries. These are listed in Table 3-3. Table 3-4 is a summary of the stands proposed for treatment in the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project. A description of the forested vegetation in each of the five treatment areas follows.

TABLE 3-3 Treatment Areas in the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project Forest Plan Treatment Area Acres Compartments DFC South Cottonwood: 15,811 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70 1B (includes West Fork Bare Creek, Trailer Creek, Lander Creek, and Hidden Basin Creek) Halverson (includes Lower N. Cottonwood Creek) 4,556 56, 58 1B McDougal Gap 4,548 51 1B, 10 (includes Upper N. Cottonwood Creek) Nylander 3,600 48 10, 1B Sjhoberg 2,379 49 1B Total 30,894

3-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-4 Summary of Conifer Stands Proposed for Treatment Stand* Acres Age Forest Type Stand size Vegetation Size Treatment Area 48-42 145 145 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large Sjhoberg 49-16 21 191 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large Sjhoberg 49-22 111 118 Lodgepole pine - - Nylander 49-24 60 >100 Lodgepole pine - - Nylander 49-26 68 >100 Lodgepole pine - - Nylander 49-32 12 - Aspen - - Sjhoberg 49-33 101 122 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large Sjhoberg 49-35 214 101 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large Sjhoberg 49-39 14 >100 Spruce/fir - - Sjhoberg 51-10 105 133 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large McDougal 51-12 139 100 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large McDougal 51-24 58 191 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large McDougal 51-30 91 106 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large McDougal 51-37 37 122 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large McDougal 56-1 250 150 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large Halverson 56-2 192 156 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large Halverson 56-4 51 146 Douglas-fir Sawtimber Large Halverson 56-5 58 146 Englemann spruce Sawtimber Large Halverson 56-8 84 >100 Spruce/fir - - Halverson 64-1 21 174 Spruce/fir - - South Cottonwood 64-2 15 152 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 64-3 39 167 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 65-3 61 197 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Very Large South Cottonwood 65-9 44 123 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 65-10 96 177 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 65-13 39 162 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 65-15 35 176 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 65-16 37 143 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 66-1 63 118 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 66-2 66 162 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 66-3 110 118 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 66-4 105 136 Spruce/fir Poletimber Medium South Cottonwood 66-5 52 128 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 66-16 266 >100 Lodgepole pine - - South Cottonwood 67-15 83 147 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 67-16 43 >100 Lodgepole pine - - South Cottonwood 68-2 116 37 Lodgepole pine Poletimber Medium South Cottonwood

3-10 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-4 Summary of Conifer Stands Proposed for Treatment Stand* Acres Age Forest Type Stand size Vegetation Size Treatment Area 68-18 61 184 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 70-3 65 >100 Spruce/fir - - Halverson 70-8 357 128 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 70-9 29 164 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Very Large South Cottonwood 70-12 36 146 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 70-13 37 177 Spruce/fir Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 70-14 7 - Aspen - - Halverson 70-15 206 189 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood 70-20 41 122 Lodgepole pine Sawtimber Large South Cottonwood Total 3941 * Stand location data are available in the B-TNF office project files. Data Source: Stand exam summary and Stand Tables (Forest Service 2000). Supplemental information from 1988 vegetation data used in Forest Service Plan. - = data not available

South Cottonwood Treatment Area

The South Cottonwood treatment area (compartments 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70) is rolling topography, dissected by Lander Creek on the north and Bare, Trailer, and Hidden Basin Creeks on the south, all tributaries to South Cottonwood Creek. It represents by far the largest treatment area in the Cottonwood analysis area, totaling 15,811 acres. Elevation ranges from 8300 to 9200 feet. Soda Lake, a small natural lake, is also in this area. The mixed conifer vegetation in the vicinity of the lake and adjacent to South Cottonwood Creek contributes to the experience of recreationists, many of whom take advantage of dispersed camping opportunities there. Individual forested stand sizes are small, ranging from 10 to 250 acres, with an average of 50 acres. The stands are shaped by the topography, periodic smaller fires, past timber harvest, and sagebrush/grass openings.

Most stands in the treatment area are older than 120 years old. Measured tree ages are up to 250 years. The overstory of most stands is dominated by either lodgepole pine (45 percent) or subalpine fir (42 percent). A few are dominated by Englemann spruce (9 percent) or Douglas-fir (4 percent). There are from 40 to 300 trees per acre in the overstory, with an average of 150. Mortality of trees in the overstory ranges from zero to 26 percent, with an average of 12 to 15 percent. Mortality is from a variety of causes including bark beetles, commandra rust, and drought stresses. The understory of these stands is dominated by subalpine fir with some Engelmann spruce. There are from 400 to 20,000 trees per acre in the understory, with an average of 2,000. Most of these trees, though, are less than 1 foot tall and severely suppressed. The combination of dead trees, down logs, and heavy understory contribute to moderate to heavy fuel loadings. Halverson Treatment Area

The Halverson treatment area (compartments 56 and 58) includes Halverson, Irene, and Hardin Creeks, all tributaries to North Cottonwood Creek. It has a total area of

3-11 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

4,556 acres. Elevation ranges from 8000 to 9500 feet. Past harvesting has occurred in this area. Individual forested stands in this area range in size from less than 10 acres to over 200 acres, with an average of 60 to 80 acres. Mature forested patches in the landscape are broken up by larger sagebrush/grass openings, such as Foster Meadows and by patches of regenerating conifers from past harvests.

Forests in the treatment area are over 100 years old, with most being between 150 and 200 years old, initiated by fires in the early 19th century. These forests are a mix of conifer species, including Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Douglas- fir. Engelmann spruce is the predominant species in most stands (70 percent) and lodgepole pine is a major component in all stands. Douglas-fir is predominant in about 20 percent of the stands. Subalpine fir is the major understory species with some Engelmann spruce represented. They are from 90 to 270 trees per acre in the overstory, with an average around 180. The understory contains from 1,100 to 8,200 trees per acre, with an average around 3,500. Mortality of overstory trees ranges from 0 to 35 percent, with an average of 15 percent. Bark beetles have been a common cause of mortality, as well as many other agents. McDougal Gap Treatment Area

The McDougal Gap treatment area (compartment 51) includes a portion of upper North Cottonwood Creek, between Foster Meadows and McDougal Gap, at elevations from 8200 feet to 8600 feet. It has an area of 4,548 acres. The McDougal Gap trailhead for the Wyoming Range is at the north end of this area. Forest Road 10125 from the Big Piney Ranger District over the Wyoming Range to the Greys River Ranger District runs through this area. The visual quality of the landscape from the road and trail are important in this area. There has been past harvesting in this area. Forested patch sizes in this area, near the crest of the Wyoming Range, are larger than in the lower drainage, averaging around 100 acres. There are fewer natural openings in the forested cover.

Almost all stands are mature to over mature, with many being greater than 150 years old. Lodgepole pine dominates the overstory of these stands with subalpine fir and Englemann Spruce as secondary species. The lodgepole pines attain diameters of 18 to 22 inches, while some Englemann spruce grow to over 40 inches in diameter. There are from 115 to almost 300 trees per acre in the overstory with an average of 150 trees per acre. There are great numbers of subalpine fir in the understory and minor amounts of Englemann spruce and lodgepole pine. There are from 170 to 5,000 trees per acre in the understory, with an average of 3,000. Most of those are less than 1 foot tall, but larger trees do exist in most stands, contributing to ladder fuels to the overstory crowns. Mortality of the overstory trees range from zero to 26 percent, averaging around 14 percent. Nylander Treatment Area

The Nylander treatment area (compartment 48) lies between Nylander Creek, Chase Creek, and the Maki Creek drainage, at elevations of 8200 feet to 9000 feet. It has an area of 3,600 acres. These are predominantly southwest facing slopes, with mild slopes to the south and steeper slopes on the north end near the ridge. Past harvesting has occurred in this area. Forest stand sizes are relatively small, ranging from 6 to 150 acres, and

3-12 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

interrupted by large sagebrush grass openings on ridges, riparian willow bottoms, smaller natural openings, and past harvest units with seedling to sapling size trees and grasses.

Most forests in the Nylander area are greater than 150 years old, with some stands in the lower portion of the area approximately 100 years old. A majority of the stands are dominated by mature lodgepole pines up to 30 inches in diameter, with approximately 25 percent dominated by mature subalpine fir, 10 percent dominated by Englemann spruce up to 45 inches in diameter, and 5 percent dominated by aspen with associated mixed conifer. Mixtures of these species occur in most stands with the alpine fir commonly growing into the existing crowns of lodgepole pine. Approximately 400 acres have an aspen/conifer mix with the potential to regenerate aspen following disturbances. There are from 80 to 375 trees per acre in the overstory, with an average of around 160. The understory is dominated by subalpine fir with from 200 to 4,000 trees per acre, most being less than 1 foot tall and damaged from suppression. Approximately 10 percent of the trees are dead in this treatment area, with up to 40 percent in some stands. Similar damaging agents occur here as in the rest of the Cottonwood II analysis area. Sjhoberg Treatment Area

The Sjhoberg treatment area (compartment 49) lies between Nylander and Sjhoberg Creeks in the North Cottonwood Creek drainage at elevations of 8200 to 9500 feet. Predominant slopes are southeast to southwest. This is the smallest treatment area with 2,379 acres. The southern portion of the area has gentle slopes with steeper, inaccessible ground near ridges to the north. Past harvesting has occurred in this area. Forested patch sizes are generally between 100 and 200 acres in size, broken by wet meadows, openings along draws, open ridge, and previous harvest units, where seedling to sapling size trees occur.

All stands in the treatment area are mature to over mature, with most between 100 and 150 years old. Subalpine fir is the predominant conifer in almost half the area and occurs in all other conifer stands to differing degrees. Lodgepole pine is the predominant conifer in most other stands in the area and occurs in many of the fir stands to a lesser extent. Engelmann spruce is predominant in only 5 percent of the conifer stands, but occurs as a minor species in most of the fir and lodgepole stands. Aspen occurs in over 30 percent of the conifer stands and would have the potential to regenerate following disturbance. Douglas-fir occurs as a minor species in a few stands in the area. These stands are not as dense as others in the Cottonwood analysis area with around 50 to 180 overstory trees per acre occurring, and averages around 100 trees per acre. The understory is mostly subalpine fir, with lower densities than much of the Cottonwood analysis area. The mortality is also lower in this treatment area.

Wetland and Riparian Resources The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) shows freshwater forested/shrub wetlands in the Cottonwood II analysis area along South Cottonwood Creek, North Cottonwood Creek, Halverson Creek, and Bare Creek. Wetland data from NWI, however, are not available for most of the analysis area.

3-13 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

The 1988 vegetation data used in the Forest Plan include approximately 1,504 acres of riparian areas mapped along the streams throughout the analysis area. Riparian areas are shown in Figure 3-1. Many of the riparian and wetland areas are dominated by willow bottoms.

Old Growth Forest Old growth forest occurs within the Cottonwood II analysis area in both designated old growth stands and throughout the analysis area in stands that are not designated. The Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990) defines old growth as: Old-growth stands composed of Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce will be Douglas-fir, spruce, and fir multi-storied stands having two or more well-developed canopies of trees. The oldest overstory trees should be 140 to 240 years of age and be greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height. Understory trees will normally be composed of many age and size classes. Small openings may exist in the canopy where older trees have fallen. Snags should be present in the stand and average 24 snags per acre. Large-diameter downed logs will be a component of the forest floor.

3.2.3.2 Wildlife Resources The Cottonwood II project area provides a mix of habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. The mix of several forest vegetation types interspersed with large openings of sagebrush grasslands provides habitat for a wide range of species, including large ungulates, migratory birds, amphibians, woodpeckers, and raptors.

Figures 3-2 to 3-9 depict a variety of wildlife habitat and occurrence data for the analysis area. Maps showing habitat presence are based on Wyoming GAP analysis and depict the presence of apparently suitable habitat within the analysis area. Maps showing specific locations indicate known occurrences of species based on field surveys.

Harvested Species Game Birds No greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse are known to occur within the analysis area. These species will not be evaluated further. Mammals

This area supports a diverse group of harvested species, including elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana), moose (Alces alces), and black bear (Ursus americanus). The analysis area serves as summer, winter, and parturition (birthing) range for these species and also contains important migration corridors between summer and winter ranges.

3-14 Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k g r e al Creek C re r e C e se k ha C ek re C

N o d McDougal Gap r o th o nw k to ee t Ole Cr C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d

Creek Hardin C re ek k e e r Halverson C

e l k O e re k C e ne e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

eek Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H a i g d le d e C n r e B e a Figure 3-2 k s i n C re e GAP Analysis Data - k S

u t

Bare Mountain h Suitable Habitat for

F o r k Management Indicator Species - Birds

Treatment Area

Analysis Area South Cottonwood Streams Brewer's Sparrow

Bald Eagle

Whooping Crane

Peregrine Falcon

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-2.mxd

Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k g k r e al Cree C re r C e e e as k h C ek re C

N o r d McDougal Gap t o h o nw k to ree t Ole C C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d Creek Hardin C re ek k e

e r Halverson C

e l k O e re k C e ne e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

ee k Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H Figure 3-3 a i g d le d e C n GAP Analysis Data - r e B e a k s in C Suitable Habitat for re e k S o

u Management Indicator t

Bare Mountain h

F o Species - Mammals (1 of 2) r k

Treatment Area

Analysis Area

Streams South Cottonwood Mountain Sheep

Mule Deer

Elk

Big Game Calving and Fawning Areas Big Game Crucial Winter Range

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-3.mxd

Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k ga ek r e l Cre C re r e C e se k a h k C e re C

N o d McDougal Gap r o th o nw to eek t Ole Cr C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d

Creek Hardin C re ek k e

e r Halverson C

e l ek O re k C e ne e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

ee k Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H a i g d le d e

C n r e B e a k s in C re e k S

u t

Bare Mountain h

F o r k Figure 3-4

GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for

Management Indicator South Cottonwood Species - Mammals (2 of 2) Treatment Area Analysis Area Streams American Marten

Moose

Pronghorn

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-4.mxd

Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k ga ek r e l Cre C re r e C e se k ha C ek re C

N o d McDougal Gap r o th o nw k to ee t Ole Cr C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d Creek Hardin C re ek

k e e Halverson r C

e l ek O re k C e ne e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

ee k Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H a i g d le d e C n r e B e a k s i n C re e k S

u t

Bare Mountain h

F o r k Figure 3-5 GAP Analysis Data - Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Animal

Species - Birds (1 of 2) South Cottonwood Treatment Area Analysis Area Streams Northern Goshawk

Peregrine Falcon

Harlequin Duck

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-5.mxd

Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k g k r e al Cree C re r C e e e as k h C ek re C

N o r d McDougal Gap t o h o nw to ek t Ole Cre C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d eek rdin Cr Ha C re ek k e e r Halverson C

e l k O e re k e C e n e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

ee k Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H a i g d le d e C n r e B e a k s i n C re e k S

u t

Bare Mountain h

F Figure 3-6 o r k GAP Analysis Data -

Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Animal

Species - Birds (2 of 2) South Cottonwood Treatment Area Analysis Area Streams Three-Toed Woodpecker

Great Gray Owl

Boreal Owl

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-6.mxd

Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Nylander

N y la n McD d ou e k g r e al Creek C re r e C e se k ha C ek re C

N o r d McDougal Gap t o h o nw k to ree t Ole C C o o C t t th o or n N w o o d

Creek Hardin C re ek k e e r Halverson C

e l k O e re k C e ne e Ire r C n o s r e lv a Lander Peak H

eek Cr ood onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

e r a Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H a i g d le d e

C n r e B e a k s Figure 3-7 i n C re e k S GAP Analysis Data -

u t

Bare Mountain h

F Suitable Habitat for o r k Sensitive Animal Species -

Mammals/Amphibian

Treatment Area

Analysis Area South Cottonwood Streams Townsend's Big Eared Bat

North American Wolverine

Spotted Frog

Spotted Bat

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-7.mxd

Sjhob

e r g Cre ! ek

! ! N ! y la n ! d k Mc e Do er ug C e a l Creek r r e C e e k s ha C eek Cr North od

reek Cot ttonwo Ole C Co t onwood ! North

Hardin Creek Cr ! ! eek

Ole Creek k ee Cr e eek I r en

! Halverson Cr #Lander Peak

nwood Creek Lan d er C rek otto th C Sou

ek e

! Bare Cr Soda Lake

West Fork

H E a i g d d ! ! le e C n

r !! B ! e a ek s i n C ree k ! S

# F o r ! k

Bare Mountain !! !

! ! ! !

Figure! 3-8 !Lynx Habitat and Occurrences ! !Treatment Area Analysis Area ! ! ! Streams ! ! ! Lynx (track collar by snow machine) ! Lynx (track collar by satellite) ! ! ! Lynx (unconfirmed reports) Denning_59 (d2) ! ± Suitable (d2)

! Source: Lynx occurrence and habitat data provided by Bridger-Teton National Forest. !

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-8_rev.mxd\062805

" " Sjhoberg

S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

! " """"""" " " !Nylander ! N y la n McD d ou e k g r e al Creek C re r e C e e k s ha C k " ee r C

N d o o r o McDougal Gap th nw to ek t Ole Cre C o o C t h t rt " o o n N w o o d eek rdin Cr Ha " Cr " e ek k e e r

C Halverson e l k O ek re " e C e ne r re C !I n o s r ! e lv a Lander Peak H #

k ree d C " oo onw Lander Creek ott th C Sou

k e e r

C " e r """"" """ a " " Soda Lake B

West Fork

E H

k i a d r

g o l d e e F

n C h t r B e u e a o k s i S n Cr ee k South Cottonwood

# Bare Mountain

Figure 3-9 Management Indicator and Sensitive Species Occurrences Treatment Area Analys""is Area ! Streams " " Columbia s"potted frog " Brewer's sparrow "" " !Great gray owl " American three-toed woodpecker " Williamson's sapsucker """"""""""" " Colorado River cutthroat trout (Native populations) ! Shultz's Milk-vetch ! Payson's Bladderpod ! Payson's Milkvetch 0 1 2 " Colorado RiMvielers cutthroat trout (Native population±s)

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-9.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

In April 2005, Bighorn sheep was identified as an Ecological Indicator Species representing mountain meadow habitat for the B-TNF. It was also a Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the 1990 B-TNF Plan.

Although GAP analysis indicates that suitable habitat exists for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) within the project area, no bighorn sheep are known to inhabit the analysis area. For this reason, bighorn sheep and their habitat are not evaluated further.

Elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose are also MIS but are discussed in this section, rather than in Section 3.6.3.3, Management Indicator Species. The project area provides parturition habitat for elk and summer range for elk, moose, and deer. Pronghorn may pass through the lower reaches of drainages in the sagebrush communities. Black bear, bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), and mountain lion (Felis concolor) are also present. There are seasons of harvest for all of these species except the coyote and are set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) Commission each year.

Population trend data for mammal MIS are not directly available for the B-TNF as a whole; however, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other agencies track wildlife populations in Wyoming (Forest Service 2004c). The WGFD manages big game populations that occur on the B-TNF. Population trend information for big game MIS was obtained from the WGFD for those herd units that include the B-TNF. The most recent available population trend data are from 2003.

Population levels for elk, mule deer, and moose are currently above objective levels set by the WGFD. Antelope populations are below WGFD objectives. Population objectives are not the same as “carrying capacity.” Objectives are set using a number of environmental and social factors such as desired hunting opportunity, carrying capacity of native winter ranges, and feed ground objectives. Objective numbers may vary by 10 percent, either higher or lower, and still be within desired levels. Table 3-5 provides the individual herds and herd units that are found in the Cottonwood Watershed.

TABLE 3-5 Herds and Herd Units Within the Cottonwood Watershed Crucial Winter Parturition Spring, Summer, Existing WGFD Range (CWR) (Birthing) Fall Range or Population Population Species Acres Acres Migration Route (2001) Objective Elk—Piney (Herd Unit None Yes Yes 2,535 2,424 106) Moose—Sublette None No data Yes 5,665 5,500 Mule Deer—Sublette None None Yes 34,700 32,000 Mule Deer—Wyoming None None Yes 20,000* 12,500 Range

*1998 Estimated population

Elk. The Piney Elk Herd Unit (106) is located on the east slope of the Wyoming Range in the B-TNF and extends eastward to Highway 189 and the Green River. Forest Service system lands provide spring, summer, and fall habitat as well as important travel corridors between summer and winter ranges. Historically, many of these elk migrated to

3-31 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management winter ranges in the desert to the east and south. However, these historic migration paths crossed private lands where livestock operations and hay production lead to conflicts between elk and the livestock industry. In an effort to reduce damage problems, four feed grounds (Jewett, Franz, North Piney, and Finnegan) were established adjacent to the eastern fringe of the National Forest to stop elk before they reached private land.

Aspen areas are especially important for elk spring transition range and parturition. Many aspen stands are currently older aged and/or heavily encroached by conifers. These aspen stands are at risk of being converted to conifer and/or losing vigor and reproductive capacity.

Population levels for elk are currently above objective levels set by the WGFD (Table 3-5). WGFD data indicate a slight downtrend in elk numbers over the entire B-TNF between 1998 and 2002, followed by a slight uptrend in 2003 (Forest Service 2004c).

Mule Deer. Most of the project area is located within the Sublette Deer Herd Unit (104), which is located along the Wyoming Front. Treatment areas located north of South Cottonwood Creek are located in Herd Unit 131, Wyoming Range. These mule deer use Forest Service system lands during spring, summer, and fall. Tall forb communities in the analysis area are especially valuable to summering mule deer. Deer are above WGFD objective numbers. Management concerns for mule deer in the Sublette herd include pressures from expanding housing subdivisions and development of natural gas reserves, occurring off the National Forest on nearby U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private lands. Population levels for mule deer within the Sublette management unit in 2001 were above objective levels set by the WGFD (Table 3-5) (Forest Service 2004c). The mule deer population trend for the five mule deer herd units that encompass the B-TNF as a whole has been approximately stable since 1998 (Forest Service 2004c). For the five units on the forest, population estimates increased from about 82,000 in 1998 to just over 100,000 in 2000 and then declined to just above 90,000 in 2003.

Moose. The analysis area is a portion of the Sublette Moose Herd Unit. Moose typically summer at higher elevations on the Forest using spruce/fir forests as well as riparian willow bottoms. Both habitats are available for moose in the analysis area, especially along Maki and Little Maki Creeks. Depending on snow levels, moose will move downward in elevation during winter and use willow bottoms and spruce/fir forests off the Forest. Moose numbers are slightly above the objective level. Population levels for moose within the Sublette management unit in 2001 were above objective levels set by the WGFD (Table 3-5). The moose population for the five moose herd units that encompass the B-TNF was on a slight downward trend between 1998 and 2002 and rebounded to approximate 1998 levels in 2003 (Forest Service 2004c).

Pronghorn. Pronghorns population levels within the B-TNF have varied above and below the population objective between 1998 and 2002. However, pronghorns use only a small percent of the analysis area for summer range as a portion of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit and will not be considered further.

3-32 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Migratory Birds Executive Order (EO) 13186 was signed January 10, 2001. It lists several responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Additional direction comes from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, signed January 17, 2001. Migratory birds use a variety of habitats in the analysis area during the breeding season.

Aspen and conifer forests are preferred by many species of both resident and migratory birds, such as vireos, warblers, and flycatchers (Johns 1993; Hagar et al. 1996). Aspen stands support a particularly high diversity of avian species. In a three-year study in Colorado, 50 species of birds were recorded in aspen stands; many of these were migratory birds (Johns 1993).

Sagebrush openings within the analysis area are used by migratory shrub-steppe obligates, such as sage sparrows (Amphispiza belli), sage thrashers (Oreoscoptes montanus), and Brewer’s sparrows (Spizella breweri) (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). These habitats will not be impacted by any project alternatives and these species are not discussed further.

Amphibians and Reptiles Several species of amphibians and reptiles occur in the analysis area. These include northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), western toad (Bufo boreas boreas), spotted frog (Rana luteiventris/R. pretiosa), Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea intermontana), boreal chorus frog (Pseudoacris triseriata), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola) (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). Of these amphibians species, the northern leopard frog is particularly widespread within the analysis area. Leopard frogs are found in a variety of wetland habitats such as streams, ponds, lakes, wet prairies, and other bodies of water. They then frequently move into grassy, herbaceous meadows or forest borders some distance from permanent water. Tiger salamanders and western toads also occur across the analysis area in a variety of habitats, but they usually live within a short distance of breeding ponds. Spadefoot toads occur in both forested and sagebrush habitats, as long as the soil is loose or burrows are present. Gopher snakes occur in a variety of habitats from lowlands to mountains, including desert, prairie, brushland, woodland, open coniferous forest, farmland, and marshes. Spotted frogs are very rare in the area and are listed as a sensitive forest species for Forest Service Region 4. See Section 3.6.3.2 for additional information regarding spotted frogs in the analysis area.

3.2.4 Desired Future Conditions

3.2.4.1 Forested Vegetation Desired future condition (DFC) 1B and DFC 10 apply to the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project. The DFC timber prescriptions for vegetation are summarized below. For a full description of these DFCs, refer to the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990).

3-33 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

DFC 1B, Vegetation: Timber prescription—A full range of biologically appropriate silvicultural practices is used to emphasize production and use of sawtimber and other wood by-products. Timber harvest is scheduled.

DFC 1B, Aspen Management Guideline—Aspen should be managed for its value as wildlife habitat, emphasizing browse and cover for big-game species, and for providing seasonal colors.

DFC 10, Vegetation: Timber prescription—Silvicultural practices including scheduled timber harvest emphasize achieving desired wildlife habitat conditions while developing long-term, overall big-game hiding cover values. Utilization of firewood and other products is encouraged in ways compatible with maintaining wildlife values.

DFC 10, Aspen Management Guideline—Aspen should be managed for its value as wildlife habitat and for providing seasonal colors while emphasizing its value as habitat for selected management indicator species.

3.2.4.2 Wildlife Resources The DFC timber prescriptions and guidelines for fisheries and wildlife are summarized below. For a full description of these DFCs, refer to the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990). Fisheries resources are discussed further in Section 3.5 of this EIS.

DFC 1B, Fisheries and Wildlife Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription. Habitat is provided for existing populations of game and fish, but hunter-success and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department may decrease. A use attainability study may be needed for a specific stream segment to determine if fishery beneficial use is being protected to an adequate level.

Big Game Habitat Guideline. Sufficient habitat should be provided to maintain desired populations and distribution of big game species. For example: Elk Calving Areas—About 30 percent of the brush/grassland-rangeland type should be maintained in a brush/forb type, emphasizing the aspen or conifer/brush ecotone. Mule Deer Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland- rangeland type should be maintained in a brush type with about 55 percent in a mature age class. Moose Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland-rangeland type such as serviceberry and mountain mahogany should be maintained in a brush type with about 30 percent in a mature age class. About 95 percent of the willow/grass range should be maintained in a willow type. Elk Winter Ranges—About 50 percent of the brush/grassland should be maintained in a brush type with about 30 percent in a mature age class. Bighorn Sheep Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland type should be maintained in grass.

3-34 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

DFC 10, Fisheries and Wildlife Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription. Groups of species are emphasized, such as early or late succession dependent species, in order to increase species richness or diversity. Habitat is managed to achieve the game and fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service.

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences

3.2.5.1 Forested Vegetation Site-specific information, stand exam data, aspen community plots, field visits, and applicable research studies are the basis of the analysis of forested vegetation. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling (version 6.21) was performed by the Forest Service on representative stand data for each type of harvest proposed in the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project. The FVS summary, presented in Table 3-6, displays effects on selected forest attributes for representative stands and proposed treatments.

TABLE 3-6 FVS Summary Attribute Prior to Harvest Retained Removed

Stand 49-35 (Sjhoberg) FVS Summary—Clearcut with Reserve Overstory 224 17 (8%) 207 (92%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 165 15 (9%) 150 (91%) (square feet) Merchantable 14.3 1.3 (9%) 13.0 (91%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 56-2 (Halverson) FVS Summary—Clearcut with Reserve Overstory 321 37 (12%) 284 (88%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 238 36 (15%) 202 (85%) (square feet) Merchantable 19.3 3.0 (16%) 16.3 (84%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 70-8 (South Cottonwood) FVS Summary—Clearcut with Reserve Overstory 198 28 (14%) 170 (86%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 194 21 (11%) 173 (89%) (square feet) Merchantable 16.0 2.0 (12%) 14.0 (88%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

3-35 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-6 FVS Summary Attribute Prior to Harvest Retained Removed

Stand 66-2 (South Cottonwood) FVS Summary—Clearcut with Reserve

Overstory 190 20 (11%) 170 (89%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 154 12 (8%) 142 (92%) (square feet) Merchantable 16.3 1.0 (6%) 15.3 (94%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 65-10 (South Cottonwood) FVS Summary—Shelterwood Overstory 171 35 (20%) 136 (80%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 150 52 (35%) 98 (65%) (square feet) Merchantable 15.9 8.5 (53%) 7.4 (47%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 56-2 (South Cottonwood) FVS Summary—Salvage Overstory 285 236 (83%) 49 (17%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 238 153 (64%) 85 (36%) (square feet) Merchantable 19.3 9.0 (47%) 10.3 (53%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 70-8 (South Cottonwood) FVS Summary—Salvage Overstory 184 114(62%) 70 (38%) (trees/acre) Basal Area/Acre 162 88 (54%) 74 (46%) (square feet) Merchantable 17.8 8.4 (47%) 9.4 (53%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 56-2 (Halverson) FVS Summary—Group Selection

Overstory 285 185 (65%) 100 (35%) (trees/acre)

Basal Area/Acre 231 139 (60%) 92 (40%) (square feet)

Merchantable 20.0 10.7 (54%) 9.3 (46%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

Stand 49-35 (Sjhoberg) FVS Summary—Thinning

Overstory 224 108 (48%) 116 (52%) (trees/acre)

Basal Area/Acre 165 88 (53%) 77 (47%) (square feet)

Merchantable 14.3 6.6 (46%) 7.7 (54%) Volume/Acre (MBF)

3-36 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-6 FVS Summary Attribute Prior to Harvest Retained Removed

Stand 55-3 (Maki) FVS Summary—Conifer Removal in Aspen Note: Most aspen would also be retained after harvest, and exist as snags following burning.

Overstory 170 12 (7%) 158 (93%) (trees/acre) (90% subalpine fir)

Basal Area/Acre 104 9 (9%) 95 (91%) (square feet) (169 including aspen)

Merchantable 7.4 MBF 0.6 MBF (8%) 6.8 MBF (92%) Volume/Acre (MBF) (9.6 including aspen)

Alternative A—No Action Direct Effects

No direct effects from vegetation management treatments would occur except for occasional removal of dead trees along roads for firewood under personal use firewood permits. However, fire disturbance would continue to not be allowed to play its historic role. Vegetation manipulation using timber harvest, which began with tie hacking in the 1920s, would discontinue. Stands already changed by harvest would receive no further management or maintenance. Vegetation conditions, however, would continue to change with consequences related to the significant issues of this analysis. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Because anticipated indirect and cumulative effects on forested vegetation in the analysis area under the No Action Alternative are very closely related because of their long-term time frames and types of effects, they are discussed under a single heading. Indirect effects are those that are removed in space or time from the action and may be long-term in nature. Cumulative effects are the incremental impacts of the alternative being evaluated in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Indirect and cumulative effects to forested vegetation are expected to result from taking no action under Alternative A. Vegetation condition would remain outside desired conditions in relation to the B-TNF properly functioning conditions and as described below. Tree growth rates would continue an overall decline. Lodgepole pine mortality in older trees in the overstory would continue and increase. Subalpine fir would continue to increase in relative density. Almost all stands in the analysis area have dense subalpine fir understories. Increased stand density and age would result in decreased growth, increased self-thinning with episodic waves of density related mortality, and individual tree stress. Increased tree density resulting in increased mortality, and continued succession of subalpine fir, would increase live and dead fuel loading and forest ladder fuels. Existing subalpine fir understory would continue to age and exhibit suppression damage from competition. These trees growing into overstory trees would compound ladder fuel problems. Broom rusts on subalpine fir would intensify as relative densities increase. Comandra rust would continue to top-kill lodgepole pine. Dwarf mistletoe would locally

3-37 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

increase and slowly spread in unraveling lodgepole pine canopies. In many stands mountain pine beetle hazard would increase as average age, basal area, and tree diameters increase.

The CPIS found vegetation to be outside desired conditions and identified 5,044 acres of potential treatment to reach desired conditions. No treatment has been done since the study nor have any wildfires burned in the analysis area. The B-TNF Properly Functioning Condition Assessment (Forest Service 1997) found both lodgepole and subalpine fir/spruce forest types to be out of balance with desired conditions forest-wide because of an over-representation of older age classes (greater than 60 percent). This also holds true for the Cottonwood II analysis area.

Aspen stands would continue to decline under the No Action Alternative. In stands that are currently overtopped, aspen could eventually disappear from the site, with limited potential for regeneration. This would have the potential to adversely affect recreational use patterns and experiences, fisheries from decreased water yield, and important wildlife habitat components such as transitional season forage. A decrease of up to 3 to 7 inches in water yield may result when conifers replace aspen. In stands with aspen dominance where conifers are less than half of the overstory, conifers (particularly subalpine fir) would continue to spread and regenerate under the aspen overstory utilizing an increasing portion of the available water from the site. Aspen health and vigor would decline. Limited aspen regeneration would occur in the absence of disturbance. Conditions have changed since the time of aspen establishment to not allow the natural disturbance of periodic fire to play the same role as historically. Conditions in the Cottonwood drainage are consistent with the B-TNF Properly Functioning Condition Assessment (Forest Service 1997), which found aspen at high risk to be replaced with subalpine fir and other conifers. Aspen age classes across the landscape would remain outside desired conditions, with little or no seedling/sapling stands.

The risk of stand-replacing wildfire, in the absence of smaller scale disturbances, particularly in older conifer forests would continue and increase. Ultimately, forests in this area would burn and be returned to an early seral stage of grass/forbs and brush. Some aspen stands would eventually burn and establish new stands. However, as disturbance is delayed further, declining aspen in many areas would be inadequate to regenerate new aspen stands. Fires would be more likely to result in running crown fires. Depending on fire intensity, serotinous cones in lodgepole pine may survive and release seed providing the pathway of establishment for seral lodgepole pine. Distribution of the new cohort of lodgepole pine would be clumpy, owing its establishment to randomness of cone serotiny and fire intensities. Areas of lodgepole and other regenerating species in old harvest units may be consumed because of high stem densities and crown interlock. Water quality would not likely meet desired sediment levels for a period of time following the fire, potentially adversely impacting fisheries. Habitat needs for lynx denning and hunting and other biodiversity attributes would be reduced. Old growth and hiding cover would be lost over large areas when stand replacing fires occur. Recreational use patterns and experiences would be adversely affected for those seeking a “green” forest setting for camping, hunting, or backcountry uses.

3-38 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Projects listed in Table 3-1 that were also considered in the cumulative effects analysis would not be expected to contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on forested vegetation in the Cottonwood II analysis area. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take. The proposed Maki Creek Area Projects, which are designed to benefit forested vegetation conditions in the Maki Creek drainage adjacent to the Cottonwood II analysis area, would contribute to improved forested vegetation conditions in the general area.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Effects

Manipulation of vegetation is proposed on 2,099 treatment acres to help achieve desired conditions in the five treatment areas. This would include 402 acres clearcut harvest, 581 acres partial cut harvest (thinning, shelterwood, salvage, group selection), 58 acres conifer removal in aspen, and 1,058 acres of prescribed burning in aspen. Vegetative treatments are shown on Figure 2-1. Of the 30,894 total acres among the five treatment areas in the Cottonwood II analysis area, no action would occur on the remaining 28,795 acres (93 percent). On this untreated area, effects from changing vegetation that were described in Alternative A (No Action) would occur. However, by providing a more diverse vegetation mosaic on the landscape and providing some age class diversity, some of the effects described in Alternative A, particularly in conifer and aspen stands, would be ameliorated under the Proposed Action.

Table 3-7 summarizes the acreage affected for Alternative B by treatment and treatment area. Table 3-8 summarizes the acreage affected for Alternative B by treatment and location/site number. Of the 3,857 acres included in forest management location/sites, a total of 2,817 acres (73 percent of the total) is proposed to remain untreated (not harvested).

TABLE 3-7 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Treatment Area for Alternative B—Proposed Action (Acres) Partial Cut Treatments Aspen Treatments

Group Conifer Prescribe Treatment Area Clearcut Thin Shelterwood Salvage Select Removal Burn

South Cottonwood 276 123 85 109 10 0 414 Halverson 41 0 40 30 40 26 55 McDougal Gap 64 30 10 0 0 0 0 Sjhoberg 20 34 10 0 0 33 291 Nylander 0 60 0 0 0 0 298 402 247 145 139 50 58 1058 Subtotal 402 581 1,116

Total 2,099

3-39 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-8 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative B—Proposed Action (Acres) Proposed Acres Area Stand* Acres Treated CC TH SW S GS Aspen Untreated

48-42 145 8 - - - - - 8 137

49-16 21 2 - - 2 - - - 19

49-22 111 20 - 20 - - - - 91

49-24 60 20 - 20 - - - - 40

49-26 68 20 - 20 - - - - 48

49-33 101 28 - 10 8 - - 10 73

49-35 214 44 20 24 - - - - 170

49-39 14 14 - - - - - 14 0

51-10 105 25 25 - - - - - 80

51-12 139 10 10 - - - - - 129

51-24 58 30 30 - - - - - 28

51-30 91 20 - 20 - - - - 71

51-37 37 20 - 10 10 - - - 17

56-1 250 65 10 - 20 20 - 15 185

56-2 192 50 10 - - 10 20 10 142

56-4 51 10 10 - - - - - 41

56-5 58 30 10 - - - 20 - 28

56-8 84 20 - - 20 - - - 64

64-1 21 10 - - - 10 - - 11

64-2 15 8 8 - - - - - 7

64-3 39 16 10 - - 6 - - 23

65-3 61 14 - 14 - - - - 47

65-9 44 20 20 - - - - - 24

65-10 96 24 - - 24 - - - 72

65-13 39 15 15 - - - - - 24

65-15 35 10 - - 10 - - - 25

65-16 37 10 - - 10 - - - 27

66-1 63 19 11 - - 8 - - 44

66-2 66 15 15 - - - - - 51

66-3 110 31 20 - - 11 - - 79

66-4 105 23 23 - - - - - 82

3-40 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-8 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative B—Proposed Action (Acres) Proposed Acres Area Stand* Acres Treated CC TH SW S GS Aspen Untreated

66-5 52 18 - - - 18 - - 34

66-16 266 37 27 - - - 10 - 229

67-15 83 20 20 - - - - - 63

67-16 43 26 - - 26 - - - 17

68-2 116 109 - 109 - - - - 7

68-18 61 8 8 - - - - - 53

70-8 357 80 49 - - 31 - - 277

70-9 29 5 5 - - - - - 24

70-12 36 11 11 - - - - - 25

70-13 37 15 - - 15 - - - 22

70-15 206 40 35 - - 5 - - 166

70-20 41 20 - - - 20 - - 21

Total 3,857 1040 402 247 145 139 50 ~58 2,817

*Stand location data are available in the B-TNF office project files.

The 983 acres of clearcut and partial harvest would utilize timber resource values providing forest products for local and regional economies for 5 to 10 years. The potential harvest volume, depending on treatment area, would range from 1,000 to 5,000 CCF per treatment area, and would be consistent with Objective 1.1 of the LRMP and with harvest levels from the Big Piney Community Interest Area 7 (B-TNF Forest Plan EIS p. 524). Silvicultural systems are consistent with DFCs 1B and 10. Harvest would occur only in areas appropriate and suitable as determined in the Forest Plan EIS and further recognized as opportunity areas identified in the CPIS. The CPIS identified 6,140 acres within DFCs 1B and 10 in the Cottonwood II analysis area as opportunity areas to achieve desired conditions for creating openings, treating mortality stands, and thinning.

Vegetation condition would still remain outside desired conditions, but moving toward desired conditions. The FVS summary presented in Table 3-6, based on site-specific stand data, illustrate Alternative B vegetation effects for representative vegetation treatments and stands. Further examples are found in the project file with the Forest Service.

Clearcut Harvest. The 402 acres of clearcut harvest would provide age class diversity and areas of low fuel loads in the 42 harvest units. Because of the nature of lodgepole pine regeneration, the harvest would produce short-term homogeneity for species composition and stand structural characteristics on a small scale, while contributing to age class diversity patterns on the landscape. This is not unlike fires across the landscape.

3-41 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

To reduce the risks associated with large scale homogeneity of species, sizes of harvest units would range from 2 to 27 acres, with an average size of 9.6 acres. Regeneration would come from artificial planting, natural regeneration from stored seed, cone serotiny, and adjacent seed walls. Initial species composition would consist primarily of lodgepole pine.

During the stand initiation structural stage, while new individuals and species begin to establish, grass and forbs would dominate these sites for approximately 10 to 15 years. This stage would be characterized by conifer seedlings (approximately 200 to 1,000 per acre) mixed with grasses and forbs with scattered large snags (approximately 5 to 10 per acre). Stand initiation would continue replacing grass and forbs with lodgepole pine seedlings and saplings for approximately 15 to 40 years out. Young and mid-aged forests would then persist for approximately 41 to 120 years out, followed by mature and old forests until disturbance. Shade tolerant subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce would establish during stand initiation and under the establishing lodgepole canopy. Dwarf mistletoe infection pockets would be reduced.

The risk of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced, but on a small scale. Initially mountain pine beetle risk would be eliminated in the treatment area, with increased risks in 80 years. Maintaining tree lower live limbs on saplings for approximately 40 to 60 years and controlling stand densities to reduce loss could enhance snowshoe hare habitat. However, large tree habitat attributes would be lost from harvested stands until mature growth characteristics are achieved in approximately 90 years. Removal of approximately 12 to 18 MBF per acre would provide sawtimber and some other products to help meet Forest Plan objectives. Table 3-6 shows FVS summaries for clearcut with reserve for representative stands and treatment areas.

Partial Cut Harvest. Approximately 581 forested acres would be treated using a partial- cut treatment to reduce overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance. This would include 247 acres of thinning, 145 acres of shelterwood, 139 acres of salvage, and 50 acres of group selection. These partial cut harvests would: Provide some utilization of the suitable timber resource to help meet Objective 1.1 of the Forest Plan. Reduce stocking on 581 acres of existing stands to reduce fuel loadings and reduce insect and disease hazards. Leave a forested appearance in the vicinity of all harvest units and forested wildlife habitat attributes. See descriptions below of harvest types for discussion of forest conditions that would be left following harvest. Enable shelterwood and group selection to provide favorable conditions for diverse natural regeneration.

Shelterwood. Shelterwood treatment on 145 acres would provide conditions for natural regeneration favoring Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir, while maintaining healthy trees on the site. The 11 harvest units would range in size from 2 to 26 acres, with an average size of 13.2 acres. The sites proposed are mostly diverse, mature three-storied or multi- story conifer stands. Following harvest, 35 to 60 percent of the basal area, or 35 to 90 overstory trees per acre, representing the healthiest trees, would be left. These open

3-42 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

stand conditions would be similar to conditions historically created when lower intensity wild fires burned at more frequent intervals. Many of the smaller understory trees would be cut or knocked over during operations to provide seed establishment sites, but some individual trees and clumps would be retained to provide structural and visual diversity. Trees retained would be a range of diameters, mostly larger size classes, and would be a recruitment source for snags and down woody material. Harvest unit size would be minimized and located to avoid blow-down damage. Healthy Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir would be the majority of trees left, with lodgepole pine retained where needed to maintain adequate residual stocking. Lodgepole to be left would have no or very low levels of dwarf mistletoe. Most subalpine fir would be cut. Following harvest, the growth and vigor of the residual trees would increase and mortality would tend to decrease. Conditions would be created to provide for natural regeneration from residual trees and for potential subsequent harvest of residual trees. The shelterwood treatment, along with concurrent slash treatment, would reduce tree density, ladder fuels growing into the crowns of overstory trees, and tree crown continuity. This would reduce the threat of catastrophic fire in these areas and provide for easier fire control. Removal of approximately 6 to 10 MBF per acre would provide sawtimber and some other products to help meet Forest Plan objectives. Table 3-6 shows a FVS summary for a shelterwood treatment in stand 65-10 in the South Cottonwood treatment area.

Salvage. Salvage treatment would occur on 139 acres of over mature mixed conifer stands. The 14 harvest units would range from 4 to 26 acres, with an average size of 9.9 acres. Following harvest there would be approximately 70 percent of existing overstory trees of diverse diameters and species remaining, with a higher proportion of healthier trees and fewer dead and severely damaged trees. Along with reduced stocking levels, limbs and tops would be removed during harvest and slash piled, reducing hazard from stand replacing fires. Removal of approximately 8 to 12 MBF per acre would provide sawtimber and fuel wood products. Stand structure would be retained with overstory and understory trees remaining after harvest, as well as some snags. The trees that are retained would provide a recruitment source of future snags and down woody material. Fuel ladders would be reduced with removal of more sub-dominant and understory trees that are growing into crowns of overstory trees. Within harvest units some snags would be retained as well as all snags adjacent to harvest units. Use of the contract designation, “leave dead standing” would be used adjacent to harvest units. Table 3-6 shows FVS summaries for a salvage treatment in stands 56-2 and 70-8 in the South Cottonwood treatment area.

Group Selection. Group selection treatment would occur in cutting units of 2 acres or less on 50 acres of mature or over mature mixed conifer stands. The three harvest areas would range from 10 to 20 acres per stand, with an average of 16.7 acres. A few older healthy trees and some snags would be retained in the units. All trees, including all snags, structure and vegetative diversity, outside of cutting units would be retained.

Trees cut would be mostly older lodgepole pine and subalpine fir, while trees left would favor healthy Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir. Limbs and tops would be removed during harvest in the openings and slash concentrations piled. Breaks in forest fuel continuity would be provided by having openings with little slash scattered in forest areas with heavier slash, reducing hazard from stand replacing fires. Naturally regenerating

3-43 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

seedlings along with grasses and forbs would persist in the openings for 10 to 15 years. Seedling establishment would be facilitated with scarification during harvesting and slash piling and close proximity to seed wall throughout the openings. Removal of approximately 8 to 10 MBF per acre would provide sawtimber and fuel wood products. Table 3-6 shows a FVS summary for a group selection treatment in stand 65-10 in the Halverson treatment area.

Thinning. Thinning would occur on 247 acres of post and pole to small sawlog size lodgepole stands. The 11 harvest units would range from 10 to 68 acres, with an average size of 22.5 acres. Commercial thinning would reduce the basal area of the proposed stands to 40 to 50 percent of existing stocking, depending on the site. There would be around 100 pole to sawtimber size trees, representing the healthiest trees, remaining on the site. The residual trees would provide a forested appearance, cover, habitat, sustained growth, and a seed source for regeneration and a recruitment source for snags and down woody material. The residual trees would provide cover and tree structure habitat, a forested appearance, and healthy trees to sustain forest growth on the site and provide seed source for regeneration and future recruitment of snags and down woody material. The thinning operation along with slash treatment would reduce forest fuels, ladder fuels, and crown continuity, thereby reducing the threat of catastrophic fire and providing for easier fire control. Thinning would also reduce bark beetle risk by reducing stand basal area below 120 and reducing average diameter below 8.0 inches DBH. Trees left would be mostly lodgepole pine, along with some Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce. These trees would be generally of the same age class, reflecting the stand that was present before harvest. Most subalpine fir would be removed. A few would be retained to maintain a forested appearance and for wildlife value. Growth and vigor of existing trees would be enhanced and mortality would be reduced. Removal of approximately 6 to 10 MBF per acre would provide post and pole and small sawtimber products. Some natural regeneration would begin to occur following harvest and eventually lead to establishment of a two-storied stand in the absence of further disturbance. Table 3-6 shows a FVS summary in a thinning treatment for stand 49-35 in the Sjhoberg treatment area.

Conifer Removal in Aspen Stands. Conifer removal in aspen stands would occur on 58 acres in six harvest units ranging from 7 to 14 acres. This treatment would leave most aspen standing. Slash would be treated by removing tops with merchantable logs and piling concentrations only. Aspen in these stands is typically just beginning to be overtopped by subalpine fir and is still relatively healthy with good crown ratios. Conifer densities are generally low in these stands and, as a result, slash created in logging operations would not pose a significant fuel loading if treated as specified. Aspen would be felled to encourage suckering. Aspen regeneration from root suckering would occur post harvest. It may be patchy, reflecting pre-harvest patchy condition of aspen, but it should meet objectives of 1,000 stems per acre at 10 years following burning. Following logging small clumps of sub-merchantable subalpine fir would be left also. Table 3-6 shows an FVS summary for conifer removal in aspen in stand 55-3 from the Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2004b).

Prescribed Burning in Aspen Stands. A total of 1,058 acres of aspen stands would be prescribe burned under Alternative B. Approximately 80 to 100 percent of the area would

3-44 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

be burned (without timber removal). Burning would kill most aspen and also burn through most clumps of fir. These would provide snags for forest structure. Aspen root suckering would initiate within the first year after treatment. It is anticipated that snags would remain following treatment, together with some islands of untreated vegetation. Dense aspen regeneration would be expected throughout the unit to meet objectives, reflecting existing widespread aspen occurrence in the stand. Some natural conifer regeneration would also be occurring to add diversity, but would take longer to establish than aspen, giving early competitive advantage to re-establishing aspen. The improvements to the understory vegetation from prescribed burning aspen stands could greatly improve both the long-term (5 to 30 years) quantity and quality of forage for both domestic livestock and wildlife.

The Proposed Action follows Wyoming Fish and Game Department recommendations for treating a large area (greater than 1,000 acres) in the Cottonwood drainages (including Maki) to avoid concentrating elk use and minimize the browsing effects. Therefore, fencing of the aspen stands following burning was not considered. However, livestock grazing allotments would be deferred for up to 5 years to ameliorate livestock effects on early aspen regeneration.

Part of the reason for treating the aspen is to promote elk use of these areas and movement off of the feed grounds sooner. However, overuse of the aspen stands is possible because of the proximity to nearby feed grounds. Therefore, to assess this potential effect, monitoring would occur prior to burning and at the end of the second and fifth growing seasons in at least one site per treatment area. These areas are located primarily in older aspen, aspen/conifer forests near the Jewett feed ground and migration corridors.

Monitoring of 1970s Aspen Prescribed Burn Projects. The following summary is from a WGFD annual report (WGFD 2003a). A series of prescribed burns intended to regenerate aspen were conducted in the Jackson area during the early to mid 1970s. Four sites (Russold Hill, Breakneck Ridge, Burro Hill, and Uhl Draw) were periodically monitored for successful aspen regeneration. Regional WGFD habitat personnel coordinated monitoring of these sites again in October, 2002. Dale Bartos, Forest Service aspen ecologist/researcher from Logan, Utah, participated in the original project designs and implementation (Bartos et al. 1994), and also assisted with the 2002 monitoring.

Successful enhancement of treated aspen stands in northwest Wyoming is often difficult because of its preference as a browse species and high concentrations of wild ungulates. Maintenance and enhancement of aspen communities can be especially difficult when in close proximity to supplemental feeding grounds for elk. Long-term monitoring of historic aspen treatments provides managers with information important for designing successful treatments in the future. Aspen was successfully regenerated on Russold Hill, Uhl Draw, and Burro Hill. Stem densities ranged from 2,300 to over 3,300 stems per acre on the three sites, which is well above the objective of 1,000 stems per acre, 10 years post-treatment. Taller stems averaged 25 feet in height.

Aspen communities treated with prescribed fire at the Breakneck site, located within the Gros Ventre drainage, were not able to successfully regenerate because of excessive

3-45 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

browsing by elk. The Breakneck site is located near two elk feed grounds and is within an area where elk naturally concentrate prior to the initiation of feeding. While numerous other aspen treatments near elk feed grounds in northwest Wyoming have been successful, failure of aspen regeneration on the Breakneck site is primarily due to elk preferring it as a primary staging area prior to supplemental feeding. Sites with similar characteristics should be carefully evaluated for future aspen enhancement projects. On aspen sites with similar characteristics it is likely that special consideration pre- or post- burn treatments may be required in order to enhance the treatment success. These could run the gamut from various types of fencing (including solar-powered electric fencing), to laying down some smaller-diameter standing dead trees on the project site in a crisscross fashion to make access to elk more difficult, and to provide buffers and safe- sites to regenerating clones. (Large-diameter fire-killed trees need to be left intact for cavity nesting birds and for raptor use.) As noted previously, to assess the potential effect of elk browsing under the Proposed Action, monitoring would occur prior to burning and at the end of the second and fifth growing seasons in at least one site per treatment area.

Riparian. At least 1.5 acres of riparian habitat would be restored as a result of reclaiming 1 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which would be relocated out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The road relocation would allow vegetation to reestablish and reduce road-related sediment delivery to Nylander Creek.

Wetlands. No direct impacts to wetlands are expected from this alternative.

Old Growth Forest. There are 15 acres of clearcut and 20 acres of commercial thinning proposed in designated old growth. This is less than 2 percent of designated old growth in the analysis area. Twelve percent of the B-TNF would remain as designated old growth forest. Older trees, snags, and down material would be retained on the sites following treatment. Cutting this amount of designated old growth would still meet the B-TNF Forest Plan.

Road Effects. A total of 13.8 miles of temporary roads and skid trails associated with Alternative B would result in the temporary loss of forested vegetation. The temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and the habitat restored immediately after they are no longer required. This would result in a loss of forest productivity and habitat for 5 to 10 years. Indirect Effects

It is expected that wildlife and livestock may cause substantial damage to aspen shoots that regenerate following prescribed burning or conifer removal. Overgrazing can impact the quality and number of aspen stems per acre (Bartos et al 1994, Bartos and Campbell 1998, Kay and Bartos 2000). Under the No Action Alternative, aspen stands would be at risk of being suppressed by conifers. However, under Alternative B (Proposed Action), aspen stands would be at risk of being overgrazed.

The process of prescribed burning in overgrown aspen stands may require establishing fuel breaks, which would temporarily impact vegetation. The risk of fire escaping control and causing unintended damage to adjacent vegetation resources is possible, but unlikely

3-46 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

because the Forest Service prepares a detailed burn plan for each unit to be burned and includes specific conditions that must be followed and contingencies in place.

Prescribed burning can have indirect effects on the environment. Burning techniques and timing of burns can be varied to alter fire effects. Proper use of prescribed fire, and evaluation of the benefits and costs of a burn, require knowledge of how fire affects vegetation, wildlife, soil, water, and air (Forest Service 1989, National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2001): Prescribed burning may increase surface runoff, which may carry suspended soil particles, dissolved inorganic nutrients, and other materials into adjacent streams and lakes reducing water quality. Prescribed fires should be planned, to the extent possible, for times when nests are not being used in order to avoid adverse effects of prescribed fire on wildlife, including destroying nesting sites and possibly killing birds, reptiles, or mammals trapped in the fire. Prescribed fires may affect air quality. Prescribed burning causes temporary effects to aesthetics.

The potential to spread and establish new populations of noxious weeds exists for any projects that involve ground disturbing activities. All projects that result in ground disturbance would include preventative and control actions for noxious weeds. Timber sale activities would include standard contract clauses to prevent and control noxious weeds. Knutson-Vandeberg (KV) funds would be collected to control any noxious weed infestations within the sale area boundaries. The existing cooperative action plan with Sublette County Weed and Pest has been and would continue to be used as the tool to control any new noxious weed infestations. Cumulative Effects

Past Effects. Vegetation in the Cottonwood II analysis area has been affected by past timber harvest and fires. Over 2,200 acres of clearcuts, most in the 1960s and 1970s and most of which have regenerated sufficiently to provide cover, have occurred in the analysis area. Past harvests also included partial cutting for railroad ties in the 1920s and 1930s. This area is considered excellent lynx habitat. More recently in the 1990s, harvest on the Big Piney Ranger District focused in the Beaver Creek drainage, 10 miles north of the analysis area and was approximately 50 percent of Forest Plan allowed levels.

Present Effects. There are no active timber sales in the Cottonwood Creek drainages. There are five recent and active timber sales in the Beaver Creek watershed, 9 to 13 miles north of the analysis area, including 114 acres of partial cuts and 16 acres of clearcuts. Personal use and small firewood and post and pole sales also occur but are rare in the area because of gated access.

Reasonably Foreseeable Effects. Cumulative effects may be associated with the planned harvest of timber and improvements to vegetation conditions in the Maki Creek drainage (Forest Service 2004b). This planned harvest is within opportunity areas identified as part of the interdisciplinary CPIS and within areas identified in the Forest Plan as suitable.

3-47 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Planned harvests would not exceed created opening standards and would comply with silvicultural and reforestation standards. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Forest Plan Discussion. Timber volumes and treated acres for all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable harvests are well below levels allowed in the Forest Plan. The B-TNF Forest Plan was approved in 1990 and analyzed cumulative effects for a planned forest program of activities. This analysis considered all past timber harvest and other disturbances to vegetation that had occurred up to that point. One of these activities analyzed was allowable timber sale quantity (ASQ), a level that could be achieved (after site-specific analysis) and still meet standards and guidelines, as well as public expectations. The Forest Plan also took into consideration that, outside of Greys River, timber harvest would primarily occur in DFC 10 areas (p.317, FEIS for B-TNF Forest Plan). The Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project is primarily in DFC 1B. The ASQ for the first decade (1990 to 2000) under the forest plan for the Big Piney Community Interest Area (CIA 7) was 23 MMBF over an estimated 3,300 acres (p. 524, FEIS for B-TNF Forest Plan). In the 1990s, actual harvest in CIA 7 was approximately 50 percent of allowed levels. For the second decade (2000 to 2010) under the Forest Plan, allowable sale quantity for CIA 7 would increase to 68 MMBF on an estimated 8,050 acres. One of the reasons for this increase is that past harvest areas of the 1960s and 1970s will no longer be in created opening status. Looking at all sales that have occurred thus far in the second decade, planned harvest with this analysis, as well as all reasonably foreseeable sales, timber harvest would be 14 to 15.5 MMBF on 1,325 to 1,445 acres. This is 23 percent of the allowable sale volume on 17 percent of the acres estimated to achieve that volume. Even if the lower first decade quantity is extended into the second decade, the reasonably foreseeable volume is 66 percent of allowed on 42 percent of allowed acres.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Effects

The management objective of Alternative C is the same as the Proposed Action (Alternative B). However, in response to public scoping comments suggesting an alternative with less timber harvesting using clearcutting, the Forest Service IDT developed Alternative C. Alternative C reduces the number of acres where vegetation management is conducted, reduces the number of acres clearcut, and increases the acres of aspen treatment for habitat improvement.

Manipulation of vegetation is proposed on 2,032 treatment acres for Alternative C to help achieve desired conditions and respond to project issues in the five treatment areas, 67 acres less than under Alternative B. As shown in Table 2-4 (in Chapter 2), the number of clearcut acres is reduced from 402 to 262 acres. Acres to be thinned increase by 19 acres to 266 acres, and 13 fewer acres would be treated using a shelterwood cut (132 acres total). Sanitation salvage tree removal would be increased by 18 acres (157 acres total), and there would be 11 additional acres treated through group selection (61 acres total). Acres of aspen treatment through harvesting encroaching conifers would be increased from 58 acres to 96 acres. There would be no change in aspen acres treated

3-48 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement by prescribed burning (1,058 acres total). The length of temporary roads needed to implement the treatments would be 9.3 miles, a decrease of 4.5 miles compared to the Proposed Action.

Of the 30,894 total acres among the five treatment areas in the Cottonwood II analysis area, no action would occur on the remaining 28,862 acres (93 percent) and the effects described in Alternative A (No Action) related to changing vegetation, would apply to that area. Like Alternative B, Alternative C would provide more of a mosaic of vegetation on the landscape and provide increased age class diversity compared to the No Action Alternative. Treated stands would serve as fuel breaks where fire behavior would be moderated. In aspen stands, at highest risk for deterioration and loss (Forest Service 1997), a higher proportion would be treated in this alternative. This would substantially reduce the effects associated with aspen decline described for the No Action Alternative.

In many cases, the harvest units proposed are the same for Alternative B and Alternative C. Alternative B was modified in several ways to develop Alternative C. For example, several harvest units were removed, the acreage treated in several harvest units was reduced, and the treatment type was changed in some cases.

Table 3-9 summarizes the acreage affected for Alternative C by treatment and treatment area. Table 3-10 summarizes the acreage affected for Alternative C by treatment and location/site number. Of the 3,699 acres included in forest management location/sites, a total of 2,724 acres (74 percent of the total) is proposed to remain untreated.

