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......................................................................................