TABLE 3-9 Summary of Vegetation Treatments for Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (Acres) Partial Cut Treatments Aspen Treatments

Treatment Group Conifer Prescribe Area Clearcut Thin Shelterwood Salvage Select Removal Burn

South 168 152 73 112 12 68 414 Cottonwood

Halverson 26 0 40 45 20 16 55

McDougal 48 30 9 0 19 0 0

Sjhoberg 20 24 10 0 10 12 291

Nylander 0 60 0 0 0 0 298

262 266 132 157 61 96 1058

Subtotal 262 616 1,154

Total 2,032

3-49 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-10 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (Acres) Proposed Acres Area Stand* Acres Treated CC TH SW S GS Aspen Untreated 49-16 21 2 - - 2 - - - 19 49-22 111 20 - 20 - - - - 91 49-24 60 20 - 20 - - - - 40 49-26 68 20 - 20 - - - - 48 49-32 12 12 - - - - - 12 0 49-33 101 18 - - 8 - 10 - 83 49-35 214 44 20 24 - - - - 170 51-10 105 25 15 - - - 10 - 80 51-12 139 9 - - - - 9 - 130 51-24 58 33 33 - - - - - 25 51-30 91 20 - 20 - - - - 71 51-37 37 19 - 10 9 - - - 18 56-1 250 65 10 - 20 20 - 15 185 56-2 192 40 6 - - 14 20 - 152 56-4 51 10 - - - 10 - - 41 56-5 58 10 10 - - - - - 48 56-8 84 20 - - 20 - - - 64 64-1 21 10 - 10 - - - - 11 64-2 15 6 6 - - - - - 9 64-3 39 16 10 - - 6 - - 23 65-3 61 14 - 14 - - - - 47 65-9 44 20 20 - - - - - 24 65-10 96 12 - - 12 - - - 84 65-13 39 10 10 - - - - - 29 65-15 35 10 - - 10 - - - 25 65-16 37 10 - - 10 - - - 27 66-1 63 12 4 8 - - - - 51 66-2 66 24 24 - - - - - 42 66-3 110 21 10 - - 11 - - 89 66-4 105 19 12 - - - 7 - 86 66-5 52 18 - - 18 - - 34 66-16 266 19 13 - - - 6 - 247 67-16 43 26 - - 26 - - - 17 68-2 116 109 - 109 - - - - 7 68-18 61 8 8 - - - - - 53 70-3 65 61 - - - - - 61 4 70-8 357 75 23 - - 52 - - 282 70-9 29 5 5 - - - - - 24 70-12 36 11 11 - - - - - 25 70-13 37 15 - - 15 - - - 22 70-14 7 7 - - - - - 7 0

3-50 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-10 Summary of Vegetation Treatments by Location/Site Number for Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads (Acres) Proposed Acres Area Stand* Acres Treated CC TH SW S GS Aspen Untreated 70-15 206 30 13 12 - 5 - - 176 70-20 41 20 - - - 20 - - 21 Total 3,699 975 263 267 132 156 62 95 2,724 *Stand location data are available in the B-TNF office project files.

The 878 acres of clearcut and partial harvest would utilize timber resource values providing forest products for local and regional economies for 5 to 10 years. Harvest would occur only in areas appropriate and suitable as determined in the Forest Plan EIS. The potential harvest volume, depending on treatment area, would range from 1,000 to 5,000 CCF per treatment area, would be consistent with Objective 1.1 of the LRMP, and would be consistent with harvest levels from the Big Piney Community Interest Area (CIA) 7 (Forest Service 1990). Harvest acres would be significantly less than the 6,140 acres of opportunity areas identified in the CPIS because of other constraints. Silvicultural systems are consistent with Forest Plan DFCs 1B and 10. Opportunity areas identified in the CPIS, as well as nearby suitable stands, were closely evaluated to determine the best treatment areas to meet project objectives and issues.

Vegetation condition in conifer stands would still remain outside desired conditions, but moving towards a desired condition. The FVS summary presented previously in Table 3-6 for representative stands and harvest methods in Alternative B also illustrates effects on forested vegetation for Alternative C. Further examples are found in the project file. A total of 262 acres would be clearcut with this alternative, which is 140 acres less than the area proposed in Alternative B (402 acres). This is the most significant difference between the two alternatives, which is the result of public scoping comments. The 31 clearcut harvest units would range in size from 2 to 19 acres, with an average size of 8 acres.

There are 616 acres of partial cuts planned in Alternative C. This is 35 acres more than proposed under Alternative B. Because of the relatively small increase in acres, the description of effects is the same as Alternative B above. Changes in proposed partial cut treatments are summarized: Commercial thinning on 266 suitable acres is 19 acres more than under Alternative B. The 15 thinning units would range in size from 3 to 68 acres, with an average size of 18 acres. Shelterwood harvest would provide for conditions favoring natural regeneration of Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir on 132 acres while maintaining healthy trees on the site. There are 13 acres less proposed for shelterwood than under Alternative B. The 10 shelterwood harvest units would range in size from 2 to 26 acres, with an average size of 13 acres.

3-51 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Sanitation salvage harvest would occur on 157 acres of mature or over mature mixed conifer stands. The 13 salvage units would range in size from 4 to 26 acres, with an average size of 12 acres. Group selection harvest in units of 2 acres or less, on 61 acres proposed for Alternative C is 11 acres more than under Alternative B. The 6 group selection harvest areas would range in size from 6 to 20 acres per stand, with an average area treated of 10 acres. Effects would be similar to Alternative B. Removal of commercial conifer from aspen stands would occur on 96 acres in 5 harvest units. This is 38 acres more than under Alternative B. The 5 aspen harvest units would range in size from 7 to 61 acres, with an average size of 19 acres.

As in Alternative B, 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe burned under Alternative C. The descriptions of effects are identical.

Riparian. As in Alternative B, approximately 1.5 acres of riparian habitat would be restored as a result of reclaiming 1.0 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which would be relocated out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east.

Wetlands. No direct impacts to wetlands are expected from this alternative.

Old Growth Forest. There are 10 acres of group selection and 20 acres of thinning proposed in designated old growth. (This is less than 2 percent of designated old growth in the analysis area.) Older trees, snags, and down material would be retained on the site.

Road Effects. A total of 9.3 miles of temporary roads and skid trails associated with Alternative C would result in the temporary loss of forested vegetation. This effect is 4.5 miles less than for Alternative B. The temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and the habitat restored immediately after they are no longer required. This would result in a loss of forest productivity and habitat for 5 to 10 years. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Indirect and cumulative effects under Alternative C would be similar to those described for Alternative B.

3.2.5.2 Wildlife Resources

Alternative A—No Action Under this alternative, there would be no vegetation management to harvest timber or regenerate aspen stands and no action to improve roads and trails. Direct Impacts

There are unlikely to be any direct disturbance effects to wildlife species, particularly to harvested species, migratory birds, or amphibians, under this alternative.

3-52 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects to elk, mule deer, and perhaps to some species of migratory birds would likely occur under this alternative. Aspen management is necessary if aspen stands are to reach DFCs for improving habitat for elk calving areas. The No Action Alternative would allow succession and conifer encroachment into aspen stands to continue. Over time, lack of forest management actions in the analysis area would likely indirectly contribute to the decline in habitat values for elk and migratory birds that use aspen. Dense mature conifer stands often have limited herbaceous and shrub understories, which limit use by a number of species because of lack of cover and food. This is especially true in lodgepole pine stands. These conditions would continue under Alternative A. Cumulative Impacts

None are likely to occur under the No Action Alternative. However, portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take. Treatments would occur on 1,318 acres under the Maki Creek Area Projects.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under this alternative, 1,041 acres of coniferous forest would be treated through harvesting and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe-burned to regenerate aspen stands.

Summary of the Effects of Fire on Wildlife. Excerpts from a recent summary of the general effects of forest fire on fauna (Smith 2000) follow as an introduction to the discussion of potential impacts on wildlife resources under the Proposed Action. The effects of wild fire on wildlife would be similar to those of prescribed fire on wildlife. Wild fire effects are described here because of a lack of literature regarding specific effects of prescribed fire on wildlife.

The effects of fire on wildlife vary considerably depending on the season of the fire and its severity, size, and duration (Lyon et al. 2000). Forest fires generally kill and injure a relatively small proportion of animal populations. For instance, the large fires in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem killed about 1 percent of the area’s elk population. As expected, the season of burn has a substantial influence on wildlife mortality. Most medium and large mammals leave the burn area. Burning during the nesting season is more detrimental to birds and small mammals than fires later in the summer or fall. Many small mammals seek refuge in underground burrows to survive fires. Any instance of high mortality among small mammals is generally not believed to be a substantial problem because their high reproductive potential allows them to increase rapidly in favorable environments and disperse readily into burned areas. Most adult birds also flee in the face of oncoming fires. A few species are attracted to actively burning fires because fleeing prey animals are more vulnerable to predation.

The duration that wildlife emigration persists following fire also varies. Many species leave an area and do not return for years or decades because of the substantial habitat

3-53 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

alteration. Others return almost immediately or after the first year or two to take advantage of new or improved food sources. Among these are elk and deer to forage on new herbaceous growth, and woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters to utilize newly created snags and increased insect populations.

Many animal-fire studies indicate that wildlife communities are generally “reorganized” following fires with increases in some species accompanied by decreases in others (Huff and Smith 2000). Over the short-term of 5 to 15 or 20 years, there is a general shift from canopy- to ground- and shrub-dwelling species. Huff and Smith (2000) note substantial species turnover following fire in a 200-year old stand of spruce-fir-lodgepole pine forest in Grand Teton National Park.

Summary of the Effects of Timber Harvest on Wildlife. Effects of timber harvest on wildlife species vary depending on the species, the treatment area, and the juxtaposition of treatments within the forest matrix. Potvin et al. (1999) studied the short-term response of wildlife to clear-cutting in four blocks that were logged in 250-to 620-acre-clustered patches, leaving a matrix of uncut buffers. They indicated that the effects of clear-cutting in the boreal forest can be viewed as a multi-scale phenomenon depending on home range size and habitat needs of wildlife species. While the forests to be treated are not boreal and treatment patches appear to be smaller than those studied by Potvin et al. (1999), similar types of effects of timber harvest on wildlife would be expected to occur within the analysis area.

Potvin et al. (1999) indicated that the response of species having a home range smaller than a clearcut patch is a stand-level issue. They suggest that after logging, a species should remain in a clearcut patch if its habitat attributes are either maintained or improved. Otherwise, it has to relocate to adjacent uncut forest if these areas are available and provide suitable habitat. If adjacent areas of suitable habitat are not available or are fully occupied by the same and competing species, the displaced animals or others in the uncut forest would be lost from the overall population because of resource competition.

Potvin et al. (1999) found that small mammals, species with the smallest home ranges (<2.5 acres), either remained in the clearcut patches or had replacement (and apparently unoccupied) habitat in adjacent buffer strips. Most species with home ranges up to 62.5 acres (spruce grouse and snowshoe hare) were excluded from clearcut patches. Species with home ranges >1200 acres (marten and moose) remained in some of the residual forest patches scattered throughout the clearcuts and in the adjacent uncut forest. In their home range, these two species avoided clearcut patches where the shrub layer and coniferous regeneration were scattered. Species such as red squirrels, northern flying squirrels, and many bird species such as cavity nesters, large raptors, and several species of neotropical migratory birds that require larger blocks of uncut forest habitat would be eliminated from treatment areas and perhaps from adjacent forest because of treatment-related habitat fragmentation. Species that are excluded from harvested areas would disperse into adjacent forest lands if these are available and unoccupied. Large predators would also be displaced from treatment areas for at least a few years because prey species are no longer present and cover is initially reduced. Clearcut areas may not be recolonized by prey species (mainly snowshoe hares) until as much as 20 to 25 years

3-54 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement after harvest (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Increased forage production in the first years following treatment would likely attract deer, elk, and moose to treatment areas. Direct Impacts

The general effects of fire on wildlife described above would likely occur within burn areas under the Proposed Action. However, the relatively small size of the prescribed burns and the large areas of unburned lands within the analysis area would limit the extent and severity of direct effects on wildlife at the population level. All wildlife species that reside within treatment areas would likely be disturbed during treatment. However, this type of direct disturbance to adult animals is usually of short duration for short-term disturbances, such as small prescribed burns, construction noise, and human presence. Adult animals can be killed during high-intensity, fast-moving wildfires, but small prescribed fires that would be used for this treatment are unlikely to cause significant mortality. Effects similar to those described previously for harvest would also occur.

Although mortality and injuries from fires, logging, or road construction equipment for most adult wildlife would be minor, young animals may be harmed under the Proposed Action if treatment is done when the young are vulnerable and cannot escape. An exception where both adults and young would be adversely affected is amphibians that inhabit cold streams. Increased water temperatures and sediment resulting from treatments and temporary roads would result in mortality of both adult and young stream amphibians (Bury 2004). Such impacts would probably persist for a few years until pre- treatment conditions return and areas are repopulated from adjacent untreated areas. Alternative B would include approximately 14 miles of temporary roads and skid trails versus 9.5 miles under Alternative C. Temporary roads would contribute to higher sediment loads in treated areas for a period of up to 5 years, depending on the success of rehabilitation efforts, which is partially dependent on natural moisture conditions.

Spatial and temporal connectivity is not expected to be affected by the proposed treatments. Treatment areas are widely scattered throughout the analysis area, with untreated areas greatly exceeding the areas to be treated. Units have been located to ensure corridors for wildlife movement exist. The 300-foot buffers along streams also provide connectivity between habitat patches, particularly where a stream flows through a treatment unit.

While treatment would disturb some wildlife species and result in some mortalities, there should be no long-term direct negative population-level impacts from treatments proposed under Alternative B. Direct impacts are likely to be more negative under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative or Alternative C. Indirect Impacts

The general effects of fire and timber harvest on wildlife described above would likely occur within burn and harvest treatment areas. However, the relatively small size of the treatments and the large areas of unburned lands within the project area would limit the extent and severity of indirect effects on wildlife at the population level. Indirect impacts would likely vary by treatment. In prescribed burned aspens stands, indirect impacts to wildlife species that use those areas would likely be negative immediately after burns

3-55 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

because vegetative biomass would be removed and plant structural diversity would be greatly reduced. Forbs and grasses generally regrow relatively quickly after fire. Several mammal species readily move into burned areas in early spring because the flush of herbaceous growth is highly nutritious. Within one or two seasons after a fire, mule deer, elk, and moose seek out herbaceous growth in burned areas during spring and summer months, but shrub growth would be limited for longer period after a burn (Lyon et al. 2000). Immediate indirect effects would be positive for those species that are attracted to recently burned areas, such as large ungulates. The proposed treatment is intended to promote aspen regeneration from root suckering that would provide increased cover and feed for elk calves and mule deer fawns that use aspen habitat. Treatment areas would not overlap crucial big game winter range so there would be no adverse effects in these areas. The increased growth of herbaceous cover and shrubs would dominate treated lodgepole pine sites for a period of 10 to 15 years, and continue at a higher frequency than at present for up to 40 years until the forest canopy begins to close again. This vegetation would also provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species that nest or forage on the ground and in shrubs.

Short-term indirect effects on wildlife species directly after fire or logging treatments may include increased predation rates because of the removal of hiding cover. Predation rates from animals moving from the disturbed area may increase as well, especially if there is no adequate habitat nearby in which to move. Indirect impacts of elk on regeneration from root shoots of aspen is likely to provide increased forage in the short- term but may impact long-term goals.

Migratory birds that nest in aspen or conifer treatment areas would lose habitat for a period of years. The diverse mixture of habitats within the analysis area makes a home for a variety of migratory bird species that occupy or use forested habitats or aspen stands for nesting, particularly warblers, flycatchers, vireos, and western tanagers. These would be the species most impacted by habitat loss resulting from the treatment.

Snags created by treatments and that are left standing (estimated to be 5 to 10 per acre) would provide valuable habitat for primary and secondary cavity nesters for many years because of additional nest sites and higher insect populations. Current snag densities in treatment areas are not known so it is uncertain if the treatments would result in more or fewer snags. Snags are not likely to be left standing in clear-cut areas.

A study of birds using thinned versus unthinned Douglas-fir stands found that thinning increased bird use for migratory species, such as warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus), and decreased bird use for other species, such as Pacific-slope flycatchers (Empidonax difficilis) (Hagar et al. 1996). Vegetation treatment results in decreased diversity of the structure and composition of both conifer and aspen communities in the short-term. However, conifers invading and overtaking aspen stands, which is presently occurring in the analysis area, results in a long-term loss of habitat diversity as aspen stand integrity is lost without vegetation management.

Long-term browsing of resprouting aspen by elk may deplete aspen clones of root energy stores and prevent the treatment from succeeding. If elk and other large herbivores can be prevented from removing too much regrowth from aspen sprouts, the long-term impacts

3-56 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

to vegetation under the Proposed Action would likely be positive. This would lead to positive indirect impacts to wildlife that need aspen stands. This is true for migratory bird species, woodpecker species, and primary and secondary cavity nesting species. Prescribed burned areas would likely provide new snags for bird species that use snags. Rejuvenated aspen stands move treated portions of the forest in the direction preferred by the DFCs concerning elk calving areas. Rejuvenated aspen stands would provide long- term habitat for migratory birds.

Population level effects on big game MIS would be neutral to slightly positive in the treated areas. However, overall population levels may not change measurably because of the small treatment area relative to the much larger untreated area.

Long-term indirect impacts would likely be more positive under the Proposed Action than under the No Action Alternative or Alternative C. Cumulative Impacts

Present: There are no active timber sales in the Maki or Cottonwood Creek drainages. There are 5 active timber sales in the Beaver Creek watershed, 9 to 13 miles north of the Maki Creek area, with approximately 130 acres remaining to harvest. These sales include 114 acres of partial cuts and 16 acres of clear cuts. Personal use and small firewood and post and pole sales also occur but are rare in the Maki Creek area because of gated access.

Reasonably Foreseeable: Cumulative effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat may be associated with the planned harvest of timber and improvements to vegetation conditions in the Maki Creek drainage (Forest Service 2004b). This planned harvest is within opportunity areas identified as part of the interdisciplinary CPIS and within areas identified in the Forest Plan as suitable. Planned harvests would not exceed created opening standards and would comply with silvicultural and reforestation standards. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Under this alternative, 974 acres of coniferous forests would be treated by harvesting and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe burned to regenerate aspen stands. Similar to Alternative B, the relatively small size of the prescribed burns and the large areas of unburned lands within the analysis area would limit the extent and severity of direct and indirect effects on wildlife at the population level

Direct impacts to wildlife from aspen treatment would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. However, disturbance from logging and mechanical treatment would be

3-57 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management somewhat less than under the Proposed Action because fewer acres of coniferous forest would undergo these treatments and there would only be 9.5 miles of temporary roads and skid trails. Possible impacts to wildlife under Alternative C would be slightly less than under the Proposed Action, but greater than under the No Action Alternative. Indirect Impacts

Alternative C would treat less forest land using several types of harvest methods, so there would be fewer overall indirect long-term beneficial impacts to habitat improvement. However, there is a greater area of aspen treated and fewer created openings in conifer stands than under Alternative B. Short-term beneficial impacts would be approximately the same as under the Proposed Action. Long-term habitat improvement and progress towards DFCs under Alternative C would be somewhat less than under the Proposed Action, except for greater aspen regeneration benefits, but greater than under the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action.

3.3 Forest Fuels and Fire

3.3.1 Introduction

This section discusses the current vegetation conditions in the analysis area as they relate to the management of forest fuels and fires. Potential environmental effects on those conditions from implementing either Alternative A (No Action), Alternative B (Proposed Action), or Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) are also discussed. There were no significant issues or indicators identified for forest fuels and fire during public scoping. However, forest fuel conditions and fire occurrence have a direct impact on all the significant issues of the proposed project, and are therefore important considerations in the analysis of project effects.

3.3.2 Existing Conditions

The current conditions within the analysis area were derived from onsite observations and analysis of available vegetation data. Vegetation conditions were described in Section 3.2, Wildlife and Vegetation Resources and will not be re-stated in this section of the EIS. Additional references used in the preparation of the existing conditions section of Forest Fuels and Fire include Anderson (1982), Johnston and Hendzel (1985), Shepard (1985), Brown and Simmerman (1986), Crane and Fischer (1986), DeByle et al. (1987), Fischer and Bradley (1987), and Gruell et al. (1987).

3.3.2.1 Background Prior to the appearance of the tie hack industry, lightning caused fire and most likely fire ignited by the indigenous populations played the dominant role in maintaining diversity of species and age classes in the analysis area. In the last 75 years, forest management activities have modified fuel continuity through road construction, fuel wood gathering

3-58 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

along existing roads, past timber harvest, brush disposal, grazing, wildland fire suppression, and prescribed fire.

The Cottonwood II analysis area is covered by a variety of vegetation types influenced by the rolling and broken terrain. Forested vegetation is principally lodgepole pine, subalpine fir/Englemann spruce, and aspen with occasional mountain big sagebrush/grass openings. The forests are mostly subalpine fir habitat types and typically have a dense understory of subalpine fir/Englemann spruce with an older component of lodgepole pine or limber pine. There are scattered Douglas-fir and limber pine and whitebark pine stands in the area. Much of the aspen forest in the area has undergone conifer encroachment. Some aspen stands having deteriorated significantly and now are composed mostly of conifers.

Vegetation and dead-and-down fuel within the Cottonwood II analysis area have historically been modified by wildland fire, but more recently fire exclusion through effective wildland fire suppression and public fire prevention education programs has begun to re-shape the landscape. Stand structure and composition were historically influenced by fire severity, available seed sources, and the fire return interval (FRI). Within the Cottonwood Watershed, large fires covering extensive areas appear to have not been the norm. Most fires were small in nature because of broken continuity of the timber fuel, the relatively moist environment, and a comparatively short wildland fire season at these high elevations.

The following text discusses the current vegetation conditions as they relate to fire/fuel management. It is important to note the appropriate management response for the analysis area has been suppression of all ignitions. Because of fire exclusion, wildland fire has been removed as the historical disturbance agent that shaped the general vegetation mosaic and more specifically the plant species and age-class diversity of the analysis area. Fire exclusion is one condition that results in modification of a region’s fire regime condition class (FRCC). Changes in FRCC may also result from previous land management practices other than fire exclusion. In the event of a wildland fire in an area with a significantly modified FRCC which has resulted from advanced vegetation/fuel succession, the effects of wildland fire severity can cause a departure from the FRI. A departure from NVR can lead to many other vegetation management problems, such as noxious weed spread. A lack of wildland fire in an area does not necessarily mean a departure from NVR has occurred. Dry forest habitat types tend to have more frequent FRIs than more mesic or wet habitat types and, as a result, might have a greater departure in NVR. A significant departure from the FRI can potentially lead to a change in NVR, usually resulting from changing forest structure and accumulation of live and dead fuel.

The Bare Creek and Cottonwood fires are the two most recent wildland fires that escaped initial suppression efforts in the larger Cottonwood analysis area. The effects from these two fires are evident from the vegetation composition and structure today. The Bare Creek fire occurred in 1940 and was mostly a stand replacement fire. The burn was all naturally regenerated and is now reforested with pole size trees, primarily lodgepole pine, with a mixture of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce and large areas of aspen regeneration. There is an average of 500 to 600 trees per acre, with heights of 35 to 40 feet. A few scattered snags from the fire remain, but most have fallen down and are

3-59 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

now down, decomposing logs. These down logs contribute to a light to moderate fuel loading, with some potential for a re-burn in the area. Most regenerations are healthy now, but overstocked conditions can lead to future forest health problems such as stagnated growth, unhealthy crowns, and susceptibility to bark beetles. The 1,003-acre Cottonwood fire in 1956 was the last large wildland fire to occur.

Numerous other ignitions were initial attacked and suppressed as very small fires and are not now easily identified. How these suppressed wildland fires might have impacted the fire history of the analysis area if they had not been extinguished is pure speculation. They may have remained small and gone out on their own as most historical fires in the area appear to have done, or they may have grown larger and had a significant impact on the vegetation. Wildland fire suppression will continue to be a vital component of any fire management program, but the issue of wildland fire exclusion will be addressed by treating fuel accumulations (mechanical, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, or a mixture of all three management techniques). The goal of active land management will also address historic disturbance processes, preferably at the landscape level. Continued total wildland fire exclusion will continue to degrade properly functioning ecosystems.

The South Cottonwood area is characterized by several different Fire Groups (based on vegetation data used within the 1988 Forest Service Plan) with a variety of differing FRIs. Fire Groups are forest habitat types with a similar response of the tree species to fire and the role these tree species take during succession stages. The exception is Fire Group Zero, which is a description of miscellaneous vegetation types. It is believed that within the coniferous forest of the Cottonwood analysis area, periodic wildland fires occurred at roughly 100 to 150 year intervals. Most timbered stands are now greater than 100 to 150 years old. This would indicate that most of the coniferous forest within the analysis area is either within, or just entering, the upper limits of natural variation for known FRIs for the various Fire Groups represented.

Lower elevations within the Cottonwood analysis area occupied primarily by mountain big sagebrush/forb/grass communities with scattered clones of aspen may have had more frequent FRIs because of fire sweeping into the foothills from the grasslands below. However, by the late 1800s as a result of European-American settlement and associated cultivation, irrigation, and extensive livestock grazing, there were major barriers to the continuity of grassy fuel that restricted the spread of fire. These aspen/shrub/grassland areas provide a mosaic on the landscape and break up the fuel continuity of the conifer stands; they do not normally pose a particularly hazardous fuel condition or suppression concern. However, under the proper environmental conditions these vegetation types can exhibit significant fire behavior. At the elevations in the Cottonwood area, curing of fuel does not typically occur until late summer—frequently not until after the first killing frost, inhibiting fire behavior. As a result, summer and early autumn season fires tend to spread through accumulations of previous year’s cured growth unless it has been removed by either grazing or mechanical means. Communities with a large component of sagebrush are the exception and will carry fire more readily. Because of the relative ease of control and safety considerations, these aspen/shrub/grassland areas are frequently used by both suppression and prescribed fire personnel to establish fire control features such as wet or black lines following natural fuel breaks and the least flammable fuel type. Conifer encroachment is noticeable throughout the aspen/mountain sagebrush/forb/grass

3-60 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

community because of fire exclusion. This fuel component will increase localized fire behavior as well as contribute to potential spotting from embers.

3.3.2.2 Undesignated Fire Group (Based on Forest Habitat Types)— Mountain Big Sagebrush/Forb/Grass The FRI within communities with mountain big sagebrush is highly variable. Mountain big sagebrush is quite sensitive to fire-induced mortality and does not resprout. Seed has been shown to germinate more readily following a light heat treatment. Seed is neither highly dispersed nor long-lived in the soil. Seed retained within the sagebrush canopy is destroyed by fire. Young plants grow rapidly and reach reproductive maturity within 3 to 5 years. Herbaceous vegetation following fire has improved growing conditions by increased availability of soil moisture, nutrients, and sunlight. The response potential of grasses and forbs will vary depending on preburn condition and density. Herbage production may be less than preburn levels the first growing season following a fire but can be expected to increase significantly by the fifth growing season if moisture is adequate.

3.3.2.3 Fire Group Zero—Aspen Groves in Varying Degrees of Succession (Aspen, Aspen [seral slow], Aspen [seral/fast]) Groves of quaking aspen can occur as local climax vegetation on streamside sites or as fire maintained seral stands in areas that would otherwise be dominated by conifers. In the fire-maintained areas, the absence of fire can result in the gradual elimination of the deciduous tree species because of a lack of successful regeneration. The FRI for aspen stands has been estimated to be 100 to 300 years.

Fire Management Considerations in Fire Group Zero Fire Group Zero habitat types will not burn readily under normal summertime weather conditions. Fire managers can take advantage of this fact when developing pre-attack plans and when delineating fire management areas, units, or zones. These areas can also serve as anchor points for fuel breaks and firebreaks.

Meadows and aspen groves can be important wildlife habitats. Prescribed fire is a suitable tool for maintaining desired forage conditions in these habitats.

3.3.2.4 Fire Group Seven—Cool Habitats Usually Dominated by Lodgepole Pine Fire Group Seven contains two groups of habitat types. The first group consists of lodgepole pine climax series habitat types (and community types) that support essentially pure stands of lodgepole pine, which constitutes the persistent dominant species on these sites. The other group consists of those Douglas-fir, spruce, and subalpine-fir habitat types that are usually found supporting lodgepole pine-dominated stands. Wildfires evidently recycle the stands before the lodgepole pine dies out and frequently long before climax forest conditions are ever attained.

Fire maintains lodgepole pine as a dominant seral species and as a persistent dominant in later successional stages. Lodgepole pine dominates sites either because it is the only

3-61 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management species that occurs there (edaphic climax) or fire eliminates other conifer species. Given sufficient time, shade-tolerant species emerge through the overstory, resulting in a greater diversity of age-classes and vegetation species. Periodic crown fires play a significant role in the development of these lodgepole pine forests.

Subalpine fir, spruce, Douglas-fir, and white-bark pine occur in varying amounts with lodgepole pine on most sites. Undergrowth often consists of dense mats or layers of grasses or shrubs.

Forest Fuel in Fire Group Seven The average downed woody loading in Fire Group Seven is about 18 tons per acre. Inventories have shown a range of about 3 to 35 tons per acre of naturally accumulated fuel, but maximum loads may greatly exceed this range.

Fuel loads are characterized by relatively large amounts of material 3 inches or more in diameter. At least half of the total weight is usually contributed by large material. As a general rule, the proportion of the total fuel load, in this Fire Group, made up of 3 inches or more in diameter increases as the total fuel load increases.

Live fuel can be a problem but not to the extent it is in some other Fire Groups. The primary live fuel consideration is related to the occurrence of dense patches or entire stands of young lodgepole pine with intermingled crowns and entire lower branches extending down to the surface fuel. When ignited under favorable conditions, such stands are usually destroyed in a few minutes.

Role of Fire in Fire Group Seven On lower elevation sites the role of fire in seral lodgepole forests is almost exclusively as an agent that perpetuates or renews lodgepole pine. Without periodic disturbance, the shade-tolerant species replace lodgepole pine because it does not regenerate well on duff or under shaded conditions. Fire interrupts the course of succession and increases the proportion of lodgepole pine with each burn. Within 50 to 100 years following a severe fire in a lodgepole-dominated stand, a re-established lodgepole pine forest will exist even though shrubs and herbaceous cover may become dominant immediately following the burn.

Large-scale, stand-replacing fires play a major role in the ecology of lodgepole pine stands. The natural periodicity of severe fires in seral lodgepole stands probably ranges from less than 100 years to about 500 years. Recurring cool fires may thin the stand or otherwise rejuvenate it without doing serious damage. However, in stands greater than 60 to 80 years old, fuel will build up to hazardous levels because of natural thinning, mountain pine beetle outbreaks, dwarf mistletoe infestations, and fire-killed timber (snags) from previous fires. Eventually a chance ignition followed by a major weather front passage with associated strong winds sets off a major conflagration. Such a fire can cover thousands of acres. Vast tracts of lodgepole can develop in this manner as the serotinous cones open and shower the burn with seeds. However, not all lodgepole in the area are serotinous.

3-62 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

The almost exclusive dominance of lodgepole pine within the lodgepole pine community types is attributed in large part to fire. Several suggestions have been forwarded for the absence of other species on lodgepole pine climax series site, as follows: 1) Historic, repeated fires over large areas may eliminate seed sources of potential shade-tolerant competitors; 2) light ground fires may remove invading shade-tolerant competition from the understory; 3) dense stands may prevent regeneration of all conifers for years in the absence of disturbance or stand deterioration; 4) sites may be unfavorable for the establishment of other conifers.

At higher elevations the role of fire in lodgepole pine forests appears to differ from the classic pattern. At these altitudes the fire season is relatively short in most years, productivity is low, and mountain pine beetle activity is inhibited by low temperatures and the short growing season. Small, lightning-caused fires burn out patches of forest several acres in area and then die out. The result may be a mosaic of age classes, not uniform single-aged forests prevalent on many lower elevation sites.

Fire Management Considerations in Fire Group Seven Perhaps the primary fire management consideration in Fire Group Seven is protection from unwanted fire during extreme periods of drought and during severe fire weather conditions. Fires at such times often crown and become short-term catastrophic fire events if the lodgepole pine stand is ready to burn.

Opportunities for fire use are limited in natural stands because of the low fire resistance of lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir. The other side of this problem is that during “safe” fire weather, it is often difficult to sustain a fire. But low- to medium-severity surface fires do occur. Thus, there may be opportunities to use prescribed fires to accomplish specific management objectives.

The primary use of prescribed fire in lodgepole pine has been and undoubtedly will continue to be for hazard reduction and site preparation in conjunction with tree harvesting and subsequent regeneration. Broadcast burning and pile and windrow burning have been the most often used methods of accomplishing these tasks. Successful broadcast slash burning usually yields increased forage production for big game. Slash disposal of any kind aids big game movement.

As indicated earlier, the primary concern in the fire management for many commercial lodgepole pine forests is the prevention of stand-destroying fires. Timber harvest for a variety of products, and subsequent slash disposal, are the primary means to this end. Harvest schedules can be developed and implemented to create age-class mosaics of lodgepole pine. This minimizes the areal extent of stand-destroying fires. Silvicultural practices designed to harvest trees susceptible to insect attack before the trees are attacked can greatly reduce the threat of severe fires in second-growth stands of lodgepole pine. The use of lodgepole pine for firewood, poles, posts, wood chips, and sawlogs may provide opportunities for fuel management-related harvesting.

3-63 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.3.2.5 Fire Group Eight—Dry, Lower Subalpine Habitat Types Fire Group Eight consists of dry lower subalpine habitat types where spruce or subalpine fir are the indicated climax species. Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are dominant seral species, with lesser amounts of spruce. The prevalence of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine may be due, in part, to periodic wildfire that sets back the invasion of subalpine fir and spruce. Stands usually contain luxuriant undergrowth, including a wide variety of herbaceous and shrub species.

Forest Fuel in Fire Group Eight The downed woody loading in Fire Group Eight is highly variable, with measured ranges from as low as 1 ton per acre, with 20 tons per acre usually being about the low end, to about 80 tons per acre. Dense understories develop in many stands and provide fuel ladders to tree crowns. Live fuel can contribute significantly to overall fire hazard during dry conditions. Burning in deep duff layers can cause considerable mortality to shallow rooted trees species such as subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce.

Role of Fire in Fire Group Eight The occurrence of periodic low- to moderate-severity fire favors Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. Such fires set back invasion by the more tolerant subalpine fir and spruce, which in the absence of fire form dense understories and eventually take over the site. Fires of moderate severity probably help Douglas-fir maintain a position of dominance or co-dominance with lodgepole in many stands. The more fire-resistant Douglas-fir has a better chance of surviving such fires and is able to successfully regenerate in fire-created openings where mineral soil has been exposed. Severe, stand-destroying fire will generally favor lodgepole pine on many of these sites. Some large, thick-barked Douglas- fir trees will often survive fires severe enough to kill all the lodgepole pine trees, thereby assuring the presence of Douglas-fir in the new stand.

Fire Return Intervals probably fell between those reported for Fire Group Seven lodgepole pine stands (less than 100 years) and those identified for the more moist lower subalpine fir types of Fire Group Nine (90 to 150 years).

Fire Management Considerations in Fire Group Eight Fire protection is usually an important fire management consideration during severe burning conditions, especially where timber production is a management objective. When conditions are less severe, fires may be of low- to moderate-severity and result in only moderate damage or no damage to overstory trees, despite the relatively low resistance of many of the species present.

Where timber production is not a management objective, opportunities may exist for the use of fire to accomplish management objectives. Such fires can create vegetation mosaics that in turn provide a diversity of wildlife habitats, diverse scenery, and enhanced recreational opportunities. Vegetation mosaics can also reduce the probability of widespread wildfire damage to watershed values.

3-64 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.2.6 Fire Group Nine—Moist, Lower Subalpine Habitat Types Fire Group Nine is composed of moist and wet lower subalpine habitat types in the spruce and subalpine fir climax series. Soils are moist or wet much of the year. Engelmann spruce is usually a major component of seral stands along with lodgepole pine and occasionally Douglas-fir. Older stands are usually dominated by subalpine fir and spruce, although Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine may be well represented. A notable exception to this general pattern of species composition occurs when the sites are too wet for Douglas-fir. Whitebark pine occurs either accidentally or on some sites as a minor seral species. Abundant undergrowth occurs on these sites.

Forest Fuel in Fire Group Nine Fuel loads are similar to those found in Fire Group Eight with considerable material in larger downed dead wood on the forest floor. The combination of deep duff and large quantities of dead and down material can result in severe surface fire during dry conditions. Where dense understories exist, these can easily transition into crown fire situations. Even if a surface fire does not crown, most overstory trees will be killed by cambium heating. Under normal moisture conditions, a lush understory of shrubs and herbs usually serves as an effective barrier to rapid fire spread.

Role of Fire in Fire Group Nine In northwestern Montana the fire history in a Fire Group Nine forest ranged from 117 years in valleys to 146 years on lower alpine slopes. These fires were reported to be small, moderate severity surface fires that occasionally crowned, especially near ridge tops.

The impact of fire on Group Nine sites is indicated by stand condition and species composition. The general absence of spruce or subalpine fir climax condition is evidence of disturbance by past fires. The dominance of lodgepole pine on many sites suggests these stands developed on a fire-created mineral soil seedbed. Frequent moderate to severe fires may be restricted in their occurrence because many mature stands have an overstory that includes fire-sensitive spruce and lodgepole.

The frequency of light surface fires is difficult to surmise. The moist nature of these sites would limit the opportunity for such fires to a brief period during summer. It seems reasonable to assume that lightning did in fact start such fires and that a certain amount of fuel reduction was accomplished. Left undisturbed, these fires probably flared up occasionally and created openings that favored establishment of seral species.

Fire Management Considerations in Fire Group Nine Fire protection is usually necessary in undisturbed stands during severe burning conditions. This is especially true for areas where timber production is a management objective. When burning conditions are less than severe, fires may be of low- to moderate-severity and result in only moderate damage or no damage to overstory trees (other than subalpine fir), despite the relatively low fire resistance of many of the species

3-65 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

present. If slash is present, unacceptable tree mortality can result even during moderate burning conditions.

3.3.2.7 Fire Group Ten—Old, Moist Upper Subalpine and Timberline Habitat Types Fire Group Ten consists of high-elevation forests near and at timberline. All of the stands lie above the climatic limits of Douglas-fir, and many stands are above the cold limits of lodgepole pine. Subalpine fir is the indicated climax in all of the upper subalpine habitat types. Whitebark pine and Engelmann spruce are long-lived seral species. Lodgepole pine occurs on some upper subalpine sites.

Timberline habitat types support stands composed of whitebark pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. Trees characteristically grow in groups with open areas in between. Competition resulting from differences in tolerance is not as pronounced at timberline as it is in lower forests. Undergrowth in the upper subalpine habitat types is usually composed of only a few important species, and in timberline habitats undergrowth occurs in mosaics.

Forest Fuel in Fire Group Ten Fire Group Ten is characterized by relatively sparse fine fuel and moderate heavy loadings of widely scattered large-diameter fuel. Much of the duff layer is composed of rotten dead and down material resulting from wind and snow breakage, wind throw, and insect- and disease-caused mortality. Fire usually has difficulty spreading in this fuel type because of the normally cool, moist locations, the short fire season at the higher elevations, and the usually sparse and discontinuous nature of the fine fuel necessary to carry a fire in the Fire Group.

Role of Fire in Fire Group Ten Fire is secondary to site factors (climate and soil) as an influence on forest development on these sites. The cold, moist, rocky, snowbound, unproductive, and otherwise fire resistant environment that characterizes many of the sites not only makes fires infrequent but severely limits their areal extent. Lightning does ignite fires, but the paucity of continuous surface fuel coupled with rain that commonly accompanies thunderstorms usually limits fire spread and severity.

In more continuous forests of this group, the most pronounced fire effect is to produce stand-replacing fires at long intervals, perhaps 200 years or more. Stand-destroying fires are most likely to occur during extended drought conditions when severe wind-driven crown fires develop in the forests below and burn into the upper subalpine and timberline forests. Forest vegetation recovery following such fires is usually slow because of the extremely short growing season and cold climate. Burned herbaceous vegetation that was not beneath burned forest or adjacent to dead and down forest fuel usually responds with new growth the next growing season.

3-66 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Fire Management Considerations in Fire Group Ten Timber production is rarely an important management objective for forests in this group. Most areas are managed as watersheds, natural areas, and sanctuaries for wildlife. Most are roadless, and many are designated as wilderness or primitive areas. Fire is an infrequent visitor, and when it does occur, damage in terms of management objectives is generally slight. But these sites are often fragile and can easily be damaged by modern, mechanized fire fighting equipment.

3.3.2.8 Analysis Area Fuel Loads and Fuel Types The Cottonwood drainage conifer stands are a combination of Fuel Model 8 (Closed Timber Litter), and Fuel Model 10 (Timber - Litter and Understory). Significant clumps of live subalpine fir and understory brush will contribute to torching. A majority of the coniferous forest in this area is within or near the upper range of natural variation for their Fire Group FRI, meaning they could easily burn provided an ignition source and the proper environmental conditions. Subalpine fir dominates many of the understories in typical climax succession. Fuel loads are reported to range from 20 to 80 tons per acre. Heavy surface fuel loads combined with the subalpine fir understory and dense canopies in a multi-storied environment allow for torching of individual or small groups of trees, short-distance spotting, and intermittent or passive crown fire runs during periods of moderate to high fire danger. During periods of very high to extreme fire danger these forests are susceptible to sustained active crown fire runs with long distance spotting. These factors make controlling fires during times of prolonged drought and seasonal drying of fuel challenging and potentially risky to wildland firefighters.

The exclusion of wildland fire from the Cottonwood analysis area has likely altered the structure of the coniferous stands and their associated fuel loads, but most likely not significantly beyond the upper levels of natural variance. The greatest influence has probably been the potential for greater significant fire behavior by making the available fuel more contiguous by eliminating numerous small burn areas that could have potentially inhibited larger fire growth. Fuel is the only manageable component of the fire triangle (fuel, weather, and topography). The re-introduction of fire (prescribed and natural) and mechanical vegetation treatments at the landscape level are needed to begin the process of keeping the area within acceptable fuel load limits and providing a safer work environment for forest/fire personnel and the visiting general public.

Aspen is found throughout the Cottonwood area in large clones at the lower elevations (Aspen/Low Forb Fuel Type) or as smaller clones and stringers in more moist higher elevation forested areas or adjacent to riparian zones ([Aspen] Mixed Forb and Aspen/Tall Forb Fuel Types). The clones within the Cottonwood area are most likely in all cases seral and currently exist in various levels of succession. Stable, climax clones of aspen can be found in the region. Seral aspen are gradually replaced by conifers. In general, aspen stands in the Cottonwood area are old, decadent, and in need of disturbance to regenerate. In some cases, mixed conifer has replaced the aspen clone entirely or only small remnants of the clone remain. Herbivory is evident and may be contributing to the lack of regeneration.

3-67 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Pure aspen stands, aspen/lodgepole, aspen/mixed conifer, and aspen/sage/grass are all evident in the analysis area. The ungrazed Aspen/Low Forb Fuel Type in the lower elevations usually will exhibit low fire behavior and generally be resistant to rapid fire spread. Fire managers look to these areas as places where fire behavior will moderate and fires can be more easily controlled. Torching and crowning are relatively nonexistent and surface fires are slow moving because of low herbaceous and woody fuel loads. As stands in more moist conditions age, the slower growing conifers establish in the understory and fuel loads from dead and dying vegetation increase. The Aspen/Tall Forb and (Aspen) Mixed Forb Fuel Types can support moderate to high fire behavior in an ungrazed condition. These later communities reflect the addition of shrub and conifer fuel to the total loading, plus increased herbaceous fuel reflected by greater levels of soil moisture. The addition of conifer species in the understory changes fuel conditions to varying degrees depending on the stocking level, but regardless, fire behavior will increase with conifer encroachment and surface fuel buildup. If succession continues without fire, aspen will eventually be crowded out.

Infrequent fires produce a variety of effects on stand structure. Low intensity fires cause thinning and encourage an all-aged condition. High intensity fires result in new even- aged stands. In late successional aspen stands, which are common in the analysis area, conifers are well established and aspen is on the decline. These stands can be multistoried, providing a ladder for fire to reach the canopy. Torching, spotting, and passive crowning are part of the expected fire behavior. The fire behavior in these stands will be very similar to those observed within the forested Fire Group in which they occur. Fuel loads are heavy, subalpine fir dominates the understory, and aspen, if present, is found only in isolated pockets.

Prescribed fire in aspen stands can offer an economical and environmentally acceptable means of rejuvenating aspen through suckering. Frequently fire can be applied in combination with clearcutting or partial cutting, but timing is critical that fire does not injure stimulated resprouting. Fire, when properly applied, also stimulates temporary biomass increases in production of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Fire can also increase the diversity of cover types and tree sizes on the landscape. Aspen stands have a highly nutritious understory and burning can further improve the quality of selected species during the first post-burn season. Burning can also shift an aspen shrub layer temporarily into an abundance of palatable and nutritious forbs.

The purpose and need for the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project (see Section 1.3, Purpose of and Need for Action) identifies needed improvements, including the need to lower aspen age classes, increase conifer age class diversity while maintaining stand structure in some location and lowering stand density in others, reduce fuel loadings, and generally provide a range of successional conditions. Aspen forests are specifically targeted for treatment because of decadence and conifer encroachment. A goal for aspen management is to maintain half in younger age classes. Fire exclusion has altered the vegetation and fuel on the landscape. Modification of current vegetation/fuel conditions with the use of a complete range of mechanical and prescribed fire options must be applied to achieve the desired effect. Strategically placed mechanical treatments and use of prescribed fire to initiate disturbance will begin the process of re-introducing fire and its desired effects.

3-68 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.3 Desired Future Conditions

DFCs 1B and 10 for fire protection include using a full range of suppression techniques. Both DFCs call for maintaining fuels conditions that will permit fire suppression forces to meet fire protection objectives for the area under historic weather conditions. In DFC 1B, fire management emphasizes the preservation and enhancement of timber and range values scheduled for current use, the suppression of wildfires during the normal fire season, and the containment, confinement, or surveillance of wildfires during the pre- and post-fire seasons. In DFC 1B, prescribed fire should be used to favor reducing fuel loadings, improving livestock forage conditions on primary ranges, and improving site conditions to increase wood fiber production. In DFC 10, fire management emphasizes the preservation and enhancement of habitat, and the suppression of wildfires below 400 BTU per second per foot and when they threaten plantations.

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences

3.3.4.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative A does not meet the purpose and need outlined in the Landscape Analysis completed for the project area and as described in this EIS in Section 1.3, Purpose of and Need for Action. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in a continued increase in fuel loading within timbered stands, loss of fire resistant aspen communities to succession, and decadence. Continued fire exclusion of all types would continue to exclude fire from playing its historical ecological role in the analysis area.

3.3.4.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action Alternative B meets the purpose and need for the proposed project. Alternative B would treat 1,041 acres of conifer forest and 1,058 acres of aspen forest by burning in the analysis area. Thinning overstocked stands and harvesting timber (with effective activity fuel treatment) would modify fuel characteristics and help break up fuel continuity within the analysis area. Future expected fire behavior in treatment areas would be reduced. Fuel loads would continue to increase in unmanaged timber and aspen stands. Fire would be reintroduced under a controlled scenario to play its historical role in the analysis area. Aspen stands would be regenerated by commercial harvest and prescribed fire, providing forage and renewed cover for elk, which migrate through the area, and other wildlife. Encroaching conifers would be reduced in density and coverage by the Proposed Action. Surface fuel in aspen stands would be reduced, reducing potential fire behavior. Partial- cut treatments would be used in conifer forests to remove insect and disease-infested trees, further reducing future fuel loads.

Alternative B proposes the most modification and reduction of fuels among the alternatives evaluated, and would therefore reduce future fire behavior within the analysis area the most. Commercially harvested units with post-activity fuels treatment also would be anticipated to reduce future expected fire behavior. Thinning regenerating stands would promote stand resiliency by reducing crown densities and promoting health of the stand. The reduction of crown densities would decrease the chance of a stand-replacing crown fire.

3-69 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.3.4.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Alternative C does not meet project purpose and need as well as Alternative B (Proposed Action). Under Alternative C, reduced harvest levels of 974 acres of conifer forest and meeting the proposed 1,058 acres of aspen burning only meets project need in part. Thinning overstocked stands and harvesting timber (with an effective activity fuel treatment) would modify fuel characteristics and help break up fuel continuity within the analysis area. Future expected fire behavior in treatment areas would be significantly reduced. The identified need in the CPIS to restore aspen communities within the analysis area through the use of prescribed fire is proposed as a cost effective and historically beneficial means of achieving the desired outcome for identified treatment units. Fuel loads would continue to increase in unmanaged timber and aspen stands. Fire would be reintroduced under a controlled scenario to play its historical role in the analysis area.

3.4 Soils, Hydrology, and Water Quality

3.4.1 Introduction

Hydrology, soils, and water quality are included in the same section because of the cause and effect relationships between them. These resource areas were identified as a significant issue.

The Cottonwood II analysis area includes North and South Cottonwood Creeks, as well as tributaries to those streams. Tributaries to North Cottonwood Creek include Nylander Creek, Chase Creek, Sjhoberg Creek, McDougal Creek, Ole Creek, Hardin Creek, Irene Creek, and Halverson Creek. Tributaries to South Cottonwood Creek include Lander Creek, Eagle Creek, Hidden Basin Creek, Trailer Creek, and Bare Creek including West Fork Bare Creek and South Fork Bare Creek. The analysis area contains five treatment areas: Nylander, Sjhoberg, McDougal Gap, Halverson, and South Cottonwood.

The climate in the analysis area is cool, humid, and slightly windy. The skies are usually clear. Daily and seasonal temperatures vary widely. The coldest temperatures are associated with deep, cold Canadian air masses penetrating the analysis area. The bulk of annual precipitation (75 to 90 percent) falls as snow. Only about 30 to 37 inches of the total precipitation is available to the analysis area’s hydrologic system because of wind- generated evaporation, snow sublimation, and other non-biological evaporative losses.

The analysis area lies to the east of the Overthrust Belt, with a fault on the western boundary of the analysis area. The geology is dominated by Cretaceous conglomeritic sandstone, siltstones, claystones, and bentonite, with a north-south band of older Cretaceous shale, siltstone, and claystone near the eastern boundary of the analysis area. The North Cottonwood Creek drainage flows through younger Quaternary unconsolidated terrace gravels, while the South Cottonwood Creek drainage flows through a glacial morraine (till). Just to the east of the western fault scarp, toe slopes are a mixture of unconsolidated, angular debris.

Many disturbances have affected the watershed’s soil including fire, fire suppression, road building and maintenance, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvest. Other

3-70 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

sections of this EIS address impacts to biological resources from these management activities.

3.4.2 Issues

Watershed health was identified as a significant issue during public scoping (Issue #4, Section 1.9.1). Specifically, the issue is: The effects of the proposed activities on the functions and values of watersheds including vegetation, wildlife, aquatic species, water quality, wetlands, and bank stability

Indicators by which the proposed project will be evaluated relative to this issue include: Sediment deposition into streams Miles of road moved from the riparian corridor Protection of designated stream beneficial uses Change in peak discharge in North and South Cottonwood Creeks Wetland/riparian impacts (addressed in Section 3.2, Wildlife and Vegetation [Habitat] Resources).

3.4.3 Existing Conditions

3.4.3.1 Soils Soil types, called map units, have been identified and mapped across the analysis area. All soil polygons on the landscape within the same map unit will have similar soil properties. Soil properties of interest to this proposed project are erosion hazard, compaction hazard, revegetation limitation, and slope stability. All of these properties affect erosion and thereby, potential deposition of sediment into streams. Table 3-11 lists the mapping units and associated soil characteristics for the treatment areas. Table 3-12 lists soil mapping units specifically associated with harvest units. Erosion hazard, compaction hazard, and revegetation limitations are categories shown in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 for soil interpretations and ratings. These rating criteria were adopted from the B-TNF’s Soil Interpretive Guide (Forest Service 1985). All ratings are based on the midpoint of the range in the database or criteria used for that interpretation, so some areas of a mapping unit may have a less restrictive or more restrictive condition than shown in Table 3-11.

TABLE 3-11 Soil Mapping Units and Soil Characteristics Mapping Compaction Erosion Revegetation Sensitive Unit Acres Hazard Hazard Soil Stability Limitation Ground 101 800 Severe Moderate Stable Severe No 121 86 High High Stable Severe Yes 131 404 Moderate Moderate Stable Severe No 161 458 Moderate High Stable Moderate No 202 2,522 High High Marginally Unstable Severe Yes

3-71 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-11 Soil Mapping Units and Soil Characteristics Mapping Compaction Erosion Revegetation Sensitive Unit Acres Hazard Hazard Soil Stability Limitation Ground 203 912 High High Marginally Stable Severe Yes 205 2,719 High High Unstable Severe Yes 206 310 Low Low Marginally Unstable Slight No 226 1 Moderate High Marginally Stable Severe No 253 1,833 High High Unstable Severe Yes 255 2,301 High High Unstable Severe Yes 266 3 Moderate High Marginally Stable Severe No 276 417 High High Marginally Stable Severe Yes 282 2,438 Moderate Moderate Stable Severe No 286 4,391 High High Marginally Unstable Severe Yes 301 3,391 High High Stable Moderate No 303 2,084 High High Marginally Unstable Severe Yes 311 512 High High Stable Severe Yes 322 3,571 Moderate High Stable Severe No 325 528 Moderate High Stable Severe No 332 2,127 High High Marginally Stable Severe Yes 335 2,063 Moderate High Marginally Stable Severe No 336 2,201 Moderate High Stable Severe No 345 2,394 High High Marginally Unstable Severe Yes 355 2,407 Moderate High Marginally Unstable Severe No 365 2,609 High High Marginally Stable Moderate No 402 941 High High Stable Severe Yes 412 414 Moderate High Stable Severe No 413 1,221 High High Marginally Stable Severe Yes 422 665 Moderate Moderate Stable Severe No 432 611 High High Stable Severe Yes 442 405 Moderate High Marginally Unstable Severe No 462 805 High High Stable Severe Yes Total 48,541

TABLE 3-12 Soil Mapping Units, Soil Characteristics, and Extent of Soil Mapping Units Within Stands to be Treated Alternative Alternative Mapping B C Compaction Erosion Revegetation Sensitive Unit (acres) (acres) Hazard Hazard Soil Stability Limitation Ground

205 9 0 High High Unstable Severe Yes

255 202 244 High High Unstable Severe Yes

301 297 296 High High Stable Moderate No

311 10 10 High High Stable Severe Yes

3-72 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

322 301 266 Moderate High Stable Severe No

325 24 9 Moderate High Stable Severe No

332 80 59 High High Marginally Severe Yes Stable

345 44 29 High High Marginally Severe Yes Unstable

365 73 59 High High Marginally Moderate No Stable

442 1 1 Moderate High Marginally Severe No Unstable

Total 1,041 973

The limitation ratings identify the severity of limitations that may restrict the use of a soil for a specific use. Limitation ratings are defined as: Slight. This rating is given to soils that have properties favorable for a specific use. This degree of limitation is minor and can be overcome easily. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected. Moderate. This rating is given to soils that have properties moderately favorable for a specific use. This degree of limitation can be overcome or modified by special planning, design, or maintenance. The expected performance of the structure or other planned use is somewhat less desirable than for soils rated slight. High/Severe. This rating is given to soils that have one or more properties unfavorable for the rated use. This degree of limitation generally requires major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance. Some soils can be improved by reducing or removing soil features that limit use, but it is difficult and costly in most situations to alter the soil or to design a structure so as to compensate for a high/severe degree of limitation.

The types of ratings important to the proposed project are discussed below and include Erosion Hazard, Compaction Hazard, and Revegetation Limitations. Table 3-13 shows acres of each limitation rating contained within the stands to be treated.

3-73 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-13 Area of Soil Limitation Ratings for Selected Soil Characteristics Within Stands to be Treated Alternative B Alternative C Soil Limitation Soil Rating (acres) (acres)

Compaction Hazard Slight 0 0 Moderate 326 276 High 715 697 Erosion Hazard Slight 0 0 Moderate 0 0 High 1,041 973 Revegetation Limitation Slight 0 0 Moderate 370 355 Severe 671 618 Soil Stability Stable 623 581 Marginally Stable 153 118 Marginally Unstable 45 30 Unstable 211 244 Sensitive Ground Yes 345 342 No 696 631

Erosion Hazard Erosion hazard is the probability that damage will occur as a result of activities that expose the soil surface. Site preparation, timber harvest, skid trail construction, log landings, fire lanes, and off-road and off-trail travel are activities that can initiate erosion.

Erosion hazard ratings are based on slope, k-factor, and rock fragments on the surface layer (see Figure 3-10). A “Slight” rating refers to soils where erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. A “Moderate” rating refers to soils where some erosion is likely and control measures may be needed. A “High/Severe” rating refers to soils where erosion is very likely and where structural measures and/or control measures for vegetation re-establishment on bare areas are advised.

Ratings assess the potential that sheet and rill erosion would result from exposed soil surfaces caused by various management and silvicultural practices such as grazing, mining, fire, firebreaks, etc. These are activities that disturb the site, and typically result in 50 to 75 percent bare ground in the affected area. Bare ground can be exposed from operation of equipment or from uncontrolled livestock grazing. The ratings shown in Table 3-11 assume that 50 to 75 percent of a site’s soil would be exposed. The ratings do not assume clean tillage and other similar activities that disturb up to nearly 100 percent of the area or change the character of the soil. As was shown in Table 3-12, all harvest units fall within the “High” erosion-rating category.

3-74 432 161 203 303 311 S 303 336 j 303 h 303 432 286 o 336 286 b 203 202 e 345 286 413 r 311 g 402 121 C 365 432 336 r 303 e 345 e k 205 311

322 202

322 203 301 402 345 335 303 121 301 365 365 205 101 202 McD oug al C 402 345 303 462 ree 311 k k 301 205 e 161 re 203 C N 345 d 161 255 303 o 101 o 205 o 365 r 412 203 nw 442 th 345 o 276 k tt le Cree C o O C 311 161 o h t rt t o o N n 205 w 345 o o 462 d C re ek 355 266 345 355 332 442 k 286 e e 335 r 365 C 266 n o 412 322 s r e 345 266 286 336 lv 286 a 202 282 286 Lander Peak H 286 206 336 255 412 442 205 206 131 336 k 101 ree 336 d C 335 oo 282 w 336 on 303 286 282 ott th C 355 ou 322 S 203 422 131 322 101 203 101 422 345 303 301 322 Soda Lake 282 276 303 131

322 266 325 203 266 303 286 325 303 266 336 355 301 253 282 355 266 286 266 336 332 336 412 286 412

286 402 412 255 336 365 202 255255 286 412

255 303

203 226 202

402

402 Figure 3-10 Erosion Hazard Potential Analysis Area Streams Open Roads High Moderate Low 0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-10.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Compaction Hazard Soil compaction ratings assume an undisturbed soil surface and soils that are not saturated. The rating only considers the potential for compaction by vehicles crossing terrain in a random fashion. Repetitive, intensive use invariably results in highly compacted soils and the potential for an irreparable reduction in soil productivity. Soils are rated for compaction according to limitations that affect their suitability for off-road vehicles, camping areas, picnic areas, playgrounds, paths, and trails. Off-road vehicles would be the most limiting criteria used to establish an overall rating for a map unit. Snowmobiles are not considered in this category, but it does include four-wheel-drive vehicles, dune buggies, and other all-terrain vehicles.

Soils with a slight compaction limitation rating would generally not suffer an irreparable reduction in their long-term natural productivity level as a result of intensive use by wheeled off-road vehicles. Intensive use by wheeled off-road vehicles on soils with a moderate compaction limitation rating though, would be expected to result in a significant reduction in the long-term natural productivity of those soils. However, soils with a moderate rating could be managed for sustained natural productivity by controlling the timing and intensity of use, and their natural productivity could be restored through the application of relatively simple soil compaction amelioration treatments. Soils with a severe limitation rating generally would suffer irreparable reduction in their long-term natural productivity level, even with limited use of off-road vehicles.

All soils in stands to be treated fall into the “Moderate” or “High” compaction hazard category. There are 326 acres in Alternative B and 276 acres in Alternative C that have a moderate potential for compaction. Approximately 715 acres in Alternative B and 697 acres in Alternative C have a high rating for compaction hazard.

Revegetation Limitation Ratings Revegetation limitation ratings are based on limitations for revegetation on cut and fill slopes. Ratings are based on uniform, one-to-one grade slopes that were seeded during the first growing season following construction. Soil moisture is the predominant mechanism resulting in revegetation failure. The revegetation failure could be the result of either too much water (wetness) or too little water (droughty). Lack of rainfall at the right time, low available water capacity, rooting depth less than 40 inches, and high evaporation all can lead to droughty soil conditions.

The amount of water that can be held in the soil for plant use is dependent on the amount of water the soil can hold per unit area (available water capacity) and the volume of soil on the site (depth to bedrock or a cemented pan). Seedlings can survive on soils with low available water capacity if rains come at the right time, frequency, and duration. Soil texture must be course enough so that water enters readily, but not so course as to have low available water capacity. The higher temperatures and evaporation associated with steep, south and west-facing slopes could contribute to revegetation failure. There are “Severe” revegetation limitations on 671 acres to be treated under Alternative B and 618 acres to be treated under Alternative C. There are 370 acres to be treated under

3-77 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Alternative B and 355 acres to be treated under Alternative C with a “Moderate” revegetation limitation.

Sensitive Ground Soils with a high erosion hazard, a high compaction hazard, and with severe revegetation limitations are classified as “Sensitive Ground”. Soils within this classification are potentially slow to recover from ground-disturbing activities and may require special measures to revegetate and stabilize. Figure 3-11 shows the location of Sensitive Ground within the analysis area. There are 345 acres to be treated under Alternative B and 342 acres to be treated under Alternative C that are “Sensitive” soils.

Soil Stability Rating Soil stability is another factor that can determine the success of revegetation activities. Land is classified as “Unstable Ground” in areas where landslides are present and mass movement is evident. It would be more difficult to achieve revegetation goals in these areas.

Soil stability is rated for all mapping units. Rating categories include: Stable. No historic landslide evidence is present and observable characteristics of the land are evidence that future landslide activity is not probable. Marginally Stable. No historic landslide evidence is present and observable characteristics of the land indicate that future landslide activity is possible. Marginally Unstable. Historic landslide evidence is present, but not recent (within the last 50 years). This rating assumes the area is gaining stability, but disturbances at certain locations could reactivate mass movements.

Unstable. Evidence of recent mass movement or fresh tension cracks are observable. There is a high probability that additional mass movements could occur. The majority of soils to be treated under Alternatives B (623 acres) and C (581 acres) are stable. There are 211 acres (Alternative B) and 244 acres (Alternative C) to be treated that have unstable soils. Treatments in the unstable soil areas will be confined to benches or lower hillsides with less than 20 percent slope.

3.4.3.2 Hydrologic Function (Watershed Runoff Processes)

Watersheds The analysis area has been subdivided into 17 subwatersheds for evaluation. Figure 3-12 illustrates the watershed boundaries. Table 3-14 summarizes information relative to the watersheds and subwatersheds analyzed.

3-78 432 161 203 311 303 S 303 336 j h 303 303 432 286 o 336 286 b 203 202 e 345 286 413 r 311 g 402 121 C 365 432 336 r 303 e 345 e k 311 205

322 202

322 203 301 402 345 335 303 121 301 N 365 y k 365 l e 205 a e 101 n r d C 202 Mc e D r e ou ga C s l C a 402 345 303 462 re r ek 311 e h e C k 205 e 301 k 161 re 203 C N 345 d 161 255 303 o 101 o 205 o 365 r 412 203 nw 442 th 345 to 276 Ole Creek ot C C 311 161 o rth t t o o N n 205 345 w k o 462 Cree o ardin d H C re ek 355 k 266 345 355 e 332 e 286 r k 442 C e re k e l 365 C e 266 ne e O Ire r 412 322 335 C n o 345 266 286 s 336 r 286 e 202 282 286 Lander Peak lv 286 206 a 336 H 255 412 442 205 206 131 336 k 101 ree 336 d C 335 oo 282 w 336 on 303 286 282 ott Lander Cree C k th 355 ou 322 S 203 422 131 322 203 101 101 422 345

303 301 322 Soda Lake 282 276 303 131 k e e 322 r 266 C 203 325 e 303 266 West Fork r 286 336 H 325 a E 303 i B 266 a d g d l 355 e 301 253 282 e k 355 n 266 r C 286 B o 266 r a F e 332

e s h i 336 t k n 412 u

C 286 o r S e 412 e k 286 402 255 412 336 365 202 255255 286 412

255 303

203 226 202

402

Figure 3-11 Areas Susceptible to Soil Productivity Loss Analysis Area Streams Open Roads Sensitive Soil Area

0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-11.mxd

Upper North Cottonwood Creek Watershed

Sjhoberg Creek S j h o b e r g

C r e e k

Maki Creek Nylander Creek

McDougal Creek

No rth N y C k o la t e to n n d e w e r o r o C d C r e e e s Cr k a McDougal Creek ee h k C Chase Creek ek re C

d oo nw to k ot Ole Cree C rth o North Cottonwood Creek N

Ole Creek Creek Hardin

k e e Hardin Creek r k C k e e e e r e l e C r O e n C Ir n o s r e lv a H Lander Peak Halverson & Irene Creeks

Dry Basin & Snowdrift Creeks South Cottonwood Creek Lander Creek

eek La n d e r C re Cr e ood k nw otto th C Sou

k e e r

C Soda Lake e r a B

Hidd en Basin & Trailer Creeks

Mickelson Creek Headwaters Eagle & Upper SF Cottonwood West Fork

a H

g i l d e d

C e k r n r o e Bare Creek B F e a h k s t in u o C

S r e e k Bare Mountain Red Castle Creek Headwaters

Upper South Cottonwood Creek Watershed

Figure 3-12 Subwatersheds Within the Analysis Area

Analysis Area Streams Watershed Boundary 0 1 2 Miles

P:\USDAForest Service\185258Cottonwood\GIS\MXD\CTP\Figure_3-12.mxd

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-14 Watersheds Within the Analysis Area Treatment Area Areas Within Roads Within Watershed Analysis Subwatershed (acres) Subwatershed Subwatershed Upper South Lander Creek 1,683 Yes Yes Cottonwood Creek Hidden Basin and Trailer Creeks 3,478 Yes Yes South Cottonwood Creek 2,611 Yes Yes Bare Creek 5,313 Yes Yes Dry Basin and Snowdrift Creeks 5,059 No No Eagle and Upper SF Cottonwood 3,369 No No Creeks Mickelson Creek Headwaters 482 No No Red Castle Headwaters 1,906 No No Upper North Sjhoberg Creek 2,305 Yes Yes Cottonwood Creek McDougal Creek 2,955 Yes Yes Ole Creek 2,992 Yes Yes Nylander Creek 2,826 Yes Yes Halverson and Irene Creeks 2,178 Yes Yes North Cottonwood Creek 2,081 No Yes Hardin Creek 1,446 No Yes Maki Creek 6,832 No No Chase Creek 730 No No

Road System Approximately 108 miles of roads exist in the Cottonwood II analysis area. This includes seldom-used two-tracks, closed roads, and all roads ever used. Many of these roads have been rehabilitated. The majority of these roads are in the Upper North Cottonwood Creek Watershed.

Road Density The road density calculations consider all possible roads in the watershed. The reader should not confuse this road density shown in Table 3-15 with the open road density used to evaluate effects to wildlife from roads. Roads once built never fully recover unless they are completely obliterated, which means the hill slopes, soils, and vegetation are restored. If undisturbed, roads will naturally revegetate over time. This passive restoration will reduce runoff volumes and sediment delivery from these roads but not totally eliminate runoff or sediment delivery. The hill slope drainage is still disrupted by the hardened road surface that diverts flows from natural flow paths and concentrates runoff. This assessment assumes that all roads are equal in their effects on the water runoff processes. The road density estimates provide reasonable information for

3-83 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management comparison of the alternatives and not detailed sediment modeling calculations (Forest Service 2004b). Table 3-15 summarizes existing road densities within the analysis area.

TABLE 3-15 Existing Road Density Watershed Total Length Area All Roads Road Watershed Analysis Subwatershed (square miles) (miles) Density Upper South Lander Creek 2.6 2.1 0.8 Cottonwood Creek Hidden Basin and Trailer 5.4 8.5 1.6 Creeks South Cottonwood Creek 4.1 7.6 1.9 Bare Creek 8.3 12.8 1.5 Dry Basin and Snowdrift Creeks 7.9 0.9 0.1 Eagle and Upper SF 5.3 2.8 0.5 Cottonwood Creeks Mickelson Creek Headwaters 0.8 1.4 1.8 Red Castle Headwaters 3.0 5.5 1.8 Subtotal Upper South Cottonwood Creek 37.4 41.6 1.1 Upper North Sjhoberg Creek 3.6 5.6 1.5 Cottonwood Creek McDougal Creek 4.6 6.3 1.4 Ole Creek 4.7 5.3 1.1 Nylander Creek 4.4 10.1 2.3 Halverson and Irene Creeks 3.4 8.2 2.4 North Cottonwood Creek 3.3 8.5 2.6 Hardin Creek 2.3 4.6 2.1 Maki Creek 10.7 17.5 1.6 Chase Creek 1.1 0.2 0.2 Subtotal Upper North Cottonwood Creek 38.0 66.4 1.7 Total Analysis Area 75.4 108 1.4

Hydrologically Connected Roads The extent of roads hydrologically connected to the stream network is useful to indicate the potential for several important adverse effects: Delivery of road-derived sediments to streams Hydrologic changes associated with subsurface flow interception, concentration, and diversion; increased drainage density; and extension of the stream network The potential for road-associated spills to enter streams This indicator can help to distinguish between roads that have the potential for these effects (those that are connected to streams) and roads that do not have these effects or potential (unconnected roads). A road-sediment inventory of the analysis area was used to evaluate where the road system is hydrologically connected to the stream system.

3-84 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Road Sediment Inventory A road sediment inventory was completed in June 2002. The purpose of the inventory was to identify and describe all road-related sediment sources with hydrologic connection to the drainage system and to assess, where applicable, the viability of fish passage though the site.

A portion of the road network in the area receives only administrative vehicular use and, accordingly, the road surfaces throughout the network are mostly revegetated by weeds, grasses, sagebrush, and in places, pine saplings. The roads are typically located along ridges or terraces reducing contact with the drainage system and the amount of surface flow collected and transported by the road itself. Generally, revegetation and proper placement of roads within the landscape has limited, though not eliminated, the formation of channelized flow along the road surfaces (Forest Service 2004b).

Overall, the road system in the analysis area is not highly connected to the drainage system (Forest Service 2004b). Data for the sites where there are road stream crossings are summarized below: Lander Creek (RX2). Forest Road 10341 crosses Lander Creek at this site. There are no ditches hydrologically connected to Lander Creek. The sole sediment sources are from hill slopes adjacent to the creek that may erode during intense precipitation. However, most of the hill slopes are stable with adequate vegetation to resist erosion. Because of the large elevation difference between the water surface and road surface, diversion potential is low. There are large heavily vegetated terraces on the right side of the road that would intercept much of the overland flow. If the terraces were to overtop, flow would have a short path across the road and then return to the channel. The road has a low point at the end of the terrace that appears to have over-topped at some point in the past. A small secondary side stream has slightly greater diversion potential. West Fork Bare Creek (RX1). Forest Road 10046 crosses the West Fork of Bare Creek at this site. Inboard ditches enter both the right and left stream banks adjacent to the culvert inlet, causing this site to be hydrologically connected to the West Fork of Bare Creek. In high flows, water may back up at the culvert inlet and fill marshy areas on the upstream side of the road. Water would overtop about 40 feet from the culvert, flow across the road, and then flow about 40 feet through a grassy area to the stream. South Fork Bare Creek (RX3). Forest Road 10046 crosses the South Fork of Bare Creek at this site. This site is generally in good condition with the culvert properly aligned and the fill well vegetated. Inboard ditches enter both the right and left stream banks adjacent to the culvert inlet, causing this site to be hydrologically connected to the South Fork of Bare Creek. There are substantial gullies that have formed from erosion of the road embankment and these gullies are also hydrologically connected to the stream. Furthermore, grading at the crossing is poor. These conditions combined with runoff from the road surface are causing erosion of the fill adjacent to the culvert outlet. Continued erosion from precipitation and snowmelt may cut into the roadway. In high flows, water would pool around the left bank near the inlet and flow down the right inboard ditch, then into an inactive culvert. Overtopping or diversion is unlikely at this site because of the culvert’s very large size (3-foot diameter).

3-85 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Hidden Basin Creek (RX2). Forest Road 10050 crosses Hidden Basin Creek at this site. No specific information is available for this location. Trailer Creek (RX1). Forest Road 10050 crosses Trailer Creek at this site. No specific information is available for this location.

Water Runoff Processes Reductions in vegetation canopy may lead to increases in annual water yield or peak flow runoff. This may adversely alter stream channel morphology and therefore degrade fisheries habitat. The Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) method is commonly used for quantifying the effects that past and proposed mechanical harvest, fire, and road-building activities have on water runoff. The procedure used to determine ECA for this analysis is a modified version of the original procedure described in Forest Hydrology, Hydrological Effects of Vegetative Manipulation (Forest Service 1974 in Forest Service 2004b). The percent ECA of an area is based on the tree cover or basal area removed and any hydrologic recovery (re-growth) that may have occurred. If a stand is thinned or partially cut, the total area is multiplied by the estimated percent of reduction. Roads are assumed to have complete vegetation removal and remain in a permanent ECA condition (Forest Service 2004b).

The ECA process involves several steps: determining the base ECA amount, each alternative additions, the predictive water runoff, the current stream channel conditions, and how the increase in runoff will impact the stream channels. This method is best for comparing alternatives and should not be taken as an absolute measure. The method treats all vegetation types in a similar way (Forest Service 2004b).

Several studies conclude that following disturbance: annual water yield increases; the peak flow runoff period advances; and smaller peak flows (bankfull or less) increase in magnitude, while the larger peak flows do not show a measurable increase in magnitude. In general, it appears that a measurable difference is detected only when more than 20 percent of a watershed is harvested. The Forest Plan standard requires that no more than 30 percent of any second order or higher watershed will be in created-opening status during a 30-year period. See Table 3-16 for a comparison of the existing ECA values versus the Forest plan standard for the watersheds analyzed within the analysis area (Forest Service 2004b).

The timber harvest and roads ECA percentages are used to evaluate the amount of soil disturbances. Road ECA values were calculated by multiplying the length by an estimated average road width of 16 feet. The hiking trails were multiplied by an average width of 4 feet. For each analysis subwatershed, Forest Service-supplied GIS layers were used to derive lengths associated with roads and trails and areas associated with historic timber harvest and fires.

To estimate the hydrologic recovery of the previously harvested timber stands and fire areas, Galbraith (1972 in Forest Service 2004b; 1975 in Forest Service 2004b) and the Forest Service (1974) have developed hydrologic recovery curves based on habitat types common for the northern Rocky Mountains. Areas within the analysis area that have been previously harvested were grouped into five categories:

3-86 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Clearcuts that occurred previous to 1975 have an age greater than 29 years. Using Galbraith’s (1993 in Forest Service 2004b) graphs and considering the vegetation type, the ECA analysis assumed the past harvest units are 53 percent recovered. Clearcuts that occurred from about 1975 to 1980 have an average age between 24 and 29 years. Using Galbraith’s (1993 in Forest Service 2004b) graphs and considering the vegetation type, the ECA analysis assumed the past harvest units are 50 percent recovered. Clearcuts that occurred from about 1979 to 1987 have an average age between 17 and 25 years. The ECA analysis assumed the past harvest units are 42 percent recovered. Clearcuts that occurred after 1987 have an average age less than 17 years. The ECA analysis assumed the past harvest units are 40 percent recovered. Partial cuts that occurred after 1980 have an average age less than 25 years. The ECA analysis assumed these units are 50 percent recovered.

TABLE 3-16 Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) Within the Analysis Area Percent ECA permitted Percent by Forest Plan Existing ECA Watershed Analysis Subwatershed (30-year period) (2002) Upper South Lander Creek 30 3.0 Cottonwood Creek Hidden Basin and Trailer Creeks 30 4.6 South Cottonwood Creek 30 2.2 Bare Creek 30 1.8 Dry Basin and Snowdrift Creeks 30 10.2 Eagle and Upper SF Cottonwood 30 1.4 Creeks Mickelson Creek Headwaters 30 0.0 Red Castle Headwaters 30 0.0 Subtotal Upper South Cottonwood Creek 30 3.9 Upper North Sjhoberg Creek 30 6.3 Cottonwood Creek McDougal Creek 30 4.7 Ole Creek 30 4.7 Nylander Creek 30 9.8 Halverson and Irene Creeks 30 9.4 North Cottonwood Creek 30 2.2 Hardin Creek 30 8.5 Maki Creek 30 2.2 Chase Creek 30 2.2 Subtotal Upper North Cottonwood Creek 30 5.1 Total Analysis Area 30 4.5

3-87 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Stream Channel Condition Stability Stream channel condition is typically determined by a given stream reach’s ability to transport sediment and the water yield of its watershed. The streams in the analysis area are generally in good condition. However, resource damage to streams has occurred from livestock and human recreational trampling of the streambanks. The Forest Plan Streambank Stability Guideline states, “at least 90 percent of the natural bank stability of streams that support a fishery, particularly, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species, should be maintained.” (Forest Service 2004b)

Increased runoff may result in the degradation of stream channels and fish habitat loss. Stream channel sensitivity and stability are key factors in determining the potential effects of increased runoff. Channel conditions with the analysis area, based on in- channel inventories, indicate bank stability is acceptable for most stream reaches. Channel sensitivity to disturbance, based on channel type (Rosgen 1996 in Forest Service 2004), indicates that some tributaries are sensitive to disturbance. Channel type was determined from the in-channel inventories using channel geometry, Wolman pebble counts, sinuosity, and slope. Channels with fine-grained substrate are particularly vulnerable to bank erosion. Extensive data on each tributary were not available. Stream channel degradation, downcutting, and erosion of streambanks may occur when runoff rates increase to levels too high for the stream to convey flows within the channel (Forest Service 2004b).

Percent Fines Measurement of subsurface fine sediment from the year 2000 averaged 33.5 percent in the mainstem of North Cottonwood Creek. Data collected in the South Cottonwood Creek watershed is about 5 percent lower or 28.5 percent. The drainages are similar in most ways. However, North Cottonwood Creek has a more extensive road system and harvest history. North Cottonwood also has greater clay deposits. This is evident in Hardin Creek and its bulk sample (76.8 percent fines), although this is considered an outlying value. Table 3-17 summarizes data previously reported in the Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2004b).

TABLE 3-17 Estimated Fine Sediment Component Inventoried in North Cottonwood Creek

Location Percent Particles < 6.4 Millimeters North Cottonwood Irene Creek 38.1 Hardin Creeka 76.8 Below Nylander Creek Reach Average 34.2 Nylander Creek 31.6 Below Sjhoberg Creek Reach Average 33.0 Stream System Averageb 35.5 Source: Forest Service 2004b

a Considered an outlying value b Does not include Hardin Creek value or below Sjhoberg Creek #2 value

3-88 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.3.3 Water Quality

Beneficial Uses of Water Currently, Wyoming has designated all the major rivers and reservoirs in the state with specific beneficial uses. However, some tributaries to these water bodies (including the streams within the analysis area) are not designated.

The uses that are protected on Wyoming waters are listed and described in Section 3 of the Surface Water Quality Standards. There are also numerous classifications for surface waters of the state. Except for Class 1, waters are classified according to their designated uses. Class 1 waters are specially designated waters on which the existing water quality is protected regardless of the uses supported by the water. The objectives of the Wyoming program are to provide, wherever attainable, the highest possible water quality commensurate with the following uses: Agriculture. For purposes of water pollution control, agricultural uses include irrigation or stock watering. Fisheries. The fisheries use includes water quality, habitat conditions, spawning and nursery areas, and food sources necessary to sustain populations of game and non- game fish. This use does not include the protection of exotic species that are designated “undesirable” by WGFD or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) within their appropriate jurisdictions. Industry. Industrial use protection involves maintaining a level of water quality useful for industrial purposes. Drinking Water. The drinking water use involves maintaining a level of water quality that is suitable for potable water or intended to be suitable after receiving conventional drinking water treatment. Recreation. Recreational use protection involves maintaining a level of water quality which is safe for human contact. It does not guarantee the availability of water for any recreational purpose. Scenic Value. Scenic value use involves the aesthetics of the aquatic systems themselves (odor, color, taste, settable solids, floating solids, suspended solids, and solid waste) and is not necessarily related to general landscape appearance. Aquatic Life Other Than Fish. This use includes water quality and habitat necessary to sustain populations of organisms other than fish in proportions that make up diverse aquatic communities common to the waters of the state. This use does not include the protection of insect pests, human pathogens, or exotic species that may be considered “undesirable” by WGFD or USFWS within their appropriate jurisdictions. Wildlife. The wildlife use includes protection of water quality to a level that is safe for contact and consumption by avian and terrestrial wildlife species. Fish Consumption. The fish consumption use involves maintaining a level of water quality that will prevent any unpalatable flavor and/or accumulation of harmful substances in fish tissue.

3-89 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Waters within the state are classified based on the above listed uses. Within the analysis area, all waters have been assigned classification codes 2AB or 3B. Table 3-18 shows the uses designated on each of these use-based water classifications. Table 3-19 presents the classification codes for those waters that have been assigned designated uses.

TABLE 3-18 Designated Uses for Selected Use-Based Classifications Classification

Use 2AB 3B

Drinking Water Yes No

Game Fish Yes No

Non-Game Fish Yes No

Fish Consumption Yes No

Other Aquatic Life Yes Yes

Recreation Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes Yes

Agriculture Yes Yes

Industry Yes Yes

Scenic Value Yes Yes

TABLE 3-19 Classification of Waters Having Designated Uses Water Name Tributary To Classification

Cottonwood Creek, North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Cottonwood Creek, South Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Bare Creek South Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Hardin Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Irene Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Lander Creek South Fork Cottonwood Creek 3B

McDougal Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 3B

Nylander Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Ole Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

Sjhoberg Creek North Fork Cottonwood Creek 2AB

The analysis area is located within the Upper Green River Subbasin (HUC 14040101). The Upper Green Subbasin includes all tributaries into the Green River above Fontenelle

3-90 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Dam, except the New Fork Subbasin. Headwaters are in the B-TNF, primarily in well indurated igneous and metamorphic geology. Lower elevation areas of the subbasin lie in primarily fine grained sedimentary rocks which are a natural source of fine sediment and TDS in surface waters. Primary land uses are grazing, recreation, irrigated hay production, and oil and gas development.

303(d) Listed Streams 303(d) refers to a section in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) relating to the protection of beneficial uses of surface waters. However, the administration, identification, and protection of these uses fall primarily to the individual states. Streams that are documented as not fully supporting their beneficial uses are listed on Wyoming’s 303(d) list. Wyoming’s 2004 305 (b) State Water Quality Assessment Report and 2004 303(d) List of Waters Requiring TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Load) was published June 2004.

None of the streams within the analysis area appear on the 303(d) List. Within the subbasin, the lower 3 miles of Reardon Draw is on the 303(d) List and the Green River below Reardon Draw has been scheduled for monitoring.

3.4.4 Desired Future Conditions

3.4.4.1 Soils Soil quality, productivity, and hydrologic function are maintained and restored where needed within Cottonwood II treatment areas of the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Physical, chemical, and biological soil properties are maintained to support desired vegetation conditions and soil-hydrologic functions and processes. Soils have adequate protective cover, levels of soil organic matter (litter), and coarse woody material to minimize erosion and facilitate nutrient cycling. Soil productivity is maintained by complying with Regional Soil Guidelines. Regional guidelines recommend that no more than 15 percent of an activity area should have detrimentally disturbed soils after treatment. For purposes of this analysis, the activity area is the analysis area within North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages.

3.4.4.2 Hydrologic Function Watersheds are managed to maintain soil productivity to keep soil erosion to a minimum, and to prevent excessive increases in stream flow. State of Wyoming Water Quality Standards will be followed for all activities. Best management practices will be applied to all alternatives to limit non-point water pollution (Forest Plan). Riparian areas are protected and rehabilitated to retain and improve their value for fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife, and water quality (Forest Plan).

Over the life of the Forest Plan, the average open road density for DFC 1b will be 1.5 miles per square mile of standard or equivalent road with 1-year to 5-year variations of 0.75 to 1.75 miles of road per square mile. The average open road density for DFC 10 will be 1.0 miles per square mile of standard or equivalent road with 1-year to 5-year variations of 0.25 to 1.25 miles of road per square mile. (Discussions and figures in Sections 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.5.2 on road density include not only open roads but also those

3-91 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

that have been closed and rehabilitated.) Temporary roads would be returned to Elimination Class 3 or 4 standards. Some roads will be closed with stream channels that seem natural because of removal of bridges and culverts.

3.4.4.3 Water Quality Water quantity and quality are retained or improved for local users. Management activities do not cause deterioration in water-flow timing, quality, or quantity. Waters within the Forest meet or exceed current state water quality standards and Forest Service water quality goals. Management prescriptions meet Wyoming Best Management Practices or equivalent (Forest Plan).

Road management preserves wildlife security, soil, visual, and water-quality values. New road building is minimized and existing roads are closed or downgraded to maintain or improve water quality. Roads and structures are designed to retain water-quality values. Logging or certain logging practices with potential detrimental effects on water quality are prevented (Forest Plan).

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the effects of each alternative on the watershed resources. The assessment discusses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the soils, hydrologic function (watershed runoff processes), and water quality.

Direct and indirect effects were evaluated for the five treatment areas including South Cottonwood, Halverson, McDougal Gap, Sjhoberg, and Nylander. Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the triggering action. Indirect effects are caused by the action, but occur at a later time or place than the triggering action.

Cumulative effects result from the incremental effect of the proposed action plus other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is taking the action. The cumulative effects boundary encompasses the entire North Cottonwood Creek and South Cottonwood Creek drainages up to the point where the creeks leave the analysis area. This boundary delineates the area where upstream activities are likely to impact. Several reasons why the cumulative effects boundary was delineated to this location are as follows: No equipment or harvest activities would occur within or adjacent to riparian areas, wetlands, or floodplains. This would retain the necessary structure and function of the riparian areas and would significantly reduce the risk of sediment being delivered to stream channels via overland flow. Anticipated ECA increases from all proposed alternatives are expected to be at or below levels found to make measurable differences in downstream water yield or peak flow measurements. This would reduce the risk of stream channel erosion or bank instability occurring during high flow events. The proposed aspen fire treatment would recover relatively fast, thereby limiting the risk of downstream effects occurring.

3-92 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.5.1 Soils Detrimental disturbed soil can result from management activities that displace soil, compact soil, puddle soil, reduce ground cover, or reduce above ground organic matter.

Timber harvesting activities would result in some displacement of soil as trees are skidded to landings. Compaction would increase as the number of trips made over skid trails increase. However, slash left on skid trails would reduce the amount of compaction. Landings, skid trails, and temporary roads would be temporarily removed from the productive land base while they are open and being used and maintained. However, if soils are protected during harvesting activities, there would be no irreversible loss of soil productivity following restoration. Typically, no more than 5 percent of an area being treated would be committed to landings, skid trails, or temporary roads. Therefore, the proposed project is within Regional Guidelines of no more than 15 percent of an activity area being in a detrimentally disturbed soil condition.

Mitigation measures and implementation of BMPs would avoid detrimental soil impacts, as discussed below.

Displace Soil. Soil can be displaced by erosion or through movement of equipment. To avoid displacing soil, an erosion control plan would be prepared prior to any activity commencing. Where feasible, topsoil would be preserved and utilized for phased rehabilitation. Cut slopes would not be constructed on slopes steeper than 2:1, except where the natural slope makes a 2:1 impossible or in areas of rock cuts. And finally, where soil erosion hazard is rated as “High,” slopes greater than 30 percent would be avoided.

Soil Compaction. Compacted soils arise when equipment passage reduces the air volume in the soil. Bare soils and wet soils are particularly vulnerable to compaction. Roots have difficulty penetrating compacted soil. Compaction would be avoided by leaving adequate slash (10 to 12 tons per acre; greater than or equal to 3 inches diameter material) to protect the soil. In lodgepole pine/spruce-fir ecosystems, a minimum of 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris (greater than or equal to 3 inches in diameter) would remain scattered throughout the harvest unit. Designating skid trails and restricting mechanical operations to periods of the year when the surface soil is dry, frozen, snow covered, and/or slash covered would also reduce compaction. Lopping and scattering limbs and branches on landings and skid trails would further mitigate for compaction.

Soil Puddling. Heavy equipment would not be used when soil conditions are wet enough to rut or displace soil. Equipment operation on wet soil can result in puddled soil with subsequent reduction of water infiltration.

Ground Cover Reduction/Above Ground Organic Matter. Designating skid trails to reduce the area disturbed would protect ground cover. Utilization of partial-cut treatments leaves a portion of the stand’s vegetation intact and minimizes ground cover removal. Retention of adequate quantities of slash preserves organic matter above ground.

There would be no effect to slope stability from implementation of the proposed project, either within or outside of the analysis area. Road construction and maintenance has

3-93 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

affected slope stability in the past, but known sites are limited to small cut and fill failures (slumps) along the road prisms and surface erosion associated with road related run-off. No large management-induced landslides exist within the analysis area. Geotechnical field surveys will identify and avoid unstable areas. Prescribed fire to regenerate aspen would occur at low to moderate intensities and is not expected to increase or initiate landslide activity.

Alternative A—No Action This alternative would have no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on soil displacement, compaction, puddling, soil erosion, or ground cover. However, watershed condition would not be improved through vegetation treatment. If a large stand replacement fire occurs, it could cause a reduction in soil productivity, as existing fuel loadings are not consistent with fuel loadings expected for these vegetation types. This could result in hotter fires, which can cause soil sterilization, alter revegetation processes, and contribute to accelerated soil erosion. This would reduce ground cover and possibly lead to increased sediment loading to streams.

There are approximately 100 acres of soils in a detrimental condition within the 30,894 acres contained in the five treatment areas. Existing detrimentally disturbed soils in the treatment areas are restricted to existing roads, assuming 51.7 miles of open and restricted access roads with an average width of 16 feet. Therefore, only 0.3 percent of the treatment area has detrimentally disturbed soils, which is far below the Regional Guideline threshold of 15 percent.

No management activities are planned; therefore, this alternative should have no direct or indirect impacts on hill slope stability. There would be no watershed improvement activities implemented under the No Action Alternative so larger fires are possible. Hill slope stability could be compromised following a large, hot fire. Given the terrain there would likely be numerous slumps and some debris slides.

No cumulative effects are anticipated, as this alternative would have little affect on hill slope stability or soil productivity within the analysis area.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 402 acres of conifer regeneration harvest and 581 acres of conifer partial-cut harvest. Aspen regeneration would be accomplished by commercial harvest of encroaching conifers (58 acres) and prescribed fire (1,058 acres). Overall watershed stability would improve because of the reduction in the potential for stand replacement fires. The vegetation treatments would reduce the possibility of a larger hotter fire degrading the soils in the area, so in the long-term soil productivity should be maintained. However, soil conditions in the harvest areas would have a reduced productivity in the short-term. Soil improvements would occur in the aspen burn treatment areas as nutrients from the burns enter the soil and denser ground cover is produced.

3-94 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures described above, in addition to other mitigation measures described in Section 2.6, Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives, would prevent additional detrimentally disturbed soils in the treatment areas. Therefore, only approximately 0.3 percent of the treatment areas (from roads) is in a detrimentally disturbed soil condition. Typically, no more than 5 percent of an area being treated would be committed to landings, skid trails, or temporary roads. Therefore, the Proposed Action is within Regional Guidelines of no more than 15 percent of an activity area being in a detrimentally disturbed soil condition.

The proposed 1,041 acres of harvest are on low slope areas (less than 30 percent). Even though 265 acres of the harvest units are proposed on marginally unstable or unstable soils, it is unlikely there would be landslides, because of the low slope.

The Proposed Action activities would have minimal effects on soil productivity and stability within the analysis area if the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the R1/R4 Soil Management Measures (Forest Service 1988), and the Regional Soil Quality Guidelines are applied and monitored. Indirect Impacts

Soil productivity would continue to be lost in the areas occupied by existing roads. This has an indirect impact on vegetation, in that no vegetation is supported in these areas. However, the level of impact would be well below the threshold in the Regional Guidelines for soil. Long-term beneficial indirect impacts would occur as the potential for future stand replacing fires is lowered. Cumulative Impacts

Detrimentally disturbed soils are within Regional Guidelines in the areas surrounding the treatment areas. There would be no soil stability effects. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. None of the projects listed in Table 3-1 for cumulative impacts consideration would occur within the proposed treatment areas. Similar proposed vegetation treatments in the Maki drainage to the northeast would also be expected to have minimal impacts on soils. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Impacts

Implementation of Alternative C would reduce the acreage harvested compared to the Proposed Action. There would be 140 less regeneration harvest acres (262 acres total) and 35 more partial-cut acres. The overall reduced harvest levels would require 4.5 miles less of temporary roads constructed. Aspen regeneration acreage would increase by 38 acres and be accomplished by commercial harvest of encroaching conifers (96 total acres). Prescribed fire in aspen stands would remain the same at 1,058 acres. As with the Proposed Action, overall watershed stability and long-term soil productivity would improve because of the reduction in potential for stand replacement fires. Short-term productivity losses would be lower in this alternative, as there are fewer temporary roads

3-95 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

to lose sediment or be compacted. Soil conditions in the harvest areas would have reduced productivity in the short term, but to a lesser degree than the Proposed Action, because of the reduction in total harvested acres. Soil improvements would occur in the aspen burn treatment areas as nutrients from the burns enter the soil and denser understory vegetation is produced.

Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures described above, in addition to other mitigation measures described in Section 2.6, Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives, would prevent additional detrimentally disturbed soils in the treatment areas. Therefore, only approximately 0.3 percent of the treatment area (from roads) is in a detrimentally disturbed soil condition. Typically, no more than 5 percent of an area being treated would be committed to landings, skid trails, or temporary roads. Therefore, the proposed project is within Regional Guidelines of no more than 15 percent of an activity area being in a detrimentally disturbed soil condition.

The proposed 974 acres of harvest are on low slope areas (less than 30 percent). The percentage of harvests proposed on marginally unstable or unstable soils would increase by 18 acres to a total of 274 acres compared to the Proposed Action. It is unlikely this level of harvest would result in landslides, because the slope is low.

The proposed activities under Alternative C would have minimal effects on soil productivity and stability within the analysis area if the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the R1/R4 Soil Management Measures (Forest Service 1988), and the Regional Soil Quality Guidelines are applied and monitored. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

3.4.5.2 Hydrologic Function

Road Density and Hydrologically Connected Roads On the Forest, roads introduce more sediments to streams than any other single man-made activity. Erosion from the cut and fill slopes, the surface of the road, and the ditch paralleling the road can result in sediment delivery to streams. Factors that affect potential sediment delivery are the location of the road in relation to streams, the effectiveness of the filter strip between the road and the stream, the road surfacing, the cross drainage off the road surface, and the soil type of the road and cut and fill slopes. Stream crossings are sensitive locations where inadequate allowance for volume of flow can create sediment problems by undersized or improperly aligned culverts, too narrow bridge spans, or poorly designed wing walls. Another potential problem is road alignment across unstable slopes resulting in slumping onto the roads or slope failure beneath the road.

For comparison of alternatives, road density is used as an indicator of potential sediment delivery to streams. For this assessment it was assumed that all roads were equal in their

3-96 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

effects to the water runoff processes. However, closed roads that have partially revegetated do not disrupt drainage patterns to the extent open roads do. The road density estimates are primarily for comparing the alternatives and not detailed sediment modeling calculations. Alternative A (No Action) represents the existing condition that is described in Section 3.4.3.2. Figure 2-1 depicts roads for Alternative B and Figure 2-3 displays roads for Alternative C. The changes in road densities from the alternatives do not substantially change from the existing condition. Table 3-20 presents a comparison of alternatives.

As discussed previously, the road densities shown in Table 3-20 are not related to the open road wildlife standard. Table 3-21 is presented for comparison purposes and only shows open roads. Table 3-21 shows a slight increase in open roads due to Alternatives B and C. This increase is temporary and is only applicable while the temporary roads are open. Once treatments have ended, the temporary roads will be closed and the open road network density will return to pre-treatment condition.

The Cottonwood II analysis area road-sediment inventory did not locate many road segments that connect to the stream system. However, several road and trail stream crossings are contributing water and sediment runoff as indicated by flow paths and sediment plumes observed at most crossings. The additional road segments proposed in Alternatives B and C are not expected to compound adverse effects to the watersheds. These crossings would be located in low-gradient areas and are relatively short in length. However, they would detrimentally disturb the soils and change water infiltration capabilities.

TABLE 3-20 Comparison of Road Density by Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Total Road Total Road Total Road Length Density Length Density Length Density Area All (miles/ All (miles/ All (miles/ Analysis (square Roads square Roads square Roads square Subwatershed miles) (miles) mile) (miles) mile) (miles) mile) Upper South Cottonwood Creek Lander Creek 2.6 2.1 0.8 2.5 0.9 2.3 0.9 Hidden Basin and 5.4 8.5 1.6 11.5 2.1 11.3 2.1 Trailer Creeks South Cottonwood 4.1 7.6 1.9 9.5 2.3 9.5 2.3 Creek Bare Creek 8.3 12.8 1.5 13.3 1.6 13.0 1.6 Dry Basin and 7.9 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 Snowdrift Creeks Eagle and Upper SF 5.3 2.8 0.5 2.8 0.5 2.8 0.5 Cottonwood Creeks Mickelson Creek 0.8 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.8 Headwaters Red Castle 3.0 5.5 1.8 5.5 1.8 5.5 1.8 Headwaters Subtotal 37.3 41.6 1.1 47.4 1.3 46.8 1.3

3-97 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Sjhoberg Creek 3.6 5.6 1.5 6.5 1.8 6.4 1.8

McDougal Creek 4.6 6.3 1.4 7.6 1.7 7.6 1.7

Ole Creek 4.7 5.3 1.1 5.6 1.2 5.4 1.2

Nylander Creek 4.4 10.1 2.3 11.9 2.7 10.8 2.5

Halverson and Irene 3.4 8.2 2.4 10.4 3.0 10.1 3.0 Creeks

North Cottonwood 3.3 8.5 2.6 9.0 2.8 9.0 2.8 Creek

Hardin Creek 2.3 4.6 2.1 4.6 2.1 4.6 2.1

Maki Creek 10.7 17.5 1.6 17.5 1.6 17.5 1.6

Chase Creek 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Subtotal 38.0 66.4 1.7 73.4 1.9 71.6 1.9

Total 75.4 108 1.4 120.7 1.6 118.5 1.6

TABLE 3-21 Open Road Density for the Cottonwood II Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Total Total Total Road Length Road Length Road Length Density Open and Density Open and Density Area Open (miles/ Temp (miles/ Temp (miles/ Analysis (square Roads square Roads square Roads square Subwatershed miles) (miles) mile) (miles) mile) (miles) mile)

Upper North Cottonwood Creek

Chase Creek 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Halverson and Irene Creeks 3.1 0.9 0.3 3.1 1.0 2.5 0.8

Hardin Creek 2.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0

Maki Creek 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McDougal Creek 4.6 2.6 0.6 3.9 0.8 4.0 0.9

North Cottonwood Creek 3.3 3.7 1.1 3.7 1.1 4.2 1.3

3-98 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-21 Open Road Density for the Cottonwood II Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Nylander Creek 4.4 2.8 0.6 5.1 1.2 2.8 0.6

Ole Creek 4.7 2.5 0.5 2.7 0.6 2.5 0.5

Sjhoberg Creek 3.6 0.3 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.2

Subtotal 38.1 13.1 0.3 20.5 0.5 16.8 0.4

Upper South Cottonwood Creek

Bare Creek 8.8 5.4 0.6 6.3 0.7 6.1 0.7

Hidden Basin and Trailer Creeks 4.9 4.9 1.0 7.9 1.6 7.8 1.6

Lander Creek 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.01

Dry Basin, South Cottonwood, and Snowdrift Creeks 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Cottonwood Creek 4.0 3.0 0.8 5.3 1.3 5.0 1.3

Eagle and Upper SF Cottonwood Creeks 5.3 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.004

SE Corner Analysis Area (no subwatershed name) 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 none (no subwatershed name) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal 37.7 13.3 0.4 19.7 0.5 18.9 0.5

Total 75.9 26.4 0.3 40.2 0.5 35.7 0.5

Water Runoff Processes As described in Section 3.4.3.2, Hydrologic Function (Watershed Runoff Processes), reductions in vegetation canopy may lead to increases in annual water yield or peak flow runoff. The ECA method is commonly used for quantifying the effects that past and proposed mechanical harvest, fire, and road-building activities have on water runoff. The percent ECA of an area is based on the tree cover or basal area removed and any hydrologic recovery (re- growth) that may have occurred. If a stand is thinned or partially cut, the total area is multiplied by the estimated percent of reduction. Roads are assumed to have complete vegetation removal and remain in a permanent ECA condition (Forest Service 2004b).

3-99 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

For each alternative, road ECA values were calculated by multiplying the road length by an estimated average road width of 16 feet. The hiking trails were multiplied by an average width of 4 feet. For each analysis subwatershed, Forest Service-supplied GIS layers were used to derive lengths associated with roads and trails and areas associated with historic timber harvest, previous fires, and the treatment types for the alternatives. The hydrologic recovery rates previously described in Section 3.4.3.2 were applied to the previously harvested timber stands and fire areas.

Figure 2-1 (in Chapter 2) depicts treatment areas for Alternative B, and Figure 2-3 (also in Chapter 2) displays treatment areas for Alternative C. Assumed ECA percentages applied to the treatment areas are as follows: Clearcutting areas are assumed to be 100 percent ECA. Thinning treatment areas are assumed to be 60 percent ECA. Shelterwood treatment areas are assumed to be 60 percent ECA. Salvage treatment areas are assumed to be 50 percent ECA. Group Selection treatment areas are assumed to be 40 percent ECA. Aspen Treatments treatment areas are assumed to be 100 percent ECA.

The Forest Plan standard requires that no more than 30 percent of any second order or higher watershed will be in created-opening status during a 30-year period. Numerous experimental forest studies show that measurable change can be detected when a watershed approaches about 20 to 30 percent ECA (Troendle 1983 in Forest Service 2004b). Table 3-22 summarizes ECA percentages by alternative. The maximum ECA estimated is 14.8 percent for the Halverson and Irene Creeks Subwatershed under Alternative B. Based on the 20 to 30 percent ECA threshold, the amount of water runoff change associated with the various proposed activities will not likely induce a measurable change in annual water yield or stream flow.

TABLE 3-22 Comparison of Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) by Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Watershed Analysis Subwatershed Percent ECA Percent ECA Percent ECA Upper South Lander Creek 3.0 4.8 4.5 Cottonwood Creek Hidden Basin and Trailer 4.6 10.4 9.2 Creeks South Cottonwood Creek 2.2 6.5 8.2 Bare Creek 1.8 3.8 3.4 Dry Basin and Snowdrift 10.2 10.2 10.2 Creeks Eagle and Upper SF 1.4 1.4 1.4 Cottonwood Creeks Mickelson Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 Headwaters Red Castle Headwaters 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3.9 5.8 5.6

3-100 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Ole Creek 4.7 5.2 5.3

Nylander Creek 9.8 12.2 11.9

Halverson and Irene 9.4 14.8 13.6 Creeks

North Cottonwood Creek 2.2 2.2 2.2

Hardin Creek 8.5 8.5 8.5

Maki Creek 2.2 2.2 2.2

Chase Creek 2.2 2.2 2.2

Subtotal 5.1 6.3 6.1

Total Analysis Area 4.5 6.0 5.9

All the assessed watersheds are under the recommended Forest Plan threshold of less than 30 percent of the watershed in 10-year-old harvest and ECA within any 30-year period. This threshold was designed to examine cumulative effects of timber harvesting on second order or larger watersheds and assumed that by meeting the threshold, there should not be any cumulative effects to the watershed or the downstream channels (Forest Service 2004b).

Stream Channels Current conditions are a reflection of multiple uses such as livestock grazing, recreation (developed and dispersed), timber harvest, roads, and possibly fire suppression. These factors have resulted in localized areas of stream channel instability. Natural bank instability occurs on the outside of meander bends and where obstructions (for example, logs) deflect flow. This is important to maintain so a stream channel like lower Maki Creek or North Cottonwood Creek can properly function. This was understood when the Forest Plan was written. It states that, “at least 90 percent of natural bank stability of streams … should be maintained” (Forest Service 2004b).

There is a possibility of a large rainstorm event following project implementation. The risk is low for such an event but not impossible. The following example illustrates the possible risk associated with the possibility of a large rain storm occurring. Assume that the burned vegetation and clearcuts will adequately recover in about five years to the point where the landscape can absorb large rainstorm and that a 25-year event is necessary to cause watershed disturbance such as mass surface erosion or a small flood. Then the probability that this storm will be equaled or exceeded during the next five-year period is 18 percent (Schmidt 1998 in Forest Service 2004b).

3-101 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Alternative A—No Action The No Action Alternative reflects no change from the existing situation. Under the No Action Alternative, no vegetation management activities would occur in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. There would be no road or trail improvements and culverts acting as fish passage barriers or not acting as fish barriers would not be addressed. Routine maintenance of existing roads and trails would continue, as would suppression of fire and District-wide Christmas tree and firewood sales. Oil and gas activities, outfitting, and range management covered by other site-specific decision documents would also continue to occur.

This alternative would have no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on water runoff processes, stream channels, soil erosion, or ground cover. However, watershed condition would not be improved through vegetation treatment. If a large stand replacement fire occurs, it could cause a reduction in soil productivity. This could result in hotter fires, which can cause soil sterilization, alter revegetation processes and contribute to accelerated soil erosion. This would reduce ground cover and possibly lead to increased sediment loading to streams. Overland flow could occur if soil becomes hydrophobic and forest floor organic matter is removed. If a high severity fire occurs and a high intensity rainstorm follows, overland flow could quickly deliver water and sediment to the stream channels increasing water yields, peak flows, and channel erosion. Natural processes would continue to function except for fire related processes, and no immediate human-caused changes would occur. The current hydrologic function would show little change except that the existing clearcuts would continue to recover and the aspen and sage/grass vegetation communities would continue to by replaced with conifers or older age sage. This may lead to some loss of late summer groundwater flow that returns to the streams. No management activities are planned, therefore this alternative should have no direct or indirect impact on runoff processes or sediment delivery to streams. No watershed improvement activities would be implemented under the No Action Alternative so larger fires are possible. Hill slope stability could be compromised following a large, hot fire. Given the terrain there would likely be numerous slumps and some debris slides. No cumulative effects are anticipated, as this alternative would have little effect on runoff processes or sediment delivery to streams.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 402 acres of conifer regeneration harvest and 581 acres of conifer partial-cut harvest. Aspen regeneration would be accomplished by commercial harvest of encroaching conifers (58 acres) and prescribed fire (1,058 acres). The Proposed Action includes timber haul road relocation and end-of-road trailhead improvements. Approximately 1 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which is to be used as a timber haul road for tree thinning units, would be re-located out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The relocation would reduce road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek. The existing road, which is easily rutted, difficult to maintain, and contributes sediment directly to Nylander Creek, would be reclaimed. The

3-102 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

relocated road would end at an existing dispersed camping area, which would be managed to include trailhead facilities. A low-standard road beyond this point, which crosses boggy, wet soils, would be closed. The Proposed Action includes reconstructing the South Cottonwood Road from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing (approximately 1 mile). Culverts would be replaced and stream crossings improved to compensate for potential adverse effects to the Colorado River cutthroat trout from implementation of the Proposed Action (timber harvest). The increased amount of habitat made accessible by improving fish passage or preventing upstream migration of undesirable fish would result in an overall positive effect. Culvert replacement is also needed because of road design, access, and the potential from increased flows from the Proposed Action. The 1998 to 1999 road and stream-crossing inventory and a July 2, 2004, field review were used to identify potential culvert replacements and stream-crossing improvements along the timber haul routes. All culverts along haul routes to be used for this project were evaluated for replacement or improvements during timber sale design. Culverts would be designed to either act as fish barriers where genetically pure populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout occur upstream, or to allow passage of fish, as identified in the inventory and survey. As described in detail in Chapter 2, twelve culverts and two bridges have been identified as needing improvements (Figure 2-2). Direct Impacts

Overall watershed stability would improve because of the reduction in the potential for stand replacement fires. Implementing the Proposed Action would result in an increase in percent ECA in the Cottonwood II analysis area (Table 3-22). These increases would not exceed the Forest Plan standard. The maximum percent ECA would be 14.8 percent in the Halverson and Irene Creeks Subwatershed. The proposed activities would have minimal effects on runoff processes and stream channel stability. Areas that are in a degraded condition such as livestock damaged streambanks could be affected by slight changes in stream flow. These areas should be managed through livestock permit administration. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures described above, in addition to other mitigation measures described in Section 2.6, Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives, would prevent effects downstream to North and South Cottonwood Creeks. The proposed 1,041 acres of harvest are on low slope areas (less than 30 percent). Even though 265 acres of the harvest units are proposed on marginally unstable or unstable soils, it is unlikely there would be landslides, because of the low slope. However, there may be a slight increase in sediment delivery to streams as a result of harvest and road- building activities. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity, but would be an effect in the foreseeable future. Indirect effects that may occur with implementation of Alternative B include increases in sediment (related to bank damage, infiltration capacity, and ground cover density), flow alterations (increased

3-103 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management overland flow resulting from reduced infiltration capacity), and temperature (related to reduced stream bank vegetation). These indirect impacts are expected to be minimal. Cumulative Impacts

Table 3-1 lists those future actions within or in the vicinity of the analysis area considered in the analysis of cumulative effects. The cumulative impacts boundary encompasses the entire North Cottonwood Creek and South Cottonwood Creek drainages up to the point where the Creeks leave the analysis area. This boundary delineates the area that upstream activities are likely to impact. Potential cumulative impacts of these projects, together with ongoing projects, on hydrologic function would be expected to continue under Alternative B. For example, cumulative impacts under Alternative B include the potential cumulative effects from ongoing projects such as road maintenance by the Forest Service and the potential for localized, inadvertent sediment delivery to drainages during maintenance activities. Potential resultant effects include localized increases in sediment fines. Potential cumulative impacts may result from other projects listed in Table 3-1 and ongoing projects, including treatment of noxious weeds, prescribed fire activities, fire suppression activities, and recreation uses near and on area drainages. These effects may be manifested as impacts to hydrologic function because of streambank disturbance, erosion, sediment delivery, and degradation of riparian and aquatic habitat—all of which can collectively act to limit aquatic productivity and degrade water quality. These effects would continue affecting water quality especially in localized areas. Some streams would be at risk for decreased bank stability and increased sediment production. The channels would also be more susceptible to damage in high flow events. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Implementation of Alternative C would reduce the acreage harvested compared to the Proposed Action. There would be 140 less regeneration harvest acres (262 acres total) and 35 more partial-cut acres. The overall reduced harvest levels would require 4.5 miles less of temporary roads constructed. Aspen regeneration acreage would increase by 38 acres and be accomplished by commercial harvest of encroaching conifers (96 total acres). Prescribed fire in aspen stands would remain the same at 1,058 acres. As with the Proposed Action, overall watershed stability would improve because of the reduction in potential for stand replacement fires. Alternative C also reduces the number of temporary roads needed for the treatments and increases the number of acres of aspen treated to improve habitat. The length of temporary roads needed to implement the treatments would decrease by 4.5 miles compared to the Proposed Action. No new permanent roads would be constructed as part of this alternative. All other project features, including culvert replacement and stream- crossing improvements, would remain similar to the Proposed Action.

3-104 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Direct Impacts

As with the Proposed Action, overall watershed stability would improve because of the reduction in potential for stand replacement fires. Implementing this alternative would result in an increase in percent ECA in the Cottonwood II analysis area (Table 3-22). These increases would not exceed the Forest Plan standard. The maximum percent ECA would be 13.6 percent in the Halverson and Irene Creeks Subwatershed. The proposed activities would have minimal effects on runoff processes and stream channel stability. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures described above, in addition to other mitigation measures described in Section 2.6, Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives, would prevent effects downstream to North and South Cottonwood Creeks. The proposed 974 acres of harvest are on low slope areas (less than 30 percent). The percentage of harvests proposed on marginally unstable or unstable soils increases by 18 acres to a total of 274 acres. It is unlikely this level of harvest would result in landslides, because the slope is low. However, there may be a slight increase in sediment delivery to streams as a result of harvest and road-building activities. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

3.4.5.3 Water Quality The geology, soils, and vegetation determine the chemical composition of the streams. Sediment influx to the stream system is determined by the upland, riparian, and streambank conditions, and the prominent geomorphic disturbances. The majority of the proposed harvest areas are located in areas where the risk of sheet erosion is generally low. In addition, riparian buffers (mitigation measures) to stream channels, riparian areas, and wetlands are excluded from management activities (Forest Service 2004b). The Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) program supported by the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station was used to estimate erosion and sediment delivery from the treatment areas and roads. The “cross drain” option was used for the road analysis. For each type of hillside treatment, predictions of within treatment area erosion (tons/year) associated with the average annual storm and the 100-year storm event were modeled. Sediment (tons/year) delivered to the nearest significant stream for the same storm event was also predicted. Erosion and sediment delivery simulations were run based on conditions immediately after treatment and 5 and 10 years post-treatment. The road analysis was based on the number of miles of roads capable of contributing sediment in each watershed. A number of assumptions were necessary to perform this analysis within the confines of the model. These include: Silt loam soil within the treatment and stream buffer areas. 100 years of climate data based on the Pinedale climate station.

3-105 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Average hillside gradient and length within each treatment areas. Estimated distance and gradient between the treatment area and the nearest significant stream channel, and a required minimum distance buffer of 300 feet. Percent cover and percent rock default values provided by WEPP. Graveled road surface. 15 feet road width. 400 feet between drainage relief culverts. Average road gradient of 4 percent. Table 3-23 presents the predicted erosion and sediment delivery by alternative, storm event, and analysis period for treatment units. Sediment delivery to streams due to roads is discussed by alternative in following text Given the assumptions and necessary simplifications described previously, it is apparent that the minimum 300-foot buffer between the treatment areas and the nearest significant stream is very effective at reducing the amount of sediment reaching the stream network.

TABLE 3-23 Sediment Discharge (tons/year) Due to Treatment Units from the Cottonwood II Project * Average Annual Storm 100-Year Storm Alternative B Alternative C Alternative B Alternative C Within To Within To Within To Within To Treatment Stream Treatment Stream Treatment Stream Treatment Stream Area (tons/ Area (tons/ Area (tons/ Area (tons/ Time Frame (tons/ year) year) (tons/ year) year) (tons/ year) year) (tons/ year) year)

Post Treatment 462 0 442 0 6,890 20 6,646 20

5-Years Post Treatment 0 0 0 0 117 3 117 3

20-Years Post Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*There is no treatment-related sediment discharge due to the No Action Alternative, and it is not displayed.

Alternative A—No Action This alternative would have no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on water quality. However, watershed condition would not be improved through vegetation treatment. Currently there are no streams within the analysis area included on Wyoming’s 303(d) list (documented as not fully supporting their beneficial uses). Existing roads deliver 5.59 tons of sediment to streams per year as predicted by the WEPP model.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

3-106 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

As described in Section 3.4.5.2, approximately 1 mile of the existing Nylander Road would be re-located out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The relocation would reduce road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek. The existing road, which contributes sediment directly to Nylander Creek, would be reclaimed. South Cottonwood Road would be reconstructed from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing. There may be a short-term increase in the amount of fine sediment delivered to the stream channels from the road construction and relocation activities. However, the long-term reductions in sediment delivery as a result of these changes would out-weigh the short-term increases. Culverts would be replaced and stream crossings improved to compensate for potential adverse effects to Colorado River cutthroat trout from implementation of the Proposed Action (timber harvest). Twelve culverts and two bridges along haul routes would be improved. Figure 2-2 displays locations of culvert and bridge replacement activities. Culverts would be designed to either act as fish barriers where genetically pure populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout occur upstream, or to allow passage of fish. There may be a short-term increase in the amount of fine sediment delivered to the stream channels from the replacement of culverts and bridges. However, the long-term watershed benefits from these changes would out-weigh these short-term increases. The increased amount of habitat made accessible by improving fish passage or preventing upstream migration of undesirable fish would result in an overall positive effect. Although some decreases in water quality could be expected under the Proposed Action because of the level of timber harvesting and road building, State of Wyoming water quality standards would be met. Currently there are no streams within the analysis area included on Wyoming’s 303(d) list (documented as not fully supporting their beneficial uses). Implementation of Alternative B is not expected to result in a 303(d) listing of any stream within the analysis area. As shown in Table 3-23, there would be no predicted sediment delivery to streams from treatment unit runoff due to normal rainfall events. There would be an increase in sediment delivered to streams following a 100-year storm event immediately post- treatment, but the amount of sediment eroded from the hillsides would decrease over time during heavy rains, eventually attaining pre-treatment levels. The majority of sediment delivery during the 100-year event arises from aspen burning. All sediment delivery during 100-year events, 5 years after treatment, arises from the burned units. Sediment delivery to streams from roads would increase approximately 12 percent due to the construction of temporary roads. This represents an increase of 0.78 tons (6.37 tons total) of sediment over existing conditions. All temporary roads would not be constructed or in use at the same time. Therefore, this increased sediment load would not be expected to occur simultaneously, but rather would be distributed over a number of years. Implementing the Proposed Action would result in an increase in road density in the Cottonwood II analysis area (Table 3-20). Localized maximum road density would be 3.0 miles per square mile in the Halverson and Irene Creeks Subwatershed. Road density in the Upper South Cottonwood Watershed would be 1.3 miles per square mile and in the Upper North Cottonwood Watershed 1.9 miles per square mile. Of the 17 subwatersheds analyzed, 3 exceed the desired standard of 2.5 miles per square mile. Because the desired

3-107 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management standard is based on a broad scale evaluation, these exceedences at the subwatershed level are not significant. The proposed activities would have minimal effects on water quality. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action under the discussion of Hydrologic Function. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action under the discussion of Hydrologic Function.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Impacts Implementation of Alternative C would reduce the acreage harvested compared to the Proposed Action. There would be 140 less regeneration harvest acres (262 acres total) and 35 more partial-cut acres. The overall reduced harvest levels would require 4.5 miles less of temporary roads constructed. Aspen regeneration acreage would increase by 38 acres and be accomplished by commercial harvest of encroaching conifers (96 total acres). Prescribed fire in aspen stands would remain the same at 1,058 acres. As with the Proposed Action, overall watershed stability would improve because of the reduction in the potential for stand replacement fires. Water quality effects from road relocation, road construction, culvert replacements, and bridge replacements would be the same as described for Alternative B. Although some decreases in water quality could be expected under this Alternative C because of the level of timber harvesting and road building, State of Wyoming water quality standards would be met. Currently there are no streams within the analysis area included on Wyoming’s 303(d) list (documented as not fully supporting their beneficial uses). Implementation of Alternative C is not expected to result in a 303(d) listing of any stream within the analysis area. Predicted sediment levels delivered to streams from treatment units would be as described for the Proposed Action (Table 3-23). Sediment delivery to streams from roads would increase approximately 5 percent due to the construction of temporary roads. This represents an increase of 0.3 tons (5.89 tons total) of sediment delivery over existing conditions. As with Alternative B, all temporary roads would not be constructed or in use at the same time. Therefore, this increased sediment load would not be expected to occur simultaneously, but rather would be distributed over a number of years. Implementing this alternative would result in an increase in road density in the Cottonwood II analysis area (Table 3-20). Localized maximum road density would be 3.0 miles per square mile in the Halverson and Irene Creeks Subwatershed. Road density in the Upper South Cottonwood Watershed would be 1.3 miles per square mile and in the Upper North Cottonwood Watershed 1.9 miles per square mile. Of the 17 subwatersheds analyzed,

3-108 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

2 exceed the desired standard of 2.5 miles per square mile. Because the desired standard is based on a broad scale evaluation, these exceedences at the subwatershed level are not significant. The proposed activities would have minimal effects on water quality. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action under the discussion of Hydrologic Function. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed Action under the discussion of Hydrologic Function.

3.4.5.4 Summary Table 3-24 presents of summary of evaluation criteria as applied to the alternatives.

TABLE 3-24 Summary of Evaluation Criteria Assessment Evaluation Criteria Desired Ranges Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Detrimentally Less than No change Slight increase but Slight increase but disturbed soils 15 percent expected would remain less would remain less than 15 percent than 15 percent Unstable areas No projects located No change 265 acres on 274 acres on on marginally expected marginally unstable marginally unstable unstable and and unstable soils and unstable soils unstable soils Road density Maintain road No change Road density would Road density would densities below expected (one increase by a small increase by a small desired standard of subwatershed amount (three amount (two 2.5 miles per exceeds 2.5 miles subwatersheds subwatersheds square mile per square mile) exceed 2.5 miles per exceed 2.5 miles per square mile) square mile) Hydrologically Road drainage No change Decrease in Decrease in connected system is expected hydrologically hydrologically roads disconnected from connected roads connected roads the stream system because of road- because of road- crossing crossing improvements improvements Equivalent Forest Plan: No change Minor increase in the Minor increase in the clearcut area < 30 percent in 2nd expected (all percent ECA but all percent ECA but all or high order watersheds are watersheds remain watersheds remain watersheds below 30 percent) below 30 percent below 30 percent Stream management No change Short-term increase Short-term increase channel related activities do expected in disturbance in disturbance disturbance not increase stream because of culvert because of culvert channel instability and bridge and bridge replacements replacements Percent fine 10 to 20 percent No change Short-term increase Short-term increase material fine sediment in expected in fine sediment in fine sediment trout spawning because of culvert, because of culvert, gravels (<6.4 mm bridge, and road bridge, and road in diameter) improvements improvements

3-109 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.5 Fisheries

3.5.1 Introduction

The Cottonwood II Project analysis area includes North and South Cottonwood Creeks, as well as tributaries to those streams. The North and South Cottonwood Creeks analysis area is composed of the Halverson, McDougal Gap, Nylander, Sjhoberg, and South Cottonwood treatment areas on the Big Piney Ranger District (RD). These treatment areas are within the analysis area for the Cottonwood II Project and for aquatic resources.

3.5.2 Issues

The potential effects to fisheries were identified as a significant issue during public scoping (Issue 3, Section 1.9.1). Specifically, the issue is: The effects of the proposed activities on Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) habitat.

Indicators by which the proposed project will be evaluated relative to this issue include: The direct and indirect effects of vegetation management on CRCT habitat. Barriers − Access restored to miles of habitat 3.5.3 Existing Conditions The B-TNF hosts several federally listed fishes and the habitats critical to those fishes. The aquatic species and habitats found on the B-TNF include endangered Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichtys osculus thermalis), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptchocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). However, none of the federally listed aquatic species or their habitats are found within the analysis area. There is no habitat for the Kendall Warm Springs dace on the Big Piney RD and the closest populations are found on the Pinedale RD, some distance away (USFWS 2003 in Forest Service 2003a). The Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker were once native to the Upper Colorado River Basin and its major tributaries, but where known inhabit much larger streams than those found within the analysis area (USFWS 2003 in Forest Service 2003a). 3.5.3.1 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout The Cottonwood II area streams contain populations of both native game and non-game fish species (Table 3-25). However, primary analysis focus is on Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) and its habitat, as a management indicator species (MIS) (Forest Service 1990). MIS are those species used to indicate the effects of habitat changes associated with forest management activities (Forest Service 1990). MIS may include harvested species, ecological indicator species, Forest Service sensitive species, and federally listed threatened and endangered species. The MIS in the Cottonwood II analysis area include CRCT (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri); however, rainbow trout are a non-native introduced species within the Green River system (Trotter 1987) so the focus of this analysis is on CRCT. Further,

3-110 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

CRCT are designated as a species of special status by the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and are classified as a sensitive species by Regions 2 and 4 of the Forest Service (CRCT Task Force 2001). In April 2005, Colorado River cutthroat trout was identified as an Ecological Indicator Species representing riparian habitat for the B-TNF.

TABLE 3-25 Fishes from Selected Streams Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Fish Species Stream Name (miles) (miles) Presenta Halverson Creek a 0 1.3 None Reported Irene Creek a 0.3 1.4 CRCT, MSC, BKT Hardin Creek a 1.9 1.3 CRCT, MSC, BKT Ole Creek a 1.3 7.5 BKT McDougal Creek a 0 1.2 None Reported Sjhoberg Creek a 2.8 4.5 CRCT Nylander Creek a 2.4 3.3 CRCT, MSC, BKT Chase Creek a 0 1.4 None Reported South Cottonwood Creek b 12 No Information CRCT, BKT, SRC Bare Creekc 3 No Information CRCT

a CRCT = Colorado River cutthroat trout; MSC = mottled sculpin; BKT = brook trout; SRC - Snake River cutthroat b Forest Service (2004b) c CRCT Task Force (2001)

CRCT were historically distributed throughout the headwaters of the Green and Colorado Rivers as far south as the San Juan River; they perhaps occupied portions of the lower reaches of large rivers in winter (Trotter 1987). CRCT are currently limited to a few small headwater streams of the Green and upper Colorado Rivers in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. In Wyoming it is estimated that only 70 populations of CRCT remain and they occupy less than 280 miles of streams (CRCT Task Force 2001). CRCT population decline is related to hybridization with introduced rainbow trout; displacement by introduced brook trout; competition with other established populations of non-native salmonids; and habitat alteration/fragmentation from overgrazing by livestock, logging, roads, and water diversion for irrigation (CRCT Task Force 2001).

WGFD has assigned the North Cottonwood Creek watershed as its third highest priority conservation population of CRCT within the Pinedale Region, with particular habitat concerns for stream, riparian, and aspen-beaver habitat alterations (WGFD 2003b). Several tributaries (Sjhoberg, Nylander, Maki, Irene, Hardin, and Ole Creeks) within the North Cottonwood Creek watershed provide important spawning and rearing habitat. WGFD has constructed several barriers within the North Cottonwood Creek drainage to prevent hybridization and competition with CRCT (WGFD 2003b).

3-111 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

(> 4 percent) streams. A good balance of pools to riffles is important to CRCT persistence and the species appears to be well adapted to conditions created by active beaver colonies (Trotter 1987). Behnke (2002) supports the previous description by stating that habitat for CRCT generally includes cool, clear streams (often headwaters), well-vegetated streambanks for cover and bank stability, and instream cover in the form of deep pools, boulders, and logs.

The Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (CRCT Task Force 2001), describes the five threats to CRCT as:

1) Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species habitat or range, 2) Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes, 3) Disease or predation, 4) Absence of regulating mechanisms adequate to prevent decline of the species or degradation of its habitat, and 5) Other natural or manmade factors affecting continued existence of the species.

Of these threats, the proposed Cottonwood II project is most likely to affect the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species habitat or range. The project indicators for CRCT listed in Section 3.5.2, Issues, will address the potential habitat impacts of vegetation management and stream barriers from this proposed project.

3.5.3.2 Fisheries Habitats Impacts to the Cottonwood II analysis area watershed streams are primarily from recreation, timber harvest, grazing, and the development of the road system (Forest Service 1999, Smith 2003). Little information is available that describes the riparian conditions within the analysis area as most recent management projects tend to avoid riparian areas because of their complex nature and to minimize potential impacts to aquatic habitats. A typical buffer width for riparian areas during upland management projects leaves 300 feet of unmanaged area for riparian protection (Forest Service 2004b). This lack of management within riparian areas tends to leave a gap in available riparian information. Within the analysis area, a range analysis conducted in 1962 rated the riparian conditions within North and South Cottonwood Creeks as good to excellent, and a more recent project conducted in 1996 (Forest Service 1996b) examined the Cottonwood riparian areas and stated:

By and large, the streams within the area show many signs of recovery from grazing impacts and timber activities which occurred prior to the 1980s. The green-line sedge species that indicate vegetative recovery are well represented. Also there is an abundance of healthy, uneven aged willows along the green-line indicating vegetative health and improvement for providing streambank stability. Vegetation in the green-line is in mid to late successional stage as is the vegetation farther back on the streambanks. In many areas the vegetation is approaching that of the potential natural community (PNC).

3-112 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

In 1999, the Cottonwood Watershed Analysis (Forest Service 1999b) identified many issues and opportunities to improve stream conditions within the analysis area. Those existing vegetation issues include over 3,000 acres of poor to very poor range conditions from grazing. The Cottonwood Watershed Analysis identified opportunities to improve these conditions that would likely lead to improved conditions for CRCT. In addition, the WGFD (2003b) states that the CRCT population within the watershed is probably most limited by competition and hybridization from non-native fishes, however, habitat conditions may also be limiting population recovery. The WGFD (2003b) notes that early 1990 surveys of Irene, Hardin, and Nylander Creeks found a decrease in willows and sedges along stream channels and recommended the enhancement of aspen and woody riparian communities to improve conditions for beaver, and thus CRCT. Further, the WGFD (2003b) notes that private access, diversions, grazing on public and private lands, drought, and past timber harvest may further contribute to the current conditions of CRCT. The CRCT Task Force (2001) also identified several streams within the analysis area where land management activities are limiting CRCT habitat. The concerns of the WGFD (2003b) and the CRTC Task Force (2001) suggest that there may be opportunities to help recover CRCT through vegetated management within the Cottonwood Creeks drainages.

In addition to the vegetation concerns within the analysis area, riparian roads (open and closed) continue to deliver sediment to area streams and may be an additional threat to CRCT recovery (Forest Service 1999b). Smith (2003) identified sediment reductions into Nylander Creek through road obliteration, and the improvement of other watershed roads (open and closed) and trails as means of improving CRCT habitat.

In summary, opportunities exist to improve CRCT habitat within the Cottonwood II analysis area through vegetation management and sediment reduction actions. Forest Service (1999b) identified site-specific areas that may improve CRCT habitat and lead to recovery of the Cottonwood CRCT population.

3.5.3.3 Stream Barriers Culvert surveys were conducted in 2004 to assess resource conditions within the Cottonwood II analysis area. Fourteen crossings were identified throughout the analysis area as needing improvements for CRCT passage or as a barrier to minimize CRCT hybridization and competition with non-native species. Records of hybridization and competition for habitat between CRCT and introduced rainbow trout date back to the late 1800s (Trotter 1987). Few stocks of CRCT have not been exposed to some degree of hybridization (Trotter 1987), including those within the analysis area. Inadvertent barrier construction and hybridization and competition with non-native species were all identified as threats by the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (CRCT 2001). Culverts are the most commonly installed stream crossing, are found throughout the analysis area, and are the most likely stream crossing device to create an unintentional barrier to fish passage (Furniss et al. 1991). Intentional barriers are also installed to minimize hybridization (CRCT 2001) and have been placed within the analysis area in Nylander, Irene, and Hardin Creeks (WGFD 2003b). Both unintentional and intentional barriers can fragment and isolate CRCT populations by restricting movements from seasonally preferred habitats and can lead to localized extinction (CRCT 2001). Where CRCT are known to inhabit streams upstream of crossings (Irene Creek, Hardin Creek, and Bare

3-113 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Creek) with introduced fishes downstream, the CRCT (2001) recommends the removal of non-natives and the re-establishment of connections between CRCT sub-populations.

3.5.4 Desired Future Conditions

3.5.4.1 Fisheries Habitats The B-TNF Plan (Forest Service 1990) provides CRCT habitat direction for the Management Prescriptions (MPs) within the Cottonwood Management Area within the analysis area. Table 3-26 outlines the forest-wide and MPs direction for fish habitat within the analysis area. In general, improved habitat conditions and coordination with the WGFD are the desired conditions described within the B-TNF Plan (1990). The WGFD has assigned the Cottonwood watershed, primarily North Cottonwood, the region’s third priority as a CRCT conservation population. Further, the cooperative efforts of the WGFD, Forest Service, and others have developed goals and objectives to conserve and enhance habitat for CRCT to provide the Forest direction for CRCT habitat management within the analysis area (CRCT 2001).

TABLE 3-26 Applicable Forest-Wide and MPs for Issue-Related Fisheries Habitat Resources Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area Forest-Wide Prescription Provide habitat adequate to meet the needs of dependant fish Direction populations, including those of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species Sensitive Quantifiable objectives developed to identify and improve the status Species of sensitive species to eliminate the need for listing. The Forest Guideline Service will cooperate with WGFD on programs to maintain species objectives. Fish Habitat Fish habitat at or near its potential will be maintained at existing Management levels. Fish habitat below potential should be improved and Guideline maintained to at least 90 percent of potential. Priority should be on streams supporting CRCT and Bonneville CT. Sensitive CT Habitat occupied by existing and reintroduced populations of CRCT, Habitat Bonneville, and Snake River CT should be managed to protect Guideline species purity. MPs for MA 25 MA Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines (Cottonwood Creek) 1B Provides habitat for existing populations of fish and a use-attainability study may be needed for a specific stream segment to determine if fishery-beneficial use is being protected to an adequate level. 2A Habitat is managed to achieve the fish populations as identified by WGFD and agreed to by the Forest Service. Diverse fish habitat types should be maintained in each watershed to provide sufficient habitat to meet WGFD population objectives and distribution of fish. 10 Habitat is managed to achieve the fish populations as identified by WGFD and agreed to by the Forest Service. Diverse fish habitat types should be maintained in each watershed to provide sufficient habitat to meet WGFD population objectives and distribution of fish. 12 Habitat will be managed to help fully achieve the fish populations identified by WGFD as agreed to by the Forest Service Source: Forest Service 1990

3-114 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.5.4.2 Stream Barriers The B-TNF Plan (Forest Service 1990) provides CRCT stream barrier direction for the MPs within the Cottonwood Management Area within the analysis area. Table 3-27 outlines the forest-wide and MPs direction for fish passage within the analysis area.

TABLE 3-27 Applicable Forest-Wide and MPs for Issue-Related Fisheries Stream Barriers Within the Cottonwood II Analysis Area

Forest-Wide Fish Passage Streams with fisheries resources - culvert installations will be designed Direction Guideline to facilitate fish passage. Structural modifications of existing culverts will be necessary where excessive water velocities, insufficient water depth, elevated outlets, and debris accumulation obstruct fish passage.

Sensitive Quantifiable objectives developed to identify and improve the status of Species sensitive species to eliminate the need for listing. The Forest Service Guideline will cooperate with WGFD on programs to maintain species objectives.

Source: Forest Service 1990

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the effects of each alternative on fishery resources. The assessment discusses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on CRCT habitat and barriers within the analysis area.

Cumulative effects result from the incremental effect of the proposed project plus other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is taking the action. The cumulative effects boundary encompasses the entire North Cottonwood Creek and South Cottonwood Creek drainages up to the point where the creeks leave the analysis area. This boundary delineates the area where upstream activities are likely to cause impacts. Several reasons why the cumulative effects boundary was delineated to this location follow: No equipment or harvest activities would occur within or adjacent to riparian areas, wetlands, or floodplains. This would retain the structure and function of CRCT habitat areas and would reduce the risk of sediment being delivered to stream channels via overland flow from the harvest treatments. All road and stream crossing treatments would occur within the analysis area and on B-TNF lands (see discussion in Section 2.4.2 in Chapter 2). Although downstream effects may occur to CRCT habitat from these treatments, upstream passage within the analysis area is of primary interest and all effects would likely remain within the analysis area. The proposed aspen fire treatments and their effects would be contained within the treatment area. Aspen treatment areas are expected to recover quickly, thereby limiting the risk of instream effects to CRCT habitat from occurring.

3-115 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.5.5.1 Fisheries Habitats

Alternative A—No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, no vegetation management activities would occur in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Isolated areas of poor quality riparian vegetation would likely persist and some open and closed roads would likely continue to contribute fine sediments to area streams. There would be no road or trail improvements to reduce sediment sources to CRCT habitat. It would likely not be possible under the No Action Alternative to comply with Forest Plan direction relative to vegetation management in the Cottonwood Creeks drainages and, thus, there would be no benefit to active beaver colonies, and subsequently CRCT. Desired future conditions, as described in the Forest Plan and shown in Table 3-26, would likely not be attained. Because no action is associated with this alternative, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

Direct effects to CRCT habitat would likely result from road relocation, reconstruction, and temporary construction (see Section 2.4.2). Road relocation and realignment is generally implemented to move a road from an area of concern (Forest Service 2002d). Within the Nylander Creek treatment area (Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2), 1 mile of existing road would be relocated to outside the riparian area. The relocated road would not likely directly affect CRCT habitat because the new location would be intentionally located outside of the riparian area. Direct effects would likely come from reclamation of the closed road, and would likely result in short-term increases of sediment to the local stream channel until vegetation is reestablished on the reclaimed road surface.

Temporary road construction may contribute to direct effects on CRCT habitat through the life of the road. Furniss et al. (1991) detail the direct degrading effects of road construction on stream habitats, with emphasis placed on sediment introduction. Mitigation measures are included in the Proposed Action that are designed to minimize the delivery of sediments to streams. These measures are described in Section 2.6, Mitigation Common to all Action Alternatives. Negative direct effects to CRCT habitat may occur as fine sediment inputs that enter the stream system despite mitigation measures. These sediment inputs can result in altered channel morphology and substrate composition, which can directly affect CRCT habitat. However, the closure and reclamation of the roads should result in long-term benefits to CRCT habitat by reducing a chronic source of fine sediment where the road was reclaimed. Temporary roads would also be reclaimed to attempt to return to pre-road conditions.

Mechanical treatment of vegetation would include a 300-foot-wide buffer and would not result in direct impacts. Table 2-4 in Chapter 2 describes the types of proposed aspen treatments within the analysis area. Ignition of aspen stands would occur outside of and be allowed to back into riparian stands, but this would not be expected to directly affect CRCT habitat.

3-116 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

In summary, the direct effects of the Proposed Action on CRCT habitat would result in short-term disturbances from potential sediment introductions. However, there would be long-term benefits to CRCT habitat from the removal of chronic sediment inputs. Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects to CRCT habitat would likely result from road relocation, road reconstruction, and vegetation treatment. Indirect effects from road relocation would likely come from the reestablishment of riparian vegetation on the former road prism. Riparian vegetation can, for example, indirectly affect and benefit CRCT habitat by filtering surface sediments, lowering summer water temperatures, increasing forage for fishes, stabilizing streambanks, and providing future large woody debris (Platts 1991). These indirect effects should result in localized benefits to CRCT habitat.

Vegetative treatment may result in indirect affects to CRCT habitat. Logging and burning as a means of vegetative treatment can cause runoff to be higher than under unlogged conditions (Chamberlin et al. 1991). The more severe the alteration of the hydrologic cycle (timing of the runoff), the more likely that runoff would affect fish habitat. Mitigation measures (see Section 2.6 in Chapter 2) implemented during vegetative treatments should minimize the indirect risks of these vegetative treatments on CRCT habitats. The vegetative treatments may also indirectly benefit CRCT habitat by improving forest health within the watershed.

In summary, the indirect effects to CRCT habitat may result in localized improvements in riparian habitat, slight alterations in the hydrologic cycle, and general improvements in watershed health. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects issue associated with the Proposed Action is CRCT habitat. The direct and indirect effects to CRCT habitat associated with cumulative effects of the Proposed Action include the potential for short-term alterations in channel conditions from increased sediment delivery to streams. Vegetation treatment may lead to minor increases in watershed runoff. Long-term benefits to CRCT habitat should be realized from road relocation and reclamation efforts.

Past and current actions that have influenced CRCT habitat within the Cottonwood II analysis area include the following: Domestic livestock grazing—five federal permits and private lands’ agriculture Historic timber harvest for railroad ties Commercial timber harvest since the 1960s on approximately 2,059 acres Oil and gas development with 1 operating well and associated infrastructure Fifty-four miles of existing (open and closed) roads, and 33 miles of trails Passage barriers

Although CRCT are reported present throughout the analysis area, genetically pure populations are only found in selected headwater streams because of non-native introductions and habitat alteration. The WGFD (2003b) suggests that non-native competition and hybridization are most limiting to CRCT, but habitat alterations could

3-117 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

limit future recovery. Links between aquatic habitat quality and fish population size and distribution are not clearly defined within the Cottonwood II analysis area.

The combination of the low embryo survival, non-native competition and hybridization, local population isolation, and general habitat modification from land management activities places the local CRCT populations within the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages at a high risk of extinction from stochastic events (Forest Service 2004b).

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the following: Continued domestic livestock grazing on five federal permits Timber harvest on approximately 900 acres (this proposed project) Prescribed and natural fires Construction of four trailheads Bridge and culvert replacements System road upgrades Watershed restoration projects Potential oil and gas leasing

All of the reasonably foreseeable actions listed above have the potential to impact fish habitat and fish populations in the long-term and short-term. All activities related to the Proposed Action should result in long-term benefits to CRCT habitat and thus benefit CRCT populations. However, any streamside road-related reclamation project is likely to contribute some amount of sediment into the stream channel. Mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Action should minimize the input of sediments and result in long-term benefits to the CRCT habitat and CRCT local populations.

Among the projects listed in Table 3-1 for consideration in the cumulative effects analysis, the Maki Creek Area Projects, which are within the Cottonwood II analysis area, would similarly benefit CRCT habitat through a vegetation management program and an anticipated reduction in sediment delivery. Within the Maki Creek project area, 3.6 miles of Maki Creek contain CRCT. The combined effects of the Maki Creek and Cottonwood II projects would cumulatively benefit CRCT habitat and local populations in the analysis area.

Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Impacts

Alternative C contains the same management objectives as the Proposed Action (see Section 2.4.3 in Chapter 2). However, fewer acres would be treated with timber harvest, resulting in approximately 3.5 miles fewer temporary roads. Direct effects from sediment inputs to CRCT habitat would be less than under the Proposed Action. Vegetation treatments would have similar effects under Alternative C as the Proposed Action.

3-118 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects of Alternative C would be similar to the Proposed Action. Indirect effects from temporary road construction and vegetative treatments would likely be fewer. Indirect effects from aspen treatments would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. Cumulative

Cumulative effects associated with Alternative C would be similar to the Proposed Action, except those actions that would be beneficial to CRCT habitat would be lessened by the reduced actions under Alternative C.

3.5.5.2 Stream Barriers

Alternative A—No Action Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, no improvements to stream crossings or stream passage would occur in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Isolated areas of restricted passage from poorly designed and installed culverts would continue to persist. Three culverts are designed to restrict fish passage as a means to temporarily protect CRCT from hybridization with non-native trout and habitat competition (WGFD 2003b). It would likely not be possible under the No Action Alternative to comply with Forest Plan direction relative to fish passage (Table 3-27). Because there is no action associated with this alternative, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 describes the fourteen stream crossing improvements proposed under the Proposed Action. Culvert designs are often not compatible with the stream area and result in increased water velocities through the culvert (Bell 1986), creating channel modifications and fish passage restrictions (WGFD 2003b). The Proposed Action proposes to stabilize the banks upstream and downstream of culverts using riprap at four of the crossings (Table 2-3 in Chapter 2). Three of these culverts (Irene, Hardin, and Bare Creeks) are designed fish passage barriers, while the fourth (West Fork Bare Creek) currently provides CRCT passage (Nelson 1999) and is proposed for stabilization. The three barriers would continue to serve as barriers under the Proposed Action and directly affect upstream CRCT passage to approximately 0.3, 2, and 2.5 (respectively) miles of perennial habitat. In the case of Irene Creek, this CRCT population may be extremely susceptible to local extinction from stochastic events because of the very limited available habitat and the barrier to upstream passage.

Two bridges are proposed for bank stabilizing repair or replacement (Table 2-3 in Chapter 2). These currently provide fish passage (Nelson 1999) and would continue to do so under the Proposed Action. The North Cottonwood Creek bridge would be replaced with a wider bridge while the Ole Creek bridge is under evaluation for repair or replacement with a wider bridge for road maintenance purposes. These actions should have no direct effect on CRCT passage as upstream access would not be modified.

3-119 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Seven other culverts—Halverson, North Cottonwood Creek, North Cottonwood at Nylander Creek, McDougal Creek, Hidden Basin Creek, the unnamed tributary in Bare Creek, and upper North Cottonwood Creek—all currently restrict upstream fish passage (Nelson 1999). The Halverson Creek culvert provides access to little perennial habitat and contains approximately 1 mile of intermittent stream upstream of the culvert. This replacement may directly benefit CRCT by providing additional seasonal habitat. The North Cottonwood Creek culvert (Forest Service Road 10342) replacement should greatly benefit CRCT by providing access to nearly 6 additional miles of perennial habitat. The North Cottonwood Creek at Nylander culvert replacement could provide up to two additional miles of habitat access for CRCT if replaced. McDougal Creek provides little perennial habitat and contains approximately 2 miles of intermittent stream upstream of the culvert. This culvert replacement may directly benefit CRCT by providing additional seasonal habitat. Hidden Basin Creek also provides little perennial habitat and contains approximately 2 miles of intermittent stream upstream of the culvert. This culvert replacement may also directly benefit CRCT by providing additional seasonal habitat. The unnamed tributary in Bare Creek is also primarily an intermittent stream and provides little perennial habitat. It contains less than 1 mile of intermittent stream upstream of the culvert. This culvert replacement may also directly benefit CRCT by providing additional seasonal habitat. Finally, there are more than 3 miles of intermittent streams upstream of the upper North Cottonwood Creek culvert that could be accessed and provide seasonal habitat to CRCT if the culvert is replaced.

Finally, the Trailer Creek culvert currently provides fish passage in this primarily intermittent stream. The culvert consists of an undersized pipe that causes the stream to flow over the road at high flows. This pipe would be replaced with a larger culvert and provide access to up to 1 mile of seasonal habitat.

Most of these replacements or repairs should directly affect (benefit) CRCT within the project area by expanding available upstream habitat access. However, the direct effect of the Irene Creek barrier may need to be reassessed as it may be detrimental to the upstream CRCT because available habitat appears to be minimal. Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects of the culvert replacements on access to upstream habitats are difficult to ascertain. The potential exists that sediment produced during culvert replacement may affect growth or fish food production, which may further affect fish movement. The likelihood of this indirect effect occurring is difficult, if not impossible to determine, given the implementation of mitigation measures included with the Proposed Action that are intended to minimize sediment input to streams. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on CRCT access to habitat within the analysis area are most likely related to the presence of the road system within the analysis area. Forest roads present threats to aquatic systems by their mere presence and the associated hydrologic disruptions they cause (Waters 1995). The next threat within the analysis area to fish passage is likely from grazing within riparian areas. Potential grazing effects to the stream channel can greatly alter the channel form, creating a wider and

3-120 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

shallower stream that can restrict upstream fish access seasonally, or year-round (Platts 1991). Finally, water diversions remove water from the stream system that serve to shape the stream and hydrologic system (Wesche and Issak 1999). Water diversions directly reduce flows that are often necessary for fish movement and can cause the alterations of channels that also can disrupt fish movement and passage. The replacements and repairs of the road crossings of streams within the analysis area would, no doubt, be beneficial to CRCT access within the Cottonwood Creek drainages.

All of the reasonably foreseeable actions listed above in discussions of cumulative effects on CRCT habitat have the potential to affect fish passage in the long- and short-term. Activities related to the Proposed Action should result in long-term benefits to CRCT by providing increased access to habitat, increasing the quantity and quality of available habitat, and aiding in the recovery of CRCT local populations. Similar fish passage improvements in the Maki Creek drainage under the proposed Maki Creek Area Projects, together with the proposed fish passage improvements under the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project, would cumulatively benefit CRCT in the Cottonwood II analysis area.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Impacts

There is no difference in the actions proposed under Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C as they relate to culvert replacement and repairs (see Section 2.5 in Chapter 2). The direct effects of this alternative on CRCT passage are expected to be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Indirect Impacts

There is no difference in the actions proposed under Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C as they relate to culvert replacement and repairs (see Section 2.5 in Chapter 2). The indirect effects of this alternative on CRCT passage are expected to be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Cumulative Impacts

There is no difference in the actions proposed under Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C as they relate to culvert replacement and repairs (see Section 2.5 in Chapter 2). The cumulative effects of this alternative on CRCT passage are expected to be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

3.5.6 Summary

The land management impacts within the Cottonwood II analysis area have likely led to the currently suppressed population conditions seen in the local populations of CRCT. Both action alternatives (Alternative B and C) are expected to result in short-term disturbances to the aquatic system and thus CRCT and their habitat. These short-term disturbances would most likely result in inputs of sediment into the streams. However, sediment input should be slightly less for Alternative C, because fewer acres are harvested and 3.5 fewer miles of temporary roads would be constructed. The degree of disturbance from the input of sediments would be greatly minimized by the project

3-121 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

design features that include mitigation measures for sediment. However, the long-term benefits of the actions should lead to a reduction in chronic sediment inputs. Both action alternatives would improve CRCT access to other potentially important habitats within the Cottonwood Creeks drainages that are currently unavailable. Overall, the expected effects (benefits) to CRCT habitat and passage from the action alternatives would provide a better opportunity for the recovery of the local CRCT populations than that of Alternative A or the existing condition. Both Alternatives B and C equally improve access to upstream habitats.

3.6 Special Status Species

3.6.1 Introduction

This section discusses special status plant, fish, and wildlife species that were considered in the analysis of the proposed Cottonwood II Project and potential environmental consequences to these species from implementing Alternative A (No Action), Alternative B (Proposed Action), or Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads). Special-status species include federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species, Forest Service sensitive species, and Forest Service MIS.

3.6.2 Issues

One of the significant conservation issues identified during public scoping is in regards to a federally listed species, Canada lynx.

Old Growth and Canada Lynx (Issue No. 1, Section 1.9.1)—The project area has been documented as occupied Canada lynx habitat. Effects of the proposed activities on lynx habitat, especially on foraging and denning habitat, is a significant issue. The link between old growth forest and lynx habitat concerns maintenance of suitable denning habitat conditions.

Indicators by which the proposed project will be evaluated corresponding to this issue are the following: Estimated change in lynx habitat from project activities Estimated change in potential lynx denning habitat from project activities Percent of designated old growth habitat affected (old growth forest is potential lynx denning habitat)

3.6.3 Existing Conditions

3.6.3.1 Federally Listed Species The USFWS provided the B-TNF with a Forest-wide list (ES-61411/W.19/WY7936) of threatened, endangered, and candidate species that may occur within the analysis area or potentially be impacted by the project on January 13, 2004. Under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species, and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened

3-122 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Table 3-28 provides the USFWS list of species for the analysis area. A separate Biological Assessment including these species will be forwarded to the USFWS for concurrence.

TABLE 3-28 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species that may Occur Within the Analysis Area or be Impacted by the Proposed Project Species Scientific Name Status Habitat Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened Riparian habitats (MIS) widespread. Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Montane forests. Gray wolf Canis lupus Experimental Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Montane forests. (MIS) Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Seasonally moist soils below 7000 feet Colorado River fish: Endangered Downstream riverine habitat of the Yamps, Green and Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado Rivers Humpback chub Gila cypha Bonytail chub Gila elegans Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Riparian zones

Federally Listed Plant Species Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was listed as threatened on January 17, 1992 (57 FR 2053). Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that is endemic to moist soils near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and perennial streams where it colonizes early successional point bars or sandy edges. The lowest elevation within the project analysis area is 7960 feet. This plant is not known to occur in southwestern Wyoming. All known Wyoming populations are in eastern Wyoming (Fertig 2000b). This project would not impact vegetation in riparian zones or other wetland habitats, nor would it impact elevations below 7960 feet. For these reasons, this species is dropped from further analysis.

Federally Listed Fish Species The USFWS Colorado River fish, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker were once native to the Upper Colorado River Basin and its major tributaries, but were known to inhabit much larger streams than those found within the project area (Forest Service 2003a). The USFWS requested analysis of impacts to this group of endangered fish only if the project would lead to depletions of water to the Colorado River system. Activities associated with the Cottonwood II Project would not affect instream flow as it relates to the recovery of these large stream fishes (Biological Resource Research Center 2004). Therefore, they are dropped from further analysis.

3-123 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Federally Listed Wildlife Species Bald eagle

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. The status was reclassified from endangered to threatened status in the lower 48 states because of recovery progress on July 12, 1995. This species is also a MIS for the B-TNF.

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are closely associated with lakes and large rivers in open areas, forests, and mountains. They nest near open water in late-successional forest with many perches or nest sites, and low levels of human disturbance (McGarigal 1988; Wright and Escano 1986). The nest site is usually within 1/4 to 1 mile of open water with less than 5 percent of the shore developed within 1 mile. Nests are placed in large-diameter trees and are often re-used year after year. Perches are generally at the edge of forest stands, near foraging areas, or near the nest tree, and have panoramic views of surrounding areas. They need large trees along rivers with good visibility, preferably snags, for perching. Protected deep ravines with large trees are often used as night roosts.

Critical winter habitat is located near food sources, such as lakes, rivers, and uplands with big game winter range. These sites have adequate perch sites and sheltered roost sites. Human activity may be a major factor limiting bald eagle distribution on wintering habitats (Steenhof 1976).

No known bald eagle nests or sightings exist within the project analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). Although Wyoming Gap Analysis data indicate that there is habitat for bald eagles throughout the analysis area, habitat for nesting, foraging, and winter roosting is limited. Bald eagles may travel through the area or use gut piles and carrion during hunting season when available.

Bald eagle populations have rebounded significantly in recent years. Forest Service (2004c) indicate that the number of bald eagle pairs attempting to nest in Wyoming has increased steadily from 20 in 1978 to nearly 100 in 2002 and 2003. None are known to nest in the analysis area.

Conservation Requirements

In order to reduce adverse effects to bald eagles, the USFWS recommends the maintenance of a 1-mile disturbance-free buffer zone be maintained around eagle nests and winter roost sites (see the USFWS letter in Appendix B). Activity within 1 mile of an eagle nest or roost may disturb the eagles and result in “take.” If a disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile is not practicable, the activity should be conducted outside of February 15 through August 15 to protect nesting eagles and November 1 through April 15 to protect roosting birds. These guidelines would be followed if bald eagles were to nest in the project area in the future. Grizzly Bear

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. This status was changed to threatened on July 28, 1975. A recovery zone was subsequently delineated. This species is also a MIS for the B-TNF.

3-124 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) occupy a variety of coniferous forest and rangeland habitats. They are a wide-ranging species that requires adequate space and isolation from humans, suitable den sites, and an adequate food base. Grizzlies are opportunistic feeders, consuming both carrion and vegetation (plants, bulbs, and tubers). Plant matter may be an important diet component in spring and summer and bears may forage in riparian areas, avalanche chutes, and big game winter ranges. In summer and fall, they may move to higher elevations and shift their diet to berries and nuts (especially whitebark pine).

Grizzly bears once roamed the Wyoming Range, and were found throughout the B-TNF. Grizzly bears were extirpated from much of their historic range by the middle of the 20th Century (USFWS 1993 in Forest Service 2003a). A small population has persisted in Yellowstone National Park, north of the project analysis area.

The B-TNF manages approximately 13 percent of the occupied grizzly bear range in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. The ecosystem, which encompasses 5.7 million acres, includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, portions of five national forests, some BLM parcels, and a small percentage of private land. Approximately 665,500 acres of the B-TNF are classified as being in Grizzly Bear Management Situation 1, which are areas key to the survival of grizzlies where seasonal or year-long grizzly activity under natural, free-ranging conditions is common. Another 61,500 acres are in Management Situation 2—areas where some grizzly bear habitat components exist and where grizzlies may be present occasionally. About 7,100 acres are in Management Situation 3, where grizzly bear presence is possible but infrequent. Approximately 81 percent or 593,000 acres of the occupied grizzly bear habitat on B-TNF is in classified Wilderness (Forest Service 1990). The Recovery Zone (Primary Conservation Area) boundary encompasses most of the Buffalo Ranger District and a small portion of the Jackson Ranger district, but does not include the entire B-TNF. The analysis area, therefore, falls within suitable habitat for grizzly bears, but it is south of the Primary Conservation Area. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2003 for Grizzly Bear Amendments to U.S. Forest Service National Forest Plans for National Forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Reports of grizzly bears in the Wyoming Range are received annually, but the validity of these observations is usually unknown. The grizzly bear population in the Yellowstone area appears to be increasing at 4 to 6 percent per year (Moody et al. 2002). The number of female bears with cubs has been 15 or higher since 1988. Since 1996, the number of females with cubs has been 30 or higher (Moody et al. 2002). This increasing population is expected to expand into adjacent suitable habitat areas. A grizzly bear was killed in the summer of 2002, approximately 20 miles northwest of Maki Creek near Deadman Peak. Suitable habitat is present within the analysis area, and grizzly bears may live or travel through the analysis area, particularly remote areas of the analysis area.

Forest Service (2004c), citing Haroldson 2004, note that since 1973 there has been a steady upward trend in the number of unduplicated adult female grizzly bears with cubs of the year within the grizzly bear recovery zone. However, the estimated number of bears with cubs within the recovery zone declined from 52 in 2002 to 38 in 2003. The

3-125 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

estimated grizzly bear population within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which includes the analysis area, is 400 to 600 bears (USFWS 2004b). Gray Wolf

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. Although wolves in Wyoming remain listed and protected under the ESA, additional flexibility was provided for their management under the provisions of the final rule and special regulations promulgated for the nonessential experimental population on November 22, 1994.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were historically found throughout Wyoming, but were virtually exterminated from the western United States by the 1940s (USFWS 1994 in Forest Service 2003a). Wolves use a variety of habitats, including coniferous forests, montane meadows, and shrub-steppe. Key components of suitable habitat include: sufficient year-round prey base of ungulates and alternate prey, suitable and semi- secluded denning and rendezvous sites, and sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans (USFWS 1987 in Forest Service 2003a). The analysis area is considered ungulate spring, summer, and fall range as well as being adjacent to an elk feeding ground. Preferred wolf prey species of deer, elk, and moose are all found in and adjacent to the analysis area.

In 1995 and 1996, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. Beginning in 1997, two packs successfully established territories within and adjacent to the Jackson and Buffalo Districts of the B-TNF. Observations of wolves have been reported as far south as Kemmerer. Wolves were observed near the Jewett feeding ground in the winter of 2001 to 2002, but no elk kills were reported. The Daniel wolf pack dens in the Wyoming Mountain Range but this pack’s territory is huge and includes the project area (Bradley, pers. comm., 2005). They are known to use the project area. In both 2003 and 2004, they pushed elk out of the feeding grounds. All four radio-collared wolves from the Daniel pack were found dead in 2004, but at least six of the pack survived (Bradley, pers. comm., 2005). Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) was listed as a threatened species March 24, 2000. This final rule listed the Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx in the contiguous United States as Threatened. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

Historically, lynx were observed in every mountain range in Wyoming with concentrations of observations in western Wyoming (see Appendix B). The primary forest types used by lynx in the western United States are lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir (Agee 1999, McKelvey et al. 1999, Squires and Laurion 1999). A variety of stand ages and structures of forest cover provides both denning and foraging habitat.

Foraging habitat for lynx has typically been described in terms of suitability for their primary prey, snowshoe hares. Hares use young conifer stands that are densely stocked with seedlings or saplings, tall enough to provide browse for snowshoe hares above typical winter snow depth (Koehler and Brittel 1990). Buskirk et al. (1999) suggested that snowshoe hare abundance should be high in both sapling and old, “gap phase” forests, where tree mortality and snag loss created gaps in the canopy that allowed increased understory production. Thus, foraging habitat could be defined as either sapling or old forest structures with high densities of small-diameter stems 1 to 3 meters high.

3-126 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Denning habitat is defined by the presence of ground-level structures that provide security and cover for kittens. Suitable structures are often found in old and mature forests with substantial amounts of coarse woody debris; however, it may also be provided in early successional forests where windthrow and snags are present (Aubry et al. 1999). Other forest structural stages, such as closed-canopy mid-age to mature forests with little understory cover, are generally not selected for either foraging or denning, but may serve as travel habitat (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Lynx may avoid recent clearcuts that are more than 100 m wide because they lack sufficient cover (Koehler 1990). Such areas may also not be recolonized by prey species (mainly snowshoe hares) until as much as 20 to 25 years post harvest (Koehler and Brittell 1990).

Historic wildfire and timber harvest within the analysis area were factors in some areas in promoting dense natural regeneration. There were large expanses of dense natural regeneration, as indicated by present-day forests. The resulting mix of residual overhead cover and dense lodgepole and aspen regeneration provided the best possible conditions for snowshoe hares. Also, these disturbances occurred across an area large enough to have a very substantial impact in regards to the amount of productive snowshoe hare and lynx habitat that was available. This habitat would have persisted for some decades, but the reduction in timber harvest and the initiation of effective fire control resulted in an end to such widespread disturbances. Since that time canopy closure and the self-pruning process have greatly reduced snowshoe hare cover and forage availability during winter. Much of the aspen component is in late seral condition. Aspen is being lost though the un-natural succession from conifers on a wide scale. Mixed aspen and conifers stands are productive for wildlife, including snowshoe hares, but where there has been a lack of disturbance for an extended period of time the aspen component is being lost.

Information provided by the USFWS (see Appendix B) for lynx in Wyoming describes similar habitat requirements: subalpine or coniferous forests of mixed ages and structural classes. Mixed age classes provide both mature forests with downed logs, and windfalls provide cover for denning, escape, and protection from severe weather and early successional forest stages that provide habitat for the snowshoe hare. Snowshoe hare require structured and regenerating forests that provide an abundance of cover and food at ground level in summer and at snow level in winter. It is likely that forest structure and composition during winter is a limiting factor. Dense, low-hanging conifer branches are essential for thermal cover. The USFWS recommends that habitats that are most beneficial to lynx are areas that retain an overstory for concealment and forested connectivity between feeding, security, and denning habitats.

The USFWS, Forest Service, BLM, and National Park Service initiated an interagency coordination effort in which LAUs were identified to aid in recovery management. As part of the Lynx CA developed during the interagency coordination, a series of conservation measures were established to protect existing lynx habitat. Measures that stipulated the maximum percentage of denning or foraging habitat allowed in unsuitable conditions for each LAU were identified, among others.

Canada lynx, and lands mapped as lynx habitat occur in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). Wyoming Gap Analysis results show habitat for lynx and specific areas that are apparently suitable for denning and for foraging. The Lynx

3-127 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Conservation Agreement (Lynx CA) between the USFWS and the Forest Service specifies that recommendations found in the Lynx CA (Ruediger et al. 2000) will be reviewed and considered prior to making any new decision to undertake actions in lynx habitat. The analysis area falls within lynx analysis unit (LAU) 1404010120, Cottonwood Creek (Fifth level hydrologic unit code). The areas of lynx habitat as well as lynx habitat in unsuitable condition has been mapped following criteria in the Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) and are presented in Table 3-29.

TABLE 3-29 Lynx Habitat Following Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy Criteria Lynx Analysis Unit Acres

Cottonwood Creek LAU 48,541

Lynx Habitat in the Cottonwood LAU 24,327

Currently Unsuitable Lynx Habitat in the Cottonwood LAU 2,482

Potential denning habitat in the Cottonwood LAU 6,962

Yellow-billed Cuckoos

Yellow-billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus) are a candidate species for listing under the ESA. This neotropical migrant may go unnoticed because it is slow-moving and prefers dense vegetation. It breeds in North America and winters primarily south of the U.S.- Mexico border. It once flourished in western cottonwood and willow riparian forests and thickets, but is now nearly extinct west of the Continental Divide, where it has disappeared from large portions of its former range and is extremely rare in the interior West.

In the West, yellow-billed cuckoos prefer sites with a dense understory of willow (Salix spp.) combined with mature cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and generally within 100 meters of slow or standing water (Gaines and Laymon 1984). The yellow-billed cuckoo is also known to use non-riparian, dense vegetation such as wooded parks, cemeteries, farmsteads, tree islands, Great Basin shrub-steppe, and high elevation willow thickets (DeGraff et al. 1991). It feeds on insects (mostly caterpillars), but also beetles, fall webworms, cicadas, fruit, and berries.

Population densities based on long-term data may be underestimates because of this bird’s quiet demeanor and furtive behavior, which make this species relatively easy to overlook when it is not singing. They apparently need large blocks of riparian habitat for nesting, particularly riparian woodlands with cottonwood and willows (USFWS 2002). No known occurrences of yellow-billed cuckoos exist within the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). This proposed project would not impact large blocks of riparian willow habitat. Therefore, this species will be dropped from further analysis.

3.6.3.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species The Forest Service Manual in Section 2670.5 defines sensitive species as “those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population

3-128 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

numbers, density, or habitat capability that reduce a species/existing distribution.” In Section 2670.22, management direction for sensitive species is, in part, to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions, and to maintain viable populations of all native species.

A sensitive species is defined as those plants and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by: Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

Only those species that are known or likely to occur within the analysis area and/or that may be impacted by at least one of the alternatives of this project are included here. A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared that analyzes the broader suite of sensitive species for this project. It is located in Appendix C.

Sensitive Plant Species Forest Service sensitive plant species with populations that are known to occur on the Big Piney Ranger District are listed in the BE in Appendix C, along with suitable habitat. Those species that are likely to occur within the project analysis area are listed in Table 3-30. The B-TNF is located within Forest Service Region 4 (FSR4), but it is adjacent to Forest Service Region 2 (FSR2). Some of the sensitive species listed for FSR2 also occur on the B-TNF. Only those FSR2 sensitive species that are also listed as sensitive for FSR4 are considered in this EIS.

TABLE 3-30 Sensitive Plants That Are Known or Expected to Occur Within the Project Analysis Area Potential to Be Common Federal Impacted by Project Name Scientific Name Status Treatments Habitat

Soft aster Aster mollis / Forest Service No Sagebrush grasslands and mountain Symphyotrichum Region 2 and meadows on deep, calcareous soils molle Region 4 at the edge of aspen or pine Sensitive woodlands (6400 to 8500 feet).

Payson’s Astragalus Forest Service Possibly Disturbed areas and recovering milkvetch paysonii Region 4 burns, clear cuts, and road cuts on Sensitive sandy soils with low cover of herbs and grasses (6700 to 9600 feet). Early succession.

Payson’s Lesquerella Forest Service No Rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, bladderpod paysonii Region 4 often with calcareous soils (6000 to Sensitive 10300 feet).

Creeping Physaria Forest Service No Barren, rocky, calcareous hills and twinpod integrifolia var. Region 4 slopes (6500 to 8600 feet). monticola Sensitive

3-129 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Payson’s Milkvetch

Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) belongs to the Fabaceae or Pea Family. There are 36 known occurrences of this perennial milkvetch in Wyoming, with 30 observed as late as 1992. Payson’s milkvetch is an early succession perennial plant that primarily occurs on disturbed sites such as burned areas, road cuts, blow downs, and clear cuts. It prefers sandy soils with low cover of forbs and grasses at mid-elevation (Fertig and Marriot 1993). Payson’s milkvetch is a regional endemic to east-central Idaho and Western Wyoming. Known occurrences in Wyoming are restricted to the B-TNF on the Big Piney, Kemmerer, Grey’s River, and Jackson Ranger Districts. Most populations are small and are unlikely to persist for long periods of time without some form of disturbance. Declines in populations of this species are likely a result of fire suppression in western National Forests (Fertig 2000a).

No occurrences are currently found within designated special management areas, although one population occurs within the proposed Fall Creek Special Botanical Area on the B-TNF. All other occurrences are on National Forest lands that receive no special management (Fertig 2000a).

Payson’s milkvetch is threatened primarily by succession, which makes habitats unsuitable for long-term persistence. The loss of populations originally surveyed in the 1950s is a result of forest succession (Lorain 1990). This species requires periodic disturbances to create new habitat and to keep competing late-seral species or weeds under control. Most populations are very small and probably are unable to persist over long periods of time without some form of disturbance. With long-term fire-suppression on federal lands, this species currently is found to be doing best in human-disturbed sites, such as road cuts and recovering clear-cuts (Fertig 2000a). Although Payson’s milkvetch is a seral species that tolerates and seems to require a certain amount of disturbance, plants apparently need a minimum of 15 years following disturbance to enter and become established in a disturbed area. Old skid trails, grown-over logging roads, and clearcuts that were broadcast burned are where the majority of new sightings have been found (Lorain 2000).

Sensitive Wildlife Species Wildlife species have been designated as Sensitive by the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (Region 4) and could possibly occur in the Big Piney Ranger District. Appendix C provides the BE for Sensitive Wildlife Species. Region 4 sensitive wildlife species, their general habitat preferences, and their known or expected occurrence within the analysis area are listed in Table 3-31. Species that are not known or expected to occur in the analysis area and for which suitable habitat is not present are not discussed in the following section.

3-130 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-31 Forest Service, Region 4 Sensitive Species, Suitable Habitat, and Known or Expected Presence in the Analysis Area Common Name Known or Expected Presence Scientific Name General Habitat Requirements in the Analysis Area Spotted Frog Fish-free, spring fed creeks and ponds. Habitat and individuals are present in the Rana pretiosa analysis area. Peregrine falcon Far ranging flier, lives, roosts in /on cliffs. Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Falco peregrinus Common Loon Breeds in lakes greater than 9 acres. Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Gavia immer Trumpeter Swan Breeds in remote marshes, lakes, and Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Cygnus buccinator ponds 5-10 acres or larger. Harelequin Duck Undisturbed, low gradient, meandering Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Histrionicus histrionicus mountain streams. Boreal Owl High elevation spruce-fir forests. Habitat is present within the analysis area. Aegolius funereus Flammulated Owl Breeds in mature open canopied aspen Habitat is present within analysis area. Otus flammeolus and Douglas-fir or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests. Great Gray Owl Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous Foraging habitat is present within the Strix nebulosa forests interspersed with small clearings. analysis area. Northern Goshawk Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous Foraging and probably nesting habitat is Accipiter gentilis and aspen forests interspersed with small present within the analysis area. No clearings. observations during two-year survey. Three-Toed Mature conifer and mixed conifer forests; Habitat is present within the analysis area. Woodpecker capitalizes on dead standing timber left Picoides tridactylus by stand replacing fires. Spotted Bat Caves, roosts in rock crevices on steep Habitat is not present in analysis area Euderma maculatum cliff faces. Western Big-Eared Bat Hibernates in caves, rock outcrops, and Potential roosting habitat is present; no Plecotus townsendii mine shafts; roosts in hollow trees and known hibernacula present; no snags. observations

Wolverine Generalist, utilizes a variety of habitats Habitat is present in analysis area. Species Gulo gulo spanning all elevations; needs large is not known to be present in the area. roadless areas (36 to 250 square miles).

Fisher Mature and old growth forest, closed Habitat is present in analysis area. Species Martes pennanti canopy coniferous forests at mid- to lower is not present and no historical accounts for elevations; may be limited by snow depth. the area.

3-131 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Spotted Frog

Potential habitat exists within the analysis area for spotted frogs and spotted frogs have been documented at several locations. Spotted frog habitat primarily includes oxbow ponds (without fish) with emergent sedges (Carex sp.) located in wet meadows at the edge of lodgepole pine forest. Spotted frogs can move considerable distances from water after breeding, often frequenting mixed conifer and subalpine forests, grasslands, and shrub lands of sagebrush and rabbitbrush.

Riparian areas provide critical breeding, foraging, and over-wintering habitats for amphibians such as spotted frogs. These areas also provide migratory or dispersal corridors. Timber harvest or fire can impact habitat through direct destruction and/or fragmentation.

If watersheds and the riparian/wetland areas within watersheds are in properly functioning condition, spotted frog habitat should be protected. Therefore, those watersheds currently not functioning, or functioning at risk, are probably not providing suitable habitat for spotted frogs should they occur. Wetlands, ephemeral ponds, and intermittent streams and a minimum 300-foot-wide buffer should be protected from management impacts. Larger buffers may be necessary depending on adjacent habitat and magnitude of threats (Patla 2000 in Forest Service 2003e).

In addition to spotted frogs, boreal toads and leopard frogs may be present in the project area. Both species are “species of special concern” in Wyoming. Protection of wetlands, ephemeral ponds, intermittent streams, and a minimum 300 foot buffer from management impacts should also protect boreal toads (Found on B-TNF and on adjacent BLM land) and leopard frogs and their habitat. Boreal Owl

This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). All breeding sites were between 6900 and 8500 feet elevation (Clark 1994 in Forest Service 2003e). According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Observation System database (WGFD WOS), boreal owls were also located at the southern end of the Big Piney Ranger District near La Barge Guard Station (Kemmerer Ranger District). The boreal owl prefers high elevation spruce-fir forests or aspen for foraging and nesting. Nesting habitat structure consists of forests with a relatively high density of large trees, open understory, and multi-layered canopy. The boreal owl is a secondary cavity nester that is generally associated with mature and old spruce-fir forests. As a secondary cavity nester, boreal owls rely on woodpeckers (mainly northern flickers in this area) to excavate snags and decaying trees, which they subsequently use for nesting and roosting. Owls were detected in multi-layered stands with high structural complexity, usually close to small wet meadows with complex perimeters (Clark 1994 in Forest Service 2003e). Boreal owls primarily prey on small mammals, particular red-backed voles. These species inhabit montane stands of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed trees. No survey work has been done for boreal or great gray owls within the analysis area, but suitable habitat exists.

3-132 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Flammulated Owl

This owl prefers ponderosa pine habitat, but will also utilize Douglas-fir, aspen, and/or limber pine. Douglas-fir, aspen, and limber pine are present within the analysis area. Flammulated owls are secondary cavity nesters that primarily feed on nocturnal lepidopteron moths, which they glean from the foliage. Two key habitat features that are likely to limit flammulated owl populations are availability of nest cavities and prey availability/foraging habitat; preferred species are beetles, grasshoppers, and moths (McCallum 1994a). Nesting territory occupancy has been highly correlated with high percentages of old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Linkhart and Reynolds 1997). In other areas, nesting territories were highly correlated with aspen stands (Marti 1997).

Threats to this species are mostly from habitat modifications such as timber or fuel wood removal and fire suppression (McCallum 1994b). Snag and other dead timber removal such as sawtimber and fuelwood will reduce available habitat.

Flammulated owls have not been documented on the Big Piney Ranger District, but no survey work has been done. Although no surveys have been done, they are suspected to occur within the analysis area. Forest Plan snag management guidelines should be followed to minimize potential impacts to this species. Douglas-fir and aspen stands in the project area are proposed for treatment. Great Gray Owl

This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). In the adjacent Greys River drainage, great gray owls were mainly found between 6500 and 7800 feet in lodgepole pine stands close to wet meadow complexes (Clark 1994). The great gray owl uses mixed coniferous forests usually bordering small openings or meadows. Semi-open areas, where small rodents are abundant, near dense coniferous forests used for roosting and nesting, is optimum habitat for the great gray owls. Broken top snags, stumps, dwarf-mistletoe platforms, or old hawk and raven nests are used for nesting. Great gray owls are likely present in the analysis area. Northern Goshawk

In the 1980s this species was documented in the analysis area but recent surveys have not found it (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). Goshawks tend to select stands with relatively large-diameter trees and high canopy closure for nesting (Siders and Kennedy, Daw et al. 1998 in Forest Service 2003e). In south-central Wyoming and northeastern Utah, nest tree species were mainly lodgepole pine and aspen, but Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir are also used (Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Forest Service unpublished data). Goshawks selected moderate slopes (1 to 34 percent) for nesting, but showed no preference for aspect (Squires and Ruggiero 1996). Nest sites are often close to a perennial water source.

3-133 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management grouse, jays, etc.), which they hunt from perches. Stands with pole size diameter trees and larger tend to be suitable for hunting (Hayward et al. 1990). All habitat needs for goshawk are present within the analysis area. Three-Toed Woodpecker

This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). These woodpeckers require snags in coniferous forests for nesting, feeding, perching, and roosting. In Wyoming forests, the three-toed woodpecker is only found in large, unbroken stands of mature spruce-fir and lodgepole pine. Snags with DBH of 12 to 16 inches and heights of 19.6 to 39.4 feet are preferred (Forest Service 1991 in Forest Service 2003e). This woodpecker forages on insects (primarily bark beetles), mainly in dead trees, but will also feed in live trees. The three-toed woodpecker is primarily associated with recent coniferous forest burns and bark beetle infestations in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir habitats (Hoffman 1997, Hutto and Young 1999). They excavate a new cavity annually for nesting. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Hoffman (1997) found that three-toed woodpeckers preferred to nest in moist, coniferous forests in relatively gentle terrain. Minimal survey work has occurred for three-toed woodpeckers, but they are known to be present within the analysis area.

3.6.3.3 Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are specific species chosen to indicate the effects of habitat changes associated with forest management activities (Forest Service 1990). MIS are considered to be key species that represent a set of life forms or habitat requirements similar to other groups. They are species for which populations and habitat objectives can be established so they can be tracked as indicators of habitat capability. In this way, they can be used to assess ecological conditions and trends after management changes. Species with narrow ecological tolerance to environmental changes in a given environment (either positive or negative) make the best indicators of environmental conditions and are most useful at evaluating the health of the ecosystems. MIS include harvested species, ecological indicator species, Forest Service sensitive species, and federally listed threatened and endangered species.

As shown in Tables 3-32 and 3-33, the B-TNF 1990 LRMP identified a number of MIS. An Action Plan for Assignment of Ecological Indicator Species and Wildlife and Fisheries Monitoring and Evaluation Program On the Bridger Teton National Forest was signed by Forest Supervisor Brian Stout in February 1990 to respond to LRMP issues raised by the Jackson Hole Alliance, The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. The Action Plan provided a framework for the B-TNF to interpret the LRMP content. The Ecological Indicator Species represent species narrowly restricted to a habitat, and species with important requirements provided by a habitat likely to be significantly affected by management activities.

In April 2005, the B-TNF identified four Ecological Indicator Species to be actively monitored to determine the ecological response to management activities. These species were the boreal toad and boreal chorus frog for wetland habitat, cutthroat trout for riparian habitat, bighorn sheep for mountain meadow habitat, and aspen for aspen habitat. Cutthroat trout and bighorn sheep were discussed in the DEIS and additional text is not

3-134 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

provided in this EIS for those species. However, additional text has been added to address the amphibians and aspen.

MIS Plant Species The B-TNF has chosen six plant species for the MIS list (Table 3-32). Under the Forest Plan these species are indicators of vegetative diversity that can support a range of both native plant communities and varied wildlife habitats. All but one of these species are also listed as Forest Service sensitive species for Region 4 (see the following subsection). These MIS are all indicators of satisfactory conditions across different types of habitats and different vegetation succession stages. None of these are indicators of unsatisfactory conditions, although some are indicators of early succession, which indicates a dependence on some type of disturbance regime. Shultz’s milkvetch occurs within the analysis area but not within treatment areas. It will be dropped from further analysis. Payson’s milkvetch is an early succession indicator species. It occurs within the analysis area and may occur within treatment areas. It is the only MIS plant species analyzed for this EIS. It is also listed as a Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species, so detailed analysis for Payson’s milkvetch was provided in Section 3.6.3.2, Forest Service Sensitive Species, under Sensitive Plant Species.

TABLE 3-32 Plant Management Indicator Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest with Habitat Description Common Occurs in Name Scientific Name Project Area Habitat

Sweet- Androsace chamaejasme No Montane rock crevices and rocky soils derived flowered rock ssp. carinata (A. from limestone or dolomite. May occur in jasmine lehmanniana) clearings or beneath shrub cover in leaf litter. Mid to late succession.

Payson’s Astragalus paysonii No Disturbed areas and recovering burns, clear milkvetch cuts, and road cuts on sandy soils with low cover of herbs and grasses. Early succession.

Shultz’s Astragalus shultziorum Yes Steep, rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes and milkvetch (Astragalus molybdenus) stony hilltops above timberline. Usually on limestone soils.

Wyoming Descurainia torulosa No Sparsely vegetated sandy slopes at base of cliffs tansymustard of volcanic breccia or sandstone. Early to mid succession.

Boreal draba Draba borealis No Moist, north-facing limestone slopes and cliffs and along shady streambanks. Mid succession.

Weber’s saw- Saussurea weberi No Alpine talus and gravel fields, often on limestone. wort

Aspen

Population and Habitat Status. Aspen provides important wildlife habitat and serves to increase ecological diversity within the B-TNF. In general, aspen populations in the Forest may be changing because of long-term fire suppression or, possibly, climate change (Knight 2001, Johnson 2005). However, actual declines in the cover of aspen

3-135 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

have been documented in very few areas in the West (Knight 2001). Aspen respond readily to human management actions such as cutting or burning that stimulate sucker growth and serve to reinvigorate stands. From 1987 to 1997, approximately 16,000 to 17,000 acres of aspen were treated by burning and mechanical treatments on the B-TNF to stimulate regeneration (Johnson 2005). In the Rocky Mountain Region, aspen is considered to be a seral species that will eventually be replaced by conifers in the absence of frequent fires, which serve to remove conifers. Fire suppression may have allowed aspen stands on the B-TNF to become over-mature, to the point that they may begin to deteriorate.

Aspen is very abundant on the B-TNF, with approximately 145,746 acres of cover types with greater than 30 percent aspen. Approximately 8 percent (3,733 acres) of the analysis area is in aspen. Currently, population status and trend data for aspen are not available; however, some baseline data is available through past forest stand mapping information. In the next 2 to 3 years, the B-TNF will be building/updating the vegetation layer for the Forest, which will include aspen stands (Johnson 2005). Once this data layer is developed, detailed baseline data for aspen will be available. Future inventory of aspen stands and treatments will be documented in the database, which will facilitate determination of trends in aspen status on the Forest.

MIS Fish Species The Bridger-Teton National Forest MIS lists two species of fish: Colorado River cutthroat trout and rainbow trout. However, rainbow trout are a non-native introduced species within the Green River system (Trotter 1987) so the focus of this analysis is on CRCT. Further, CRCT are designated as a species of special status by the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and are classified as a sensitive species by Regions 2 and 4 of the Forest Service (CRCT Task Force 2001).

CRCT were historically distributed throughout the headwaters of the Green and Colorado Rivers as far south as the San Juan River; they perhaps occupied portions of the lower reaches of large rivers in winter (Trotter 1987). They are currently limited to a few small headwater streams of the Green and upper Colorado Rivers in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. In Wyoming it is estimated that only 70 populations of CRCT remain and they occupy less than 280 miles of streams (CRCT Task Force 2001). CRCT population decline is related to hybridization with introduced rainbow trout, displacement by introduced brook trout, competition with other established populations of non-native salmonids, and habitat alteration/fragmentation from overgrazing by livestock, logging, roads, and water diversion for irrigation (CRCT Task Force 2001).

The WGFD has assigned the North Cottonwood Creek watershed as its third highest priority conservation population of CRCT within the Pinedale Region, with particular habitat concerns for stream, riparian, and aspen-beaver habitat alterations (WGFD 2003a). Several tributaries (Sjhoberg, Nylander, Maki, Irene, Hardin, and Ole Creeks) within the North Cottonwood Creek watershed provide important spawning and rearing habitat. WGFD has constructed several barriers within the North Cottonwood Creek drainage to prevent hybridization and competition with CRCT (WGFD 2003a).

3-136 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

CRCT seem to have adapted better to small streams, lakes, and ponds rather than large rivers. They tend to be most abundant in higher elevation streams with cobble-boulder substrates. They prefer cold, clean waters and can be found in higher gradient (> 4 percent) streams. A good balance of pools to riffles is important to CRCT persistence and the species appears to be well adapted to conditions created by active beaver colonies (Trotter 1987). Behnke (2002) supports the previous description by stating that habitat for CRCT generally include cool, clear streams (often headwaters), well-vegetated streambanks for cover and bank stability, and instream cover in the form of deep pools, boulders, and logs.

MIS Wildlife Species MIS wildlife species—as identified in the 1990 LRMP—are listed in Table 3-33 and occurrences are shown. The existing conditions, status, and population trend of most of these species were discussed in previous sections of this EIS. The last column of the table and the footnotes indicate where previous discussions of existing conditions can be found. This column also indicates if the species has been dropped from further analysis because neither the species nor suitable habitat occur in the analysis area.

TABLE 3-33 Wildlife Management Indicator Species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest Occurs or Likely Occurs in Habitats Dropped from Affected Within the Further Species Scientific Name Preferred Habitat Analysis Area Analysis Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Forests and Possible Noa meadows Bald eagle Haliaeetus Lakes and marshes Possible Noa leucocephalus Elk Cervus elaphus Coniferous forest, Yes Nob aspen and meadows Mule deer Odocoileus Coniferous forest, Yes Nob hemionus aspen and meadows Moose Alces alces Coniferous forest, Yes Nob riparian, and wetlands Bighorn sheepc Ovis canadensis Cliffs, mountainous No Yes areas, and meadows Pronghorn Antilocapra Treeless areas, No Yesb americana prairie, and sagebrush American Martes americana Mature coniferous Yes No (discussed marten forests, old growth below) Brewer’s Spizella breweri Sagebrush, willows, No Yes (see sparrow and prairie following text) a See Section 3.6.3.1 for a description of existing conditions for this species b See Section 3.2.3.2 for a description of existing conditions for this species c Also listed as an Ecological Indicator species

3-137 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

MIS are restricted to specific habitat or key habitat because it provides important life requirements. Impacts to most MIS species listed on Table 3-33 are discussed in other sections. Brewer’s Sparrows

Brewer’s sparrows inhabit sagebrush communities within the analysis area, and are an ecological indicator for sagebrush habitat. They are a sagebrush obligate species, which nests in live sagebrush or on the ground at the base of a live sagebrush shrub. Nationwide, Brewer’s sparrow populations have declined from historic levels, but Breeding Bird Survey data from 1980 to 2003 indicates that Brewer’s sparrow numbers in Wyoming were approximately stable (Forest Service 2004c). Sagebrush habitat will not be affected by the treatments. Therefore, this species is dropped from further analysis. American Marten

American martens inhabit old-growth forests, and are an ecological indicator for those habitats. Figure 3-4, based on Wyoming GAP analysis data, indicates that suitable habitat for martens exists within the analysis area and within treatment areas. Pine martens are dependent on structural diversity associated with late successional or mature forest stands for denning, resting, foraging habitat, thermal and escape cover, as well as gaining access to subnivean sites for resting and foraging during winter. They have undergone major reductions in distribution in the western United States. This is primarily due to reduction and fragmentation of habitat due to timber harvest (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994).

Forest Service (2004c) described the use of trapping records as an index of marten population trends in Wyoming as follows.

The WGFD maintains open trapping seasons on pine marten in most of Wyoming. Trapping records can be used to estimate the size and extent of the population, however, in recent years reporting of trapping harvest in the state has been reduced due to budget constraints. Therefore, trapping figures are not available for the most recent years (2001-2003). Harvest of pine martens in Wyoming fluctuated widely between 1992 and 2000. In the 1999-2000 trapping year, 59 pine marten were harvested in the hunt areas that encompass the B-TNF; however, that number does not include all trappers and would be an underestimate of the true harvest.

There are no other data regarding martin populations in the B-TNF or the analysis area.

Amphibian Ecological Indicator Species Two amphibian species have recently been selected as new Ecological Indicator Species for wetland habitats on the B-TNF. These species include the boreal toad and boreal chorus frog. These two species are discussed together because they share similar habitat requirements. Population and Habitat Status

In general, these species are relatively common throughout the B-TNF where suitable wetland habitats are found. Currently, population status and trend data for these species

3-138 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

are not available; however, some baseline data and distribution data may be available through the WGFD and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Monitoring of these species to develop population trend and status data is expected to begin in 2005 (Johnson 2005).

The boreal toad occurs from Alaska to northern New Mexico, extending from within the Rocky Mountains west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, it is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions (Baxter and Stone 1992). Boreal toads were observed in the Soda Lake area during a 1999 survey (Potla 2001).

The boreal chorus frog is the most wide-spread amphibian in Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1992). It occupies any wetland habitats from low elevation deserts to alpine areas above timberline. The boreal chorus frog is not tracked as a sensitive species in the state; therefore no observation data for this species is reported by WYNDD.

3.6.4 Desired Future Conditions

The following management prescriptions generally relate to wildlife habitat conditions and wildlife disturbance rather than directly to Special Status Species because there are no specific prescriptions for Special Status Species.

3.6.4.1 Management Prescription 1B Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription—Habitat is provided for existing populations of game and fish, but hunter-success and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department may decrease. A use-attainability study may be needed for a specific stream segment to determine if fishery-beneficial use is being protected to an adequate level.

3.6.4.2 Management Prescription 10 Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription—Groups of species are emphasized, such as early- or late-succession-dependent species, in order to increase species richness or diversity. Habitat is managed to achieve the game and fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service.

Management Activity Guideline. All management activities should be concentrated to within the shortest period of time and to the smallest possible area at a time.

Dead and Down Large Woody Material Guideline. Dead-and-down spruce and fir material should be retained on logged sites to provide wildlife habitat.

Dead and Down Large Woody Material Standard. Where available on site, four or more decomposition Class 1 and 2 logs will be retained per acre on logged sites. Down logs will be at least 12 inches in diameter at the large end and 20 feet in length. Two or more brush piles about 10 feet across and 7 feet high per acre may be retained. Dead-and- down woody material will not exceed an average depth of 18 inches. An average of 2 dead or cull-leaning trees per acre during the mature stage will be sought. To be

3-139 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

acceptable, leaning trees will be greater than 8 inches in diameter and 40 feet in length, and will be lodged in adjacent trees.

Created Opening Guideline. Created forest openings may adjoin meadows if no more than one-fifth of the periphery of the meadow edge is affected. Size, shape, and arrangement of created openings should vary to fit naturally into existing landscapes. Created openings should not exceed 1,200 feet in width unless site-specific analysis identifies the need for larger openings for wildlife habitat management purposes. Created openings should be interspersed with cover patches at least 60 acres in size.

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences

As discussed in the following section, the proposed vegetation treatments could affect special-status species in both beneficial and adverse ways, depending on the treatment and species evaluated. All effects are presented in the following text.

3.6.5.1 Forest Service Sensitive MIS Plant Species and Plant Ecological Indicator Species The only Forest Service sensitive species or MIS that occur within the project analysis area is Payson’s milkvetch. Environmental consequences to Payson’s milkvetch are discussed in detail in the following section of this EIS.

Alternative A—(No Action) Under this alternative, no action would take place. There would be no vegetation management to harvest timber or regenerate aspen stands and no action to improve roads and trails. Direct Impacts

There are unlikely to be any direct effects to any MIS or Forest Service sensitive species or aspen under this alternative. The only species with habitat in potential treatment areas is Payson’s milkvetch and the No Action Alternative would have no direct impacts to this species. Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects may occur to Payson’s milkvetch and aspen under this alternative. Both aspen and Payson’s milkvetch are species that require occasional disturbance to survive long-term. The No Action Alternative would allow succession to proceed. Lack of management action is likely to indirectly contribute to the decline in Payson’s milkvetch and aspen stands over time. Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative effects are expected to occur to MIS or Forest Service sensitive plant species or aspen under this alternative. Treatments would occur on 1,318 acres under the Maki Creek Area Project. After treatment, these stands would be in early seral stage.

3-140 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative B—(Proposed Action) Under this alternative, 1,041 acres of coniferous forest would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe burned to regenerate aspen stands. Direct Impacts

The only MIS or Forest Service sensitive plant species that is likely to be affected by this alternative is Payson’s milkvetch because it occurs in habitat that is likely to undergo treatment under the Proposed Action. Crushing by logging or road construction equipment is extremely unlikely, but possible under this alternative. No research data on the direct effects of fire to this species are available, but Payson’s milkvetch is a perennial species with a deep taproot. In general, perennial plants with deep taproots can tolerate occasional fires, particularly if they are dormant at the time of the burn. Although it is possible that treatment could disturb some occurrences of this species, it is a species adapted to disturbance and early succession. Because of this, it should suffer no long term negative impacts from treatments proposed under this alternative. Therefore, although direct effects to the MIS and Forest Service sensitive plant Payson’s milkvetch are likely to be greater under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative or Alternative C, these impacts are likely to be of limited extent and short duration.

Burning of aspen stands may affect individual plants, but will enhance the overall population health and size. Burning will stimulate aspen regeneration and remove encroaching conifers. Both of these actions would result in improved aspen stand conditions, which should benefit Payson’s milkvetch. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts to Payson’s milkvetch are likely to be positive under the Proposed Action because treatments would set succession back to early status in some areas and open up areas for this milkvetch to colonize. Indirect impacts to Payson’s milkvetch are likely to be more positive under the Proposed Action compared to the No Action Alternative or Alternative C. Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative effects are expected to occur to MIS or Forest Service sensitive plant species under the Proposed Action. Treatments would occur on 1,318 acres under the Maki Creek Area Project. After treatment, these stands would be in early seral stage.

Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) Under this alternative, 974 acres of coniferous forests would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe burned to regenerate aspen stands. Direct Impacts

Direct impacts from logging and mechanical treatment would be less than under the Proposed Action because fewer acres of coniferous forest would undergo these treatments. Possible impacts to Payson’s milkvetch from burning to regenerate aspen stands that may occur in or near this milkvetch would be the same as under the Proposed Action, but less than under the No Action Alternative.

3-141 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Aspen effects would be the similar to those described for Alternative B (Proposed Action), except that additional acres would be treated mechanically. Indirect Impacts

Alternative C would treat less forest lands through several types of harvest methods, so there would be less indirect beneficial impacts to habitat improvement for Payson’s milkvetch. Other indirect beneficial impacts would be the same as under the Proposed Action. There would be less beneficial indirect beneficial impacts to Payson’s milkvetch habitat improvement under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative effects are expected to occur to MIS or Forest Service sensitive plant species under this alternative. Treatments would occur on 1,318 acres under the Maki Creek Area Project. After treatment, these stands would be in early seral stage.

3.6.5.2 Federally Listed Wildlife Species The following section addresses the effects of each of the alternatives on wildlife species protected under the ESA. For all species except the Canada lynx, it is organized by alternative. The expected effects of each alternative on the Canada lynx are addressed separately following the discussion of the other listed species.

Alternative A—(No Action) Under this alternative, no action would take place. There would be no vegetation management to regenerate aspen stands or to harvest timber, and no action to improve roads and trails. Natural processes in the project area, including wildfire, insect and disease infestation, and succession would continue under Alternative A. Direct Impacts

There are unlikely to be any direct impacts to any federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species under this alternative. The No Action Alternative would have no direct impacts to these species. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts to bald eagles, grizzly bears, gray wolves, and yellow-billed cuckoos are unlikely under this alternative. Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative effects are expected to occur to federally listed species under this alternative.

Alternative B—(Proposed Action) Under this alternative, 1,041 acres of coniferous forest would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribed burned to regenerate aspen stands.

3-142 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Direct Impacts

During implementation of treatment to 1,041 acres of forest lands and to the 1,058 acres of aspen stands, grizzly bears and gray wolves may be disturbed. No research data on the direct effects of fire to these species are available, but they are likely to at least temporarily move out of the treatment areas if they are present. Because of the slightly larger treatment areas, potential direct disturbance impacts are likely to be somewhat greater under this alternative than under Alternative C. Any disturbance impacts are expected to be of limited extent and short duration.

Bald Eagle. There are no known bald eagle nests or sightings within the analysis area. This project is not affecting winter foraging or roosting areas. Therefore, it is very unlikely that there would be any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on bald eagles or their habitat under either action alternative.

Gray Wolf. The proposed project activities may affect dispersing or transient wolves by temporarily displacing them from the immediate areas. Even though the project area is in the Daniel wolf pack’s home range, overall effects to wolf recovery are expected to be low. Sufficient suitable security areas (forested areas) are present for wolves and big game (prey).

Grizzly Bear. Grizzly bears may be present in the analysis area. Given the relatively small area that would be treated compared to the extent of grizzly bear habitat in the eastern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, it is unlikely that there would be any impacts either within the analysis area or within the B-TNF. Effective grizzly bear habitat is defined as the amount of secure grizzly bear habitat (habitat at least one quarter mile from open roads, developments, and high levels of human activity). Because 81 percent of the occupied grizzly bear habitat within the forest is wilderness and the analysis area is south of the Primary Conservation Area, the temporary access roads are not expected to have any impacts to grizzly bears.

Individual bears or sows with cubs could be disturbed during treatment activities and be forced to move to nearby areas of similar habitat. Where grizzly bears occur, timber harvest and prescribed burning affect grizzly bears directly by altering the forest cover and by displacement caused by human activities. More detailed information is presented in this project’s associated Biological Assessment.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. No suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat would be treated and there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts to federally listed wildlife include impacts to habitat values. These impacts are likely to be negative in the short-term for areas scheduled for prescribed burning or timber harvest, but over the long term, impacts to habitat values would likely be positive under this alternative, because treatments would set succession back to early seral in some areas and open up areas for these species. There would be no indirect impacts on bald eagles or yellow-billed cuckoos or their habitat.

3-143 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Grizzly Bear. Habitat modification through timber harvest and prescribed burning indirectly impact grizzly bears by disturbing their social systems and reducing their foraging efficiency. The short-term increase in herbaceous growth might benefit grizzly bears by providing more seasonal forage a few years following treatment. As noted previously, the analysis area is south of the Primary Conservation Area for grizzly bears.

Gray Wolf. Vegetation treatment may lead to increases in big game populations. The proposed treatment is intended to promote aspen regeneration from root suckering that would provide increased cover and forage for big game that use aspen habitat. Any resulting increases in big game populations would provide more prey for large predators, including gray wolves. This would be a positive effect for wolves. Cumulative Impacts

No active timber sales exist in the Maki or Cottonwood Creek drainages. Noxious weed prevention and control is an on-going effort in Sublette County. As such, weed control efforts are likely to maintain or improve habitat over time for federally listed species addressed here. The Hoback Ranches Fire Plan, the Lower Valley Energy Natural Gas Pipeline, and the Monument Ridge Prescribed Burn projects are all located on the Big Piney Ranger District. They are approximately 20 miles north of the project area.

The Maki Creek Vegetation Treatment and the Wyoming Range Allotment Complex (WRAC) projects are adjacent to the proposed project. The Maki Creek Vegetation Treatment (1,318 acres treated) is similar to the current proposed treatment and would be expected to have similar impacts to those listed above for federally listed species. The WRAC project resulted in the discontinuation of sheep grazing on six allotments in the northern portion of the Wyoming Range.

None of these projects is likely to contribute to cumulative affects on any federally listed species for the project under analysis or to habitat within the project area. None of the planned harvests would exceed created opening standards. Any timber harvest would comply with silvicultural and reforestation standards. Together they are likely to constitute a relatively small portion of suitable habitat for these species.

Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) Under this alternative, 974 acres of coniferous forests would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribed burned to regenerate aspen stands. Direct Impacts

Direct impacts of disturbance and displacement of federal species during logging and mechanical treatment would be somewhat less than under the Proposed Action because fewer acres of coniferous forest would undergo these treatments. Possible impacts to listed species from burning to regenerate aspen stands would be the same as under the Proposed Action, but less than under the No Action Alternative.

3-144 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Indirect Impacts

Alternative C would treat slightly less forest lands through several types of harvest methods than the Proposed Action, so there would be less indirect beneficial impacts to habitat improvement for listed species. There would be fewer long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts from habitat improvement under this alternative than under the Proposed Action. Short-term negative impacts to habitat would be slightly less severe than under the Proposed Action, but more than under the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Impacts

Present and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative impacts on grizzly bears and gray wolves under Alternative C would be similar to cumulative effects described for the Proposed Action.

Canada lynx On a landscape scale, Canada lynx habitat should include a mosaic of early seral stages that support snowshoe hare populations and late seral stages of dense old growth forest that provide ideal denning and security habitat. Connectivity between Canada lynx populations is critical. Dispersal corridors should be several miles wide with only narrow gaps. Large tracts of continuous coniferous forest are the most desirable for Canada lynx travel and dispersal (Tanimoto 1998 in Forest Service 2003a). Alternative A—(No Action)

Natural processes within the Cottonwood Creek LAU, including wildfire, insect and disease infestation, and succession would continue under Alternative A. Existing young clearcuts will likely become suitable habitat for lynx (snowshoe hare) over time. However, no treatments would occur under Alternative A (Table 3-34). Habitats created by past large-scale wildfire and timber harvest will continue to move through successional stages.

Much of the aspen component is in late seral condition. Aspen is being lost though the unnatural succession from conifers on a wide scale. Mixed aspen and conifer stands are productive for wildlife, including snowshoe hares, but where there has been a lack of disturbance for an extended period of time, the aspen component is being lost. These trends would continue under Alternative A.

Indirect effects may occur to Canada lynx under this alternative. As discussed previously, lynx need snowshoe hares, which are lynx’s primary prey species. The No Action Alternative would mean that conifer encroachment into aspen stands would continue and aspen stands would continue to decline. Aspen stands may provide secondary foraging habitat. Early seral conifer stands that may provide habitat for snowshoe hares will eventually become mid-seral stem excluded stands that provide little foraging habitat for lynx. Lack of management action may indirectly contribute to the decline in Canada lynx over time.

3-145 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-34 Acres of Lynx Denning and Foraging Habitat Within the Cottonwood Creek LAU that would be Affected by the Alternatives (includes only mapped denning and foraging habitat and does not include lynx habitat in unsuitable condition) Acres of potential lynx Acres of lynx foraging denning habitat treated habitat treated Alternative A 0 0 Alternative B (see detailed information for the 307 1,630 Proposed Action below) Alternative C 230 1532 Alternative B, Proposed Action Detailed Effects Aspen (Harvest Treatment) 1 49 14 Lodgepole Pine 2 25 9 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 7 5 Other 17 0 Clear-cutting 371 155 Lodgepole Pine2 295 120 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 55 24 Other 21 11 Group-selection cutting 49 21 Lodgepole Pine2 41 17 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 8 4 Other 0 0 Salvage cutting 111 29 Lodgepole Pine2 105 26 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 0 0 Other 6 3 Shelterwood cutting 133 22 Lodgepole Pine2 112 9 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 19 13 Other tree species 2 0 Thinning 204 42 Lodgepole Pine2 171 23 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir 21 19 Other 12 0 Aspen prescribed burning 700 24 Aspen 429 9 Lodgepole Pine1 83 3 Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir1 111 12 Other 773 0 Temporary Roads4 13 0 Proposed Action Total 1630 307 1Conifers in or adjacent to aspen groves proposed for treatment. 2 Extensive lodgepole pines stands may have scattered small stands of limber pine and whitebark pine that are included in these numbers. 3 Acres affected are based on a GIS database query. 4 Assumed 2 acres disturbed per 1 mile of road and ½ of the temporary roads are in lynx habitat.

3-146 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative B—Proposed Action

Additional details regarding the assessment of potential impacts on Canada lynx that are expected to result from the Proposed Action are included in the Biological Assessment (BA) for this project.

Information in Table 3-34 indicates that 1,630 acres of lynx habitat and 307 acres of potential lynx denning habitat would be affected under the Proposed Action alternative. Numbers provided on this table are conservative estimates, in that all treatments are not clearcuts and may not result in conversion to lynx habitat in unsuitable condition. Additionally, many of the acres included in the analysis as existing lynx habitat in unsuitable condition due to past activities, were treated over 30 years ago and may actually be entering back into the foraging habitat base.

Direct Effects There is some slight potential for displacement effect during project implementation. It is “slight” because of the very low population density of Canada lynx in the area of effect. Because of the small size and scattered locations of the treatment areas, any displacement effect would likely be incidental rather than chronic, and seasonal rather than year-round. Logging and hauling operations would start only after roads firm up in late spring and end prior to the need for snowplowing. The likelihood of a lynx being struck by logging-related traffic is too slight to be a logical concern because few lynx are present in the treatment areas. In addition, vehicle speeds are slow because of the condition of the roads and trails.

Slash treatments would, for the most part, involve a mix of piling and burning and broadcast burning. If there are any slash piles to be burned, such as accumulations at log landings, it would be done during the period of snow cover. This would prevent any risk of disturbing natal dens, although the likelihood of any natal dens being established in new slash piles is low. Current practice is to select and retain some slash piles with coarse woody structure for wildlife cover. As tree regeneration and overhead cover develop, potential for denning would increase, especially if there is a positive snowshoe hare response to treatments in the vicinity.

Although timber harvest and prescribed burning would result in a temporary reduction in snowshoe hare habitat, the effect would be slight because of the small area of treatments versus the amount of lynx habitat and low lynx density. The harvest units are widely scattered and the snowshoe hare habitat that would be affected may not be very productive in its current condition. Table 3-34 provides information about the acres of lynx denning and foraging habitat that will be affected under the Proposed Action alternative. Numbers provided on this table are conservative estimates, in that all treatments are not clearcuts and may not result in conversion to lynx habitat in unsuitable condition. For example, although partial cut treatments such as group selection cuts, salvage harvest, or thinning may not actually decrease understory foraging habitat throughout the entire treatment unit, all of the acres are counted as if they would have the same affects as a clearcut. Another example is that denning habitat includes both lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir classes and impacts to both are totaled even though Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir is more suitable for denning,

3-147 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management whereas lodgepole pine and aspen are more likely used for foraging and rarely used for denning unless mixed with spruce-fir. Additionally, many of the acres included in the analysis as existing lynx habitat in unsuitable condition due to past activities were treated more than 30 years ago and may actually be entering back into the foraging habitat base.

Treatments would be particularly beneficial for Canada lynx because management treatments for aspen would provide needed habitat for snowshoe hares, which are the main prey of lynx. Improved habitat for snowshoe hares may result in increased lynx survival, especially during the winter, which could result in increased recruitment of kittens into the breeding population.

Indirect Effects The proposed project would result in no change in the permanent road system or designated over-snow routes. Proposed clear cut treatments would occur in 46 scattered small units of 2 to 27 acres. Some short, temporary skid trails would be employed, but access would be over the existing road system. Skid trails would be closed to prevent vehicle access and treated as needed to allow natural re-vegetation. In regard to habitat effectiveness, there would be no substantial alterations affecting potential for habitual presence of humans or competing predators.

About 13.8 miles of temporary roads and skid trails would be constructed and open over a 5- to 6-year period to carry out silvicultural activities. Roads would only be constructed as needed to access a treatment unit and then closed immediately after treatment. Individual roads would be open to carry out silvicultural activities for 2 to 3 years and not all of the 13.8 miles of these roads would be open at the same time. The amount of temporary roads open in any given year is not expected to exceed the Forest Plan road density standards. However, if the situation occurs where the length of open temporary roads does exceed the Forest Plan standard while they are open, the roads would be gated and locked. This would meet the intent of the Forest Plan standard to protect wildlife habitat from disturbance. Additionally, larger temporary roads would be gated to minimize public use during the winter and spring from October, November, or December (depending on snow conditions) through June. Short lengths of temporary roads, such as 1/4- or 1/2-mile long spur roads, would not be gated. The temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and the habitat restored immediately after they are no longer required. No new permanent roads would be constructed—except for the Nylander relocation as described in following text—to complete the treatments as part of the Proposed Action.

Temporary roads are narrow and vegetation is not typically grubbed out adjacent to the road. They are infrequently used and vehicle speeds are generally reduced because of the narrow road width and vegetative encroachment. The low speeds would reduce, to a very low level, the potential that a lynx would be hit by a vehicle. Human access would be allowed (on foot or in a vehicle, depending on the road). This would slightly increase the potential for disturbance of lynx. However, lynx densities are low and there would be very few miles of road open at any one time, thereby minimizing the potential for disturbance. As soon as the roads are no longer needed they would be closed and restored. Effects from temporary roads are included in Table 3-34.

3-148 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Possible denning structure occurs in Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands. Lodgepole pine and aspen stands that may have denning structure generally occur within larger areas of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir. If there is potential for denning in the vicinity, it would most likely occur in other stands that have a substantial spruce/subalpine fir and coarse woody debris components. Potential for proposed harvest activities to indirectly affect denning is small, but may occur on a maximum of 307 acres. Of these acres, only 77 acres are currently classified as Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, which has the most suitable denning habitat.

Short-Term Effects Short-term effects would be limited to possible incidental disturbance or displacement of individual lynx as a result of harvest and burning activities. Harvest activities would occur in relatively small, scattered units, so the time period of disturbance at any location would be of relatively short duration.

Long-Term Effects Long-term effects would be related to the loss of cover resulting from harvest and burning actions. Timber harvest renders lynx foraging habitat unsuitable for a period of several decades immediately after harvest, depending upon structure left on site after harvest. Denning habitat is likely to be affected for a much longer period of time, particularly in clearcut treatment areas, where structure has not been left in place after harvest. Clearcuts may not be recolonized by snowshoe hares until as much as 20 to 25 years after harvest (Koehler and Brittell 1990). However, existing conditions are not highly productive for snowshoe hares. Within about 15 years following a disturbance (the length of time varies, depending on site productivity, forest type and intensity of disturbance), vegetation will typically provide a high density of young conifer stems and/or branches that protrude above the snow, creating cover for hares (Ruediger et al. 2000). These conditions would persist for a few decades until lower branches are shaded out. Further, slash piles within clearcuts provide valuable winter shelter for hares (Conroy et al. 1979).

Impacts to habitat values would likely be positive under this alternative because treatments would set succession back to early seral in some areas and open up other areas. A complex mosaic of age-classes may provide a greater range of available browse for hares as snow depths vary throughout the winter (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lynx appear to avoid large openings, but appear to frequently use open habitat edges for foraging (Conroy et al. 1979). Long-term effects could occur if snowshoe hare populations increase with vegetation treatment of aspen stands. Retention of aspen through periodic disturbance and cycling through early seral stages may result in improved hare habitat, which may result in long-term prey increases for Canada lynx. Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads)

Under this alternative, 974 acres of coniferous forests would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribed burned to regenerate aspen stands. Information in Table 3-34 indicates that 1532 acres of lynx habitat and 230 acres of potential lynx denning habitat would be affected under this alternative. Numbers provided on this table are conservative

3-149 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

estimates, in that all treatments are not clearcuts and may not result in conversion to lynx habitat in unsuitable condition.

Alternative C would treat slightly fewer acres of both foraging and denning habitat than Alternative B. The types of potential impacts and long-term potential lynx habitat benefits would be the same as those described for Alternative B, but would occur on somewhat less area. Beneficial impacts to Canada lynx from long-term foraging habitat improvement for snowshoe hares in aspen and conifer stands would be the same for both alternatives. Other indirect impacts would be roughly the same as under the Proposed Action. There would be slightly fewer long-term indirect beneficial impacts from habitat improvement under this alternative than under the Proposed Action. Short-term negative impacts to habitat would be slightly less severe than under the Proposed Action. Cumulative Effects

A Biological Opinion (BO) was prepared from the Biological Assessment (BA) by the USFWS concerning National Forest Plans and BLM Plans. Fifteen criteria involving risk factors and conservation measures in the BA were evaluated in the BO specific to Forest Plans. Three additional criteria were not used in the BA but were included as risk factors within the LCAS.

Historic management actions and fires that occurred before 1993 affected about 1,987 acres (or about 7.8 percent) of suitable habitat. However, the LCAS standard states that “Management actions (e.g., timber sales, salvage sales) shall not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period.” Therefore, in Table 3-35, the effects of management actions and fires before 1993 are not included in the calculation of the percent change in suitable lynx habitat to unsuitable condition.

TABLE 3-35 Cumulative Effects of Vegetation Treatment on Lynx Habitat in the Cottonwood Creek LAU Acres in the Cottonwood Creek LAU Historic lynx habitat 24,327 Current lynx habitat in the LAU 21,845 Current lynx habitat in unsuitable condition* 2,482 Percent of lynx habitat currently unsuitable (10.2%) Acres of lynx foraging habitat treated Alternative A + Maki Creek 1,318 Alternative B + Maki Creek 2,948 Alternative C + Maki Creek 2,850 Percent conversion of LAU to unsuitable condition from historic levels Alternative A + Maki Creek 5.4% Alternative B + Maki Creek 12.1 % Alternative C + Maki Creek 11.7% *Assumes all previous timber harvest and fires in the Cottonwood LAU are currently in unsuitable condition for lynx.

3-150 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Analysis of Maki parcels adjacent to the Proposed Action are summarized from the Maki Creek Area Projects EA (2004) and the Maki Creek Area Projects BA Concurrence Letter (Appendix B). The Maki vegetation project will affect a total 1,318 acres of lynx habitat on the Cottonwood Creek LAU with treatment (Table 3-35). This will result in a change of 5.4 percent of suitable habitat to unsuitable condition for lynx foraging over the entire LAU (the No Action Alternative in Table 3-35). The Cottonwood II Proposed Action would convert an additional 1,630 acres of suitable foraging habitat to unsuitable condition (Table 3-35). The affected Cottonwood project area also includes 307 acres of potential denning habitat (within the 1,630 acres of foraging habitat). This represents < 2 percent of the designated old growth forest (potential lynx denning) in the analysis area. The total projected conversion of suitable habitat to unsuitable condition within the past 10 years (none) and projected for the future from both the Maki treatments and the Proposed Action would be 2,948 acres, or about 12.1 percent of the suitable habitat (Table 3-35). This is below the LCAS standard that states that “Management actions (e.g., timber sales, salvage sales) shall not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period.” The total projected conversion of suitable habitat to unsuitable condition within the past 10 years (none) and projected for the future from both the Maki treatments and Alternative C would be 2,150 acres, or about 8.8 percent of the suitable habitat (Table 3-35). Alternative A

Historic wildfire and timber harvest were factors in some areas in promoting dense natural regeneration. There were large expanses of dense natural regeneration, as indicated by present-day forests. The resulting mix of residual overhead cover and dense lodgepole and aspen regeneration provided the best possible conditions for snowshoe hares. Also, these disturbances occurred across an area large enough to have a very substantial impact in regards to the amount of productive snowshoe hare and lynx habitat that was available. This habitat would have persisted for some decades, but the reduction in timber harvest and the initiation of effective fire control resulted in an end to such widespread disturbances.

Approximately 163 acres of past (1970s) timber harvest plus tie hacking (partial cutting to remove trees suitable for railroad treatment areas)—which occurred from the 1920s through the 1940s—has occurred in the Maki Creek project area. The forested regeneration in the 1970s timber sales are now 10 to 15 feet high on the average and dominated by lodgepole pine. Approximately 7.8 miles of roads that provided access to the harvest units are present. Past harvest areas in the Maki area are currently considered as lynx habitat in unsuitable condition. There is an old fire area (about 20 acres) located at the head of Little Maki Creek. Burned timber on 15 acres was harvested and the area was replanted. The timber forest in this burn has not regenerated sufficiently to provide elk hiding cover or lynx/hare habitat at this time.

The Maki vegetative treatments will not reduce lynx denning habitat in the Cottonwood Creek LAU. The Maki vegetation project will affect a total of 1,318 acres of foraging habitat in the Cottonwood Creek LAU. This will result in a reduction of 5.4 percent in the amount of current lynx habitat within the LAU.

3-151 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Alternative B

The combined Cottonwood II (Alternative B) and Maki projects would result in a reduction of 12.1 percent in the amount of current lynx habitat within the LAU. Alternative C

The combined Cottonwood II (Alternative C) and Maki projects would result in a reduction of 8.8 percent in the amount of current lynx habitat within the LAU.

3.6.5.3 Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species

Alternative A—(No Action) Under this alternative, no action would take place. There would be no vegetation management or timber harvest to regenerate aspen stands and no action to improve roads and trails. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on sensitive wildlife species.

Alternative B—(Proposed Action) Under this alternative 1,041 acres of coniferous forest would be treated and 1,058 acres of aspen would be prescribe burned to regenerate aspen stands. Direct Impacts

Spotted Frog. A section of Nylander Creek Road would be moved out of the riparian zone as part of the proposed project. Sediment produced during this removal may impact spotted frogs if they inhabit downstream areas. This impact would be of relatively short duration. New suitable habitat might be created as Nylander Creek stream is rehabilitated following road removal.

Boreal Owl. Boreal owl habitat in mixed aspen forests would be directly affected by the proposed treatments, resulting in habitat loss. The relatively small size of the treatment areas relative to other available habitat should limit potential impacts to a few individual owls rather than at the population level.

Flammulated Owl. Flammulated owl habitat in aspen-spruce/fir forests would be directly affected by the proposed treatments, resulting in habitat loss. The relatively small size of the treatment areas relative to other available habitat should limit potential impacts to a few individual owls rather than at the population level.

Great Gray Owl. While there are no documented sightings of great gray owls in the Big Piney Ranger District, suitable habitat is apparently present throughout the analysis area. The Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2004b) notes that any removal of timber reduces potential nesting sites and foraging habitat for this species. While substantial areas of similar suitable habitat likely exist in the analysis area, some habitat loss would occur. Therefore, while it is likely that this habitat loss would affect individual birds or pairs, no adverse effects at the population level would be expected.

3-152 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Northern Goshawk. Suitable goshawk nest sites within aspen and conifer stands would likely be lost as a result of the proposed treatments. The Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment (Forest Service 2004b) notes that any removal of timber reduces potential nesting sites and foraging habitat for this species. While substantial areas of similar suitable habitat likely exist in the analysis area some habitat loss would occur. Therefore, while it is likely that this habitat loss would affect individual birds or pairs, no adverse effects at the population level would be expected.

Three-Toed Woodpecker. Habitat for this species is apparently widespread within the analysis area, including many of the treatment sites. The treatments would remove a relatively small proportion of this habitat from the analysis area. Indirect Impacts

Any of the sensitive species that happen to be present in or near treatment areas would be disturbed by human activity and displaced from the immediate area around treated sites.

Spotted Frog. Temporary roads, timber harvest, and prescribed burns would all result in short-term increases in water temperature and sediment. Spotted frogs are present in drainages downstream of treatment sites. Both of these factors could lead to degraded spotted frog habitat and reduced productivity for a period of 1 to 5 years following treatment.

Boreal Owl. No other indirect impacts are expected. As a secondary cavity nester, boreal owls may benefit if additional large diameter snags are created by the prescribed burns.

Flammulated Owl. Indirect effects would be similar to those described for boreal owls. The creation of smaller openings and thinned conifer stands may benefit foraging flammulated owls.

Great Gray Owl. No additional indirect effects are expected.

Northern Goshawk. No additional indirect effects are expected.

Three-Toed Woodpecker. No additional indirect effects are expected. Cumulative Impacts

Present. There are no active timber sales on the Maki or Cottonwood Creeks drainages. Noxious weed prevention and control is an on-going effort in Sublette County, but is likely to maintain or improve habitat over time for species addressed here. The Hoback Ranches Fire Plan, the Lower Valley Energy Natural Gas Pipeline, and the Monument Ridge Prescribed Burn projects are all located on the Big Piney Ranger District. They are approximately 20 miles north of the project area. These projects are unlikely to adversely affect any sensitive species on this project area. Past timber sales would have removed snags and created early seral conditions. This would benefit some and adversely affect other wildlife species.

The Maki Creek Vegetation Treatment and Wyoming Range (Taliaferro) Grazing Allotment Complex projects are adjacent to the proposed project. The Maki Creek

3-153 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Vegetation Treatment is similar to the current proposed treatment and would be expected to have similar impacts to those listed above for sensitive species. The Taliaferro Grazing project is a continuation of current grazing and would be expected to have no additional impacts. Together they constitute a relatively small portion of suitable habitat for these species.

Reasonably Foreseeable. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Sensitive Species Conclusion. The conclusion for all sensitive species discussed above is that the proposed activities “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to population or species.”

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on sensitive species would be very similar, though slightly less than those of the Proposed Action because of the slightly smaller treatment area.

Sensitive Species Conclusion. The conclusion for all sensitive species would be the same as for the Proposed Action.

3.6.5.4 Wildlife and Fish Management Indicator Species (MIS) Individual species are considered in other sections of this EIS and those analyses are not repeated here. Direct and indirect effects on bald eagle and grizzly bear were discussed in the previous threatened and endangered species section. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on elk, mule deer, and moose were discussed in Section 3.2.5. Other wildlife MIS would not be impacted, as previously indicated. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects on Colorado River cutthroat trout were discussed in Section 3.5.5. Effects on amphibian Ecological Indicator Species are discussed here.

Amphibian Ecological Indicator Species Alternative A—(No Action)

There would be no vegetation treatments under this alternative, and No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the boreal toad or boreal chorus frog would occur. Alternative B—(Proposed Action)

Direct Impacts

A section of Nylander Creek Road would be moved out of the riparian zone. Sediment produced during this removal may impact individual toads or frogs if they inhabit

3-154 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

downstream areas. This impact would be of relatively short duration and new habitat may be created as part of the stream rehabilitation following removal of the road. In addition, the avoidance of wetlands if they are discovered, as well as the 300-foot-wide buffer along streams in the treatment areas would avoid impacts. There would be no long-term effects on these species.

Indirect Impacts

Temporary roads and burns may result in a short-term increase in temperature or sediment, which would affect downstream individuals. No long-term effect on the populations would be expected.

Cumulative Effects

No projects in the drainages proposed for these treatments or downstream of the treatments would affect these amphibians. However, portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take. Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, although slightly smaller in scale. The conclusion for amphibian Ecological Indicator Species would be the same as for Alternative B.

3.7 Roads and Transportation

3.7.1 Introduction

All significant issues identified in Section 1.9.1 and listed in Table 1-1 of this EIS depend to some degree on the design, location, and number of roads in the analysis area. Roads are important in achieving management objectives and many of the management activities in the analysis area require roads. Users of the transportation system include administrative, commercial, and recreational users. Commercial users include timber harvesters, outfitters, and firewood collectors. Hikers, horse riders, anglers, and hunters are the major recreational user groups.

Improving or rehabilitating roads would reduce sedimentation and improve water quality (Issue 4). The density, use, and location of roads also affect wildlife habitat and habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout and other aquatic organisms (Issues 1, 2, and 3). Most roads are accessible to high-clearance vehicles, but some are closed during certain times of the year. Road closures are to protect wildlife habitat, preserve the road surface, protect water quality, and provide non-motorized recreation opportunities. There are 26 miles of open classified roads and 25 miles of restrictive access classified roads in the analysis area. All roads are gated where access changes.

3-155 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

No new roads would be constructed, therefore the Roads and Transportation analyses will focus on three areas: 1) roadless areas, 2) temporary roads, and 3) replacement of two bridges and replacement of one culvert with a bridge. Although part of the road system, replacement of the eleven remaining culverts is addressed in Section 3.5, Fisheries. The relocation of a portion of Nylander Road from the riparian area to uplands is addressed in Section 3.4, Hydrology, Soils, and Water Quality.

3.7.2 Existing Conditions

3.7.2.1 Roadless Areas On July 16, 2004, the Chief of the Forest Service issued an Interim Directive on roadless areas (Interim Directive No. 1920-2004-1). The new policy states:

“Inventoried roadless areas contain important environmental values that warrant protection. Accordingly, until a forest-scale roads analysis (FSM 7712.13b) is completed and incorporated into a forest plan, inventoried roadless areas shall, as a general rule, be managed to preserve their roadless characteristics. However, where a line officer determines that an exception may be warranted, the decision to approve a road management activity or timber harvest in these areas is reserved to the Chief or the Regional Forester as provided in FSM 1925.04a and 1925.04b. On a project- specific basis, the Chief, for good cause, may grant exceptions to the reservations of authority set out in this interim directive, upon the written request of a Regional Forester or Forest Supervisor.”

An Inventoried Roadless Area is defined in the new directive as “Those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National headquarters of the Forest Service, or any update, correction, or revision of those maps.”

There are three inventoried Roadless Areas in the treatment areas.

3.7.2.2 Temporary Roads Temporary roads are required to access certain areas identified for vegetation management that do not have adequate access on existing roads. All temporary roads are restored to their pre-disturbance contours and revegetated with native vegetation comparable to existing vegetation types. Temporary roads are constructed in such a manner to comply with R1/R4 Soil Management Practices (Forest Service 1988).

3.7.2.3 Bridge Crossings As shown Figure 2-2, two bridges would be replaced and one culvert would be replaced with a bridge. These actions would occur on North Cottonwood Road (#10125) and include the bridges over Ole Creek and North Cottonwood Creek and the culvert crossing at upper North Cottonwood Creek.

3-156 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

The bridge over Ole Creek is designed to provide fish passage, which would be maintained after replacement. Wing walls to channel water through the bridge would be included in the design, because road material is currently being pushed into the creek when bladed. The addition of sediment to drainages is detrimental to the survival of CRCT and other aquatic organisms. The replacement bridge would be wide enough to provide for snowmobile grooming equipment, as this is part of the groomed snowmobile trail system.

The bridge over North Cottonwood Creek has also been designed to promote fish passage. The existing bridge would be replaced with a wider bridge to accommodate snowmobile trail grooming equipment. Fish passage would continue to be provided. A new over-flow culvert would be installed under the road about 100 feet upstream of the bridge to provide an outlet for waters being backed-up because of beaver activity.

The culvert in upper North Cottonwood Creek would be replaced with a bridge to reduce sediment input into the stream during blading. Wing walls to channel water through the bridge would be included in the design. The new bridge would be wider to accommodate snowmobile trail grooming equipment.

3.7.3 Desired Future Conditions

The DFC in inventoried roadless areas is to manage them to preserve their roadless characteristics, unless the Chief or the Regional Forester recommends that an exception is warranted. No exception has been recommended for the proposed project. DFCs do not exist for temporary roads and bridges, but there are DFCs related to recreation and habitat. Recreation and fish habitat require clean water, which indirectly indicates that temporary roads and stream crossings should not contribute to the sediment load in streams.

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences

3.7.4.1 Roadless Areas There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to roadless character of inventoried roadless areas from any alternative, as there are no proposed treatments, other than some prescribed fire, nor road building in inventoried roadless areas or synergistic effects with other identified projects in the area.

3.7.4.2 Temporary Roads

Alternative A—No Action There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts from temporary roads, as there would be no temporary roads constructed with this alternative.

3-157 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

The construction of 13.8 miles of temporary road has the potential to contribute small amounts of sediment into streams when they are located up slope of the stream or where they cross a stream. Application of R1/R4 soil management measures (Forest Service 1988) and Wyoming BMPs would prevent significant quantities of sediment from entering streams. Temporary roads would be restored to the original contour and vegetation type after vegetation management activities supported by a particular temporary road are completed. Therefore, any impact would be short-term. Indirect Impacts

There would be no indirect impacts, because implementation of erosion control measures and eventual restoration of the temporary roadway would prevent sediment from entering streams. Cumulative Impacts

There would be no cumulative impacts from implementation of this alternative.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Alternative C would have 9.3 miles of temporary road constructed to support project activities. All temporary roads would be restored to the original contour and vegetation type. Direct impacts as discussed for Alternative B, the Proposed Action, would also occur with this alternative, however, the impact would be less as there are fewer miles of temporary roads being constructed. Indirect and cumulative impacts (none of either) would be the same as described above for the Proposed Action.

3.7.4.3 Bridge Crossings

Alternative A—No Action No bridge improvements would be implemented under the No Action Alternative. Sediment would continue to enter Ole and North Cottonwood Creeks from road maintenance activities. Snowmobile groomers would continue to have difficulty crossing the existing bridges.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

Direct impacts associated with bridge replacement or construction include disruption of traffic and potential sediment deposition into the stream during and immediately after construction. North Cottonwood Road (#10125) would be closed for during construction, and recreation and commercial users desiring to conduct activities in the upper North Cottonwood Creek drainage would not be able to do so. All R1/R4 soil management measures recommended for bridge construction would be followed (Forest Service 1988), as would Wyoming BMPs. No construction activities would occur directly in the stream. Erosion control measures such as silt fencing, sediment catchments, and in-stream

3-158 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

sediment barriers would be employed to protect aquatic habitat. Even with precautions however, some minor amount of sediment may enter the stream during and immediately after construction. The small quantities involved would not likely result in adverse impacts to aquatic organisms. Native riparian vegetation would be established on all bare slopes as soon as construction activities allow.

The long-term benefits of keeping maintenance-derived sediment from entering the stream and providing for more efficient snow-grooming would outweigh the minimal short-term impacts from the Proposed Action. Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts would be beneficial and include removal of a stream-sediment source at each bridge crossing and improved maintenance of the snowmobile system. Cumulative Impacts

Removal of three sources of sediment into North Cottonwood Creek would give the stream greater capacity to absorb sediment from other sources until those sources can be removed, also.

Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads All direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative B, the Proposed Action.

3.8 Heritage Resources

3.8.1 Introduction

Prehistoric sites, historic sites, and traditional cultural properties (TCP) are examples of heritage resources. The Forest Service’s Heritage Resource Project, Site Atlas, historic files, and survey data were reviewed for the analysis area. A brief heritage resources history of the analysis area, an overview of the number of acres surveyed, and the number and type of prehistoric and historic properties recorded is presented below. There were no significant issues or indicators identified for heritage resources during public scoping.

3.8.2 Existing Conditions

3.8.2.1 Prehistoric Period Evidence of prehistoric use of the study area is limited. Previous archaeological investigations were project-driven block inventories and are primarily undertaken in the more heavily forested and steeply sloped areas that generally do not contain concentrations of prehistoric materials. Archaeological evidence gathered from the Cottonwood Drainages and adjacent areas suggest that prehistoric inhabitants used the area for short-term events such as small temporary camps or specialized hunting and gathering areas. The Old Indian Trail, which shows up on some of the earliest maps for this area, is within the study area and was used in the past—possibly for centuries. Long-

3-159 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

time residents report that local Indians used the trail in the 1880s. Indians from the Wind River Reservation stated that the trail was used, in part, as a migration route to the Fort Hall Reservation. Seasonal migrations of Native Americans through the Green River Basin are also believed to have used the Old Indian Trail. Portions of the trail remain visible today; however, much of it has been destroyed. It is believed that more prehistoric history will be documented as the less heavily wooded and more gently sloped drainage systems are inventoried (Forest Service 2002c).

3.8.2.2 Historic Period The most significant historic event within the analysis area was the establishment of the tie hack industry in the early 1900s. Supplying railroad ties for the Union Pacific Railroad required vast quantities of lodgepole pine, and the forests in the Cottonwood drainages were an ideal location for this resource.

As early as 1914, the Wyoming National Forest (now part of the B-TNF) began to conduct reconnaissance surveys in the Cottonwood drainages to assess how much timber was available, how marketable the timber was, and where the most productive stands were located. The Standard Timber Company was making plans to move into this area as early as 1915; however, the Union Pacific Railroad contracted for cheaper ties from Oregon, which forced the Standard Timber Company to abandon its plans. These plans were revitalized in 1917 when the price for lumber rose as a result of the war. In 1919, the Standard Timber Company began operations in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks with an estimated yield of over 2 million hewn ties, 39 million board feet of saw lumber, and 12 million linear feet of mine props (Rosenberg 1990). Tie hack operations were to continue in the Cottonwood Creeks through the 1920s and into the 1930s. Gradually, the Standard Timber Company moved its operations north into the Horse Creek drainages.

The forested areas of the Cottonwood drainages continued to attract lumbermen from the Big Piney area. In 1950, two individuals were permitted by the Forest Service to operate sawmills in the area. Walter Bird operated mills in South Cottonwood Creek, while Theodore Duthie operated mills in the Nylander Creek drainage—a tributary of North Cottonwood Creek. The presence of saw mills on National Forest lands resulted in large piles of milled lumber, or slash/saw dust piles.

The tie hack industry in the study area is considered a significant event in local history. This industry supported the development of the transportation network for the B-TNF that allowed greater access to this portion of the Wyoming Mountain Range (Forest Service 2002c). At the present time, the majority of the archaeological sites recorded in the study area are related to the logging industry of the historic period.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, mandates the Forest Service to take into account the effect an undertaking will have on historic properties. The Forest Service must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the effect of the undertaking (NHPA Section 106). The procedures for implementing this process can be found at 36 CFR 800. Other legislation to be considered includes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA).

3-160 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

These laws protect American Indian access to religious sites and address treatment of Native American remains.

3.8.2.3 Heritage Resources Prior to 2001, 1,826 acres had been surveyed within the Cottonwood II analysis area. Additional surveys in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 for proposed treatment areas associated with this EIS inventoried an additional 1,751 acres for a total of 3,577 acres. Within the analysis area, a total of 27 sites have been identified, with 26 being historic and only one being prehistoric. The prehistoric site was determined to be not eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, only two isolated prehistoric artifacts have been located within the analysis area. One of the isolates was a Late Archaic projectile point (ca. 2000 to 3000 years b.p.). Almost all of the historic sites recorded in the analysis area are related to the tie hack industry with the exception of the Old Indian Trail. Of the 26 historic sites in the analysis area, eight are considered eligible for the NRHP.

3.8.3 Desired Future Conditions

Continue the preservation and conservation management of Heritage Resources according to federal legislative guidelines and the FS management plan. Implementation of these guidelines would meet the desired future conditions.

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences

3.8.4.1 Alternative A—No Action Direct Impacts

There is no potential for direct impacts to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. Management would continue as it has in the past. Cultural resources would be protected from loss of integrity and physical damage because of continuing ongoing resource management activities. Cultural resource sites would continue to be located and recorded, primarily in reaction to these resource management activities. Indirect Impacts

There is a potential for indirect impacts to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative. If vegetation treatment projects are not implemented, then the increase in dead and dying trees and accumulation of fuels could lead to large stand replacing wildfires that could destroy the many historic tie hack cabins that are present throughout the North and South Cottonwood drainages.

Management would continue as it has in the past. Cultural resources would be protected from loss of integrity and physical damage resulting from continuing ongoing resource management activities. Cumulative Impacts

There would be no cumulative impacts to heritage resources under the No Action Alternative.

3-161 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.8.4.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action Direct Impacts

Cultural resources would be protected from loss of integrity and physical damage resulting from undertaking resource management activities under the Proposed Action. Cultural resource sites would continue to be located and recorded, primarily in reaction to the proposed resource management activities. All of the historic properties eligible for the NRHP would be avoided by project related activities. The tie hack cabins on South Cottonwood Creek and Halverson Creek would be stabilized to protect their historic significance and interpretive value, through the use of Knutson–Vanderberg (KV) funds. The proposed treatment areas would not be visible from the Old Indian Trail so the visual integrity of this National Register-eligible property would be protected. No historic properties would be affected under this proposal. Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action may cause indirect impacts on cultural resources. Increased public use or activities in the analysis area because of the Proposed Action may result in increased damage to historic properties, such as the tie hack cabins. In addition, removal of vegetation through prescribed burns in the analysis area may expose and facilitate the discovery and removal of artifacts from sites that may not have been recorded. Monitoring of the eligible historic properties would continue as project implementation proceeds. Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative impacts on cultural resources in the analysis area are anticipated from the combined effects of the Proposed Action and the projects listed in Table 3-1. No impacts on heritage resources were identified in the Maki Creek Area Projects Environmental Assessment—an area located adjacent to and north of the Cottonwood II project area. Portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

3.8.4.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads Direct Impacts

Cultural resources would be protected from loss of integrity and physical damage resulting from undertaking resource management activities under Alternative C. Cultural resource sites would continue to be located and recorded, primarily in reaction to the proposed resource management activities. All of the sites eligible for the NRHP would be avoided by project-related activities. No historic properties would be affected under this alternative. Monitoring of the eligible historic properties would continue as project implementation proceeds. Indirect Impacts

Potential indirect impacts on cultural resources under Alternative C would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

3-162 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts

3.9 Environmental Justice

3.9.1 Introduction

This section addresses whether or not implementation of the proposed project would result in environmental justice effects. On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. This federal action and USDA Regulations 5600-2 direct federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations (including disadvantaged populations, such as minorities and low-income individuals) are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. 3.9.2 Existing Conditions

The analysis area is in a completely rural setting and has no permanent human residents. The nearest communities (Big Piney and Marbleton, Wyoming) are approximately 40 miles to the southeast. Public involvement activities described in Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action (see Section 1.9, Public Involvement), and Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination, document the efforts made to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Section 1.9, Issues, summarizes significant issues by the public on the proposed project. There were no significant issues or indicators identified for environmental justice during public scoping. Implementation of any project alternative would not cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. 3.9.3 Desired Future Conditions

To meet the direction of Executive Order 12898, the Forest Service requires, where proposals have the potential to disproportionately adversely affect minority or low- income populations, those effects must be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through the NEPA analysis and documentation.

3-163 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences

3.9.4.1 Alternative A—No Action Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to minority or low- income populations.

3.9.4.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action There would be the potential for employment for members of any minority groups during implementation of Proposed Action activities. There would be no disruption of minority groups from project implementation of the Proposed Action, since implementation would occur in a completely rural setting where there are no permanent human residents and the population in adjacent areas is very dispersed. No disproportionate negative direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on minorities or low-income communities are expected.

3.9.4.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads No environmental justice impacts would occur under this alternative, the same as described for the Proposed Action.

3.10 Recreation and Visual Resources

3.10.1 Introduction

3.10.1.1 Recreation “Recreation Opportunities” are not identified as a significant issue in Table 1-1; however, treatment of the other significant issues will have impacts on the nature and quality of recreation opportunities that are available in the analysis area within Management Area 25 (MA 25). This section addresses the following: B-TNF-wide recreation opportunities The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications assigned to lands within the B-TNF; the Forest-Wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines The recreation opportunities and the Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for MA 25, and the recreation prescriptions associated with those DFCs.

3.10.1.2 Visual Resources “Visual Resources” are not identified as a significant issue in Table 1-1; however, treatment of the other significant issues will have impacts on the nature and quality of the visual resources that are available in the analysis area within MA 25. This section addresses the following: The B-TNF-wide visual resources The Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) assigned to lands within the B-TNF

3-164 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest-Wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines; the visual resources and the DFCs for MA 25, and the visual resource prescriptions associated with those DFCs

3.10.2 Existing Conditions

3.10.2.1 Recreation

Forest-Wide Recreation The northern end of the B-TNF is influenced by the tourism associated with Grand Teton National Park, the National Elk Refuge, and private and commercial recreation. The east side of the B-TNF is heavily used by wilderness visitors and others attracted to the Wind River Range and the upper Green River. The southern part of the B-TNF also receives significant visitation. Privately owned camping facilities are available near the B-TNF, as well as numerous resorts, hotels, and guest ranches. There were more than 1.7 million visitor days on the B-TNF annually as of 1990.

The B-TNF offers a wide range of dispersed recreation opportunities. Developed campgrounds and picnic areas total 572 acres on the B-TNF. Nearby private-sector developed recreation, particularly ski resorts, is of national importance.

Over 200 outfitters and guides offer services for day and overnight trips for river floating, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Commercial operators compete intensely with one another and also compete with private users for limited recreation resources on the B-TNF.

Some developed sites are crowded and overused. These sites are usually used to capacity on weekends, holidays, and on some weekends during July and August. No new developed sites have been built since 1970, and the total capacity of developed sites has remained the same. Emphasis has been on reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities.

The trail system on the B-TNF consists largely of traditional routes that are decades old, most of which were constructed for purposes other than recreation. The trail system includes winter sports trails, many of which are located on summer roads. Ski and snowmobile trails may be groomed, marked, or both. Trails give access to most of the backcountry areas on the B-TNF, and most are maintained periodically. Because the location and design of many of the trails are not suited to the heavy traffic they receive, they are deteriorating. The damage resulting from heavy use is compounded by the lack of annual tread maintenance and adequate water drainage. B-TNF-wide, 2,959 miles of trails exist, of which 2,426 miles are constructed system trails and 533 miles are unconstructed trails.

Records of recreation use on the B-TNF show no particular trend. Use levels have been high, but have remained stable within a 10 percent range until 1990 (Forest Service 1990).

3-165 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Forest-Wide Recreation Resource Management National Forests provide a wide variety of settings for recreation experiences. Recreation settings vary from primitive—where there is little evidence of other people, more difficult access, and more opportunities for self reliance—to more developed areas that offer more facilities, better access, and opportunities to interact with other recreationists. A classification system called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is used to help describe recreation settings and to guide management activities. The ROS has the following six classifications for Forest lands (described in Appendix A): Primitive Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Urban

The B-TNF has assigned lands within the B-TNF to the ROS classifications.

Approximately 32 percent of the total recreation use reported on the B-TNF in 1986 took place in developed sites, within the Roaded Natural ROS setting. Reported use in developed sites on the B-TNF in 1986 was 519,240 recreation visitor days (RVDs). Recreation use on forest roads and scenic highways within the Roaded Natural setting accounted for 1,124,352 RVDs in 1986, including activities such as camping in developed sites, downhill skiing, staying at recreation residences and resorts on the B-TNF, scenic driving, and dispersed use on B-TNF roads. RVDs reported for recreation in the Roaded Natural setting is 59 percent of the B-TNF total.

Road access within the B-TNF has changed the recreational opportunities that were previously available on undeveloped and non-roaded land. Much of the B-TNF today contains Primitive and Semi-Primitive opportunities. However, as non-roaded areas have been developed, a change from the Primitive end of the ROS toward Roaded Natural has occurred.

Forest-Wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines The Forest-wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines apply to all areas on the B-TNF outside of congressionally designated Wilderness. In many cases, they are more general than the DFCs. Recreation Resource Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines

Table 3-36 presents the recreation prescriptions, standards, and guidelines.

3-166 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-36 Recreation Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines Prescription, Standard, or Guideline Description

Recreation Prescription The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification system is used for facility planning and to direct management. Recreation on the B-TNF provides the full range of recreation opportunities, managed to create a balance of public and private uses responsive to local, regional, and national demand. Land and Resource Management Objectives substantially supported by B- TNF-wide Standards and Guidelines for recreation include: 1.1(f), 2.1(a,b), 2.2(a,b), 2.3(a), 2.8(a), 4.5(b), 4.7(c), and 4.8(a).

Winter Restrictions Over-snow vehicles and helicopters for skiing will avoid crucial winter ranges. Standard

Dispersed Camp Site Backcountry campsites will be managed according to the Frissell Condition Condition Standard Classification System. Actions—close, protect, or restore—will be taken to restore campsites that do not meet Class 3. In some areas, where it is desirable to establish minimally developed campsites, they will meet standards appropriate to the recreation setting in which they are constructed.

Developed Facility Appropriate facilities will be provided at developed sites to prevent resource Standard damage, protect public health and safety, and meet the desires of people who use developed sites.

Dispersed Use Area Low-development-level facilities will be provided at undeveloped concentrated- Standard use areas to prevent resource damage and protect public health and safety.

Recreation Information Information about recreation opportunities will be made available to the public. Standard This will include recreation guides, brochures, and maps.

Recreation Riparian Area No new recreation sites will be built in riparian areas unless a clear public Standard need can be demonstrated and no other reasonable alternative exists. Unless designed to be submerged, recreation development will not occur in wetlands and in 100-year floodplains.

Pack-in/Pack-out Standard Where disposal facilities are not available, implement a “pack-in/pack-out” solid waste—garbage—removal policy.

Access to Recreation Sites Sites should be chosen so that recreational facilities can be designed to be Guideline accessed by the physically challenged.

Outfitter and Guides Outfitter and guide facilities in dispersed areas should be built in less- Facilities Guideline frequented areas. To prevent unacceptable resource damage or sanitation problems, facilities may be built at popular locations. Only essential facilities will be provided at commercial outfitter camps in accordance with camp standards agreed upon with the outfitter and guides.

Livestock Interference Recreationists should be informed about their effects on cattle movements and Guideline behavior, emphasizing loss of market and other resource values such as riparian and water quality values. Recreation access or traffic flow may be controlled form time to time to reduce interference with livestock trucking or driving.

3-167 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Access: Trails Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines

Table 3-37 presents the trails prescriptions, standards, and guidelines.

TABLE 3-37 Trails Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines Trails Prescription, Standard, or Guideline Description Access: Trails Prescription Non-motorized and motorized trails are provided for a wide variety of uses and difficulty levels. Trails are maintained to appropriate levels or signed as closed with reasons stated. Driveways are maintained for stock movement. Land and Resource Management Objectives substantially supported by B-TNF-wide Standards and Guidelines for trails include: 1.2(c,d), 2.5(c,d), 4.5(a), 4.7(c), and 4.8(a). Standard Level Maintenance National Forest development trails should meet standard level maintenance Guideline criteria. Trail Closure Guideline Trails may be relocated, and seasonally or permanently closed. Snow Trail Standard A system of snow trails will be designated and marked. Snow Trail Location Snow trails should be located to avoid areas of high avalanche hazard and Guideline crucial wildlife winter ranges. National Forest National Forest development trails will be protected. Trails disrupted by Development Trail Standard resource development activities will be relocated or rebuilt. Trail User Conflict The trail system should be managed to minimize conflicts among users, Minimization Guideline including motorized and non-motorized recreation and livestock. Dude Trail Guideline Particularly in areas with potential for activities causing surface-disturbance or noise, sensitivity should be displayed towards the need to protect or help relocate trails used by dude ranches or other outfitters and guides. Off-Highway Vehicle Motorized off-highway vehicles will be restricted to routes or open roads Standard designated for that use. Vehicle use will be consistent with state law and federal regulations for both licensed and unlicensed vehicles and operators. Trail Signing Guideline Trails should be signed at all intersections and terminal points showing multiple destinations and distances. Signs for physical features may be appropriate. Trailheads may be signed to indicate the degree of trail difficulty. For further information, see Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18. Trail Condition Standard Trail tread width will not exceed 24 inches. Multiple “braided” trails that develop will be obliterated and relocated so that there is only one tread.

Management Area 25 Recreation Recreational use of the Cottonwood drainages occurs year-round. The trend in recreation use is upward and some new low-impact facilities will likely be built to accommodate the use, though there is no firm timetable. The Cottonwood area is used during the summer, and is more heavily used during the fall hunting season. The North and South Cottonwood areas provide opportunities for dispersed camping and day use, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, fishing, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, driving, and special use activities. The area is open to winter sport use. In the remainder of the Cottonwood area, the impact on dispersed campsites is low to moderate, with the

3-168 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

moderately impacted camps becoming highly impacted over time if not properly managed. Campsites are visited and monitored periodically by forest personnel to ensure they are kept clean and attractive. There are several cabins and tie hack cabins in the area. Primitive hiking and camping experiences are found at higher elevations in areas designated DFC 12 and 2A (Forest Service 2004b). Both Forest-system trails and non-Forest-system trails are located within the analysis area. The trails are used mainly by horseback riders and hikers, but are also open for mountain biking and non-motorized uses. The trails receive more use in the fall than in the summer (Forest Service 2004b). A portion of the Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail is located within MA 25 (Forest Service 1990, Forest Service 2002). An outfitter camp is located within the analysis area approximately 1 mile from the northern analysis area boundary along Nylander Creek (Marsh 2004).

Management Area 25 Recreation Resource Management The B-TNF has designated ROS classifications to lands within MA 25. The vast majority of the MA is designated as Roaded Natural. A small portion on the west side of the MA is designated as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and a smaller portion, also on the west side of the MA, is designated as Primitive (Marsh 2004). The Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized area is a transition area between the Primitive and Roaded Natural settings in the MA. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas exist in the northeast and west corners of the MA and in an area east of the Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail. Lands classified as Semi-Primitive Motorized exist along the southeastern boundary of the MA and in portions of Maki and Chase creeks (Forest Service 2004b). Table 3-38 provides a breakdown of the acreage within the analysis area assigned to the various ROS classifications.

TABLE 3-38 Acres of MA 25 Assigned to the ROS Classifications Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classification Acres

Primitive 5,760

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 10,119

Semi-Primitive Motorized 6,263

Roaded Natural 26,400

Source: Forest Service 2004b. Total acres add to 48,542 in this table, compared to 48,541 as listed in Section 1.2 of this EIS. The difference in calculation reflects rounding for GIS purposes.

3.10.2.2 Visual Resources

Forest-Wide Visual Resources The B-TNF has many scenic areas including perennial snow fields on mountain peaks, lush green vegetation, and clear mountain lakes and streams.

3-169 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Most of the Forest is in an undisturbed condition, with an essentially natural landscape. Some lands on the Forest have been altered by activities such as timber harvest, roads, and oil and gas development. Although these activities are done within the constraints of the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) assigned to the areas within the Forest, some changes to the forest landscape have occurred. Areas that are managed to meet VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention appear natural, even with the landscape altering activities. As timber harvest units, road cuts, and other disturbances revegetate, the degree of landscape change has decreased.

Forest-Wide Visual Management The Forest Service has developed measurable standards or objectives for the visual management of National Forest lands. These standards are termed Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). They are represented by five terms that can be defined as visual resource management goals. The VQOs are as follows (see Appendix B for descriptions): Preservation Retention Partial Retention Modification Maximum Modification (Forest Service 1974)

Table 3-39 lists the number of acres within the B-TNF assigned to the five VQOs.

TABLE 3-39 Acres and Percent of the B-TNF Assigned to the Visual Quality Objectives Bridger-Teton National Forest

Visual Quality Objective Acres Percent

Preservation 1,300,500 38

Retention 893,800 26

Partial Retention 770,700 22

Modification 447,000 13

Maximum Modification 25,700 1

Total Acreage in Forest 3,437,700 100

Source: Forest Service 1990.

Forest-Wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines The Forest-wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines apply to all areas on the B-TNF outside of Congressionally designated Wilderness. In many cases, they are more general than the DFCs. Visual Quality Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines

Table 3-40 presents the visual quality prescriptions, standards, and guidelines:

3-170 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3-40 Visual Quality Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines Prescription, Standard, or Guideline Description

Visual Quality Visual quality objectives are defined in this plan and serve as a classification Prescription system used to set objectives for facility planning and resource management. Land and Resource Management Objectives substantially supported by B-TNF- wide Standards and Guidelines for visual quality: 2.5(a-d), and 4.1(b).

Sensitive Travel Route Along certain visually sensitive travel routes, the VQO will be Retention or Partial Standard Retention. The Management Area narratives at the end of this chapter (in the LRMP) contain identifications of visually sensitive routes.

Slope Rounding All permanent Service Level A and B roads will have top-of-cut rounding to blend Guideline the cut slope into the natural slope.

Management Area 25 Visual Resources The analysis area is part of the Overthrust Belt in the Central Rocky Mountains. The landscape contains sharp mountain peaks, steep cliff faces, and rock outcroppings. Triple Peak, Lander Peak, and Bare Mountain reach over 10,000 feet in elevation. Because of the variation in soil types and parent material, such features as stratified rock faces, landslides, alluvial fans, and talus slopes are dispersed along side slopes. Color variations created by the diverse geology and vegetation range from shades of gray and brown to deep shades of green, orange, yellow, and red. Vegetation varies sharply because of dramatic changes in elevation, slope, aspect, and climate. North-facing slopes are densely forested, and south-facing aspects have sparser vegetation, revealing the geology of the area. The majority of the landscape is occupied by conifer forest with lodgepole pine being the most dominant species. Other species such as Engelmann spruce, aspen, and subalpine fir also comprise the forested portions of the landscape. The remaining 30 percent of the area consists of grasses and sagebrush. Bands of riparian vegetation follow the alignments of creeks and lakes. Soda Lake, North and South Cottonwood Creeks, and many small tributaries dissect and add to the diversity of the landscape. Evidence of current and past management activities in the watershed includes: transportation systems; mining, oil, and gas development; various types of vegetation treatments; domestic grazing; and recreation use. The road system is the predominant constructed feature on the Roaded Natural ROS landscape, which makes up the majority of the Cottonwood area. In addition to the road system, other human-made elements include: historic cabins, fencing, clear cuts, tie hacked areas, evidence of grazing and recreation use (for example, soil compaction and changes in vegetation), an abandoned coal mine, oil and gas activity, trail systems, and signs. The clear cuts occur along Nylander, North Cottonwood, McDougal, Ole, Hardin, and Irene Creeks. Oil and Gas facilities are present on South Cottonwood Creek, west of Soda Lake, and on Bare Pass.

3-171 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

In the western portion of the analysis area where it is assigned a primitive ROS setting, other than the trail system and associated signing, little human-caused alterations to the natural landscape are evident. Critical viewpoints and corridors offer views of and to the area. They serve as locations from which specific effects to the scenic resources can be described and evaluated. Travel routes within the area include: the North Cottonwood-McDougal Gap Road, the South Cottonwood Road, and the Bare Mountain Road. In addition, the area surrounding Soda Lake is considered sensitive because of its heavy concentration of recreation use. Non- motorized trails within the MA include: the Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail, Maki Creek Trail, Eagle Creek Trail, South Fork of Cottonwood Creek Trail, and South Cottonwood Creek Trail. Although relatively few people view the area from these routes, the scenic integrity is important to the recreation experience being sought.

Management Area 25 Visual Resource Management The B-TNF has assigned VQOs to the MAs within the Forest. The majority of MA 25 is designated as Retention; lands are also designated as Partial Retention, and a smaller portion of the MA is designated as Modification (Martens 2004). However, most of the proposed cutting units are within partial retention or modification areas. Areas of Retention (management activities are to remain unnoticed by the average visitor) exist within foreground areas along main travel corridors and in popular dispersed recreation areas. These include North and South Cottonwood Roads, Bare Mountain Road, the Soda Lakes area, and the primitive recreation setting within the 2A management prescription, including the Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail. Areas with the VQO of Modification (human activities can be dominant but borrow from naturally occurring line, form, color, and textures of the natural landscape) occur within 1B and 10 management prescriptions. The remainder of the area is classified as Partial Retention (human activities are to remain subordinate to the surrounding natural landscape) (Forest Service 2004b). Table 3-41 provides a breakdown of the approximate acreage within the analysis area assigned to the various VQOs.

TABLE 3-41 Acres of MA 25 Assigned to the VQOs Visual Quality Objective Acres

Retention 25,262

Partial Retention 13,699

Modification 9,446

Source: Forest Service 2004b.

3.10.3 Desired Future Conditions

3.10.3.1 Recreation Similar to the B-TNF-wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines, the DFCs describe land management direction intended to accomplish the Goals and

3-172 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Objectives. The DFCs are used as basic tools for land management; each DFC has a unique set of Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines. MA 25 consists of the following 4 DFCs: 1B, 2A, 10, and 12. The ROS classifications that are associated with each of the DFCs are listed in Table 3-42. Because DFCs encompass large areas and prescribed activities may not occur everywhere within the area, other ROS classes may be present, particularly those tending toward the primitive end of the spectrum.

TABLE 3-42 ROS Classifications Associated with the DFCs of MA 25 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classifications Desired Future Semi-Primitive Semi-Primitive Condition Primitive Non-Motorized Motorized Roaded Natural 1B X X X X 2A 10 X X X 12 X X Source: Forest Service 1990.

Table 3-43 shows recreation prescriptions associated with management prescriptions.

TABLE 3-43 Recreation Prescriptions Associated with Management Prescriptions Prescription Description Management Prescription 1B Recreation Prescription Recreation is managed to provide Roaded Natural appearing opportunities in roaded areas, and Semi-Primitive opportunities in other areas. Roaded recreation opportunities are compatible with timber, livestock grazing, and minerals development. Recreation activities suitable for this area include dispersed, road-oriented uses such as firewood gathering, roadside camping and day use, OHV use on open routes, hunting, and winter sports. Use of closed roads for semi-primitive forms of recreation such as horseback riding and hiking is suitable. Management Prescription 2A Recreation Prescription Manage the physical and social setting to provide Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized opportunities. Helicopter Use Helicopters for skiing and geophysical exploration should use designated non- Guideline motorized areas. Off-Highway Vehicle OHVs will not use the area. Over-snow, motorized vehicles will be allowed to use Standard designated trials and dispersed-use areas. Campsite Guideline High-impact campsites should be restored to meet Frissell Condition Class 3. In some locations, designated campsites may be established, not to exceed Development Level 1. Education Guideline Visitor education and no-trace guidelines should be used to minimize social and physical impacts to the area. Signing Guideline Signing may be used for user safety, education, convenience, and interpretation. Group Size Standard Group sizes larger than those allowed in Wilderness areas will be allowed. The social setting will be managed as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized.

3-173 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 3-43 Recreation Prescriptions Associated with Management Prescriptions Prescription Description Management Prescription 10 Recreation Prescription Existing roaded recreation opportunities continue where they do not interfere with the objectives for this area. Areas of both Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized are provided. Management Prescription 12 Recreation Prescription Recreation and other human activities are managed to meet needs of the big- game species. Recreation Opportunity Existing roaded recreation opportunities should be allowed to continue where Guideline they do not interfere with objectives for this area. Areas of Semi-Primitive recreation should be provided for both motorized and non-motorized use. Existing and future road systems should be managed to retain backcountry areas that are large and remote enough to provide Semi-Primitive recreation.

The common recreation activities that might be found after a DFC is applied to an area are shown in Table 3-44. Because DFCs are applied to large areas and every prescribed activity may not occur everywhere within the area, the recreationist may find a considerable range of opportunities available.

TABLE 3-44 Common Recreation Activity Associated with the DFCs of MA 25 Desired Future Condition Common Recreation Activity 1B 2A 10 12 Off-road motors A NA A A Snow Vehicles/heli-skiing A AR AR A Mountain biking A A A A Christmas tree cutting AR AR AR A Private firewood A NA A A Developed recreation Facility NA NA NA NA Concentrated recreation NA NA A A Concession facility NA NA NA NA 4x4s on roads A NA A A Scenic driving A NA A A Hiking/pack trails AR A A A Cross-country skiing A A A A Hunting A A A A Fishing A A A A Source: Forest Service 1990 A = Appropriate AR = Appropriate with area restrictions NA = Not appropriate

3-174 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.10.3.2 Visual Resources Similar to the B-TNF-wide Management Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines, the DFCs describe land management direction intended to accomplish the Goals and Objectives. The DFCs are used as basic tools for land management; each DFC has a unique set of Prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines. MA 25 consists of the following 4 DFCs: 1B, 2A, 10, and 12. The VQO classifications that are associated with each of the DFCs are listed in Table 3-45. Because DFCs are applied to large areas and every landscape-altering activity may not occur everywhere within the area, other VQOs may apply.

TABLE 3-45 VQO Classifications Associated with the DFCs of MA 25 Visual Quality Objective Classifications Desired Future Condition Preservation Retention Partial Retention Modification 1B X X 2A X X 10 X 12 X X X Source: Forest Service 1990.

Table 3-46 shows visual prescriptions associated with management prescriptions.

TABLE 3-46 Visual Prescriptions Associated with Management Prescriptions Prescription Description

Management Prescription 1B

Visual Quality Prescription The VQO is generally Partial Retention or Modification. In sensitive foreground areas, the VQO is Retention.

Management Prescription 2A

Visual Quality Prescription The VQO for this area is Retention. Structures, trails, and signs repeat the form, line, color, and texture found in the characteristic natural landscape.

Management Prescription 10

Visual Quality Prescription The VQOs are Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification.

Management Prescription 12

Visual Quality Prescription The VQOs are Retention and Partial Retention.

3-175 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.10.4 Environmental Consequences

This section addresses the potential direct and indirect impacts to recreation opportunities and visual resources from the implementation of Alternatives A, B, and C. Because of the difficulty in clearly distinguishing between direct and indirect effects on these two resource areas, they are discussed together under a single heading. This section also addresses the potential cumulative impacts on recreation opportunities and visual resources from implementing the project in combination with the following proposed projects, which were listed in Table 3-1. All of these projects would be located in Sublette County, and most would be located in the Big Piney Ranger District: Noxious weed prevention and control Hoback Ranches fire plan, approximately 20 miles northwest of the project Lower Valley Energy Natural Gas Pipeline, approximately 20 miles north of the project Maki Creek vegetation treatment, adjacent to the Cottonwood II project Monument Ridge prescribed burn, approximately 20 miles north of the project Wyoming Range Grazing Allotment Complex

3.10.4.1 Recreation

Alternative A—(No Action) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Several dispersed recreation activities (including hunting, camping, day use, fishing, picnicking, mountain biking, and snowmobiling) occur throughout the analysis area in all seasons of the year.

Implementation of Alternative A (No Action) would result in no vegetation management occurring within the treatment area (30,894 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years. Ongoing management activities (including routine maintenance of existing roads and trails, fire suppression, tree/firewood sales, oil and gas activities, outfitting, and range management) that currently occur within the analysis area would continue to occur on the same schedule that they currently are performed.

If Alternative A is implemented, the following effects on the recreation setting are expected: No change in existing recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping and day use, OHV use, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, or winter sports would occur Adverse impacts to existing hunting opportunities are expected from the lack of vegetation management activities Adverse impacts to fishing opportunities are expected to continue from the ongoing sedimentation into Nylander Creek from Nylander Road, and no change from existing fishing opportunities along the creeks in the treatment areas from no culvert replacements and no stream crossing replacements Recreation traffic safety would continue to be less than desired on South Cottonwood Road due to the road’s current width and configuration

3-176 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

These are discussed in the following text.

Effects on Existing Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Implementation of Alternative A would have no direct impact on existing recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping and day use, OHV use, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, or winter sports within the 30,894-acre treatment area because no treatment activities would occur that could conflict with those recreational pursuits. No changes in access (road detours, road closures, closed areas, closed trails) to desired locations within the treatment area are expected with implementation of this alternative. However, the lack of treatment activities in the treatment area could result in the quality of wildlife habitat in that area declining, which could result in wildlife species relocating to other areas in the B-TNF outside of the treatment area, thereby potentially changing the available hunting opportunities within the treatment area.

Implementation of Alternative A would have no direct impact on existing recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping and day use, OHV use, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, or winter sports within the 17,647-acre area that is outside of the treatment area, but is within the analysis area. This is because no treatment activities would occur within that area that could conflict with those recreational pursuits. No changes in access (road detours, road closures, closed areas, closed trails) to desired locations within that area are expected with implementation of this alternative. However, the lack of treatment activities in the treatment area could result in the quality of wildlife habitat in that area declining, which could result in wildlife species relocating to the 17,647 acres outside of the treatment area, thereby potentially changing the available hunting opportunities within the 17,647-acre area. For example, aspen stands in the treatment area that are currently degrading would not be regenerated, resulting in a likely decline in habitat for elk, mule deer, and other wildlife that use aspen habitat. This decline in habitat within the treatment area may result in species relocating to other areas within the B-TNF, and therefore, may adversely affect big game hunting opportunities in the analysis area. Similarly, the lack of other vegetation management activities in the treatment area (for example, partial cuts, clear cuts, or salvages) associated with implementation of this alternative may also cause the decline of habitat used by other wildlife species. This decline in habitat within the treatment area may result in species relocating to other areas within the B-TNF, and therefore, may result in adverse impacts on hunting opportunities for other species in the analysis area.

It should be noted that this potential indirect effect on hunting opportunities within the analysis area could also be occurring now, so Alternative A would result in no change from existing conditions.

Effects on Existing Fishing Opportunities. The 1-mile portion of Nylander Road would not be relocated with implementation of Alternative A, therefore, road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek would continue. This may adversely affect existing fishing opportunities along this creek.

3-177 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

It should be noted that this potential indirect effect on fishing opportunities along Nylander Creek could also be occurring now, so Alternative A would result in no change from existing conditions.

With implementation of Alternative A, no culverts would be replaced and no improvements to stream crossings in the treatment area would occur. Therefore, fish passage would not be improved, fish barriers would not be created, and fishing opportunities would not change from existing conditions.

Effects on Recreation Traffic Safety. The 1-mile portion of South Cottonwood Road would not be reconstructed if this alternative is implemented, therefore, access to the area by recreation traffic would not be improved (not made safer). Traffic safety would continue to be less than desired on South Cottonwood Road.

It should be noted that this reduced level of recreation traffic safety occurs now, so Alternative A would result in no change from existing conditions, unless recreation traffic levels along South Cottonwood Road increase. In that case, the recreation traffic safety level along that road would be expected to decline (become less safe).

Effects on Existing Recreation Facilities and Access to Existing Facilities. With implementation of this alternative, the 1-mile portion of Nylander Road would not be relocated to the dry ridge area to the east, ending at an existing dispersed camping area. Therefore, a new recreation facility access would not be provided, and the recreation benefit to recreationists would not be realized. This is no change from existing conditions.

Implementation of this alternative would preclude the development of the end-of- Nylander Road trailhead improvements, so the recreation benefit to recreationists would not be realized. This is no change from existing conditions. Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of Alternative A (No Action) would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the other projects that would be implemented in the area. This is because Alternative A consists of no change from existing vegetation management practices.

Alternative B—(Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of Alternative B (Proposed Action) would result in a variety of vegetation management activities occurring within the treatment area (30,894 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years, in addition to ongoing management activities that currently occur within the analysis area.

It is expected that a total of 2,099 acres (6.8 percent of the treatment area) would receive the proposed treatments during the spring (starting March 1), summer recreation season (Memorial Day through Labor Day), and into fall (through the end of October).

3-178 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Therefore, no impacts on winter recreation opportunities or recreationists engaging in recreation activities between November 1 and March 1 are expected.

Proposed activities would be consistent with the Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized ROS designations of the area because no activities are proposed in those areas. Proposed activities would be consistent with the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS designation because moderately dominant alterations are allowed. Proposed activities would also be consistent with the Roaded Natural ROS designation because the landscape modifications associated with this alternative may be evident and would harmonize with the natural setting.

If Alternative B is implemented, the following effects on the recreation setting are expected: Effects on existing recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping and day use, OHV use, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, or winter sports would occur Potential improvement in existing hunting opportunities, and associated benefit to hunters from the vegetation management activities Potential improvement in fishing opportunities from the proposed relocation of Nylander Road and from replacement of culverts and improvements to stream crossings Potential improvement to recreation traffic safety on South Cottonwood Road, and associated benefit to recreationists traveling on that road

These are discussed below.

Effects on Existing Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Implementation of Alternative B would result in some short-term disruption of spring, summer, and fall recreation opportunities and use in the treatment area through the closure of certain areas, trails, or roads, or required detours. This could be due to the presence of equipment or because of activities such as partial cuts, clear cuts, burns, road relocation and reconstruction activities, replacement of culverts, or installation of bridge improvements.

Closures would cause recreationists to avoid the area, displacing them from within the treatment area to other areas within the B-TNF. This would shift recreation use to other areas, putting additional use pressure on those areas, and possibly increase use levels in other areas to their capacities. Offsetting that impact are several circumstances: 1) proposed harvest activities are usually confined to June through October; 2) proposed harvest activities are seldom active on weekends when most recreational use would occur; 3) proposed activities are restricted from taking place on opening weekends of big game hunting season; 4) relatively small percentages of each individual treatment area would be treated; 5) proposed activities would not occur continuously for the entire 8 months of each year (for example, burning would take place during short time frames in the fall or spring; and 6) none of the proposed vegetation management activities would change the spectrum of recreation opportunities available in the treatment area.

With implementation of Alternative B, the habitat quality within the treatment area is expected to improve, which could result in more wildlife species inhabiting the area. Big

3-179 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

game hunting opportunities may then improve, and an associated benefit to hunters in the area may occur. A long-term reduction in potential for large-scale wildfire in the area is expected as a result of implementation of Alternative B, which would be a benefit to recreationists.

Effects on Existing Fishing Opportunities. A 1-mile portion of Nylander Road would be relocated with implementation of Alternative B, which would reduce road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek. This may improve existing fishing opportunities along this creek, which would be a benefit to anglers.

With implementation of Alternative B, 12 culverts would be replaced and improvements to 2 stream crossings in the treatment area would occur. Although the replaced culverts and bridge improvements would be provided as part of this alternative to compensate for potential impacts to Colorado River cutthroat trout as a result of implementing the alternative, the replaced culverts and stream crossing improvements would improve fish passage in certain locations and create intended fish barriers in other locations. This may improve fishing opportunities in the area, resulting in a benefit to anglers.

Effects on Recreation Traffic Safety. A 1-mile portion of South Cottonwood Road would be reconstructed if this alternative is implemented, providing safer access to the area for recreation traffic and others. This would be a benefit to recreation traffic. As recreation use and associated recreation traffic in this area increases, the benefit of the widened and reconfigured roadway would continue.

Effects on Existing Recreation Facilities and Access to Existing Facilities. With implementation of this alternative, the 1-mile portion of Nylander Road would be relocated to the dry ridge area to the east, ending at an existing dispersed camping area. This would provide a new recreation facility access, which would be a benefit to recreationists.

Implementation of this alternative would include the development of the end-of-Nylander Road trailhead improvements. This would also be a benefit to recreationists. Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of Alternative B (Proposed Action) would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the other projects listed above and in Table 3-1 that would be implemented in the area. This is based on the following reasons: 1) three of the six projects would be located 20 miles away from the analysis area, resulting in no overlap in proposed activities within the analysis area; 2) all six projects, plus the Proposed Action, are relatively short-term projects; and 3) no significant impacts on recreation opportunities from implementation of Alternative B are expected. However, portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

3-180 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of Alternative C would result in a variety of vegetation management activities (fewer acres harvested than Alternative B; fewer miles of temporary roads needed than Alternative B; increases the number of acres of aspen treated, when compared to Alternative B; same amount of acres burned as Alternative B; and same culvert replacements and bridge improvements as Alternative B). These activities would occur within the treatment area (30,894 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years, in addition to ongoing management activities that currently occur within the analysis area.

It is expected that a total of 2,032 acres (6.6 percent of the treatment area) would receive the proposed treatments during the spring (starting March 1), summer recreation season (Memorial Day through Labor Day), and into fall (through the end of October). Therefore, no impacts on winter recreation opportunities or recreationists engaging in recreation activities between November 1 and March 1 are expected.

If Alternative C is implemented, the following effects on the recreation setting are expected: Effects on existing recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping and day use, OHV use, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, or winter sports would occur Potential improvement in existing hunting opportunities, and associated benefit to hunters from the vegetation management activities Potential improvement in fishing opportunities from the proposed replacement of culverts and improvements to stream crossings as well as Nylander Road rerouting

These are discussed below.

Effects on Existing Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Similar to Alternative B, implementation of Alternative C would result in some short-term disruption of spring, summer, and fall recreation opportunities and use in the treatment area through the closure of certain areas, trails, or roads, or required detours. This could be due to the presence of equipment or because of activities such as partial cuts, clear cuts, burns, road relocation and reconstruction activities, replacement of culverts, or installation of bridge improvements. During timber harvest activities, main roads would remain open and recreation restrictions limited to areas of active falling and skidding operations.

3-181 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

The treatment mix associated with Alternative C would be the same as for Alternative B, while the acreages of each treatment type would differ from that associated with Alternative B. However, the total number of acres receiving treatment is similar (67 fewer acres to receive treatment with Alternative C). In addition, the areas to be treated by both alternatives are similar, and the same culverts would be replaced and the same stream crossings would be improved with both alternatives. These factors, when combined, would result in recreation impacts from implementation of Alternative C being similar to those that were discussed for Alternative B.

Closures would cause recreationists to avoid the area, displacing them from within the treatment area to other areas within the B-TNF. This would shift recreation use to other areas, putting additional use pressure on those areas, and possibly increase use levels in other areas to their capacities. Offsetting that impact are several circumstances: 1) proposed harvest activities are usually confined to the June through October time period; 2) proposed harvest activities are seldom active on weekends when most recreational use would occur; 3) proposed activities are restricted from taking place on opening weekends of big game hunting season; 4) relatively small percentages of each individual treatment area would be treated; 5) proposed activities would not occur continuously for the entire 8 months of each year (for example, burning would take place during short timeframes in the fall or spring; and 6) none of the proposed vegetation management activities would change the spectrum of recreation opportunities available in the treatment area.

With implementation of Alternative C, habitat quality within the treatment area is expected to improve, which could result in more wildlife species inhabiting the area. Big game hunting opportunities may then improve, and an associated benefit to hunters in the area may occur. A long-term reduction in potential for large-scale wildfire in the area is expected as a result of implementation of Alternative C, which would be a benefit to recreationists.

Effects on Existing Fishing Opportunities. With implementation of Alternative C, 12 culverts would be replaced and improvements to two stream crossings in the treatment area would occur. Implementation of this alternative would improve fish passage in certain locations and create fish barriers in other locations, similar to that which is expected for Alternative B. This may improve fishing opportunities in the area, resulting in a benefit to anglers. Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of Alternative C would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the other projects listed above and in Table 3-1 that would be implemented in the area. This is based on the following reasons: 1) three of the six projects would be located 20 miles away from the analysis area, resulting in no overlap in proposed activities within the analysis area; 2) all six projects, plus the Proposed Action, are relatively short-term projects; and 3) impacts on recreation opportunities associated with implementation of Alternative C would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B, and no significant impacts on recreation opportunities from implementation of Alternative B are expected.

3-182 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Mitigation Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary.

3.10.4.2 Visual Resources

Alternative A—(No Action) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A implementation would result in no vegetation management occurring within the treatment area (30,984 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years. Ongoing management activities (including routine maintenance of existing roads and trails, fire suppression, tree/firewood sales, oil and gas activities, outfitting, and range management) that currently occur within the analysis area would continue to occur on the same schedule that they currently are performed.

If Alternative A is implemented, no change to the landscape would occur, and no impact on visual resources would result. Cumulative Impacts

Alternative B—(Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of Alternative B (Proposed Action) would result in a variety of vegetation management activities occurring within the treatment area (30,894 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years in addition to ongoing management activities that currently occur within the analysis area.

It is expected that a total of 2,099 acres (6.8 percent of the treatment area) would receive the proposed treatments during the spring (starting March 1), throughout the summer, and into fall (through the end of October). Therefore, no impact on visual resources from treatment activities and equipment would occur during winter months.

The scenic quality of the treatment area may be affected by the proposed clearcutting (402 acres) that is included in this alternative. Offsetting this visual impact are: 1) many small areas to be clearcut in the treatment area, rather than few large expanses of clearcut areas; and 2) several existing clearcut areas within the treatment area, so new clearcuts would not be out of character with the scenic environment.

3-183 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Proposed activities would be consistent with the Retention VQO of the area because: 1) few or no activities are proposed in those areas; and 2) the areas that would be treated there would be small and irregular in shape, which would reduce how visually evident the treatments would be. Proposed activities would be consistent with the Partial Retention VQO because activities may be evident, but would remain visually subordinate to the landscape. Proposed activities would also be consistent with the Modification VQO because the landscape modifications associated with this alternative may visually dominate the landscape, but must be similar to the visual characteristics of the surrounding area. Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of Alternative B (Proposed Action) would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the other projects listed previously and in Table 3-1 that would be implemented in the area. This is based on the following reasons: 1) three of the six projects would be located 20 miles away from the analysis area (not in the same viewshed); 2) all six projects, plus the Proposed Action, are relatively short- term projects that would result in short-term visual impacts because the treated areas would recover quickly; and 3) no significant impacts on visual resources from implementation of Alternative B are expected. However, portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Alternative C—(Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) would result in a variety of vegetation management activities (fewer acres harvested than Alternative B; fewer miles of temporary roads needed than Alternative B; increases the number of acres of aspen treated, when compared to Alternative B; same amount of acres burned as Alternative B; and same culvert replacements and bridge improvements as Alternative B). These activities would occur within the treatment area (30,894 acres) of the 48,541-acre analysis area over the next 5 to 10 years, in addition to ongoing management activities that currently occur within the analysis area.

It is expected that a total of 2,032 acres (6.6 percent of the treatment area) would receive the proposed treatments during the spring (starting March 1), throughout the summer, and into fall (through the end of October). Therefore, no impact on visual resources from treatment activities and equipment would occur during winter months.

The scenic quality of the treatment area may be affected by the proposed clearcutting (262 acres) that is included in this alternative. Offsetting this visual impact are: 1) many small areas to be clearcut in the treatment area, rather than few large expanses of clearcut areas; and 2) several existing clearcut areas within the treatment area, so new clearcuts would not be out of character with the scenic environment. The visual impact associated with this alternative would be less than with Alternative B because: 1) the acreage of

3-184 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

clearcuts is less with this alternative than with Alternative B; and 2) the locations of the clearcuts included in both alternatives would be similar.

The scenic quality of the treatment area may also be affected by the proposed burning of 1,058 acres of aspen. This impact is minimized by: 1) aspen and the sagebrush understory typically recovers quickly from burning; and 2) performing a prescribed burn reduces the potential for large-scale wildfires in the area (which could result in a much greater visual impact on the area). The prescribed burning associated with this alternative is the same as was described for Alternative B (same number of acres affected, and same location of acres); therefore, there is no difference in visual impacts between the two alternatives.

The remaining treatment activities (thinning, shelterwood, salvage, and group selection) would blend with the existing landscape pattern because the areas to be treated are small and irregular in shape and significant numbers of trees will remain uncut. Because the acreages of these types of treatments associated with both alternatives would be similar, and in similar locations, there is no difference in visual impacts between the two alternatives.

The treatment mix associated with Alternative C would be the same as for Alternative B, while the acreages of each treatment type would differ from that associated with Alternative B. However, the total number of acres receiving treatment is similar (67 fewer acres to receive treatment with Alternative C). In addition, the areas to be treated by both alternatives are similar, and the same culverts would be replaced and the same stream crossings would be improved with both alternatives. These factors, when combined, result in visual resource impacts from implementation of Alternative C being similar to those that were discussed for Alternative B.

Similar to Alternative B, activities included in Alternative C would be consistent with the Retention VQO of the area because: 1) few or no activities are proposed in those areas; and 2) the areas that would be treated there would be small and irregular in shape, which would reduce how visually evident the treatments would be. Proposed activities would be consistent with the Partial Retention VQO because activities may be evident, but would remain visually subordinate to the landscape. Proposed activities would also be consistent with the Modification VQO because the landscape modifications associated with this alternative may visually dominate the landscape, but must be similar to the visual characteristics of the surrounding area. Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of Alternative C would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the other projects listed above and in Table 3-1 that would be implemented in the area. This is based on the following reasons: 1) three of the six projects would be located 20 miles away from the analysis area (not in the same viewshed); 2) all six projects, plus Alternative C, are relatively short-term projects that would result in short-term visual impacts because the treated areas would recover quickly; and 3) impacts on visual resources associated with implementation of Alternative C would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B, and no significant impacts on visual resources from implementation of Alternative B are expected. However, portions of the Cottonwood drainage are planned to be offered for oil and gas

3-185 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

leasing in the future. At this time, it is not known how much of the drainage will be developed or what form the development might take.

Mitigation Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary.

3.11 Economics

3.11.1 Introduction

The section addresses economics associated with the proposed project. It is not a critical issue for this analysis and therefore only an effects analysis is presented. Presenting a comparative analysis of potential economic effects is useful in evaluating alternatives of the proposed project.

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

There would be many non-market benefits from the proposed project, in addition to the market costs and benefits. The most important non-market benefit would be improvements in aspen stands, which would benefit wildlife and livestock. The number of aspen acres that would be treated under each alternative is shown in Table 3-47. The NEPA costs shown in Table 3-47 are only assessed to the economic benefit of timber removal. In reality, the NEPA costs would be allocated over all market and non-market benefits. Harvest volumes used in this analysis are 11,500 thousand board feet (MBF) for Alternative B (Proposed Action) and 10,000 MBF for Alternative C (Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads).

TABLE 3-47 Economic Comparison of Alternatives A, B, and C for the Cottonwood II Management Project Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B Reduced Harvest and No Action Proposed Action Temporary Roads

Net Volume (MBF) 0 11,500 10,000

Gross Revenue (Sawlog Standard Rate $0 $1,016,600 $884,000 Value)

Gross Revenue (Sawlog Appraised Value) $0 $973,130 $846,200

Gross Revenue (Sawlog Bid Value) $0 $1,570,670 $1,365,800

Gross Revenue (Average of bid value $0 $1,293,635 $1,124,900 and standard rate)

Projected NEPA Costs $238,852 $238,852 $238,852

Projected Timber Sale Preparation and $0 $770,500 $670,000 timber Sale Administration Costs

Net Revenue (Gross Revenue – Costs) - $238,852 $284,283 $216,048

Aspen Acres Treated 0 1,115 1,153

3-186 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.11.2.1 Revenues The standard rate for 2003 to 2004 for live mixed conifer sawlogs had an average value of $88.40 /MBF, which was used in this analysis. Dead sawtimber is evaluated the same as live sawtimber for this analysis. Advertised rates for mixed conifer based on 2003 to 2004 timber sales on the B-TNF averaged $84.62/MBF. Actual sale bid rates for the 2003 to 2004 sales averaged $136.58/MBF.

3.11.2.2. Costs Cost estimates used in this analysis were based on B-TNF 3-year historical average costs (FY 2001 to FY 2003) adjusted for inflation. The Sale Preparation Cost, or the cost to implement sales in Alternatives B and C, is estimated to be $37/MBF. This includes sale planning and layout, tree marking, cruising, contract preparation, other resource support, and associated Forest Service costs for brush disposal, road work, and road maintenance. The Timber Sale Administration Cost, based on a 3-year historical average (FY 2001 to FY 2003) adjusted for inflation is $30/MBF. Reforestation costs would include tree planting, plantation protection, and regeneration surveys. However, not all areas would be planted, as some would rely on natural regeneration. Areas not to be planted might include aspen regeneration areas and areas having partial-cut treatments.

3.11.2.3 Economic Effects of Alternatives on Local Communities Table 3-48 summarizes the number of employment years, value to the community, and taxes generated from the timber harvest activities of the proposed project. Employment estimates do not reflect new jobs and income, but jobs and income that could be sustained by harvesting timber at the level proposed in each alternative. This value is calculated as the amount of timber in MMBF times 10.4 person years (Timber Sale Project Information Reporting System [TSPIRS]). Multiplying the timber volume harvest (MMBF) by $519,000 generates the economic value of the proposed projects to local communities (TSPIRS). And finally, taxes were generated by multiplying the economic value to the community by 15 percent (TSPIRS). The values shown in this analysis are not absolute, but provide reasonable estimates for comparison purposes.

TABLE 3-48 Economic Effects on Local Communities of Alternatives A, B, and C for the Cottonwood II Management Project Alternative C Alternative A Alternative B Reduced Harvest and Effect No Action Proposed Action Temporary Roads

Employment Years 0 119.6 104

Value to Community $0 $5,968,500 $5,190,000

Taxes Generated $0 $895,275 $778,500

In summary, there would be many non-market benefits from implementing the proposed project (Alternatives B and C), in addition to the market costs and benefits. The most important non-market benefit would be improvements in aspen stands, which would benefit wildlife and livestock. Estimated net revenue for the three alternatives is minus

3-187 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

$238,852 for Alternative A, plus $284,283 for Alternative B, and plus $216,048 for Alternative C. The estimated value to the community and taxes generated for the proposed project would be $5,968,500 and $895,275, respectively, under Alternative B, and $5,190,000 and $778,500, respectively, under Alternative C.

3.12 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

The action alternatives (Alternative A—Proposed Action, Alternative B—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads) are designed to bring forest conditions closer to properly functioning conditions based on naturally occurring disturbance regimes. The range of alternatives, mitigation measures, and management requirements are designed to avoid or reduce environmental effects and ensure that long-term productivity is not impaired by short-term uses and management practices.

3.13 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Some minor adverse effects on components of the ecosystem cannot be avoided even with selection of the No Action Alternative. Alternative designs, mitigation measures, and management requirements would avoid or reduce most environmental effects from implementation of action alternatives. A summary of specific adverse effects for each alternative is presented below. The various resource sections in this chapter provide more information on the type, duration, and scope of impacts, as well as resource benefits.

3.13.1 Alternative A—No Action

Vegetation. Vegetation would remain outside desired conditions and aspen stands would continue to decline. The risk of stand replacement fires, particularly in older stands, would continue and increase.

Wildlife. The gradual decline of aspen stands over time would indirectly reduce habitat values for elk and migratory birds.

Fire. Fire would be excluded from playing its historical ecological role under No Action.

Recreation. Big game populations would not benefit from improved habitat and habitat, particularly aspen, would continue to decline. This would adversely affect hunting opportunities. Fishing would be adversely affected, as Nylander Creek would continue to receive sediment input from Nylander Road. Fishing would not improve in stream segments upstream of culverts that do not pass fish.

3-188 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

3.13.2 Alternative B—Proposed Action

Vegetation. There would be a short-term loss of forested habitat within the 13.8 miles of temporary road footprints.

Wildlife. There would likely be some short-term adverse population and individual effects, due to displacement of wildlife from treatment areas during treatment activities. This effect would decrease over time.

Water Quality. There would be a short-term increase in sediment input into streams during replacement of culverts and bridges and road improvement activities.

Stream Channels. There would be short-term disturbance of stream channels during replacement of culverts and bridges.

Fisheries. CRCT would be temporarily affected due to increased stream sediment loads from culvert and bridge replacements.

Sensitive Species. There may be short-term effects to individual Payson’s milkvetch during vegetation treatments, but there would be no long-term effects.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Grizzly bear, gray wolf, and Canada lynx may be temporarily displaced during treatment activities, but would be expected to return to the area after treatments are complete.

Cultural Resources. There would be a visual impact to the Old Indian Trail due to clearcutting of three units.

Recreation. Some short-term disturbance of dispersed recreation would be expected due to area closures during treatment.

3.13.3 Alternative C—Reduced Harvest and Temporary Roads

Vegetation. There would be a short-term loss of forested habitat within the 9.3 miles of temporary road footprints.

Wildlife. Effects would be the same as discussed above for Alternative B, but at a lower intensity due to the reduced level of treatment.

Water Quality. There would be a short-term increase in sediment input into streams during replacement of culverts and bridges and road improvement activities.

Stream Channels. There would be a short-term disturbance of stream channels during replacement of culverts and bridges.

Fisheries. CRCT would be temporarily affected due to increased stream sediment loads from culvert and bridge replacements.

Sensitive Species. There may be short-term effects to individual Payson’s milkvetch during vegetation treatments, but there would be no long-term effects.

3-189 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Recreation. Some short-term disturbance of dispersed recreation would be expected due to area closures during treatment.

3.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

There would be no irreversible commitment of resources with the proposed project. A very small irretrievable commitment would be made in those areas where roads are improved.

3.15 Cumulative Effects

No adverse cumulative effects would result from implementation of the proposed project. The various resource sections in Chapter 3 provide more information on the type, duration, and scope of cumulative effects.

3.16 Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with…other environmental review laws and executive orders.” This section contains disclosures or effects that are specifically required by federal law, regulation, or policy.

Endangered Species Act. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects upon listed species are described in Section 3.6.5.2 of this EIS.

Clean Air Act. Prescribed burning on up to 1,058 acres of aspen is planned for Alternatives B and C. This burning would take place in fire-dependent ecosystems in which periodic fires burned on an average of every 50 to 150 years. Burning of fuels from slash associated with timber harvest (mostly slash pile burning) would take place on an additional 566 acres (Alternative B) to 495 acres (Alternative C). Any prescribed burning undertaken as part of this project would be managed to comply with state and federal air quality regulations and control.

National Historic Preservation Act. See Section 3.8, Heritage Resources for discussion.

Clean Water Act. Section 313 of the CWA as well as Executive Order 12088 requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state and local requirements for control and

3-190 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

abatement of water pollution. Timber sale and prescribed burning activities proposed for this project would comply. Timber sale contract provisions regarding prevention and containment of oil and fuel spills would be included. No harvesting operations would be occurring within 300 feet of streams.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land. All alternatives to this project are in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmland, rangeland, and forestland. The definition of prime forestland does not apply to National Forest land. National Forest lands would be managed in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and best management practices. Any timber sale or burning operations conducted on National Forest land will be conducted with coordination and sensitivity to adjacent private and public lands.

Energy Requirement and Conservation Potential. Alternative A (No Action), would require no energy directly to implement. The energy required to implement the action Alternatives B and C, in terms of petroleum products, is negligible when compared to national and worldwide petroleum reserves. Prescribed burning on up to 1,058 acres as proposed in Alternatives B and C would require far less petroleum products compared to mechanical treatment of these same areas.

Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights. The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities, including this proposal, on the basis of race, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). The civil rights or civil liberties of any American citizen including women and minorities, are not differentially affected by the implementation of any alternatives, including the No Action Alternative.

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Bldg, 1400 Independence Ave, SW Washington D.C. 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964.

Wetlands and Floodplains. Use of existing stream crossings under the action alternatives may cause minor, mitigatable effects to riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. No new crossings of streams are planned. Mitigation work to improve existing crossings would be implemented as described for the action alternatives. No timber harvest activities or lighting of prescribed burns would take place within 300 feet of streams. No net loss of wetlands is anticipated.

Conflicts with other agency goals and objectives. Consultation with other agencies indicates that there are no major conflicts between this proposed action and the goals and objectives of other government entities. Consultation has been ongoing with WGFD personnel to achieve conditions beneficial to big game populations and management in the area. Coordination with the BLM and adjacent private landowners would be required during proposed prescribed burning planning and operations. Coordination would also take place for use of project access roads crossing private and BLM lands.

3-191

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 Preparers and Contributors The following individuals contributed to the preparation of this Final EIS:

4.1.1 Forest Service ID Team Members

Jeff Laub ID Team Leader, Forester Dennis Barron GIS, Vegetation Greg Clark Big Piney District Ranger Dave Fogle South Zone Fisheries Biologist Stephan Harmon Range Specialist Paul Hutta Fire/Fuels Specialist Tom Johnston Wildlife Biologist Joette Katzer Forest Level GIS Jamie Schoen Archeologist Wes Smith Watershed Specialist Teresa Trulock Recreation Specialist Eric Winthers Soil Scientist 4.1.2 Consultant ID Team Members

Denny Mengel ID Team Leader, Forester, Soil Scientist Jeff Barry Forest Hydrologist /Sediment analysis Gloria Beattie Hydrologist Chuck Blair Wildlife Biologist Doug Bradley Fisheries Biologist Chuck Bushy Fire/Fuels Specialist Tom Dupuis Water Quality Specialist Hans Ehlert Forester/Vegetation Specialist Judy Ferguson Botanist/Range Specialist Lynn Foster Fisheries Biologist Sally Guaspari Document Control Manager Paula Gustafson Technical Editor Wendy Haydon Recreation Specialist/Visual Quality Jenny Kindig GIS Rick McCormick Air Quality Specialist Eric Oden Technical Editor Jim Sharpe Archeologist

4-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

4.2 Entities Consulted

The Forest Service consulted the following Tribes; individuals; federal, state, and local agencies; private businesses; organizations; and media during the development of this Final EIS:

4.2.1 Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe East Shoshone Tribe Gros Ventre Tribe Northern Araphoe Tribe

4.2.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division Wyoming Department of Agriculture Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming State Clearinghouse - Office Of Federal Land Policy Wyoming Department of Lands and Investments Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office Sublette County Commissioners Sublette County Extension Office Sublette County Conservation District Lincoln County Commissioners

4.2.3 Congressional Delegates

Senator Michael Enzi Senator Craig Thomas Representative Barbara Cubin

4.2.4 Organizations

Wyoming Heritage Society Trout Unlimited Trout Unlimited, Jackson Chapter Sierra Club Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter Sierra Club, Teton Group The Wilderness Society Green River Valley Cattleman's Association Wyoming Outdoor Council Wyoming Farm Bureau People for the West, Upper Snake River Chapter Jackson Hole Alliance

4-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Greater Yellowstone Coalition Alliance for Wild Rockies American Wildlands Wyoming Outfitters And Guides Association University of Wyoming Western Watershed Project Wyoming Wildlife Federation National Outdoor Leadership School Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Forest Guardians Wildlife Management Institute Wyoming Wilderness Association

4.2.5 Private Businesses

Circle Cattle Company Antelope Run Ranch McNeel Ranches, Ltd. Four Star Cattle Company Crazy Moose Ranch Barney Land And Livestock Logs and Log Homes Yellowstone Log Homes Jackson Hole Log Homes Camas Creek Log Works Mountain Valley Timber Thompson Logging Pickaroon Timber Products Dew Lumber South & Jones Lumber Company Western Wood Products Magagna Brothers Inc. Sheep Mountain Outfitters Louisiana-Pacific Incorporated Biodiversity Associates

4.2.6 Media

Daily Rocket Miner Sublette Examiner Pinedale Roundup Casper Star Tribune Jackson Hole News KRKK Radio Jackson Hole Guide Dubois Frontier Green River Star Casper Star

4-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

4.2.7 Others

Thirteen private individuals.

4.3 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This Final EIS has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to federal agencies, federally recognized Tribes, state and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views regarding vegetation management in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages.

4-4

CHAPTER 5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

The following individuals commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Eleven letters were received via standard mail or through email (Table 5-1). Each comment letter was assigned a comment letter number for tracking purposes and each comment within the comment letter was then assigned an individual comment number for response tracking.

TABLE 5-1 Individuals Who Commented on the Cottonwood II DEIS Comment Letter Number of Number Commentor Agency Representing Comments

1 Larry Svoboda US EPA, Region 8 70

2 Douglas Turner None 2

3 B. Sachau None 3

4 Michael Smith University of Wyoming 4

5 Jonathan Ratner Western Watersheds Project 1

6 Jonathan Ratner Western Watersheds Project 6

7 Robert Stewart US Fish and Wildlife Service 21

8 Lloyd Dorsey Greater Yellowstone Coalition 58

9 Bill Wichers Wyoming Game and Fish Department 125

10 Jonathan Ratner Western Watersheds Project 98

11 Meredith Taylor Wyoming Outdoor Council 67

Comments were grouped by content and assigned a general comment code to provide consistency in comment response. Table 5-2 contains the Responses to Comments. The comment codes are as follows: A: Alternatives LG: Livestock Grazing CCT: Colorado River Cutthroat Trout MIS: Management Indicator Species E: Economics NW: Noxious Weeds F: Fish OG: Old Growth F-CT: Fisheries–Cutthroat R: Roads FF: (Forest) Fire REC: Recreation F-G: Fisheries-General S: Sediment FM: Forest (and Timber) Management SV: Soil/Vegetation G: General TES: Threatened/Endangered/ Sensitive H2O: Water Species W: Wildlife

5-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-5 No range of alternatives to protect aquatic resources. A All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate B-T Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) standards and guidelines as well as State of Wyoming BMPs, which are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. In addition, Alternative C reduces the length of temporary roads, which reduces effects.

8-1, 8-7 Action alternatives may result in loss of species diversity and A The purpose of the DEIS is to improve Forest resource conditions healthy habitat for native species and will not lead to the in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages and bring restoration and protection of the area. them closer to desired conditions. The Forest Service stands behind the alternatives as a means for improving resource conditions within the project area. 10-16 “Conifer forests are in older age classes with declining growth A These desired future conditions were refined within the 1993 and health . . . desired conditions would maintain 15 to Cottonwood Watershed Plan and the Forest Service stands 20 percent of stands in seedling/sapling stages . . .” – this behind the site specific analysis. misleading characterization invalidates the need for the project.

11-66, 10-6, Recommends that the B-TNF delete the Proposed Action A The alternatives have been identified in accordance with NEPA 11-2, 10-4, (Alt B) and Alt C to comply with federal laws. The NEPA guidelines. The Forest Service believes a range of alternatives 11-56, 10-5, analysis does not offer a “hard look” at the impacts of the that satisfy the Purpose and Need of the project have been 11-1, 8-2, 8-3, 2 action alternatives. Lack of range of alternatives is a presented. Additional support for the need is included in the 10-93 violation of NEPA. resource specific affected environment portions of the FEIS.

9-96 Table 1-12 does not adequately address all necessary issues A The Forest Service believes that it has adequately identified and and indicators. analyzed the issues and indicators raised by the public that pertain to the purpose and need of the project. The project record contains the issue analysis.

9-83, 8-53 There is a disparity among numbers of acres treated between A The number of acres between alternatives is designed to be Alternative B and Alternative C. WGFD recommends these be different to provide a range of alternatives. The points of equalized in the FEIS. confusion are clarified in FEIS Tables 2-4 and 2-5.

5-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

8-50, 8-51 The district should develop a lawful proposed action and A The suggested alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need analysis that includes only aspen treatments with culvert, of the project. WG&F have participated in the public involvement bridge, and road improvement projects. These actions should process. Allotment management is an administrative action not be in close consultation with WY Game and Fish Department. covered by this NEPA analysis. Aspen treatments should be followed by several seasons of non-use by livestock. Plantation surveys on other regenerated stands within the treatment area have met the Forest Plan standards for reforestation and requirements of the National Forest Management Act and grazing has occurred through the area with no effects on survival of stands. This has been done without fencing. If needed, any requirements dealing with grazing and the cut units will be handled in the Annual Operating Instructions. The plantation survival records are in the process records.

10-17 “Many of the reforested areas have high tree densities . . . A This need is not invalid. The treatments in reforested areas are desired conditions would maintain lower tree densities “ – not being proposed in order to comply with only the lynx strategy. nowhere in the alternatives is there any mention of thinning Commercial thinning treatments address the need to move a dense, fire-prone lodgepole stands in past cutblocks; this need variety of stands toward the desired condition. is invalid.

1-48, 1-49 Non-market benefits and costs must be compared across E Economics was not identified as a significant issue, therefore no alternatives. additional economic analyses will be conducted. However, certain “non-market” effects are discussed in Environmental Consequences.

1-50 Where did economic values used in analysis come from? E Economic values are based on recent sales and figures in the Forest Plan.

1-53 Discuss public subsidy to timber operators. E Statement noted. There have been no subsidies identified. All sales are offered in an open bid system.

1-51, 1-52 Economic leakage to areas outside the project area will E True, therefore the benefits and tax revenues discussion will be reduce the stated benefits and tax revenues to local modified to indicate there are regional, as well as local benefits. communities.

5-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-49b, 1-54, TSPIRS model is no longer supported by the USFS, should be E TSPIRS was used in development of the Forest Plan. It is used 1-55 discarded, and replaced by another approved model. for this project’s evaluation in order to provide a consistent analysis.

1-40, 1-42, 1- Need a quantitative assessment of native fish and CR F-CT The model used to predict CRCT viability has not been finalized 43, 9-87, 10- Cutthroat effects. No population viability model was run on the by the Rocky Mountain Research Station and was therefore not 73, 11-45, 9- CCT populations within the N and S Cottonwood Creeks, yet used in the analysis presented in the DEIS. Analysis of aquatic 101,10-85 the proposed action will increase sediment and thereby lower habitat inventory and WG&FD Basin Management Plans were even further embryo survival. relied on to predict PFC.

10-65, 10-66, There is no data or analysis to support the claim that replacing F-CT All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate project 10-67, 10-68 a few culverts will compensate for adverse effects from the design features and BMPs, which are enforced through contract proposed action. specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources, and therefore no long-term aquatic adverse impacts A clear discussion of the adverse effects has not been are expected. There is no need for the additional analyses presented. requested, as the premise for the request is not correct and the Forest Service believes that it has adequately analyzed effects.

10-35 Pg. 2-20: considering the importance of this issue to the future F-CT All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of of CRCT and compliance with NFMA and the Forest Plan, a Wyoming BMPs, additional mitigation measures, and Forest Plan more detailed analysis must be presented. Standards and Guidelines. These are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. The analysis is believed to be adequate.

9-90, 9-95 Water quality must be maintained or restored to support the F-CT All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of characteristics of the watersheds to benefit all life stages of Wyoming BMPs, additional mitigation measures, and Forest Plan CCT. Standards and Guidelines. These are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement. Alternative C was developed to reduce clearcuts and temporary roads.

9-94 Maintain or improve sediment regimes that will improve F-CT Recommendation noted. habitats for CCT and other aquatic organisms.

5-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-125 Information is missing for Bare Creek; Bare Creek and its F-CT This will be added to the FEIS. tributaries support CCT and brook trout.

9-91 Fish migration barriers must remain in place until it is F-CT The intent of culvert replacement is to maintain/repair existing determined if nonnative fish species will have an adverse barriers and maintain/repair/improve existing passage. affect on CCT.

9-88 N and S Cottonwood watersheds, and Sjhoberg, Nylander, F-CT Yes. Statement noted. Hardin, Irene, and N Cottonwood Creeks and Bare, S. Bare, and S. Cottonwood Creeks and other drainages have potential to support CCT.

10-36 Pg. 2-20: “Alts B and C equally improve access to upstream F-CT, A Yes. Statement noted. habitats” – Alt B provides 67 more acres of cuts and more roads than Alt C.

10-70 Pg. 3-109: The proposed action is a massive increase in the 2 F-CT, FM The proposed action would increase the amount of disturbed primary impacts in the watersheds, but by replacing a few area, including past fires, from 22% of the forested acres in the culverts we are expected to believe that this project will treatment area to 25%. Premise upon which statement is based is improve watershed conditions and recover the CCT. flawed. Statement noted.

11-43 CCT would be impacted by this project due to increased F-CT, S Impacts would be temporary and minor due to the implementation stream sediment loads from culvert and bridge replacements. of project design features and BMPs designed to minimize impacts to aquatic environments.

9-123 Avoid placement of fire retardants, foams or additives to the FF All appropriate/applicable Wyoming BMPs will be followed. stream channel or within 500 feet of the channel.

6-2, 6-3 How were the fire return intervals and project impacts related FF Fire Groups were determined by on-site field observation and to the intervals determined? analysis of project record vegetation maps. The fire return intervals (FRI) and impacts relating to the intervals for Fire Groups 0-10 are from a compilation of research by scientists at the USFS Intermountain Research Station, and literatures searches relating to those habitat types present within the various Fire Groups accomplished for two different but closely related publications. These are included in the project record.

5-5 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

11-46a, 10-37 Pg. 2-22: “a long-term reduction in potential for large-scale FF The Forest Service believes that the DEIS detailed descriptions of wildfire in the area is expected as a result of implementing Alt. the treatments under the preferred alternative (Section 3.2.5) B.” Present model results and analysis in FEIS. adequately describes the benefit of the specific treatment methods at reducing fire threats.

9-27 Fire should be introduced into mechanically treated aspen FF Recommendation noted and this is part of the proposed action. stands to maximize suckering response.

11-30, 10-15 The analysis should address the fundamental causes of lack FF FEIS text has been modified to explain that aspen needs of aspen regeneration and take measures to ensure that disturbance for regeneration. These studies are cited within the prescribed burns successfully regenerate the aspen. FEIS, Section 3.2.3.1.

4-3 No treatment may result in stand replacing fire. FF Statement noted.

9-2 WGFD supports efforts to regenerate aspen and reintroduce FF Support noted. fire to the landscape.

10-8 Entire fire analysis is based on a fundamental FF The Forest Service stands behind its understanding of fire misinterpretation of fire regimes. regimes as described in the proposed action.

9-24 Recommend no net loss of species diversity 5 years post burn FF Recommendation noted. in aspen stands.

1-27 Explain how natural succession leads to unhealthy fire/fuel FF Statement should read “unnatural succession (i.e., no fire) conditions. leads. . . .” Text modified in FEIS, Sections 3.6.3.1, and 3.6.5.2.

10-54 Pg. 3-57: The FS is assuming that in a FRI of 100-150 years, FF The DEIS does not state that every acre must burn every 100 to every acre of forest must burn each 100-150 years; this is 150 years. It merely states that on average, fires have historically clearly a specious conclusion. occurred every 100-150 years in conditions represented within the treatment area.

11-47 The proposed actions cannot go forward until adequate F-G Minimal wetlands exist in the treatment area. They will be avoided analysis of wetlands and other aquatic and wildlife species is if found in a treatment area. Standard Wyoming BMPs will be completed in the FEIS. used to avoid impacts to other aquatic species. A 300-feet buffer along waterways will further protect aquatic resources.

5-6 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-24, 1-25 Collect macroinvertebrate and algae population data. If not F-G The proposed project is not anticipated to affect these resources collected, state why it is not needed. and they were not identified as a significant issue by the public. A 300-feet buffer along waterways should adequately protect these populations and therefore surveys would not be required.

1-14, 1-20 Quantify water quality impacts on aquatic resources including F-G The Forest Service believes that the impacts of the proposed temperature. actions on the water quality have been adequately analyzed. Wyoming BMPs are designed to protect aquatic systems, including temperature. A 300-feet buffer along waterways will buffer them from temperature changes. There should not be significant temperature impacts.

9-92, 9-99 Address how the project will restore the physical integrity of F-G The Forest Service believes that the impacts of the proposed aquatic system. actions on the aquatic system have been adequately analyzed.

9-98 Address how species composition and diversity of plant F-G The project design features and BMPs, including riparian buffers, communities within riparian areas are protected as related to are included to provide protection to riparian and aquatic watersheds and C cutthroat. resources.

10-48, 11-48 Increased water temperatures and sediment resulting from F-G, H20, All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of treatments and temporary roads would result in mortality of CCT Wyoming BMPs, additional mitigation measures, and Forest Plan both adult and young stream amphibians. Standards and Guidelines. These are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of all aquatic resources. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement. The Forest Service’s WEPP sediment model was applied to the project. Results are included in the FEIS in Section 3.4.5.3.

5-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-49 Pg. 3-52: in addition to temporary roads, 1000 acres of FM All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of cutblocks, 1000 acres of aspen treatments and 25 miles of Wyoming BMPs, additional mitigation measures, and Forest Plan closed roads to be reconstructed and reopened will increase Standards and Guidelines. These are enforced through contract sediment sources. specifications. BMPs are designed to prevent/minimize sedimentation. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement. A sediment analysis has been conducted and included in the FEIS in Section 3.4.5.3.

1-28 DEIS does not quantify insect infestation and rates of FM Insect and disease detection survey 2003 indicate that insect infestation, therefore no substantial benefit can be shown. activity is increasing. This is included in FEIS discussion in Section 3.2.3.1.

11-16, 11-17 The means to achieving the desired conditions as outlined in FM Forest Plan standard requires 12 percent of area in old growth the Forest Plan should include maintaining adequate old condition. This standard is being exceeded. No activity is growth forest for high quality wildlife habitat. proposed for Forest Plan DFC 12, which is managed for high quality wildlife habitat.

1-34, 10-55 High erosion, high compaction, severe revegetation rating. FM These are conditions averaged over the entire soil map unit. This is a bad area for harvesting. Harvesting would only occur in areas identified as suitable for harvesting on slopes less than 30%. Areas suitable for harvesting would not have these severe conditions. Mitigation measures will require leaving some slash and woody debris on site.

1-33 Need literature justification for using harvest as a vegetation FM It is widely accepted in the natural resource professional management tool. community that harvesting is one of many vegetation management tools. Consult any general text on forestry or silviculture for a detailed discussion, as well as the Forest Plan.

9-75 WGFD recommend a summary of the number of old tie-hack FM Tie hack units were located in the North and South Cottonwood unit acres that currently exist within the project area be tallied drainages. A map showing these areas is included in the project and reported in the FEIS. record. Text has been added to the FEIS in Section 3.2.3.1.

5-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

6-4 How was the HRV determined for the project area? FM HRV was determined through direction within the LRMP, the CPIS, and landscape level potential natural vegetation descriptions for reference conditions for fire regime condition classes.

9-25 South Cottonwood Creek Option B should include option to FM Recommendation noted, but we are unsure which alternative this mechanically treat aspen. refers to.

6-1 How was aspen regeneration and conifer encroachment FM Aspen regeneration and conifer encroachment information was determined? determined from WGFD 2003 stand data, other stand data, and ID Team field reviews.

10-19 Few if any of the trees in the cutblocks consigned to these FM 2003 surveys (aerial and ground), as well as stand surveys, show treatments have any insect or disease mortality. varying degrees of mortalities in at least two of the treatment areas, however the purpose and need is beyond just minimizing the extent of this type of mortality.

10-47 Pg. 3-51: Even in cuts within stands of spruce/fir, the resultant FM Statement noted. Spruce/fir will regenerate in small openings or in regeneration (regen) is generally 100% lodgepole with little to stands with some cover such as lodgepole pine stands. no understory.

10-44 Pg. 3-41: There is no mention in the DEIS about lodgepole FM The Forest Service stands behind its analysis for lynx in the DEIS. regen thinning; relying on this as lynx effect analysis is unfounded.

8-54 Remove from consideration cutblocks and roads of whatever FM No roadless areas would be cut or roaded and the temporary type from within or adjacent to the inventoried roadless area roads proposed outside of the roadless area are necessary for the that encompasses Tripod Peak, McDougal Pass, and proposed action. McDougal Creek.

10-43 Page 3-40: 44% of the area is in young condition. Clearly FM Only 22 percent of the area is currently in a disturbed condition. there is sufficient age-class diversity; “short term” is All of this is in younger age classes as regenerating conifer misleading and will last at least 150 years. stands.

9-120, 9-121 Avoid skid trails, staging, or piling within the riparian zone or FM Project design features and Wyoming BMPs are included to within designated buffer zone. protect riparian habitats.

5-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

3-2 Concerned about snag removal. FM Snag retention will be implemented according to LRMP standards in regeneration harvest units.

10-20 “Harvesting trees through a commercial timber sale is FM Statement noted, but comment is misleading in that only 22 proposed on approx. 402 acres to provide for regeneration percent of the treatment area is in this condition. and to enhance age class diversity” – Misleading. Currently 44% of the analysis area is in the regeneration and young age classes.

9-32 Treatments should be confined primarily to areas designated FM Recommendation noted. The proposed action includes 94 percent Desired Future Conditions 1B. of the treatments to occur within DFC 1B.

9-33 Restocking harvest areas with lodgepole pine should occur FM Recommendation noted. only in DFC 1B areas.

9-31 Support thinning trees in areas heavily infected with disease FM Recommendation noted and treatments are proposed for the or overstocked. described areas.

11-31 With such prescribed burn treatment on Cottonwood Creek, FM The primary treatment within the aspen stands is through Maki Creek and McDougal Gap areas the desired conditions prescribed fire. could make a better mosaic of regenerating aspen.

9-34 Natural restocking of lodgepole, subalpine and Douglas firs FM Recommendation noted. Only six percent of the proposed should occur in areas designated DFC 10 and 12. treatment occurs within DFC 10 and none within DFC 12. Forest Plan regeneration standards will be followed and natural regeneration will be encouraged in harvested units.

10-80 Pg. 3-176: Road obliteration is often forgotten after projects FM The Nylander Road will be reclaimed following relocation and all are completed. temporary roads would be restored to their original contour and vegetation type to avoid permanent impacts from road construction. For examples of successful road closures see the Strawberry Timber Sale and Dell Fire Salvage Sale as well as other sales on the Big Piney Ranger District. 9-1 WGFD has identified the WY Range as a top priority within the FM Statement noted. Jackson/Pinedale Region.

9-14 Apply standard for logging in riparian area. FM All applicable LRMP standards will be implemented.

5-10 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-42 Pg. 3-37: The FS admits that dense regenerating lodgepole FM We could not find this statement on Page 3-37. In fact, many stands in past cutblocks are a fire danger, but creating another regeneration areas are fire resistant for many years. This project 1000 acres of these lodgepole thickets will somehow reduce will not result in 1,000 acres of lodgepole; only clearcuts would be fire danger? expected to have this forest type regenerated.

10-64 Pg. 3-97: “This threshold was designed to examine cumulative FM Statement noted. The Forest Service stands behind its effects of timber harvesting on second order or larger interpretation of the ECA threshold direction. watersheds and assumed that by meeting the threshold, there should not be any cumulative effects to the watershed or the downstream channels” – another flawed and unsupported conclusion.

10-10 Fundamental to the analysis is the CPIS drafted in 1993. This FM The Forest Service stands behind the analysis conducted within document speciously argues that Cottonwood drainage is the CPIS and the purpose and need for the proposed project. outside the HRV; this is clearly false and invalidates Need #2.

11-24 This only contributes to the cumulative effects to TES if added TES The Forest Service stands behind its analysis and determination to the 2,224 acres of past cuts and 109 miles of roads. of, “not likely to adversely affect” on lynx and there habitats.

11-29 WOC considers sage/grasslands an important part of the B- FM Statement noted. TNF’s management direction.

9-18, 9-19 Amount of aspen treated needs to be of adequate size and FM Recommendation noted. juxtaposition to ensure regeneration goals are met; mosaic of seral stages should be provided on the landscape.

9-22, 9-23 Recommend total ground cover of 95% in 5 years post-burn; FM Recommendation noted. herbaceous production should increase 100% in 3-5 years for aspen and aspen-conifer stands.

11-32 WOC supports aspen regeneration projects as part of the FM Support noted. Cottonwood EIS for improvement of wildlife species that are dependent on aspen communities.

11-33 Improvements to the understory vegetation from prescribed FM Statement noted. burning aspen stands could greatly improve long-term quantity and quality of forage for both domestic livestock and wildlife.

5-11 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-20, 9-21 Recommend a aspen sucker density of 20,000 stems/acre, FM Recommendation noted. 2-3 years post burn and 1,000 stems/acre >10 ft. in height 10 years post burn.

10-45 Pg. 3-44: 5-30 years is described as long-term when it suits FM Statement noted. There are no standards for long- versus short- the purpose and need. term effects. In some instances short-term has been defined as the length of the project plus 5 years. However, the difference between short- and long-term is very resource dependant. Nonetheless, the long-term productivity of forage for wildlife and livestock is expected to improve and this meets the purpose and need of the project.

11-34 It is expected that wildlife and livestock may cause substantial FM It is recognized in the DEIS that wildlife and livestock may impact damage to aspen shoots that regenerate following prescribed aspen regeneration following treatment. Mitigation measures for burning or conifer removal. aspen stands recommended by WGFD are included as part of the proposed action. This involves keeping aspen treatment blocks large to reduce grazing effects.

9-122, 9-57 WGFD generally supports aspen treatments by mechanical or FM The Forest Service agrees. Statement noted. burning. Proposed treatments of aspen stands using prescribed fire and select harvest methods should benefit non- game species of birds and mammals associated with aspen habitat over time.

9-17 Minimum of 1150 acres of aspen habitat should be treated. FM Over 1,100 acres of aspen are proposed for treatment through prescribed fire or mechanical treatments.

10-60 Pg. 3-93: The claim that this project will reduce stand FM The Forest Service stands behind its analysis and need for replacing fires is questionable and nothing presented in the treatment within the project area. The Fire Regime Condition DEIS would lead to the reasoned conclusion as above. Class (FRCC) Analysis for the vegetation types in the project area indicate that stand replacing fires are probable in some of the older stands present in the area. A wide variety of references upon which this analysis is predicated are included in the FRCC Assessment in the project record.

5-12 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-30 Recommend the FS identify and implement a treatment plan FM Aspen treatment is designed specifically to regenerate aspen to regenerate aspen; should be treated at the same time as stands. All aspen treatments occur over a 5-10 year period. larger-scale aspen treatments; these sites may be treated Aspen stands will be “grouped” to treat acres as windows are mechanically. available.

9-28, 9-29 Aspen treatments should be implemented within 3-year time FM Harvest schedule will be developed and aspen treatment frame to minimize potential effects of ungulate herbivory and implementation specified to enhance habitat conditions. maximize success of aspen regeneration. Treatments should be of adequate size to prevent small patches of young aspen being over-browsed.

9-117 Mechanical treatment of both sides of the stream bank could FM Recommendation noted. be allowed with consultation with the WGFD.

11-62, 10-46 WOC recommends that the B-TNF proceed with NEPA FM The Forest Service believes a range of alternatives that satisfy the analysis for a proper proposed action in the FEIS for only Purpose and Need of the project, as well as Forest Plan direction, aspen treatment, culvert, bridge and road improvement have been presented. WGFD has been consulted. Grazing projects in consultation with WGFD. Aspen treatment such as allotments are modified through administrative actions and are burning or cutting must be followed by years of livestock non- outside the scope of this analysis. However, resting the treatment use to prevent suckering. areas from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

10-1 More of the same logging and road building that has degraded FM The management units have objectives including vegetation our public lands. Would like to see a cooperative relationship management. Treatments will adhere to management unit where good restoration projects are put forth that we can fully guidelines and Forest Plan direction. Project design features and support in terms of NEPA process and in many other ways. BMPs will be implemented to minimize impacts from the proposed action.

1-34 Call the timber sale a timber sale and do not disguise it as FM The project in its entirety is a vegetation treatment project. Not all vegetation management. vegetation treated results in a timber sale, although some timber will be sold. Also, the Forest Plan terminology (page 127) for this activity is “vegetation management”, “vegetation management activities”, and “vegetation treatment project.”

5-13 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-13 Pg 1-2 states “there have been approx. 2,064 acres of timber FM This estimate of past harvest and fire is including the entire harvest and 600 acres of wildfire disturbance in the last 50 watershed and the Forest Service stands behind its estimates. years” – Far more of the area has had recent disturbance (fire The determinations for these estimates are found within the or logging) and analysis should not stop at 50 years. project record.

1-12, 1-15, 1- Forest management, culvert installations, and temporary FM, H2O All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of 17, 10-26, 10- roads will impact watershed conditions and aquatic habitat Wyoming BMPs, which are enforced through contract 61 with sediment. specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement and input to channels.

10-14, 11-15 Appears that DEIS is mistakenly based on certain problem FM, OG Forest Service stands behind its analysis and the need for points in the 1993 Cottonwood PIS which argues that treatment. All areas of DFC12, most of DFC 10, and significant Cottonwood Creek is in excess of old growth conifer amounts of older conifer stands will remain un-treated. Forest community. Plan old growth standard will be exceeded.

8-4, 8-5, 8-8 The project violates NFMA for bighorn sheep, Canada lynx, FP No violations of NFMA are known. The project may result in short- and other species and must show consistency with the Forest term impacts to some species but will result in long term Plan. improvements to treated stands that should benefit the species as well. Project is consistent with Forest Plan as displayed in the DEIS and FEIS. Clarifying text has been added to the FEIS in Section 3.2.5.2.

10-7, 11-54, Cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete and must be G Additional cumulative effects analysis has been added. 11-55, 11-59 redone to comply with NEPA.

9-84 Acronyms ECA, MIS and VQO should be defined. G Agree. Added to FEIS in Acronyms list.

9-85 Phrases such as “short-term” and “long-term” are vague; a G Added a general definition to the glossary. range of years representing these meanings should be given.

1-64, 1-66 What will be the adaptive management principles to protect G Project design features include mitigation measures and contract resources? provisions to minimize and prevent environmental impacts. The project will be implemented over a 5-10 year time frame, allowing time for modifications if needed.

5-14 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-21, 1-22, 1- Summary of protection measures with a schedule is needed G Mitigation measures are listed in Chapter 2. They will be 23 implemented as projects occur over the 5-10 year period.

10-11, 11-3 Another NEPA concern is that the FS chose to analyze the G Separation of the two projects was based on an analysis of effects Maki Creek project separately, even though the two projects for the Maki Project. The ID Team decided that the scope of the are contiguous and similar. Maki projects would not have significant effects and there was urgency to move ahead with the aspen treatments. However, Maki is included in the cumulative effects analysis for this project.

11-57 Cumulative effects of mineral development and transportation G Minerals and transportation were not identified as significant in this area is not noted in this analysis. issues. Transportation is addressed in the context of the watershed issue and known, foreseeable mineral developments on the forest are identified.

1-60 Need a plan for resource protection if monitoring dollars do not G Monitoring of revegetation is part of all vegetation treatment become available. projects during years 1, 3, and 5 after harvest. Fire effects monitoring is also conducted. However, resource protection is not dependant on monitoring.

1-58, 1-59, 1- Need a detailed monitoring plan to show if predicted G Monitoring of revegetation is part of all vegetation treatment 61, 1-62, 1-67 improvements occur. projects during years 1, 3, and 5 after harvest. Fire effects monitoring is also implemented.

10-2 Scoping input was ignored. G Public input was used in development of the DEIS and project alternatives. The comment analysis report is in the project record.

4-4 Supports Alternative B. G Support noted.

10-3, 10-79 Out-sourced cost of the NEPA analysis cost 400% more than G Opinion noted. in-house cost would have been and WW shocked by the poor quality of this DEIS especially considering it cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars.

9-124 Heli-sites should be located outside the riparian zone and G Recommendation noted. Project design features and BMPs will avoid using water sources across watershed boundaries to be implemented to minimize the potential impacts from all avoid disease transmission. proposed actions.

5-15 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-34 No reasonable person could concur with this supposition with G Statement noted. The Forest Service stands behind the analysis. any data presented.

1-68 Supports USFS monitoring activities. G Support noted.

3-1, 3-3 Does not support the following activities: hunting, trapping, G Statement noted. The Forest Service stands behind the purpose new roads, any two stroke vehicles, burning, drilling, logging, and need of the proposed actions. The proposed project complies all grazing, and timber management. with the Forest Plan.

10-2a CH2M HILL provided intentionally misleading and insincere G Statement noted. The Forest Service stands behind the quality of analysis of project impacts. the analysis for the proposed actions.

10-12 WW requests the FS redo this NEPA process to be in G Statement noted. The project is in compliance with NEPA, NFMA, compliance with NEPA, NFMA and agency regulations. and agency regulations.

10-90 It was noted that the project ignored lynx comment points #1, TES Statement noted. The Forest Service stands behind its lynx 2, 4, 5, 7 from the USFWS letter. effects analysis and the purpose and need for the proposed action. Project design features and BMPs should further minimize identified concerns. The BA has been reviewed by the Level 1 Biological Team and concurrence was obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

10-92, 10-94, FS trend in NEPA analysis ignores public comment and even G Statement noted. Public comments were incorporated into the 10-95, 10-96, other agency input, presents biased and misleading analysis, development of the DEIS. The comment analysis report is in the 10-97 ignores real impacts, ignores cumulative effects, and analysis project record and the cumulative analysis includes the Maki area. that splits clearly connected projects into smaller pieces to try to avoid significance and true cumulative analysis.

1-10a EPA provided a DEIS rating of EC-2 because information is G Statement noted. EPA issues are being addressed throughout the not fully disclosed for the public and decision-makers to fully FEIS. evaluate the environmental significance of the project and lack of monitoring of effects to MIS and fish and wildlife.

1-10, 9-113 Serious deficiencies in impacts to aquatic and terrestrial G Statement noted. The Forest Service believes the analysis is resources, and soil and water. Quantification lacking. adequate for the proposed action.

5-16 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

8-49, 11-61 The district should take another look and comply with federal G Statement noted. The Forest Service believes the analysis is laws that require adequate analysis and conservation of adequate for the proposed action. species and habitats.

9-86 Pages 2-5 to 2-6 and 3-15 to 3-30 are missing from the DEIS. G These pages are the back sides of color maps or figures, which are inserts to the hard-copy document. Pages with color or printed on a color printer are not typically duplexed (with page numbers added)—because they are inserts to a hard-copy document.

1-63 How will management avoid or mitigate for unforeseen G Through monitoring and adaptive management. impacts?

10-98 WW is saddened by the lack of effort to produce a good G, FM Opinion noted. The Forest Service stands behind the quality of quality analysis in the DEIS. the analysis for the proposed action.

And is further irritated that it cost the tax payers 400% more than if it had been done in-house.

Even more disturbing is that such an intentionally misleading document that clearly ignores major impacts, scientific consensus and public input to blindly continue the degradation and destruction of the Cottonwood watersheds.

9-108 Short and long-term activities that will increase fines in the H2O All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of channels should be avoided. Wyoming BMPs, which are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement.

9-118 Watershed mitigation should include buffer zones. H2O BMPs and PDFs include buffer zones.

9-114 Increase of peak flow has potential to impact streams. H2O Statement noted and is addressed under the water runoff process discussion.

5-17 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-102 Address timing, magnitude and duration of stream flows for H2O Anticipated ECA increases from all proposed alternatives are the drainages. expected to be at or below levels found to make measurable differences in downstream water yield or peak flow measurements. This would reduce the risk of stream channel erosion or bank instability occurring during high flow events.

9-100 Address spatial and temporal connectivity within watersheds. H2O The Forest Service stands behind the hydrologic and wildlife analysis presented within the DEIS. Text has been added to the wildlife section of the FEIS in Section 3.2.5.2.

10-27 Pg. 2-10: “increased flows expected” – in other sections it H2O Anticipated ECA increases from all proposed alternatives are states there will no increased flows. Which is correct? There is expected to be at or below levels found to make measurable no analysis. differences in downstream water yield or peak flow measurements. This would reduce the risk of stream channel erosion or bank instability occurring during high flow events. Clarified in FEIS Section 3.4.5. 9-89 WGFD supports management decisions that improve H2O Support noted. The purpose and need of the proposed action is watershed stability, improve stream channel stability, designed to move the project area towards the desired conditions hydrologic processes, and vegetation enhancement. But, the in the uplands and riparian areas through vegetative treatments project must assist in the development of upland and riparian and road and crossing improvements. zones.

10-71 Pg. 3-109: “The 1999 Cottonwood Watershed Analysis H2O The vegetation site objectives and management opportunities identified many issues and opportunities to improve stream identified in the Cottonwood watershed analysis to conditions” – unfortunately, none of these opportunities were improve resource conditions in the area formed the basis for this put into the current proposal. proposed project.

1-4, 1-16, 1- Missing numerical and narrative water quality standards and H2O The PDFs and BMPs included in the implementation of the project 18, 1-26 impacts to them. are designed to support state and federal water quality criteria. The Forest Service believes that the topic is adequately addressed in the EIS.

9-111 Restrict all side-casting of blade materials into the streams H2O Recommendation noted. Wyoming BMPs will be adhered to. (perennial and ephemeral).

5-18 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-93, 9-97 Water quality should be maintained/enhanced so that the H2O, F-G Recommendation noted. Project design features and BMPs will biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the ecosystem is be implemented as part of the proposed project. retained.

9-104 Address percent fines in spawning areas H2O, F-G The Forest Service believes that it has adequately analyzed the affects of fine sediments within streams by the proposed alternatives through evaluation of issues and indicators related to sediment.

11-46 The Proposed Action provides for more chronic sediment H2O, S All alternatives would be implemented using appropriate State of loads to the watershed. Wyoming BMPs, which are enforced through contract specifications. By default, BMPs are protective of aquatic resources. Harvesting techniques such as leaving slash, providing riparian buffers, and using partial cutting further reduces sediment movement. The proposed action further includes road relocation, stream crossing improvements, and other mitigation measure as sediment reduction measures. These are identified within the FEIS.

9-105 WGFD supports proposed improvements in Table 2-3. H2O, S Support noted.

1-13, 1-19, How will impacts be mitigated during the project and H2O, S The Forest Service has included project design features, including 11-42 monitored and evaluated for compliance with fed and state monitoring, and BMPs to mitigate project impacts. Monitoring water quality standards. effectiveness of BMPs are included as part of the proposed action. Contract administration and contract reviews will ensure that BMPs and PDFs measures will be implemented as described within the EIS.

9-50, 10-38 Livestock grazing should be deferred until ground cover LG Agree. Included in proposed action as a mitigation measure. reaches at least 60% in all treatment units or if ground cover falls below 60% and/or aspen generation goals are not being met. How will this be achieved?

5-19 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-45, 9-48 No section within the Draft addresses grazing management LG Mitigation measures are included for grazing management. prior to and following treatment. Further, grazing management is accomplished through implementation of Allotment Management Plans. Incidental Recommend adding a section to the EIS that pertains production of forage in harvest units is considered “Transitory specifically to grazing management with respect to the Range” and, as such, is not included in the suitable range base. proposed habitat treatments.

1-56 Will grazing increase after harvest as grazing resources LG It is possible that livestock may graze in harvested areas if the increase? harvest unit is within an active allotment. However, mitigation measures are included for grazing management and there is no plan to increase grazing within the watershed.

6-6 How and where will the ground cover be measured for grazing LG Ground cover would be measured as part of the monitoring in at use? least one site per treatment area.

9-26 Fencing and livestock rest should be included as options if the LG Livestock grazing allotments would be deferred for until 60 goals for aspen production and density are not achieved. percent ground cover is reached to ameliorate livestock effects on early aspen regeneration. Resting the treatment areas from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

9-44 All grazing allotments within the Cottonwood Creeks Area LG Suggestion noted, but these are outside the scope of the Projects proposal should be evaluated for habitat proposed project. implementation projects.

9-49 Rotational grazing systems should be implemented. LG Suggestion noted but outside the scope of this project.

9-46 Section 1.9.1 of the Draft states that grazing management is LG The management of allotments is dealt with within the allotment beyond the scope of this analysis. management plans. However, resting the treatment areas from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

5-20 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

11-35 Overgrazing can impact the quality and number of aspen LG, A Statement noted. Livestock grazing allotments would be deferred stems per acre. for until 60 percent ground cover is reached to ameliorate livestock effects on early aspen regeneration. Resting the Alt B aspen stands would be at risk of overgrazing since treatment areas from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is aspen treatments are not likely to be successful unless attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions livestock is fenced out for three years. issued to the permittee.

4-1 See benefits of project to livestock management and hunting LG, REC Support noted. opportunities.

9-54 Develop and implement of Allotment Management Plans and LG, W Statement noted. These are outside the scope of this project. Habitat Management Plans.

9-51 Habitat/range improvements incorporated into allotment LG, W Suggestion noted. Modifications to the AMPs are outside the management plans to compliment the grazing systems, should scope of this project. provide additional forage for both livestock and wildlife and improved vegetative health and diversity.

10-89,11-58 Appendix A omits MIS or ESA listed species, FS sensitive MIS Goals and objectives related to ESA, sensitive species, and water species and water quality. quality have been added to the FEIS throughout Chapter 3.

11-5, 1-2, 1-6, MIS species analysis appears to be missing in the DEIS. MIS MIS population data has been updated in FEIS Section 3.6.3.3 1-39, 1-70, WOC considers this noncompliance with NFMA and and is considered sufficient. 11-13, 10-9, recommends this be included in the FEIS. 10-72, 11-8, 1-2, 1-39, 1- 69, 11-9, 11-4

8-28 There are inconsistencies with regard to the occurrence of MIS Marten habitat exists within the project area; however, no marten habitat for the American martin. have been documented.

8-58, 11-67, Identify and monitor appropriate MIS species for all habitat MIS Effects on MIS are part of the Forest monitoring program and are 11-12, 11-10, types, in accordance to the Forest Plan. included as part of the PDFs. 11-11, 11-6

5-21 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

11-4 B-TNF should cooperate with WGFD on management MIS Suggestion noted. programs to maintain population objectives of sensitive species.

9-47 To prevent encroachment and establishment of invasive NW Recommendation noted. Livestock grazing will be deferred until weedy plant species, rest should be provided for the treatment the ground cover reaches 60 percent. Resting the treatment areas areas for a period no less than 2 years post-treatment. from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

1-57 Weed surveys and control should be part of monitoring. NW Suggestion noted. The use of Knutson-Vanderberg (KV) funds are proposed as one means of treating noxious weeds, as well as through ongoing programs.

11-18 Having examined a number of the cutblocks proposed, there OG 2003 surveys show extensive mortalities in at least two of the were few, if any diseased trees, but mainly high quality old- treatment areas, however the purpose and need is beyond just growth forest. minimizing the extent of this type of mortality. Old growth standards and guidelines within the Forest Plan will be met by the proposed action.

9-64 DEIS should provide data showing that Standards in the Land OG Less than 2 percent of old growth is proposed for treatment within and Resource Plan for managing old growth have been project area. This includes 15 acres of clearcut and 20 acres of followed. commercial thinning. Vegetation data used for the analysis is available within the project record.

9-6, 9-7 PA should maintain a minimum acreage of timber for old OG Recommendation noted. LRMP snag and old growth standards growth retention, including snags {and the percentage by will be met by the proposed actions. analyzed} as outlined in the LRMP. Recommend that Douglas- fir, spruce, subalpine fir, limber pine, and whitebark pine communities be maintained. LRMP Snag Standard should be applied consistently.

11-25 Pg. 2-7: overstocked is a highly misleading term for complex OG Overstocked refers to a stand density that exceeds the optimum structured old growth. Science does not support your claim or desired density as related to a management objective.

5-22 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-58 WGFD suggests a distribution of larger diameter trees and OG Recommendation noted. Forest Plan standards for old growth and snags be retained to provide cavities for birds and mammals snag management will be met by the proposed action. in the post-treatment period.

10-21 Table 1-1 misses vital indicator: Old growth provides OG The Forest Service believes that it has included the significant significant foraging habitat for lynx. indicators to meet the purpose and need as identified by the public. Old growth standards and guidelines within the Forest Plan will be met.

10-40, 11-7 There is no analysis of the effects on designated old-growth; OG The proposed projects adhere to the Forest Plan goals, including include in FEIS. old growth retention. The Forest Service believes the analysis is adequate.

8-56 Protect and restore old growth forests and old growth obligate OG, W Recommendation noted. Old growth standards and guidelines species. within the Forest Plan will be met.

8-12, 8-15 The B-TNF must replace substandard bridges and culverts R Bridge upgrades and the culvert replacement are included as part prior to proposing new vegetation management projects to be of the proposed action and sequencing of activities is not dictated in compliance with federal laws such as NFMA and the Clean by law. The proposed action is in compliance with federal laws. Water Act.

9-82 “Desired standard or road miles is 2.5 mile/square mile R The wildlife standard for DFCs 1B within the LRMP states that the (Summary, page 5). This exceeds standards given for DFC 1B average open road density is 1.5 miles per square mile with 1-5 and 10 given in the LRMP. Re-evaluate and clarity in FEIS. year variations of 0.75-1.75 and within DFC 10 is 1.0 miles with variations of 0.25-1.25. The standards will not be exceeded. Text has been included in FEIS Section 3.4.5.2.

7-19 Clarify the relationship between the permanent roads and R New permanent roads lead to a higher road density. Temporary increases in road densities. roads are not included in open road densities as not all temporary roads will be constructed and used at the same time. Temporary roads will be closed, re-contoured, and revegetated following treatment.

8-13 Cut blocks within the McDougal Creek and McDougal Gap R No activities take place in roadless areas. areas are unacceptable as there can be no benefit to reopening roads or putting temporary roads into an existing pristine, unroaded, old-growth forest.

5-23 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

6-5 How and how many of the roads will be treated by the project? R Open roads will stay open; restricted access roads will remain restricted; temporary roads will be obliterated and restored at the conclusion of treatments. The Forest Service believes that the treatments are adequately described within the DEIS.

11-39 A map describing the closed roads to be reopened and the R Project maps show locations of temporary roads. BMPs will impacts on sediment delivery is needed. These problems are prevent sediment problems and the Forest Service believes that inadequately analyzed in the DEIS and should be corrected the analysis is adequate. for FEIS.

9-37 Recommend construction of a full service trailhead at the end R Recommendation noted. of South Cottonwood Road to access the Wyoming Range Recreation Trail; facilities should include signboards, hitching rails, small corral, and parking for 5-7 trucks with horse trailers.

9-38, 9-39 Relocate approx. 1.1 miles of Eagle Creek trail out of an R Recommendations noted. avalanche path. Reconstruct Menace Falls trail to a more 9-40 stable area.

9-41 Support reconstruction of 15.3 miles of trails on or along the Wyoming Range National Recreation Trail.

Complete work on the trail located along the South Fork of South Cottonwood Creek trail toward Menace Falls.

11-50 WOC would like to know how the road density estimates R Road densities are compared across alternatives. Road densities provide reasonable information for comparison of the vary by only 0.2 miles per square mile from the existing condition alternatives and detailed sediment modeling calculations. for each alternative and will remain within the standards for the DFCs. Sediment analysis modeling using WEPP is at a level needed, as BMP and PDFs are included to minimize sediments moving into streams.

9-112 Decommission roads that are impacting channel morphology R 1.0 mile of existing road would be relocated to reduce sediment and flow regimes. and another low-standard road closed as described in the DEIS.

5-24 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-35, 9-110 Support no new construction of roads serving as haul roads. R Statement noted although temporary roads are necessary to meet the purpose and need of the project.

10-32, 10-56, A list and map of all connected roads and actions to be taken R Statement noted. No map will be included as this information is 11-49 must be presented in the FEIS. readily available on any Forest Service Transportation map. The Forest Service believes that the road related actions are adequately described in the DEIS.

9-106 Timber harvest and road construction may have long-term R Statement noted. The project design features and BMPs are impacts on streams by increasing erosion and allowing more proposed to minimize impacts from temporary road construction 9-107 sediment to reach waterways. as well as harvest activities.

Reduction of forest cover will increase runoff and change water consumption, and may not negatively impact the aquatic system but will result in increased surface runoff.

8-11 Additional roads will adversely affect wildlife security and R Temporary roads are necessary to meet the purpose and need of habitat and add additional sediment to degraded streams. the project and will be closed and restored following Additional roads will further adversely affect scenic values and implementation with no long-term impact. Project design features recreational experiences for visitors. and BMPs are in place to minimize adverse affects to wildlife security, water quality, scenic values, and recreation. Forest Plan standards for road densities are not exceeded for either DFC.

1-29, 8-52, Close roads throughout the analysis area to comply with the R The standard for DFCs 1b within the LRMP states that the 11-63, 8-10 not-to-exceed one mile per square mile recommendation average open road density is 1.5 miles per square mile with 1-5 year variations of 0.75-1.75 and within DFC 10 is 1.0 miles with variations of 0.25-1.25. Text has been added to FEIS Section 3.4.5.2.

10-91 On page 9, para 2 of the letter, the FWS clearly delineates R The FWS provides recommendation for the culvert-related concerns with culvert replacement. This further calls into activities proposed in the DEIS. The Forest Service maintains its question the utility of culvert replacement. position for the need of the proposed activities.

5-25 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-29 Pg. 2-16: “construction of temporary roads and skid trails R, FM Statement noted, but is incorrect in that the maximum area in would result in the temporary loss of forest productivity and “cutblocks” that would be un-vegetated is 402 acres, not 1000 habitat for 5 to 10 years” – project duration is 10 years; 7-15 acres. The remaining treatment area is in partial cuts. years to revegetate 1000 acres of cutblocks take 7-15 years to revegetate; this is a pattern in DEIS to downplay negative Furthermore, the comment mixes text from numerous, unrelated effects and inflate benefits. portions of the DEIS. Project duration is longer than the time any individual treatment would take. The 5-10 years that the reader uses to start the comment represents the time from treatment completion and road restoration until vegetation is fully established. The remaining portion of comment is totally unrelated to the road restoration issue.

10-63 To state that 39 new road miles will not compound adverse R, S Statement noted, but the proposed project involves 14 miles of effects to the watersheds is ludicrous. Such clearly temporary road, not 30 miles of new road. The range of unsupportable conclusions, found throughout this DEIS, calls alternatives, project design features and BMPs are included to into question the validity of the analysis as a whole. minimize project related impacts.

10-18, 11-38 “Some roads and road culverts are substandard and R, S Statement noted, but vegetation management activities do contribute to sedimentation in streams, damage riparian provide a way to fund the maintenance without burdening the areas, and impair fish passage and habitat. Desired conditions taxpayer. All temporary roads will be restored to their original would bring roads and culverts up to standard” – There does contour and replanted following treatments. not need to be a major timber sale for the FS to do its basic maintenance responsibilities. There should be a plan for road reclamation and obliteration following the project.

11-37, 11-36 This and other future projects should bring roads and culverts R, S Recommendation noted. The proposed project does exactly what up to standard to reduce sedimentation and improve resource the reader requests. conditions without increasing the area road density.

9-36 Support re-locating current Nylander Road out of the riparian R, S, CCT Support noted. area to the dry ridge area to the east which will reintroduce sediment loading, and ultimately benefit Colorado River cutthroat trout.

5-26 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-23, 10-24 Table 1-1 misses vital indicator: under watersheds section, R, S, FM The Forest Service believes that it has included the significant what about indicators of miles of new temporary roads or indicators posed by the public to evaluate the project. acres of disturbed soils in the cutblocks and aspen treatments. Research on road use and sediment delivery?

11-40 Cottonwood DEIS project will undoubtedly impact dispersed REC Impacts are spread over many years, with any given area having recreation due to area closures during the treatment period. a small level of ongoing treatment. The amount of area is considered insignificant and short-term. Mitigation measures are included to minimize impacts to recreation.

1-9, 1-35, 1- Need recreation value estimates and impacts to them. REC Recreation was not identified as a significant issue. The level of 36, 1-49a analysis is deemed adequate.

11-41, 10-88 WOC members avoid recreation, horse-packing, hiking, REC The Forest Service has observed that the public does not stay hunting and fishing during a project or while awaiting forest away from areas undergoing treatment. The Forest Plan reclamation. Displacement is not the only issue; people describes the existing condition within the project area (that is generally don’t want to recreate in industrial logging settings DFC 1b) as having an extensive road system with timber harvest either during or for decades afterward. activities. Mitigation measures are included to minimize impacts to recreation.

10-78 Pg. 3-168: “No impacts are expected on winter recreation REC The referenced sentence is correct and only addresses winter opportunities or recreationists between Nov. 1 and March 1” – recreation. Mitigation measures are included to minimize impacts What about during the summer and fall when 90% of the to recreation. recreation activity takes place?

1-37 Will recreation be displaced to other areas of forest and affect REC This is not likely, as the Forest Service has observed that the local communities? public does not stay away from areas undergoing treatment. The Forest Plan describes the existing condition within the project area (that is DFC 1b) as having an extensive road system with timber harvest activities. Mitigation measures are included to minimize impacts to recreation.

10-69 Pg. 3-101: A slight increase in sediment delivery to steams as S A slight, temporary increase would not be significant and therefore a result of harvest and road building activities does not fulfill does meet the intent of NEPA. Project design features and BMPs the intent of NEPA. are included to minimize project related impacts.

5-27 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-116 WGFD recommends burns on opposing banks be avoided in S Recommendation noted. any one year, to minimize potential sedimentation and to maintain stream bank stability.

10-33, 11-44 There is no data analysis or modeling presented on which to S Relocation of a road out of the stream corridor, culvert base the claim that sediment will be reduced with the action replacements, project design features and BMPs are proposed to alternative. reduce sediment input into streams. The forest Service’s WEPP model has been used to estimate sediment production. The information is included in FEIS Section 3.4.5.3.

10-83, 10-84 The DEIS fails to consider the 2,000 acres of treatment areas S Sediment from treatment areas is not anticipated to be significant and the timeframe of recovery where it is indicated that there (BMPs). Different project activities will be separated and would be a short-term increase in sediment during implemented over a number of years. Therefore, scheduling can replacement of culverts and bridges. be incorporated to avoid multiple impacts at the same time.

Additional sediment will be delivered to an already overloaded stream channel.

9-109 Increase in road density will impact the stream channel in the S Temporary roads are necessary to meet the purpose and need of long-term. the project and will be closed and restored following implementation. Forest Plan standards for road densities are not exceeded for either DFC and PDFs and BMPs will minimize impacts in the long term.

10-28 Pg. 2-10: Your supposition would make this the first timber S The proposed project includes a variety of treatments and sale in history to reduce sedimentation. restoration measures that include sediment reduction.

10-57, 11-51, Results of a detailed sediment model should be included in S The Forest Service has included the analysis in FEIS Section 1-1, 1-3, 1-31, the FEIS. Quantify Sediment (Sediment Yield) 3.4.5.3. 1-32, 5-1

8-9 The Cottonwood Creek drainage roads are not to USFS S, A Project design features and BMPs are included to minimize standards and contribute sediment to streams. The action sediment impacts to streams. alternatives will contribute additional sediment to the streams.

5-28 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-42 Sections 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.5.1 address watershed runoff S, LG Transitory range impacts following harvest were not included in processes and soils; neither section addresses watershed the analysis. The Forest Service does not believe overgrazing runoff processes or soils with respect to potential over-grazing would occur in treatment blocks. Post-treatment monitoring would by livestock, post-treatment. be used to alert managers to a problem requiring correction.

10-59 Pg. 3-92: Earlier it was mentioned that there were 3,000 acres SV Livestock grazing would be deferred from treatment areas until of the project area in “poor” range condition; this would clearly ground cover reaches 60 percent. Resting the treatment areas add to the total disturbed soils. from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

10-31 “. . . extent of disturbed soils is within regional guidelines” – SV Analysis is presented in the soils resource, affected environment where is the analysis on which this supposition is based? portion of the FEIS in Chapter 3.

2-2 Machine piling of slash may remove topsoil. SV Harvesting practices no longer include the slash pilings that, in past years, have removed topsoil. A mix of slash disposal methods is included in the proposed action with some slash left on site.

10-39 Table 3-2: Information in this table is forest-wide and not SV Incorrect. The table and accompanying map do pertain to the specific to Cottonwood II area. analysis area.

9-115 WGFD recommends, under most circumstances, riparian SV Recommendation noted and will be recognized. vegetation should not be burned.

9-53 WDFG recommends management actions entail an evaluation SV Recommendation noted. The proposed action plans to address to improve vegetative vigor and productivity over a landscape these concerns within specified units within the project area. scale.

10-62 Pg. 3-94: “There would be no soil stability effects and no SV Soil effects fall within regional forest guidelines and the Forest cumulative impacts” – to call this statement insufficient or of Service stands behind the analysis. faulty logic is an understatement.

10-50 Soils will be disturbed for longer than 5 years. SV Statement noted.

1-65 May take decades for soils to recover. SV Statement noted.

5-29 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

10-81, 10-82 Pg. 3-178: “There would be a short-term loss of forested SV The temporary roads will be closed, re-contoured, and re- habitat within the 13.8 miles of temporary road footprints” – in vegetated immediately following treatment to restore forested addition, there would be 1,000 acres of cuts and 1,000 acres habitats and watershed function. Aspen treatment areas are of aspen treatment which would lose forested habitat. This expected to respond through re-sprouting following treatment and “short-term” loss would be 15-30 years from the time of are included as a means of long term stand improvement. Further, starting the project. forested habitats would not be lost in thinned areas and would be re-planted in clear-cut stands.

8-40 The B-TNF apparently doesn’t know if the sagebrush/grass SV Table 3-2 describes properly functioning conditions for forested vegetation type is properly functioning because the habitat types and will have sagebrush/grass habitats removed information was left blank in Table 3-2 of the DEIS. from the table, as there is no treatment proposed within these habitat types.

1-30 There are high erosion soils. How will the project protect soil SV Harvest restriction and other standards from the LRPM are and water? incorporated into the project to protect water and soil resources. There will be no harvest on slopes over 30 percent slope.

9-15, 9-16 Stream Bank Vegetation Standards, covering maintenance SV This standard will be maintained by the project design features and species needs to be addressed. and BMPs. The vegetation treatments will not impact streambanks and include a stream protection buffer.

9-119 Avoid slopes greater than 30%. SV, G Recommendation noted. There will be no harvest on slopes over 30% slope.

9-103 Address soil compaction and its impact on water infiltration. SV, H20 The Forest Service believes that it has adequately described the impacts related to soil compaction.

10-58 Pg. 3-91: Most of the 1000 acres of cutblocks will have SV, R Harvest restriction and other standards from the LRPM are disturbed soils; this was not taken into account. incorporated into the project to protect soil resources.

2-1, 9-63 Goshawks may be in analysis area and potential impacts TES Text has been added in Chapter 3. should be analyzed.

7-3 Road construction and treatment should be evaluated for its TES The Forest Service believes that it has conducted an adequate cumulative effect to grizzly bear habitat. analysis of the proposed projects effect on grizzly.

5-30 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

8-30 Recent articles in newspapers suggest that gray wolves are in TES Text has been added to FEIS Section 3.6.3.1. the project area and the DEIS needs to analyze the potential impacts to gray wolves more completely.

10-75, 11-23 Possible lynx denning structure occurs in the stands affected TES Less than 2% of designated old growth is planned for harvest by the cuts and should be avoided, since most of the within the project area with only 20 acres of thinning and 10 acres cutblocks are in OG and spruce/fir complex. of group selection proposed. The Forest Service believes that it has adequately analyzed the impacts of the old growth treatments This applies to other OG forest-dependent sensitive species on lynx and other sensitive species. such as owls and woodpeckers as well.

9-76 WGFD questions whether any units considered excellent TES Old tie-hack units are found north of the project area within the habitat (i.e., old tie hack units) should be treated given the Maki EA project area and in South and North Cottonwood current status of the lynx. drainages. Treatment units are scattered across the projects area and are expected to result in improved habitat for lynx prey by reestablishing early successional habitats within the treated units.

10-74, 11-21 The lynx analysis in the DEIS does not show that most of the TES Most of the old units are older than 30 years and a majority of the planned cutblocks are adjacent to past cutblocks, which would proposed management activities are salvage or other thinning only increase the size of unsuitable habitat. methods. The Forest Service stands behind it’s analysis of lynx and the impacts of the proposed action. These are detailed within the biological assessment for the project.

9-73 Specific guidelines are given to retain small diameter conifer TES Small diameter conifers are present in the watersheds and woody and shrubs, coarse woody debris, and provide for connectivity debris will be left on site. See lynx analysis for connectivity issue. of denning and foraging habitat within the LCAS.

9-77 Fig 3-8 shows a concentration area of lynx observations south TES Statement noted. The proposed action is expected to result in a of the South Cottonwood Creek drainage; proposed benefit to the prey base for lynx. treatments may reduce use of this area by lynx.

7-9 Provide a map of suitable habitat for bald eagle that include TES Suitable habitat is described in the FEIS in Figure 3-2 and no nesting or critical winter habitats as described by the Wyoming sighting have been recorded within the project area. GAP analysis.

5-31 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-38, 1-41, 1- Concerned about adverse impacts to forest dependant, TES Concern noted. The Forest Service believes that the Biological 42, 10-30, 10- sensitive species such as the spotted frog, owls, and others. Evaluation for the project adequately describes the potential 52 impacts from the proposed action on the identified species.

7-4, 7-12 Enforce the food storage and garbage disposal stipulations of TES Grizzlies are not known to reside in the project area, but these Comment 7, Letter 2, in areas where grizzlies are present. stipulations would be followed where appropriate.

11-20 There is no mention in the DEIS about lodgepole TES Discussion about lodgepole regeneration is included as related to regeneration, so relying on this as part of a lynx effect analysis snowshoe hare and the Forest Service believes that this topic has is unsupported. been adequately discussed in the DEIS as well as the Biological Assessment.

8-39, 8-42, The DEIS does not appear to contain an adequate TES No greater sage grouse or Columbian sharp-tail grouse are 10-41 assessment of suitable habitat for greater sage grouse or known to occur in the project area and no treatments are impacts of sage grouse conservation. proposed within sagebrush habitats.

7-11 A biological opinion is no longer required by USFWS on may TES Regulatory direction noted. affect, not likely to adversely affect determinations for lynx.

7-5, 7-13 Provide personnel with information on safety measures for TES Safety information is distributed to contractors where appropriate. working in grizzly bear inhabited areas during implementation.

10-86 There may be short-term effects to Payson’s milkvetch during TES The biological evaluation attachment (Appendix C) to the EIS vegetation treatments. What about all the other sensitive examines sensitive species. species, especially the forest dependent ones?

8-31 The proposed project would likely displace grizzly from TES Grizzlies are not known to reside in the project area. Those needed habitat types and would decrease habitat grizzlies moving through the area may find improved foraging effectiveness for expanding the population. The proposed habitats created by the proposed action or other proposed project project is inappropriate for an ecosystem with grizzly. related affects that are addressed in the DEIS. The BA determined a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” on grizzly. 1-44, 1-45, 1- What are the effects on lynx linkage corridors and food TES The Forest Service feels that this subject was addressed in the 46, 7-16, 7-17 security? Protracted periods of logging in important linkage DEIS and the biological assessment. Further, the LCAS is corridors for lynx should be avoided. considered prior conducting activities within lynx habitat.

1-47 Does clearcut size and shape conform to lynx TES Yes, see the Biological Assessment. recommendations?

5-32 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-47, 7-8, 8- This project does not meet lynx conservation requirements. TES The Forest Service feels that this subject was addressed in the 34, 8-35 The affects determination for lynx precedes a quantified DEIS and the biological assessment. Further, the LCAS is analysis of the effects as outlined in the LCAS for lynx. considered prior to conducting activities within lynx habitat.

7-7, 7-18 The DEIS does not include an analysis of direct, indirect, and TES The Forest Service feels that this subject was addressed in the cumulative effects of the proposed action on lynx. DEIS and the biological assessment. Further, the LCAS is considered prior conducting activities within lynx habitat.

7-20 How will improved human access affect Canada lynx? TES There would be some short, temporary skid trails employed, but access would be over the existing road system. Skid trails would be closed and treated as needed to allow natural re-vegetation. In regard to habitat effectiveness, there would be no substantial alterations affecting potential for habitual presence of humans or competing predators. 7-15, 7-21, 9- The lynx biological assessment should fully evaluate the TES The Forest Service believes that the pertinent affects have been 78, 9-79, 9- effects of the project actions and include an evaluation of fully evaluated within the DEIS and the biological assessment. 68, 9-80, 9- impacts to snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitats, retention 69, 9-65 of old growth forests, and retention of linkage and travel corridors.

10-76, 10-77 Pg. 3-140: Lynx were listed as threatened primarily because of TES Statement noted and the Forest Service believes that the the impacts of logging and road building. The same goes for pertinent affects have been fully evaluated within the DEIS and all other forest dependent sensitive species. To say there will the biological assessment. be no cumulative effects is specious.

8-36 The DEIS violates the BT NF standard for meeting the needs TES The proposed project supports the LRMP standards and includes of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. project design features and BMPs to minimize impacts to TES species.

9-70, 9-81 Analysis of cumulative effects of proposed action on lynx TES This information has been Included in the Biological Assessment. should include a determination of what proportion of the LAU Clarification has been added to the FEIS in Chapter 3. in the project area and in adjacent LAUs has been affected by habitat alteration and existing connectivity within and between LAUs.

5-33 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

1-7, 10-87, The effects on these T&E species are much more than TES The Forest Service stands behind its assessment of the effects to 11-26 temporary physical displacement from their habitat and should TES species found in the DIES. be revealed in the FEIS.

8-33 The proposed alternatives appear to facilitate the extirpation of TES The biologic assessment for the proposed project concluded with lynx. a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for lynx.

9-67 Wyoming Range may be the most important recovery area for TES Statement noted. the lynx in the future.

9-71 LCAS requires that if more than 30 percent of lynx habitat TES The unsuitable lynx habitat within the Cottonwood LAU will remain within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, than no below 30%. This is detailed within the Biological Assessment and further reduction shall occur as a result of vegetation displayed in FEIS Sections 3.6.3.1 and 3.6.5.2. management activities.

9-72 No more than 15% of lynx habitat within a LAU shall be TES Statement noted. Treatments within the LAU will account for less changed within a 10-year period. than 15% of the suitable habitat (i.e., denning and foraging). This is detailed within the Biological Assessment and displayed in FEIS Sections 3.6.3.1 and 3.6.5.2.

9-74 WGFD concur with the DEIS that older tie-hack units are TES Support noted. excellent lynx habitat.

9-59 The value of proposed aspen treatments for significantly TES The significance of the aspen treatments on snowshoe hares are increasing lynx prey base is speculative. only described as a possibility based on hare habitat requirements and treatments affecting hare habitats.

10-51 Pg. 3-53: “There should be no long-term direct negative TES The Forest Service stands behind its analysis of project affects on population-level impacts from treatments proposed under Alt sensitive species. B” – this unsupportable claim ignores research on forest dependent species, especially those on Sensitive Species list.

9-5 [The area of the Proposed Action] has also been documented TES True. Statement noted. as occupied Canada lynx habitat.

5-34 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

11-28 Species other than big game, such as T&E or Sensitive TES The proposed project has analyzed the effects of the proposed species should also be considered in the habitat mix for a action on an array of wildlife species within the EIS and wider diversity of wildlife. attachments.

7-1 The project should comply with the Interagency Grizzly Bear TES Suggestion noted. The Forest Service does comply with the Guidelines and the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines and the Final Conservation Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem.

7-6, 7-14 Consider implementation of the project during grizzly denning TES Suggestion noted. season.

7-2, 8-55, Restore and conserve healthy populations of all forest TES The Forest Service believes that it is meeting these 1165 carnivores and large carnivores native to the analysis area. recommendations, at a minimum, through its adherence to management direction described in Section 1.0 as well as project design features and BMPs.

9-60 DEIS conclude that the proposed action “may impact TES The Forest Service stands by the analysis. individuals and habitat, but will not likely contribute to trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.” This conclusion appears to be speculative.

8-32 Predator control actions by WGFD for the protection of TES This request is beyond the scope of the project as it relates to domestic livestock should be closed within the areas to how the State manages grizzly and wolves. conserve and protect grizzly and gray wolves.

9-62 Suggest Big Piney District develop a landscape strategy for TES, OG Suggestion noted. managing habitat for Sensitive Species associated with older conifer forests throughout the Wyoming Range.

10-22 Table 1-1 misses vital indicator: there is more to wildlife than TES, OG The Forest Service believes that it has included the significant big game; most of the species on the regional sensitive indicators posed by the public to evaluate the project. species list or listed under the ESA are old-growth dependent.

11-14, 11-25 Habitat for several sensitive species is found in the analysis TES, W There may be short-term displacement of some ESA or regionally area, and they require large, undisturbed areas of land. They listed as sensitive species. However, the purpose of the proposed will likely be displaced during treatment. action includes restoring the vegetative condition to the DFC. DFC includes benefits to federally and regionally listed species.

5-35 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

9-8, 9-9 Address Elk Calving Area and wallow standards. W All Forest Plan Standards are adhered to under the proposed action.

9-3 Proposed Action lies within areas designated for WY and W Big game standards and guidelines for the B-TNF provide Sublette mule deer herds. recommendations for big game species that are adopted as part of the proposed action.

9-4 Willow bottoms located in the Cottonwood Creeks and their W Big game standards and guidelines for the B-TNF provide tributaries provide crucial moose winter range. recommendations for big game species that are adopted as part of the proposed action.

8-57 Restore and conserve sustainable and wide-ranging W Bighorn sheep are not found within the project area. populations of bighorn sheep in the analysis area and adjacent areas.

11-27 DEIS does not address (poor habitat, stress, disease W Bighorn sheep are not found within the project area. transmitted by domestic sheep, forage competition with livestock, fire suppression and other factors) and makes no attempt to reverse the downward spiral of bighorn sheep.

9-61 No mitigation measures are provided for mature forest wildlife W Project design features, that include implementing LRMP species such as protection of nesting habitat if raptor next standards for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and MIS species will sites are discovered during the project period. be implemented to protect and minimize impacts to these species.

9-55, 9-56 To provide sufficient forage for big game, a comprehensive W Recommendation noted although outside the scope of this HMP would ensure the needs of wildlife and livestock were project. fully considered during forage allocation process.

Development and implementation of both AMP and HMP will insure that forage resources are fully considered.

7-10 Recommend that project timing of proposed activities to avoid W The proposed action adheres to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of impacting migratory birds, including raptors. 1918 and includes other mitigation measures to minimize impacts to these species.

5-36 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

11-64 WOC recommends that the B-TNF restore healthy, free- W Project design features and mitigation measures are included ranging sustainable populations of wildlife in the analysis area benefit wildlife within the project area. and adjacent areas.

8-47, 8-48, NEPA analysis and the FEIS must comply with all wildlife W Recommendation noted. Project design features and mitigation 11-19, 11-52 standards and guidelines to protect and restore big game measures are included benefit wildlife within the project area and migration corridors for all native species as well as analyze the adhere to LRMP direction. impacts of the proposed actions (e.g., roads) on the native migration routes.

9-66 Difference in total number of conifer acres treated between W There are differences in treatment alternatives and these Alts B and C is minimal and direct and indirect effects for accounts for differences in affects to wildlife. wildlife would be similar under both alternatives.

11-53 All native species and their habitats must be managed, W Recommendation noted. restored, and conserved for sustainability in perpetuity.

8-45, 8-46 The project area is an ecological crossroads critical to W Statement noted. sustainable function of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

9-52 Improvement of mule deer winter and transitional ranges as W Livestock grazing would be deferred from treatment areas until per WDGF Habitat Initiative Concept and related to grazing ground cover reaches 60 percent. Resting the treatment areas management. from grazing until 60 percent ground cover is attained will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions issued to the permittee.

9-43 WGFD has prepared a draft report identifying potential habitat W Recommendation noted. The Forest Service has incorporated treatment sites along the east slope of the Wyoming Range to feed grounds in its effects analysis. encourage spring dispersal of elk away from feed grounds. The FS should consider this report as it relates to the project.

10-53 Pg. 3-53: Proposed action degrades and destroys more forest W The project is in compliance with DFCs identified for each species habitat. management objective, including for wildlife, and has considered wildlife in its project design features.

5-37 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5-2 Comment Letters Summary Letter and Comment Comment Number Comment Code Response

8-6 The DEIS does not offer information that shows that it W Bighorn sheep are not found within the project area. manages for adequate forage on summer or winter range for bighorns.

8-43, 8-44 The BT NF must assess the existing conditions of wetlands W A 300 ft. buffer is proposed for all major wetlands. Wetlands are within the project area and the potential impacts to not known to exist in treatment areas. If wetlands are encountered amphibians. during sale layout, they will be avoided. LRMP guidance for wetlands would be adhered to.

9-13 Road Management Standard: all timber sale prescriptions W Wildlife analysis is included in the DEIS. Big game was identified should be analyzed for potential impacts to wildlife, especially as a significant issue and the Forest Service believes that the elk. topic was adequately evaluated.

9-12 Recommend existing clearcuts be analyzed to determine if W Regeneration was monitored to ensure NFMA compliance. sufficient regeneration has occurred to meet elk requirements. Current population estimates find elk numbers (from 2001) exceeding WGFD objectives for the Piney herd. This suggests that conditions within the elk unit are meeting the elk requirements.

9-11, 9-10 Elk Security Habitat and Habitat Effectiveness: permanent or W, R Current population estimates find elk numbers (from 2001) temporary roads should be analyzed for impacts to Elk. exceeding WGFD objectives for the Piney herd. Project design features include minimizing impacts to elk and support the standards within the LRMP. Further, no activities are proposed within wildlife security areas (DFC 12).

4-2 Wildlife and recreation will benefit from treatments. W, REC Statement noted.

5-38 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES

Agee, J. K. 1999. “Disturbance Ecology of North American Boreal Forests and Associated Northern Mixed/Subalpine Forests.” In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, et al. (tech. eds.). The Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. General Technical Report INT-122.. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, Utah. 22 p. Aubry, K. B., G. M. Koehler, J. R. Squires. 1999. “Ecology of Canada Lynx in Southern Boreal Forests.” In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., eds. The Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. Bartos, D. L. 2001. “Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Coniferous Forests.” In Shepperd, Wayne D., Dan Binkley, Dale L. Bartos, Thomas J. Stohlgren, and Lane G. Eskew, compilers. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–15 June 2000; Grand Junction, Colorado. Proceedings RMRS- P-18. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 460 p. Bartos, D. L., J. K. Brown, and G. D. Booth. 1994. “Twelve Years Biomass Response in Aspen Communities Following Fire.” Journal of Range Management. 47:79-83. Bartos, D. L., and R. B. Campbell, Jr. 1998. “Decline of Quaking Aspen in the Interior West—Examples from Utah.” Rangelands 20(1):17-24. Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, New York.

Bell, M. C. 1986. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. Portland, Oregon. Biological Resource Research Center. 2004. Threatened and Endangered Animals of the Great Basin. University of Nevada, Reno. Reno, Nevada. (August 12, 2004). BLM. See U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Bradley, Doug. 2005. Doug Bradley/CH2M HILL personal communication with Mike Jimenez/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 8, 2005.

6-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Brown, J. K. and D. G. Simmerman. 1986. Appraising Fuels and Flammability in Western Aspen: A Prescribed Fire Guide. General Technical Report INT-205. Ogden, Utah. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 48 p. Bury, R. B. 2004. “Wildfire, Fuel Reduction, and Herpetofaunas across Diverse Landscape Mosaics in Northwestern Forests.” Conservation Biology. 18(4):968-975. Buskirk, S. W. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. “Martin.” In L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. Jack Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores. General Technical Report RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 184 p. Buskirk, S. W., L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, D. E. Pearson, J. R. Squires, K. S. McKelvey. 1999. “Comparative Ecology of Lynx in North America.” In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. The Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. “Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes.” In William R. Meehan, ed. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

Crane, M. F. and W. C. Fischer. 1986. Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-218. Ogden, Utah. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 86 p.

CRCT (Colorado River Cutthroat) Task Force. 2001. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado.

DeByle, N. V., C. D. Bevins, and W. C. Fischer. 1987. “Wildfire Occurrence in Aspen in the Interior Western United States.” Western Journal of Forestry. 2(3):73-76.

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States, Natural History and Habitat Use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook 688. 625 pp.

Fertig, W. and H. Marriott. 1993. Field Survey for Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s Milkvetch) and Draba borealis (Boreal Draba), Bridger-Teton National Forest, Final Report. Unpublished report prepared for the Bridger-Teton National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Database. Laramie, Wyoming.

6-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Fertig, W., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming Rare Plant Technical Committee. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Fertig, W. 2000a. Astragalus paysonii (Payson’ milkvetch) State Species Abstract. Family: Fabaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database: University of Wyoming, Laramie. Updated: June 30, 2000. 4 p.

Fertig, W. 2000b. Status Review of the Ute ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department, by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, Wyoming.

Fischer, W. C. and A. F. Bradley. 1987. Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types. General Technical Report INT-223. Ogden, Utah. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p.

Forest Service. See U.S. Forest Service.

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. “Road Construction and Maintenance.” In William R. Meehan, ed. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

Gaines, D. and S. A. Laymon. 1984. “Decline, Status and Preservation of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California.” Western Birds. 15:49- 80.

Gruell, G. E., J. K. Brown and C. L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed Fire Opportunities in Grasslands Invaded by Douglas Fir: State-of-the-Art Guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 19 p.

Hagar, J. C., W. C. McComb, and W. H. Emmingham. 1996. ‘Bird Communities in Commercially Thinned and Unthinned Douglas-Fir Stands of Western Oregon.” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(2):353-366.

Haroldson, M. A. 2004. “Unduplicated females.” In Hayden-Wing Associates 2004. C. C. Schwartz and M. A. Haroldson, eds. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations: Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2003. U.S. Geological Survey. Bozeman, Montana. pp. 10-15.

Hart, J. H. and D. L. Hart. 2001. “Interaction among Cervids, Fungi, and Aspen in Northwest Wyoming.” Pp. 197-205. In Shepperd, Wayne D., Dan Binkley, Dale L. Bartos, Thomas J. Stohlgren, and Lane G. Eskew, compilers. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–15 June 2000; Grand Junction, Colorado. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 460 p.

6-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Hayden-Wing Associates. 2004. Management Indicator Species, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.

Hayward, G. D., T. Holland, R. Escano. 1990. Goshawk Habitat Relationships in Old-Growth Habitats and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern Rocky Mountains. N.M. Warren, ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Northern Region Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program R1-90-42.

Hoffman, N. 1997. Distribution of Picoides Woodpeckers in Relation to Habitat Disturbance within the Yellowstone Area. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. Master’s thesis. 74 p.

Huff, M. H. and J. K. Smith. 2000. “Chapter 5: Fire Effects on Animal Communities.” In J.K. Smith, ed. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-42-Vol.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 83 p.

Hutto, Richard L. and J. S. Young, 1999. Habitat Relationships of Landbirds in the Northern Region. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-32, July 1999. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Irving, J. S. and T. C. Bjornn. 1984. Effects of Substrate Size Composition on Survival of Kokanee Salmon and Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout. ID Coop. Fish Res. Unit Technical Report. 84-6.

Johns, B. W. 1993. “The Influence of Grove Size on Bird Species Richness in Aspen Parklands.” Wilson Bulletin. 105(2):256-264.

Johnston, B. C. and L. Hendzel. 1985. Examples of Aspen Treatment, Succession, and Management in Western Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region, Range Wildlife Fisheries and Ecology. Denver, Colorado. 164 p.

Kay, C. E. 2001. “Evaluation of Burned Aspen Communities in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.” Pp. 213-223. In: Shepperd, Wayne D., Dan Binkley, Dale L. Bartos, Thomas J. Stohlgren, and Lane G. Eskew, compilers. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–15 June 2000; Grand Junction, Colorado. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 460 p. Kay, C. E., and D. L. Bartos. 2000. “Ungulate Herbivory on Utah Aspen: Assessment of Long-Term Exclosures.” Journal of Range Management. 53:145-153. Koehler, G. M. 1990. “Population and Habitat Characteristics of Lynx and Snowshoe Hares in North Central Washington.” Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:85-851.

6-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Koehler, G. M. and J. D. Brittell. 1990. “Managing Spruce-Fir Habitat for Lynx and Snowshoe Hares.” Journal of Forestry. 88:10-14.

Kuzloski, John. 2004. John Kuzloski/Bridger-Teton National Forest personal communication with Wendy Haydon/CH2M HILL. June 4 and 29, 2004.

Linkhart, B. D. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. “Territories of Flammulated Owls (Otus flammeolus): Is Occupancy a Measure of Habitat Quality?” Pp. 250-254. In: Duncan, J. R., D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, eds. Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-190. 635 p.

Lorain, C. C. 1990. Field Investigations of Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s Milk-Vetch), a Region 1 Sensitive Species on the Nez Perce National Forest. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center. Boise, Idaho. 11 pp. plus appendices.

Lyon, L. J., E. S. Telfer, and D. S. Schreiner. 2000. “Chapter 3: Direct Effects of Fire and Animal Responses.” (Pp. 17-24). In: Smith, J.K. ed. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Ogden, Utah. Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.

Marsh, Susan. 2004. Susan Marsh/Bridger-Teton National Forest personal communication with Wendy Haydon/CH2M HILL, on June 29; July 1, 6, 21, 27, 28; and August 3 and 12, 2004.

Martens, Darin. 2004. Darin Martens/Forest Landscape Architect/Bridger-Teton National Forest personal communication with Wendy Haydon/CH2M HILL. August 5, 2004.

Marti, C. D. 1997. “Flammulated Owls (Otus flammeolus) Breeding in Deciduous Forests.” Pp. 262-266. In: Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson, and T.H. Nicholls, eds. Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-190. 635 p.

McCallum, D. A. 1994a. “Review of Technical Knowledge: Flammulated Owls.” In Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States: a Technical Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-253. 213 p.

McCallum, D. A. 1994b. “Conservation Status of Flammulated Owls in the United States.” Pp. 74-79. In Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States: a Technical Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-253. 213 p.

McGarigal, K. 1988. Human-Eagle Interactions on the Lower Columbia River. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. Master’s thesis. 108 pp.

6-5 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 1999. “History and Distribution of Lynx in the Contiguous United States.” In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al. (tech. eds.). The Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Moody, D., D. Hammer, M. Bruscino, D. Bjornlie, R. Grogan, and B. Debolt. 2002. Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 48pp.

Moseley, R. K. 1996. Report on the Conservation Status of Lesquerella paysonii in Idaho. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho. 22 p. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. Fire Effects Guide. National Interagency Fire Center. Boise, Idaho. June 21, 2001. (August 3, 2004) Nelson, K. A. 1999. Green River and Bear River Road and Stream Crossing Inventory. Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Nicholoff. 2003. The Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. Developed by Wyoming Partners in Flight.

Noste, N. V. and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Fire Response of Shrubs of Dry Forest Habitat Types in Montana and Idaho. General Technical Report INT-239. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 22 p.

Platts, W. S. 1991. “Livestock Grazing.” In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. William R. Meehan, ed., U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, T. Rinaldi, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S. Gniadek. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 110 pp.

Sakai, H. F. and B. R. Noon. 1991. “Nest-Site Characteristics of Hammond’s and Pacific- Slope Flycatchers in Northwestern California.” Condor. 93:563-574.

6-6 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Shepard, W. D. 1985. “Aspen Ecology and Management in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains.” In Forests’ Future: Leaders or Followers? Proceedings of the 1985 Society of American Foresters National Convention. Pp 233-236. Fort Collins, Colorado. July 28-31.

Smith, J. K. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 83 p.

Smith, W. 2003. Spawning Gravel Habitat Assessment and Prediction of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Survival in Pool Tails on North and South Cottonwood Creeks. Unpublished report. Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Squires, J. R. and L. F. Ruggerio. 1996. “Nest-Site Preference of Northern Goshawks in Southcentral Wyoming.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:170-177.

Squires, J. R., and T. Laurion. 1999. “Lynx Home Range and Movements in Montana and Wyoming: Preliminary Results.” In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. The Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous United States. General Technical Report.

Steenhof, K. 1976. Ecology of Wintering Bald Eagles in Southeastern South Dakota. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. Master’s thesis. 146 pp.

Trotter, P. C. 1987. Cutthroat, Native Trout of the West. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, Colorado.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. No date. Appendix C, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. (August 11, 2004).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Sensitive Species Management Plan for the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Region 1. 9 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species: Biological Information and Guidance. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Snake River Basin Office. Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological Assessment for 2003 Small Sales, Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-TNF), Sublette County, Wyoming. Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. “ESA Basics.” 30 Years of Protecting Endangered Species. (March 15, 2005).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho. (March 24, 2005).

6-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1974. “Chapter 1. The Visual Management System.” National Forest Landscape Management. Volume 2. Agriculture Handbook Number 462. April. U.S. Forest Service. 1981. Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Northern/Intermountain Regions. October. U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Soil Interpretive Guide. U.S. Forest Service. 1988. R1/R4 Soil Management Handbook. Forest Service Handbook, Northern Region (Region 1) FSH 2509.22. Missoula, Montana—Intermountain Region (Region 4). Ogden, Utah. U.S. Forest Service. 1989. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests. Forest Service Southern Region, February 1989; Technical Publication R8-TP 11. (August 3, 2004). U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bridger-Teton National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Region. March. U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service. 1995a. Inland Native Fish Strategy Interim Direction.

U.S. Forest Service. 1995b. Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines.

U.S. Forest Service. 1996a. Service Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges.

U.S. Forest Service. 1996b. Environmental Assessment for North and South Cottonwood Allotment Plans. Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest (B- TNF), Sublette County, Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service. 1997. Properly Functioning Condition Assessment. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. September. U.S. Forest Service. 1999a. Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service. 1999b. Cottonwood Watershed Analysis. Unpublished report. Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Stand Exam Summary Data and Stand Tables. Unpublished Data. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. (FVS outputs individual stand runs, December 27, 2000). U.S. Forest Service. 2002a. Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.

6-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Forest Service. 2002b. Bridger-Teton National Forest Map. Big Piney, Greys River, and Kemmerer Ranger Districts.

U.S. Forest Service. 2002c. Cottonwood Integrated Projects (BT-02-650). Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.

U.S. Forest Service. 2002d. Management Techniques for Riparian Restoration: Roads Field Guide. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-102, Volume 1. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Forest Service. 2003a. Cottonwood/Maki Draft Environmental Assessment. Unpublished. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service. 2003b. Forest Health Protection, Northern and Intermountain Regions. (September 13, 2004). U.S. Forest Service. 2003c. Forest Health Highlights – Wyoming. (September 13, 2004). U.S. Forest Service. 2003d. Aerial Insect and Disease Detection Survey. U.S. Forest Service. 2003e. Biological Evaluation for Intermountain Region (4) Sensitive Species in the Wyoming Range Allotment Complex. Big Piney, Grey’s River, and Jackson Ranger districts, Bridger-Teton National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. 2003f. Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 3: Chapter 3. Boise National Forest, Payette National Forest, and Sawtooth National Forest. Intermountain Region. July 2003. U.S. Forest Service. 2004a. Cottonwood II Vegetation Management EIS Scoping Report—Content Analysis. Boise, Idaho. April. U.S. Forest Service. 2004b. Environmental Assessment: Maki Creek Area Projects. Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Sublette County, Wyoming.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Waters, T.F. 1995. “Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control.” American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

WDEQ. See Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Wesche, T.A. and D.J. Issak. 1999. “Watershed Management and Land Use Practices.” In C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, eds. Inland Fisheries Management in North America, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. WGFD. See Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

6-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Wright, M. and R.E. Escano.1986. Montana Bald Eagle Nesting Habitat Macro-Habitat Description. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. 26 pp.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003a. 2002 Habitat Annual Report, Strategic Habitat Plan Accomplishments. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (April 2003). < http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/habitat/reports Sannual/2002/index.asp> (August 3, 2004).

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003b. Pinedale Region Aquatic Habitat Priorities. (August 9, 2004).

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. “Silviculture Best Management Practices.” Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2004. Data compilation for J. Kindig/CH2M HILL HILL. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. August 11, 2004.

6-10 CHAPTER 7. LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act ASQ allowable timber sale quantity BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion B-TNF Bridger-Teton National Forest CA Conservation Agreement CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIA community interest area COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPIS Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study CRCT Colorado River cutthroat trout CWA Clean Water Act CWR crucial winter range DBH diameter at breast height DFC desired future condition ECA equivalent clearcut area EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FRCC fire regime condition class FRI fire return interval FSR Forest Service Region FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator HRV Historic Range of Variability IDT Interdisciplinary Team

7-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

KV Knutson-Vanderberg funds LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LWD large woody debris MA management area MBF thousand board-feet MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF million board-feet MOU Memorandum of Understanding MP management prescription NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory OHV off-highway vehicle PFC properly functioning condition PNC potential natural community ROD Record of Decision ROS recreation opportunity spectrum RVD recreation visitor day SHPO Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSPIRS Timber Sale Project Information Reporting System USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VQO Visual Quality Objective WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WGBMP Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan WSEO Wyoming State Engineers Office

7-2 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Selected Forest Plan Goals

FOREST PLAN GOALS

Goal 1.1 – Communities continue to gain greater prosperity.

1.1(a) – Provide an average annual volume of 12 million board feet of green sawlogs to mills in operation in such towns as Alpine, Etna, Jackson, Dubois, Pinedale, Afton, Evanston, Rexburg, Montpelier, St. Anthony, and Lander.

1.1(b) – Provide at least 5 million board feet of timber annually to allow continued use of forest products and employment in commercial firewood, house logs, and similar industries.

1.1(c) – Provide timber volumes at costs that reflect current market values and as small- and large-product sales to meet local demand.

1.1(d) – Provide leasable, locatable, and salable mineral exploration and development opportunities.

1.1(e) – Provide undisturbed areas for use by outfitter and guide clients, including river floaters.

1.1(f) – Provide areas for alpine skiing and commercial ski and snowmobile operations.

1.1(g) – Help re-establish historic elk migration routes to provide increased viewing and hunting opportunities for outfitters and clients.

1.1(h) – Provide forage for about 260,000 animal unit months (AUM) of livestock grazing annually.

1.1(i) – Help utilities provide services.

Goal 1.2 – A safe transportation system meets the needs of commercial users of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

1.2(a) – Provide roads for timber contractors to obtain at least an average annual volume of 12 million board feet of green sawlogs.

1.2(b) – Provide roads for timber contractors to obtain at least 5 million board feet of forest products, including commercial firewood, house logs, and posts and poles.

1.2(c) – Provide roads, trails, and driveways for ranchers to manage about 260,000 AUMs of livestock grazing.

1.2(d) – Provide roads and trails for the outfitting and guide industry.

A-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

1.2(e) – Provide up to 35 miles of new road access opportunities annually to areas of high mineral or oil and gas potential for exploration and development.

1.2(f) – Upgrade up to 68 miles of substandard roads over the life of the Forest Plan where it is desirable to meet improved access 1.2(a-e).

Goal 1.3 – Water quantity and quality are retained or improved for local users.

1.3(a) – Protect municipal, agricultural, and other potable water supplies and ensure that management activities do not cause a deterioration in water-flow timing, quality, or quantity.

1.3(b) – Meet or exceed current State water quality standards and National Forest Service water quality goals.

Goal 1.4 – Water production is increased in the Green River watershed.

1.4(a) – Locate and develop best sites for increased water production.

Goal 2.1 – Adequate habitat for wildlife, fish, and edible vegetation to help meet human food needs is preserved.

2.1(a) – Provide suitable and adequate habitat to support the game and fish populations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, as agreed to by the Forest Service.

2.1(b) – Provide opportunities for people to collect edible forest products such as mushrooms and berries.

Goal 2.3 – High-quality dispersed recreation opportunities exist to serve Bridger- Teton National Forest visitors.

2.3(a) – Retain, improve, and add dispersed recreation opportunities.

Goal 2.4 – Supplies of personal-use products such as firewood, Christmas trees, ornamentals, rock, gravel, and other special items are available for people’s use.

2.4(a) – Provide access to an average of 2.5 cords of firewood per firewood-gathering household per year, offering commercial-timber-harvest residual material whenever possible.

2.4(b) – Provide opportunities to get Christmas trees, ornamentals, rock, gravel, and other special items.

A-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Goal 2.5 – A safe road and trail system provides access to a range of recreation opportunities and settings.

2.5(a) – Retain some popular, traditional roads for sedan travel.

2.5(b) – Retain and, in some cases, add some roads for high-clearance vehicles (4x4s).

2.5(c) – Retain, improve, and add trails for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) including snowmobiles.

2.5(d) – Retain, improve, and add trails for foot, riding stock, llama, and mountain bike travel.

Goal 3.1 – Grizzly bear recovery is achieved

3.1(a) – Provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat for recovery of a viable grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Area as identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Long-term forest habitat management should provide vegetation diversity, approximate natural conditions, and include all successional stages important to the grizzly bear.

3.1(b) – Prevent needless encounters between grizzly bears and people, and prevent grizzly bears from gaining access to such attractants as food and garbage.

Goal 3.2 – Recovery is achieved for the Endangered Species of the Bridger-Teton National Forest

3.2(a) – Cooperate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish the gray wolf in the Greater Yellowstone Area if the decision is made to do so.

3.2(b) – Require recreational use of the Snake River meet bald eagle recovery objectives.

3.2(c) – By 1995, help secure and retain four nesting pairs of bald eagles in the Snake River population with an average fledging rate of 1.1 per occupied nest.

3.2(d) – Reduce preventable, human-caused mortality of bald eagles of the Bridger- Teton National Forest to zero per year, with emphasis on public education.

3.2(e) – Provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat for bald eagles.

3.2(f) – Secure two nesting pairs and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat for peregrine falcons.

3.2(g) – Prevent human-caused mortality of whooping cranes.

3.2(h) – Provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat for summer-resident whooping cranes.

A-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

3.2(i) – Protect populations of, and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat for, the Kendall Warm Springs dace.

Goal 3.3 – Sensitive species are prevented from becoming a Federally listed threatened species in Wyoming

3.3(a) – Protect National Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive plant and animal species and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat to ensure that activities do not cause (1) long-term or further decline in population numbers or habitats supporting these populations; and, (2) trends towards federal listing.

3.3(b) – By 1995, in cooperation with Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Trout Unlimited, and Bureau of Land Management, improve 10 percent of the 77 acres of lake habitat and 166 miles of stream habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout.

3.3(c) – In cooperation with Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Trout Unlimited, rehabilitate and improve the existing stream habitat occupied within the Bear River drainage by Bonneville cutthroat trout.

Goal 4.1 – Road management preserves wildlife security, soil, visual resource, and water-quality objectives.

4.1(a) – Minimize new road building and downgrade or close existing roads and motorized access trails to maintain or increase wildlife security.

4.1(b) – Design roads and structures to retain soil, visual resource, and water-quality objectives.

Goal 4.2 – Other resource values are retained or improved as timber is removed from the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

4.2(a) – Apply silvicultural practices to achieve documented, site-specific, multiple- resource objectives on lands suited—scheduled—for timber production.

4.2(b) – Cut or remove timber to meet documented, site-specific recreation, wildlife, visual, or water-production objectives on lands not suited—unscheduled—for timber production.

4.2(c) – Manage the timber program on the National Forest in a manner wherein total monetary and non-monetary benefits are equal to or exceed total monetary and non-monetary costs and wherein monetary benefits and costs are discounted and non-monetary benefits and costs are not.

4.2(d) – Prevent logging or certain logging practices where potential effects on other resource values, including wildlife, threatened and endangered species, recreation, soils, air, visual resource, and water quality values are unacceptable.

A-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Goal 4.3 – Overall diversity of and riparian habitats within the Bridger-Teton National Forest are enhanced as timber is removed.

4.3(a) – Provide for vegetative species and age diversity, genetic quality, and forest appearance.

4.3(b) – Provide for diverse habitats to ensure viable populations of management indicator species.

4.3(c) – Protect and rehabilitate riparian areas to retain and improve their value for fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife, and water quality.

Goal 4.4 – Other resources are protected during exploration and development of subsurface resources.

4.4(a) – Require that surface occupancy of lands takes place only on lands available for mineral exploration and development.

4.4(b) – Prevent surface occupancy where potential effects on other resources, including wildlife, threatened and endangered species, recreation, soils, air, visual resource, and water are unacceptable.

4.4 (c) – Apply performance standards or stipulations in mineral plans, permits, and leases for the protection of other resource values.

Goal 4.7 – Grazing use of National Forest sustains or improves overall range, soils, water, wildlife, and recreation values or experiences.

4.7(a) – Retain or improve forage and overall range condition.

4.7(b) – Retain or enhance riparian vegetation, stream channel stability, sensitive soils, and water quality where livestock are present.

4.7 (c) – Coordinate the management of livestock with recreational use.

4.7(d) – Require that suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover are retained for wildlife and fish.

A-5

APPENDIX B USFWS Letter

APPENDIX C Biological Evaluation

Report

Biological Evaluation for Intermountain Region 4 Sensitive Species Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project on the Big Piney Ranger District Bridger-Teton National Forest

Prepared by: Chuck Blair Judy Ferguson Doug Bradley

Reviewed by: Lynn Foster

August 2004

Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction

This Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action for vegetation management strategies to manage vegetation resources in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages on the Big Piney Ranger District, B-TNF.

The Big Piney Ranger District is proposing to implement vegetation management in the North and South Cottonwood Creeks drainages over the next 3 to 5 years. The need for vegetation management in this area has previously been identified and studied in the Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan implemented in 1990 (Forest Service 1990), in the Cottonwood Plan Implementation Study (CPIS) (Forest Service 1993), conducted from 1991 to 1993, and in the Cottonwood/Maki Environmental Assessment conducted from 1999 to 2003 (Forest Service 2003). Each effort included extensive public and Forest Service interdisciplinary input, as well as use of the best data available on Forest resources. Management opportunities, practices, standards and guidelines, and mitigation have been developed to help achieve desired resource conditions. These are the basis for this proposal and for further site specific analysis of effects.

The Cottonwood Creek watershed is approximately 25 miles northwest of Big Piney, Wyoming, in the Green River drainage, on the east slope of the Wyoming Range. The analysis area is approximately 48,541 acres within this watershed and includes the tributary creeks of North and South Cottonwood Creek, including Nylander, Ole, Hardin, Irene, Lander, Eagle, and Bare Creeks. Lander Peak and Bare Mountain are within this area, as is Soda Lake. The treatment area within the analysis equals 30,894 acres. The legal description includes portions of: T32N, R115W; T32N, R116W; T33N, R114W; T33N, R115W; T34N, R115W.

Existing and past uses of this area are detailed in the CPIS and other studies. Forest Roads 125 and 050, as well as numerous collector roads, access the area. There are approximately 69 miles of open roads. Many roads have been closed by gating or rehabilitation. The area is used extensively for dispersed camping, hunting, snowmobiling, and other recreational pursuits. There have been approximately 2,064 acres of timber harvest and 600 acres of wildfire disturbance in the last 50 years. These areas are currently in various stages of forest re-growth, with young trees beginning to restore a forested appearance and wildlife hiding cover. Most areas have achieved sufficient regeneration and tree growth to be considered wildlife cover under B-TNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards. In addition, many acres were partial cut in the first half of the 20th century for railroad ties and currently consist of multi-storied forested stands with subalpine fir understory. Permitted and regulated grazing of sheep and cattle occurs on grazing allotments located throughout the area. Important habitat for elk, deer, moose, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and many other species of wildlife is present and utilized. Approximately 70 percent of the area is forested and 30 percent is sagebrush/grasslands. The main tree species present is lodgepole pine, with significant amounts of Engelmann spruce, aspen, and subalpine fir

C-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

and minor amounts of Douglas-fir and whitebark pine also present. Seventy-nine percent of acres suitable for timber harvest in the analysis are more than 100 years old.

In the Forest Plan, the various areas of National Forest lands are categorized into desired future condition management units (DFC's), based on areas of similar topography, land and resources. The desired future land or resource condition would achieve a set of compatible multi-resource goals and objectives. DFC's are delineated by the Forest Plan. Each DFC has its own management direction which is designed to meet current and future resource management objectives. Within the analysis area, there are four designations used. These are briefly described below. DFCs that relate to wildlife, fish, and vegetation occur under the forested vegetation and wildlife resources. These follow.

Forested Vegetation

Desired future conditions 1B and 10 apply to the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project. The DFC timber prescriptions for vegetation are summarized below. For a full description of these DFCs, refer to the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990).

Desired Future Condition 1B, Vegetation: Timber Prescription. A full range of biologically appropriate silvicultural practices is used to emphasize production and use of sawtimber and other wood by-products. Timber harvest is scheduled.

Aspen Management Guideline—Aspen should be managed for its value as wildlife habitat, emphasizing browse and cover for big-game species, and for providing seasonal colors.

Desired Future Condition 10, Vegetation: Timber Prescription. Silvicultural practices including scheduled timber harvest emphasize achieving desired wildlife habitat conditions while developing long-term, overall big-game hiding cover values. Utilization of firewood and other products is encouraged in ways compatible with maintaining wildlife values.

Aspen Management Guideline—Aspen should be managed for its value as wildlife habitat and for providing seasonal colors while emphasizing its value as habitat for selected management indicator species.

Wildlife Resources

The DFC timber prescriptions and guidelines for fisheries and wildlife are summarized below. For a full description of these DFCs, refer to the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990).

Desired Future Condition 1B, Fisheries and Wildlife

Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription—Habitat is provided for existing populations of game and fish, but hunter-success and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department may decrease. A use-attainability study may be

C-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

needed for a specific stream segment to determine if fishery-beneficial use is being protected to an adequate level.

Big-Game Habitat Guideline—Sufficient habitat should be provided to maintain desired populations and distribution of big game species. For example: Elk Calving Areas—About 30 percent of the brush/grassland-rangeland type should be maintained in a brush/forb type, emphasizing the aspen or conifer/brush ecotone. Mule Deer Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland- rangeland type should be maintained in a brush type with about 55 percent a mature age class. Moose Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland-rangeland type such as serviceberry and mountain mahogany-should be maintained in a brush type with about 30 percent in a mature age class. About 95 percent of the willow/grass range should be maintained in a willow type. Elk Winter Ranges—About 50 percent of the brush/grassland should be maintained in a brush type with about 30 percent in a mature age class. Bighorn Sheep Winter Ranges—About 75 percent of the brush/grassland type should be maintained in grass.

Desired Future Condition 10, Fisheries and Wildlife

Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription. Groups of species are emphasized, such as early- or late-succession-dependent species, in order to increase species richness or diversity. Habitat is managed to achieve the game and fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action was developed in response to issues from initial public scoping, changes in resource demand since the CPIS, and recently identified resource issues. The Proposed Action is also designed to improve Forest resource conditions as identified in the CPIS. Table 1 shows vegetation treatments by treatment area that would occur under the Proposed Action. Table 2 shows the acreage and percent of each treatment area to be affected by vegetation treatments.

C-3 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 1 Vegetation Treatment Areas, Methods, and Extent under the Proposed Action Proposed Acres Treated Treatment Method b

Treatment Area DFC 1B a DFC 10 Total CC TH SW S GS Aspen

South Cottonwood 581 22 603 276 123 85 109 10 0

Halverson (Lower North Cottonwood) 177 0 177 41 0 40 30 40 26

McDougal Gap 64 40 104 64 30 10 0 0 0

Sjhoberg 97 0 97 20 34 10 0 0 33

Nylander 60 0 60 0 60 0 0 0 0

Sub Totals (Harvest) 979 62 1041 402 247 145 139 50 58

Aspen Burn 1,058

Total 979 62 1041 402 247 145 139 50 1,116 a Desired Future Condition 1B – Substantial commodity resource development with moderate accommodation of other resources; Desired Future Condition 10 – Simultaneous development of resources, opportunities for human experiences, and support for big game and a wide variety of wildlife species b CC- Clearcut; TH – Thinning; SW – Shelterwood; S – Salvage; GS – Group Selection; Aspen – Aspen Treatment

Proposed Action activities are anticipated to take place over a 5- to 10-year period and include the following: 1,116 acres of aspen treatments including 58 acres of conifer removal 581 acres of partial-cut treatments 402 acres of regeneration harvest 1 mile of road relocation and trailhead improvement in the Nylander Creek drainage 1 mile of road reconstruction in the South Cottonwood Creek drainage Culvert replacement and stream-crossing improvement work on timber haul roads

These activities are described in greater detail in the following text.

Aspen Treatments Approximately 1,116 acres of aspen stands would be treated to regenerate healthy aspen and remove conifers that are growing into the stands and replacing the aspen component. The primary treatment would be prescribed fire, facilitated by some mechanical treatment to increase ground fuels that are needed to provide a fuel bed for better burning. Aspen regeneration through commercial harvest (removal) of encroaching conifers would occur on approximately 58 (5 percent) of these acres. Treatment areas where conifer removal would occur include Halverson and Sjhoberg. Slash would be treated with prescribed burning or piling and burning. Some of the areas of aspen identified above could be treated using Knutson-Vanderberg (KV) funds adjacent to areas of harvesting. Elk use these areas for spring calving because of the mixture of sagebrush and aspen, along with the edge effect they offer. These areas also provide forage for elk during their transition

C-4 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

from winter feeding grounds. The proposed treatment is intended to promote aspen regeneration from root suckering that would provide increased cover and feed for elk calves, mule deer fawns, and other wildlife that utilize aspen habitat.

TABLE 2 Proposed Action Treatment Areas and Treatment Percentage in the Cottonwood II Analysis Area Treatment Type Total Percent of Treatment Treatment Area Acres Harvest Burn Area Treated

South Cottonwood 15,811 603 414 6.4

Halverson (Lower North 4,556 177 55 5.1 Cottonwood)

McDougal Gap 4,548 104 0 2.3

Sjhoberg 2,379 97 291 16.3

Nylander 3,600 60 298 10.0

Total 30,894 1,041 1,058 6.8 percent of all treatment areas

Partial-Cut Treatments Partial-cut treatments are proposed on approximately 581 forested acres to thin overstocked conifer forests while maintaining a forested appearance. The objective is to leave the healthiest trees of diverse species while reducing losses caused by insects and disease and allowing for the salvage of wood products. These proposed treatments would take place in stands where tree growth is greatly reduced or where mortality of trees exceeds growth. The remaining trees would have improved utilization of resources available to support tree growth on the site, while still providing habitat for forest- dependent wildlife species. Approximately 3 to 10 thousand board-feet (MBF) would be removed per acre, dependent on the site and numbers of healthy trees required to be left to provide a forested appearance and habitat. Slash from harvesting would be treated by piling slash concentrations (35 percent of the area), lopping and scattering along with whole tree harvesting (50 percent of the area), or hand piling (15 percent of the area).

C-5 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir favored as leave trees. Snags would be left standing to provide additional habitat and stand diversity. The density of leave tress would be sufficient to maintain a forested appearance, provide wildlife habitat, protect the watershed, and provide seed sources for stand regeneration. Most understory, damaged, and diseased trees would be removed in the harvest.

Regeneration Harvest Harvesting trees using regeneration harvests is proposed on approximately 402 acres to provide for regeneration of declining lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests and to enhance age class diversity across the landscape. This treatment entails removing most merchantable trees through a commercial timber sale on the 402 acres. Regeneration of healthy new stands would be accomplished by planting with lodgepole pine or Englemann spruce or providing for natural regeneration, depending on site conditions. KV funds would be used for tree planting, surveys, and site preparation activities to achieve natural regeneration. Individuals and groups of healthy seed trees, snags, and groups of healthy non-merchantable trees would be left for seed, habitat, and diversity, where they are available. Openings created through harvest would range in size from 5 to 20 acres. Age class diversity in the drainage created through harvesting is important to reduce losses caused by insects and disease and would be designed to reflect historically occurring conditions.

C-6 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Road Relocation and Trailhead Improvement: Nylander Creek Treatment Area The Proposed Action includes timber haul road relocation and end-of-road trailhead improvements. Approximately 1 mile of the existing Nylander Road, which is to be used as a timber haul road for tree thinning units, would be re-located out of the riparian area to the dry ridge area to the east. The relocation would reduce road-related sediment delivery into Nylander Creek. The existing road, which is easily rutted, difficult to maintain, and contributes sediment directly to Nylander Creek, would be reclaimed. The re-located road would end at an existing dispersed camping area, which would be managed to include trailhead facilities. A low-standard road beyond this point, which crosses boggy, wet soils, would be closed.

Road Reconstruction: South Cottonwood Treatment Area Reconstructing the South Cottonwood Road from Hidden Basin to just short of the South Cottonwood Creek crossing (approximately 1 mile) would provide safe access for log trucks, livestock haulers, and recreation traffic. Currently the road is narrow, with no turnouts.

Culvert Replacement and Stream-Crossing Improvement Culverts would be replaced and stream crossings improved to compensate for potential adverse effects to the Colorado River cutthroat trout from implementation of the Proposed Action (timber harvest). The increased amount of habitat created by improving fish passage or preventing upstream migration of undesirable fish will result in an overall positive effect. Culvert replacement is also needed because of road design, access, and increased flows expected from the Proposed Action. The 1998-99 road and stream-crossing inventory and a July 2, 2004, field review were used to identify potential culvert replacements and stream-crossing improvements along the timber haul routes. All culverts along haul routes to be used for this project were evaluated for replacement or improvements during timber sale design. Culverts would be designed to either act as fish barriers where genetically pure populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) occur upstream, or to allow passage of fish, as identified in the inventory and survey. Twelve culverts and two bridges have been identified as needing improvements.

C-7 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Sensitive Species

Sensitive species are those species for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant existing or predicted downward trend in population number or density, or a similar downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. Sensitive species are managed under authority of the National Forest Management Act and are administratively designated by authority of the Regional Forester. U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations and Forest Service Manual direction provide for habitat protection in an attempt to prevent species population or habitat declines to the point of need for listing as threatened or endangered.

A sensitive species is defined as those plants and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by:

1) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or

2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

The Forest Service objective for sensitive species management is to “develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions” (FSM 2670.22). There are numerous sensitive species that do or could occur within the Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Project analysis area.

Sensitive Plant Species

Forest Service sensitive plant species with populations that are known to occur on the Big Piney Ranger District are listed in Table 3 along with suitable habitat. Those species that are likely to occur within the project analysis area are specifically noted and given further analysis. The Bridger-Teton National Forest is located within Forest Service Region 4 (FSR4), but it is adjacent to Forest Service Region 2 (FSR2). Some of the sensitive species listed for FSR2 also occur on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Only those FSR2 sensitive species that are also listed as sensitive for FSR4 are considered in this EIS Biological Evaluation (BE).

C-8 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 3 Plants that are Known or Believed to Occur on the Big Piney Ranger District with Notation for Species that are Known or Expected to Occur within the Project Analysis Area Occurs or Likely Occurs in Project Federal Analysis Common Name Scientific Name Status* Area Habitat

Pink agoseris Agoseris USFS R4 No Wet montane and subalpine wet lackschewitzii Sensitive meadows with saturated soils (9,600- 10,600 feet).

Sweet-flowered Androsace USFS R4 No Montane rock crevices and rocky rock jasmine chamaejasme ssp. Sensitive soils derived from limestone or carinata/A. dolomite. May occur in clearings or lehmanniana beneath shrub cover in leaf litter (8,500-10,800 feet).

Soft aster Aster mollis / USFS R2 & Possible Sagebrush grasslands and mountain Symphyotrichum R4 meadows on deep, calcareous soils molle Sensitive at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands (6,400-8,500 feet).

Payson's Astragalus paysonii USFS R4 Yes Disturbed areas and recovering milkvetch Sensitive burns, clear cuts, and road cuts on sandy soils with low cover of herbs and grasses (6,700-9,600). Early succession.

Wyoming Descurainia torulosa USFS R2 & No Sparsely vegetated sandy slopes at tansymustard R4 base of cliffs of volcanic breccia or Sensitive sandstone (8,300-10,000 feet).

Boreal draba Draba borealis BTNF No Moist, north-facing limestone slopes Sensitive and cliffs and shady streambanks (6,200-8,600 feet).

Narrowleaf Ericameria discoidea USFS R4 No Semi-barren, whitish clay flats and goldenweed var. linearis Sensitive slopes, gravel bars, and sandy (Haplopappus lakeshores (7,700-10,300 feet). macronema var. linearis / H. m. var. canescens)

Payson's Lesquerella paysonii USFS R4 Yes Rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, bladderpod Sensitive often with calcareous soils (6,000- 10,300 feet).

Creeping twinpod Physaria integrifolia USFS R4 Yes Barren, rocky, calcareous hills and var. monticola Sensitive slopes (6,500-8,600 feet).

Greenland Primula egaliksensis USFS R2 & No Wet meadows along streams and primrose BTNF calcareous montane bogs (6,600- Sensitive 8,000 feet).

Weber's saw- Saussurea weberi USFS R4 No Alpine talus and gravel fields, often wort Sensitive on limestone (10,200-11,200 feet).

USFS R4 = United States Forest Service Region 4; USFS R2 = Region 2. BTNF = Bridger-Teton National Forest.

C-9 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Payson's Milkvetch Payson's milkvetch belongs to the Fabaceae or Pea Family. There are 36 known occurrences of this perennial milkvetch in Wyoming, with 30 observed as late as 1992. Payson's milkvetch is an early succession perennial plant that primarily occurs on disturbed sites such as burned areas, road cuts, blow downs, and clear cuts. It prefers sandy soils with low cover of forbs and grasses at mid-elevation. (Fertig and Marriot 1993). Payson's milkvetch is a regional endemic to east-central Idaho and western Wyoming. Known occurrences in Wyoming are restricted to the Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-TNF) on the Big Piney, Kemmerer, Grey's River, and Jackson Ranger Districts. Most populations are small and are unlikely to persist for long periods of time without some form of disturbance. Declines in populations of this species are likely a result of fire suppression in western National Forests (Fertig 2000a).

Payson's milkvetch is threatened primarily by succession, which makes habitats unsuitable for long-term persistence. The loss of populations originally surveyed in the 1950s are a result of forest succession (Lorain 2000). This species requires periodic disturbances to create new habitat and to keep competing late-seral species or weeds under control. Most populations are very small and probably are unable to persist over long periods of time without some form of disturbance. With long-term fire suppression on federal lands, this species currently is currently found to be doing best in human- disturbed sites, such as road cuts and recovering clearcuts (Fertig 2000a). Although Payson's milkvetch is a seral species that tolerates and seems to require a certain amount of disturbance, plants apparently need a minimum of 15 years following disturbance to enter and become established in a disturbed area. Old skid trails, grown-over logging roads, and clearcuts that were broadcast burned are where the majority of new sightings have been found (Lorain 2000). This species occurs within the analysis area along Deadline Ridge.

Payson's Bladderpod Payson's bladderpod belongs to the Brassicaceae or Mustard Family. This bladderpod is endemic to estern Idaho, western Montana, and western Wyoming where it is found at high elevations from 6000 to 10300 feet. In Wyoming, Payson's bladderpod is found in Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton Counties (Fertig et al. 1994). Most of the 33 known populations in Wyoming are large and at high elevations where there are few threats to their survival (Moseley 1996).

Payson's milkvetch mostly occurs on ridgelines and less so on slopes in openings in sagebrush and forest stands. This species grows on gravelly, skeletal soils with carbonate sedimentary parent material or bedrock. It is found in open plant communities with low cover of forbs, grasses, and few shrubs. Most populations occur above 8000 feet (Moseley 1996).

C-10 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Most of the ground cover on sites with Payson's bladderpod is exposed rock and soil, which may indicate that this species lacks the competitive ability to survive in closed communities and requires natural surface disturbance to reduce competition and maintain open soil. At such high elevations, disturbance usually comes from a combination of wind and water erosion, frost heaving, and/or pocket gopher excavations (Moseley 1996). Threats to the continued survival of this plant are currently believed to be minimal. Although no populations of this species are currently known from the analysis area, it does occur on the Big Piney Ranger district (RD) and suitable habitat exists within the analysis area.

Creeping Twinpod This species is another member of the Brassicaceae Family. It is endemic to the west- central mountains of western Wyoming and to adjacent eastern Idaho, where it is found on barren, rocky, calcareous hills and slopes at elevations between 6500 and 8600 feet (Fertig et al. 1994). Creeping twinpod has similar habitat requirements as its relative Payson's bladderpod, and they frequently occur together (Moseley 1996). Creeping twinpod is usually found growing in association with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and low beardtongue (Penstemon humilis). Populations of this species grow very near the analysis area on the Big Piney RD. Unknown occurrences are likely to grow within the analysis area in suitable big sagebrush sites.

Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species

Wildlife and fish species have been designated as Sensitive by the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (Region 4) and could possibly occur in the Big Piney RD. Region 4 sensitive wildlife and fish species, their general habitat preferences, and their known or expected occurrence within the analysis area are listed in Table 4. Species that are not known or expected to occur in the analysis area and for which suitable habitat is not present are not discussed further in this BE.

TABLE 4 Forest Service, Region 4 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species, Suitable Habitat, and Known or Expected Presence in the Analysis Areas Common Name Known or Expected Presence in the Scientific Name General Habitat Requirements Analysis Area

Spotted Frog Fish-free, spring fed creeks and ponds. Habitat is present in the analysis area. Rana pretiosa

Peregrine falcon Far ranging flier, lives, roosts in /on cliffs. Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Falco peregrinus

Common Loon Breeds in lakes greater than 9 acres. Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Gavia immer

Trumpeter Swan Breeds in remote marshes, lakes, and ponds 5-10 Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Cygnus buccinator acres or larger.

Harelequin Duck Undisturbed, low gradient, meandering mountain Habitat is not present in the analysis area. Histrionicus streams. histrionicus

C-11 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Boreal Owl High elevation spruce-fir forests. Habitat is present in the analysis area. Aegolius funereus

Flammulated Owl Breeds in mature open canopied aspen and Habitat is present in the analysis area. Otus flammeolus Douglas-fir or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests.

Great Gray Owl Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous forests Foraging habitat is present in the analysis Strix nebulosa interspersed with small clearings. area.

Northern Goshawk Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous and Foraging and probably nesting habitat is Accipiter gentilis aspen forests interspersed with small clearings. present in the analysis area. No observations during two-year survey.

Three-Toed Mature conifer and mixed conifer forests; Habitat is present in the analysis area. Woodpecker capitalizes on dead standing timber left by stand Picoides tridactylus replacing fires.

Spotted Bat Caves, roosts in rock crevices on steep cliff faces. Habitat is not present in the analysis area Euderma maculatum

Western Big-Eared Hibernates in caves, rock outcrops, and mine Potential roosting habitat is present in the Bat shafts; roosts in hollow trees and snags. analysis area; no known hibernacula Plecotus townsendii present; no observations.

Wolverine Generalist, utilizes a variety of habitats spanning Habitat is present in the analysis area. Gulo gulo all elevations; needs large roadless areas (36-250 Species is not known to be present in the mi2). area.

Fisher Mature and old growth forest, closed canopy Habitat is present in the analysis area. Martes pennanti coniferous forests at mid- to lower elevations; may Species is not present and no historical be limited by snow depth. accounts for the area.

Colorado River Lakes and streams; cool, clear, well oxygenated Species and habitat are known in the Cutthroat Trout streams; gravel for spawning; spawning habitat is analysis area although less widely dispersed Oncorhynchus clarki present in analysis area due to habitat modification, competition, and pleuriticus hybridization.

Snake River Fine Lakes and streams; cool, clear, well oxygenated Native on the B-TNF but not native to the Spotted Cutthroat streams; gravel for spawning; spawning habitat is analysis area basin (Behnke 2002). Its Trout not present in the analysis area presence in the Green River basin is a result Oncorhynchus clarki of stocking. behnkei

The following is documentation of effects and conclusions for determining effects. None of the following species have been documented within or are expected within the analysis area and will not be discussed further: Common loons and trumpeter swans require lake habitat, which is not present in the treatment areas. The closest trumpeter swans have been confirmed breeding on lakes in the Upper Green area and Gros Ventre area. Harlequin ducks require low gradient streams with woody debris and dense, shrubby riparian areas. Existing streams would provide marginal harlequin duck habitat. The

C-12 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

closest breeding harlequins are found in Pine Creek, which empties into Fremont Lake in the Pinedale Ranger District. Townsend’s big-eared and spotted bats will forage in a variety of habitats, but require cliffs, caves, abandon buildings, or mine shafts for roosting. This type of roosting habitat is not found in the analysis area. They may also roost under loose bark of trees. In Wyoming, the known distribution of Townsend’s big-eared bat averages 7000 feet elevation and known distribution of spotted bats averages less than 4000 feet elevation. The analysis area elevation ranges from 7975 to 12000 feet. Additionally, in Wyoming, spotted bats are only known to use juniper shrublands and sage-brush grasslands, whereas Townsend’s big-eared bats use a variety of habitat types including dry coniferous forests. Peregrine falcon will forage in a variety of habitats, but require large cliffs for nesting. Peregrines most commonly nest on large cliffs under 9500 feet in elevation, and closely associated with open water, wetlands, and riparian habitat. No cliffs are found in or near the analysis area. Snake River fine spotted cutthroat trout (SRCT) are a sensitive species on the B-TNF and are native to the Snake River system, upstream of Shoshone Falls (Behnke 2002). SRCT are not native to the Green River basin or the analysis area. There is a long history of propagation and widespread stocking of the SRCT, and there presence in the analysis area is a result of stocking. The SRCT compete within and may hybridize with the native CRCT (native to the analysis area).

Suitable habitat is known or likely to exist within the analysis area for spotted frog, boreal owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, western big-eared bat, wolverine, fisher, and Colorado River cutthroat trout. However, the proposed project treatments are limited to specific types of habitats. Other types of habitat would not be impacted by any of the proposed treatments. Only those species with the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by project treatments will be discussed further. Spotted Frog Potential habitat exists within the analysis area for spotted frogs and spotted frogs have been documented at several locations. Spotted frog habitat primarily includes oxbow ponds (without fish) with emergent sedges (Carex sp.) located in wet meadows at the edge of lodgepole pine forest. Spotted frogs can move considerable distances from water after breeding, often frequenting mixed conifer and subalpine forests, grasslands, and shrub lands of sagebrush and rabbitbrush.

C-13 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

intermittent streams and a minimum 300-foot-wide buffer should be protected from management impacts. Larger buffers may be necessary depending on adjacent habitat and magnitude of threats (Patla 2000).

In addition to spotted frogs, boreal toads and leopard frogs may be present in the analysis area. Both species are “species of special concern” in Wyoming. Protection of wetlands, ephemeral ponds, intermittent streams, and a minimum 300 foot buffer from management impacts should also protect boreal toads (Found on B-TNF and on adjacent BLM land) and leopard frogs and their habitat.

A section of Nylander Creek would be moved out of the riparian zone as part of the project. Sediment produced during this removal may impact spotted frogs if they inhabit downstream areas. This impact would be of relatively short duration. New suitable habitat might be created as the stream is rehabilitated following road removal. Temporary roads, timber harvest, and prescribed burns would all result in short-term increases in water temperature and sediment. Spotted frogs are present in drainages downstream of treatment sites. Both of these factors could lead to degraded spotted frog habitat and reduced productivity for a period of 1 to 5 years following treatment.

However, road relocation, road construction, and treatments would result in short-term higher water temperatures and sediment loads that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Boreal Owl This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). All breeding sites were between 6900 and 8500 feet elevation (Clark 1994). According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Observation System database (WGFD WOS), boreal owls were also located at the southern end of the Big Piney RD near La Barge Guard Station (Kemmerer Ranger District). The boreal owl prefers high elevation spruce-fir forests or aspen for foraging and nesting. Nesting habitat structure consists of forests with a relatively high density of large trees, open understory, and multi-layered canopy. The boreal owl is a secondary cavity nester that is generally associated with mature and old spruce-fir forests. As a secondary cavity nester, boreal owls rely on woodpeckers (mainly northern flickers in this area) to excavate snags and decaying trees, which they subsequently use for nesting and roosting. Owls were detected in multi-layered stands with high structural complexity, usually close to small wet meadows with complex perimeters (Clark 1994). Boreal owls primarily prey on small mammals, particular red-backed voles. These species inhabit montane stands of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed trees. No survey work has been done for boreal or great gray owls within the analysis area, but suitable habitat exists.

Boreal owl habitat in aspen forests would be directly affected by the proposed treatments, resulting in habitat loss. The relatively small size of the treatment areas relative to other available habitat should limit potential impacts to a few individual owls rather than at the population level. No other indirect impacts are expected. As a secondary cavity nester, boreal owls may benefit if additional large diameter snags are created by the prescribed burns.

C-14 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Boreal owl habitat may be both adversely and beneficially affected by the treatments that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Flammulated Owl This owl prefers ponderosa pine habitat, but will also utilize Douglas-fir, aspen, and/or limber pine. Douglas-fir, aspen, and limber pine are present within the analysis area. Flammulated owls are secondary cavity nesters that primarily feed on nocturnal lepidopteron moths, which they glean from the foliage. Two key habitat features that are likely to limit flammulated owl populations are availability of nest cavities and prey availability/foraging habitat. Preferred species are beetles, grasshoppers, and moths (McCallum 1994a). Nesting territory occupancy has been highly correlated with high percentages of old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Linkhart and Reynolds 1997). In other areas, nesting territories were highly correlated with aspen stands (Marti 1997).

Threats to this species are mostly from habitat modifications such as timber or fuelwood removal and fire suppression ((McCallum 1994b). Snag and other dead timber removal as sawtimber and fuelwood will reduce available habitat.

Flammulated owls have not been documented on the Big Piney RD, but no survey work has been done. Although no surveys have been done, they are suspected to occur within the analysis area. Forest Plan snag management guidelines should be followed to minimize potential impacts to this species. Douglas-fir and aspen stands in the analysis area are proposed for treatment.

Flammulated owl habitat in aspen forests would be directly affected by the proposed treatments, resulting in habitat loss. The relatively small size of the treatment areas relative to other available habitat should limit potential impacts to a few individual owls rather than at the population level. Indirect effects would be similar to those described for boreal owls. The creation of smaller openings and thinned conifer stands may benefit foraging flammulated owls.

Flammulated owl habitat may be both adversely and beneficially affected by the treatments that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Great Gray Owl This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). In the adjacent Greys River drainage, great gray owls were mainly found between 6500 and 7800 feet elevation in lodgepole pine stands close to wet meadow complexes (Clark 1994). The great gray owl uses mixed coniferous forests usually bordering small openings or meadows. Semi-open areas, where small rodents are abundant, near dense coniferous forests for roosting and nesting, is optimum habitat for the great gray owls. Broken top snags, stumps, dwarf-mistletoe platforms, or old hawk and raven nests are used for nesting. Great gray owls are likely present in the analysis area.

C-15 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

While there are no documented sightings of great gray owls in the Big Piney RD, suitable habitat is apparently present throughout the analysis area. The Maki EA (Forest Service 2004) notes that any removal of timber reduces potential nesting sites and foraging habitat for this species. While substantial areas of similar suitable habitat likely exist in the analysis area, some habitat loss would occur. Therefore, while it is likely that this habitat loss would affect individual birds or pairs, no adverse effects at the population level would be expected. Any owls that happen to be present in or near treatment areas would be disturbed by human activity and displaced from the immediate area around treated sites.

Great gray owl habitat may be adversely affected by the treatments that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Northern Goshawk In the 1980s this species was documented in the analysis area but recent surveys have not found it (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). Goshawks tend to select stands with relatively large-diameter trees and high canopy closure for nesting (Siders and Kennedy, Daw et al.1998). In south-central Wyoming and northeastern Utah, nest tree species were mainly lodgepole pine and aspen, but Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir are also used (Squires and Ruggiero 1996, USFS unpublished data). Goshawks selected moderate slopes (1 to 34 percent) for nesting, but showed no preference for aspect (Squires and Ruggiero 1996). Nest sites are often close to a perennial water source.

Goshawks exhibit high nest site fidelity and may maintain several alternative nest sites within a territory. They typically return to their breeding territories in late-March or April and lay eggs in May. The chicks hatch by mid-June, fledge by late-July, and are generally independent by early September. Goshawks prey upon a variety of small and medium sized mammals (for example, red squirrels, snowshoe hares) and birds (woodpeckers, grouse, jays, etc.), which they hunt from perches. Stands with pole size diameter trees and larger tend to be suitable for hunting (Hayward et al. 1990). All habitat needs for goshawk are present within the analysis area. Minimal survey work has occurred for northern goshawks.

Suitable, but apparently unoccupied, goshawk nest sites within aspen and conifer stands would likely be lost as a result of the proposed treatments. The Maki EA (Forest Service 2004) notes that any removal of timber reduces potential nesting sites and foraging habitat for this species. While substantial areas of similar suitable habitat likely exist in the analysis area, some habitat loss would occur. Therefore, while it is likely that this habitat loss would affect individual birds or pairs, no adverse effects at the population level would be expected. Any goshawks that happen to be present in or near treatment areas would be disturbed by human activity and displaced from the immediate area around treated sites.

Northern goshawk may be adversely affected by the treatments that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

C-16 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Three-Toed Woodpecker This species has been documented in the analysis area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2004). These woodpeckers require snags in coniferous forests for nesting, feeding, perching, and roosting. In Wyoming forests, the three-toed woodpecker is found in only large, unbroken stands of mature spruce-fir and lodgepole pine. Snags with DBH of 12 to 16 inches and heights of 19.6 to 39.4 feet are preferred (USFS 1991). This woodpecker forages on insects (primarily bark beetles), mainly in dead trees, but will also feed in live trees. The three-toed woodpecker is primarily associated with recent coniferous forest burns and bark beetle infestations in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir habitats (Hoffman 1997, Hutto and Young 1999). They excavate a new cavity annually for nesting. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Hoffman (1997) found that three-toed woodpeckers preferred to nest in moist, coniferous forests in relatively gentle terrain. Minimal survey work has occurred for three-toed woodpeckers, but they are known to be present within the analysis area.

Habitat for this species is apparently widespread within the analysis area, including many of the treatment sites. The treatments would remove a relatively small proportion of this habitat from the analysis area. Any woodpeckers that happen to be present in or near treatment areas would be disturbed by human activity and displaced from the immediate area around treated sites.

Three-toed woodpecker habitat may be adversely affected by the treatments that “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Wolverine and Fisher The wolverine is the largest terrestrial member of the weasel family. Its range extends from the Arctic islands southward to the central Rocky Mountains, but its present status in the southern part of its range is uncertain (it may be extinct in Colorado). Wolverines are mammals of heavy forest but they may range past treeline into alpine tundra or inhabit subalpine rock piles. They are solitary animals, using 56 to 73 square miles of territory (females-males). Lack of human disturbance is an important component for wolverine habitat.

Wolverines inhabit high mountain forests of dense conifers, primarily in true fir (Abies) cover types as well as subarctic-alpine tundra. They are widespread and move extensively in search of food but occur in low densities. They are difficult to observe so frequency of sightings may not reflect population size. Maintenance of wolverine populations is dependent on large areas free from land-use activities that permanently alter their habitat (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They seasonally move between higher and lower elevations in search of food. In the winter, a large part of their diet includes big game carrion (Banci 1994), but they also feed on a variety of small mammals and birds (Hash 1987). In central Idaho, Copeland and Hudak (1995) reported that wolverines preferred mature montane forest in association with subalpine rock and scree habitats. Home range sizes of wolverines in central Idaho ranged from 80 to 700 square kilometers.

C-17 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Fishers primarily prey upon small mammals such as red-backed voles, red squirrels, and snowshoe hares, but larger species such as beaver are also taken occasionally. Fishers are boreal weasels closely associated with conifer forests, especially those dominated by spruce-fir and containing complex physical structure near the ground. Due to their denning and foraging needs, they prefer old growth or late successional forests but may also inhabit talus fields above treeline. They tend to avoid open spaces, as a result of predation pressures, and are rarely found below the lower elevational limit of trees (Powell and Zielenski 1994).

There are no documented sightings of fishers on the B-TNF, either historic or recent. In addition, the analysis area does not contain any observations of fishers. However, no formal surveys have been conducted. Potential habitat exists. Threats to these species are mostly from habitat modification such as timber removal and road building. Both fishers and wolverines require secure areas relatively free of human activity.

No known occurrence of wolverine or fisher has been documented in the analysis area. The proposed action will have “no impact” on habitat, individuals, or populations of these species.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout CRCT were historically distributed throughout the headwaters of the Green and Colorado Rivers as far south as the San Juan River; they perhaps occupied portions of the lower reaches of large rivers in winter (Trotter 1987). CRCT are currently limited to a few small headwater streams of the Green and upper Colorado Rivers in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. CRCT are present within the analysis area. CRCT population decline is related to hybridization with introduced rainbow trout; displacement by introduced brook trout; competition with other established populations of non-native salmonids; and habitat alteration/fragmentation from overgrazing by livestock, logging, roads, and water diversion for irrigation (CRCT Task Force 2001).

CRCT seem to have adapted better to small streams, lakes, and ponds rather than large rivers. They tend to be most abundant in higher elevation streams with cobble-boulder substrates. They prefer cold, clean waters and can be found in higher gradient (> 4 percent) streams. A good balance of pools to riffles is important to CRCT persistence and the species appears to be well adapted to conditions created by active beaver colonies (Trotter 1987). Behnke (2002) supports the previous description by stating that habitat for CRCT generally includes cool, clear streams (often headwaters), well-vegetated streambanks for cover and bank stability, and instream cover in the form of deep pools, boulders, and logs.

The land management impacts within the Cottonwood II analysis area have likely led to the currently suppressed population conditions seen in the local populations of CRCT. The Proposed Action is expected to result in short-term disturbances to the aquatic system and thus CRCT and their habitat. These short-term disturbances would most likely result in inputs of sediment into the streams. The degree of disturbance from the input of sediments would be greatly minimized by the project design features that include mitigation measures for sediment. However, the long-term benefits of the Proposed Action should lead to a reduction in chronic sediment inputs. The Proposed Action would

C-18 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement improve CRCT access to other potentially important habitats within the Cottonwood Creeks drainages that are currently unavailable. Overall, the expected effects (benefits) to CRCT habitat and passage from the Proposed Action would provide a better opportunity for the recovery of the local CRCT populations than that of the existing condition.

CRCT habitat is present within the analysis area. Sedimentation from activities proposed in the project “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.” However, the implementation of the project design features and mitigation measures should result in long-term benefits to the local populations and the species.

Table 5 summarizes determinations for wildlife and fish species.

TABLE 5 Determinations for Wildlife and Fish Species Common Name General Habitat Requirements; Scientific Name Presence or Absence Determination

Spotted Frog Fish-free, spring fed creeks and ponds. “may impact individuals or habitat, but Rana pretiosa Habitat is present in the analysis area and will not likely contribute to a trend spotted frogs have been found at several towards federal listing or loss of locations. viability to the population or species”

Peregrine Falcon Far ranging flier, lives, roosts in /on cliffs. “no impact” Falco peregrinus Habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Common Loon Breeds in lakes greater than 9 acres. “no impact” Gavia immer Habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Trumpeter Swan Breeds in remote marshes, lakes, and “no impact” Cygnus buccinator ponds 5-10 acres or larger. Habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Harelequin Duck Undisturbed, low gradient, meandering “no impact” Histrionicus histrionicus mountain streams. Habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Boreal Owl High elevation spruce-fir forests. Habitat is “may impact individuals or habitat, but Aegolius funereus present in the analysis area. will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species”

Flammulated Owl Breeds in mature open canopied aspen “may impact individuals or habitat, but Otus flammeolus and Douglas-fir or mixed coniferous / will not likely contribute to a trend deciduous forests. Habitat is present in the towards federal listing or loss of analysis area. viability to the population or species”

Great Gray Owl Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous “may impact individuals or habitat, but Strix nebulosa forests interspersed with small clearings. will not likely contribute to a trend Foraging habitat is present in the analysis towards federal listing or loss of area. viability to the population or species”

Northern Goshawk Mature coniferous and mixed coniferous “may impact individuals or habitat, but Accipiter gentilis and aspen forests interspersed with small will not likely contribute to a trend clearings. Foraging and probably nesting towards federal listing or loss of habitat is present in the analysis area. No viability to the population or species” observations during two-year survey.

C-19 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

TABLE 5 Determinations for Wildlife and Fish Species Common Name General Habitat Requirements; Scientific Name Presence or Absence Determination

Three-Toed Woodpecker Mature conifer and mixed conifer forests; “may impact individuals or habitat, but Picoides tridactylus capitalizes on dead standing timber left by will not likely contribute to a trend stand-replacing fires. Habitat is present in towards federal listing or loss of the analysis area. viability to the population or species”

Spotted Bat Caves, roosts in rock crevices on steep “no impact” Euderma maculatum cliff faces. Habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Western Big-Eared Bat Hibernates in caves, rock outcrops, and “no impact” Plecotus townsendii mine shafts; roosts in hollow trees and snags. Potential roosting habitat is present; no known hibernacula present; no observations.

Wolverine Generalist, utilizes a variety of habitats “no impact” Gulo gulo spanning all elevations; needs large roadless areas (36-250 mi2). Habitat is present in the analysis area. Species is not known to be present in the area.

Fisher Mature and old growth forest, closed “no impact” Martes pennanti canopy coniferous forests at mid- to lower elevations; may be limited by snow depth. Habitat is present in the analysis area. Species is not present and no historical accounts for the area.

Fine Spotted Cutthroat Lakes and streams; cool, clear, well “no impact” Trout oxygenated streams; gravel for spawning; Oncorhynchus clarki spp. spawning habitat is not present in the analysis area

Colorado River Cutthroat Lakes and streams; cool, clear, well “may impact individuals or habitat, but Trout oxygenated streams; gravel for spawning; will not likely contribute to a trend Oncorhynchus clarki habitat is present in the analysis area towards federal listing or loss of pleuriticus viability to the population or species”.

Literature Cited and References

Baxter, G. T. and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Bulletin No. 4. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, WY. 168 pp. Baxter, G. T. and M. D. Stone. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, WY. 137 pp.

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press, NY, NY. Binns, N. A. 1977. Present status of indigenous populations of cutthroat trout Salmo clarki, in southwest Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Fisheries Technical Bulletin No. 2. Cheyenne, WY. 58 pp.

C-20 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Clark, T. W., A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. 1989. Rare, sensitive and threatened species of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Clark, T. W. and M. R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, KS. 314 pp.

CRCT (Colorado River Cutthroat) Task Force. 2001. Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Co.

Eckert, C. 1990. Biological evaluation for the Teton division winter travel plan: Jackson and Buffalo Ranger Districts, Bridger-Teton National Forest. April 9, 1990.

Fertig, W. 1995. 1995 Wyoming plants of special concern review. 1995 Wyoming Rare Plant Conference Riverton, Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 76 pp.

Finch, D. M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-215. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 pp.

Garber, C .S. 1991. A survey for Townsend’s big-eared bat and the spotted bat on Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, WY. 75 pp.

Garber, C. S. 1994. A status survey for spotted Frogs, wood frogs, and boreal toads in the mountains of southern and eastern Wyoming. 90 pp.

Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. 213 pp.

Hinschberger, M. 1992. Biological evaluation or outfitter/guide commercial use of the continental divide snowmobile trail. 19 pp.

Noblitt, B. 1992. Biological evaluation for Union Pass Road: Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Remmick, R. 1983. A survey of native cutthroat trout populations and associated stream habitats in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Fish Division. Cheyenne, WY. 168 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Bruskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinki. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. 184 pp.

Trotter, P.C. 1987. Cutthroat, native trout of the west. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, CO.

C-21 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Bridger-Teton National Forest land and resource management plan, appendix J. endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats. 108 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest land and Resource Management Plan

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of the intermountain region. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Environmental Assessment: Maki Creek Area Projects. Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1991. Draft distribution and status of Wyoming birds and mammals. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Game Division. Cheyenne, WY. 152 pp.

Wyoming Rare Plant Technical Committee. 1995. Wyoming rare plant field guide.

Young, M.K. ed. 1995. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. Pg 16-23

C-22 APPENDIX D Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class Descriptions

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASS DESCRIPTIONS

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) consists of a classification system in which components of recreation settings and facilities—such as access, developed sites, activities, and experiences—are organized and arranged along a continuum or spectrum. The continuum ranges from very primitive settings and experiences to highly concentrated, urbanized ones. Each class is defined in terms of its specific combination of activities, setting, facilities, and experience opportunities.

The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences that the public might desire, as well as the mix of the spectrum that a given National Forest might be able to provide. It also provides a context and tool for estimating and describing recreation resources as well as effects to those resources from alternative management strategies and actions. Provided below are summaries of the ROS descriptions: Primitive (P): These areas provide primitive recreation opportunities in unroaded and non-motorized settings. Unmodified natural and natural-appearing settings dominate the physical environment. These areas are usually larger than 5,000 acres, and offer opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk, with no on-site controls or restrictions evident after entry. Encounters with other users, and signs of other users, are minimal Generally, snowmobile, ATV, and other OHV uses are inconsistent with this ROS class. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM): These areas provide for non-motorized recreation opportunities in unroaded and non-motorized settings. A natural-appearing setting dominates the physical environment, with only subtle or minor evidence of human-caused modifications. These areas are generally larger than 2,500 acres, and offer opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk, with a minimum of on-site controls and restrictions. Other user encounters are generally low, with low levels of the sights and sounds of other users. Management to control undesirable effects of insects, disease, and other pests, as well as management actions designed to maintain or improve the long-term health of the ecosystem, could occur. Generally, snowmobile, ATV, and other OHV uses are inconsistent with this ROS class. Summer/winter shifts between this class and Semi-Primitive Motorized can occur; for example, areas where cross-country motorized travel is prohibited during the summer may be open to snowmobile use during winter periods. Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM): These areas provide for motorized recreation opportunities in semi-primitive settings. In areas seen from travelways, a natural- appearing setting dominates the outdoor physical environment. Other areas could have moderately dominant alterations. These areas are generally larger than 2,500 acres and offer opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk, with few on-site controls and restrictions. Other user encounters should be generally low; however, the sounds of other users may be evident because of motorized uses. Motorized and non- motorized trails are the primary means of recreational user access within the area.

D-1 Environmental Impact Statement Cottonwood II Vegetation Management

Cross-country snowmobile use may occur on adequate snow depth in accordance with the current travel management plan or map and travel amendments. Non- motorized recreation opportunities may be present, but these experiences are likely to be influenced by motorized uses in the area. There may be areas or trails in this ROS class where motorized use is prohibited or restricted to enhance recreation experiences or to protect public safety or resources. Summer/winter shifts between this class and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized can occur; for example, areas where cross-country motorized travel is prohibited during the summer may be open to snowmobile use during winter periods. Roaded Natural (RN): These areas provide for a wide range of recreation activities that are generally focused along the primary and secondary travel routes in a natural- appearing, roaded, motorized setting. Recreation facilities are provided to facilitate recreation use. There may be a moderate to high degree of user interaction, as well as the sights and sounds of other users, depending on the facilities provided. Seasonal or year-round recreation facilities are provided for user comfort and convenience. Structures generally convey a rustic theme and blend with the natural landscape. There may be considerable on-site user controls or restrictions. Opportunities for isolation, challenge, or risk are generally not very important, although opportunities for practicing outdoor skills may be important. Scenic values are often emphasized in this classification. A wide range of management activities and objectives may occur, generally guided by the adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). Landscape modifications due to resource management activities, where evident, harmonize with the natural setting. Developed campgrounds of varying size, complexity, and development scale could occur within this classification. In addition, there may be a wide range of facilities and structures to support other Forest uses, including telecommunication facilities, power lines, administrative sites, State Highways, and timber access roads. Cross-country snowmobile use may occur on adequate snow depth in accordance with the current travel management plan or map and travel amendments. There may be areas, trails, or roads within this ROS class where motorized use is prohibited or restricted to enhance recreation experiences or to protect public safety or resources. Rural (R): These areas are typically characterized by recreation sites that can be utilized by large numbers of people at one time. High quality and quantity recreation use characterize these areas. Although natural conditions usually do not dominate this classification, scenic values are often a critical element of the landscape seen as middleground and background from such areas. Surrounding scenic values are often a valued resource in the adjacent Forest landscape. The recreation opportunities offered are usually managed, regulated, and numerous but also in harmony with nature. Numerous recreation facilities may be clustered in these areas. Facilities are designed for user comfort and are surrounded by highly intensified motorized use and organized parking. Forms of mass transit are often available to carry people throughout the site. The on-site vegetation is often manicured or managed. Transportation routes are generally State and Forest Service paved roadways. Trails may also be paved or surfaced in areas of concentrated use. There may be areas, trails, or roads within this ROS class where motorized use is prohibited or restricted to enhance recreation experiences or to protect public safety or resources (Forest Service 2003).

D-2 Cottonwood II Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement

Urban (U): These areas are managed to provide a setting that is largely modified. Large numbers of users can be expected, and vegetation cover is often exotic and manicured. Facilities for highly intensified motor vehicle use and parking are available, with mass transit often included to carry people throughout the site. The probability of encountering other individuals and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of recreational opportunities. Experiencing natural environments and their challenges and risks is relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive and spectator sports are common (BLM no date).

D-3

APPENDIX E Visual Quality Objectives Descriptions

VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTIONS

The Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) convey a desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. The objectives refer to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape, based upon the importance of aesthetics. The degree of alteration is measured in terms of visual contrast with the surrounding landscape. There are five VQOs; provided below are summaries of the VQO descriptions: Preservation (P): This VQO allows ecological changes only. Management activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited. This VQO applies to Wilderness areas, primitive areas, other special classified areas, areas awaiting classification, and some unique management units that do not justify special classification. Retention (R): This VQO provides for management activities that are not visually evident. Under Retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture that are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident. Partial Retention (PR): This VQO provides that management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape, but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture that are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. Modification (M): This VQO provides that management activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land form alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that their visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. Additional parts of these activities such as structures, roads, slash, root wads, etc., must remain visually subordinate to the proposed composition. Activities that are predominantly introduction of facilities such as buildings, signs, roads, etc., should borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely and at such scale that their visual characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings. Maximum Modification (MM): This VQO provides that management activities of vegetative and landform alterations may dominate the characteristic landscape. However, when viewed as background, the visual characteristics must be those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. When viewed as foreground or middle ground, they may not appear to completely borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture. Alterations may also be out of scale or contain detail that is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in foreground or middle ground (Forest Service 1974).

E-1