United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Budworm Response Project Draft Environmental Assessment Clarks Fork Ranger District, Shoshone National Forest, Park County, Wyoming

November 2017

Legal Description:

Township 56 North, Range 105 West, Sections 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16; 6th Principal Meridian

Responsible Official: Eric Watrud Forest Supervisor (Acting)

For Further Information: Olga Troxel, Team Leader

Wapiti Ranger District 203A Yellowstone Ave Cody, Wyoming 82414 Phone: 307-527-6921 Email: otroxel@fs.fed.us

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

i

Table of Contents Need for the Proposal .................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Existing Condition .................................................................................................. 1 Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................................ 4

Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................................................................................. 6 1. No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 6 2. Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 6

Silviculture Treatments ......................................................................................................................... 7 Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................................................. 10 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................... 11

Design Features ................................................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Effects on Forested Ecosystem ...................................................................................... 11 Environmental Effects on Fire and Fuels ............................................................................................... 19 Environmental Effects on Fish and Aquatics ......................................................................................... 23 Environmental Effects on Invasive Plants .............................................................................................. 29 Environmental Effects on the Nez Perce National Historic Trail ........................................................... 30

Forest Plan Direction .......................................................................................................................... 30 Environmental Effects on Roadless Areas ............................................................................................. 32 Environmental Effects on Soils .............................................................................................................. 39 Environmental Effects on Threatened or Endangered Species ............................................................... 42

Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................................... 42 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) ......................................................................................................... 42 Canada Lynx Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 48 Wolverine ............................................................................................................................................ 50

Environmental Effects on Sensitive Species .......................................................................................... 52 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 52 Sensitive Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................... 60 Sensitive Plant Species........................................................................................................................ 68

Environmental Effects on Species of Local Concern ............................................................................. 70 Elk / Mule Deer ................................................................................................................................... 70 Moose .................................................................................................................................................. 72 Yellowstone Checkerspot (Euphydryas gillettii) ................................................................................ 73 Clark’s Nutcracker .............................................................................................................................. 74 Environmental Effects on Beaver ....................................................................................................... 75 Environmental Effects on Grizzly Bears ............................................................................................ 75

Environmental Effect on Visuals ............................................................................................................ 83 Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) ....................................................................................................... 83 Distance Zones .................................................................................................................................... 84 Existing Visual Condition ................................................................................................................... 84

Environmental Effects on Water Resources ........................................................................................... 89 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 89

Appendix A – Design Features ................................................................................................................. A-1

ii

Appendix B – Glossary ............................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C – References Cited ................................................................................................................ C-1 Table of Figures Figure 1 General project location and vicinity. ............................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Western spruce budworm damage in the Budworm Response Project area. .................................. 3 Figure 3 Damage from insects and disease in the Budworm Response Project area. ................................... 4 Figure 4 Proposed treatment units by harvest system. .................................................................................. 7 Figure 5 Analysis area for effects on forested ecosystem. .......................................................................... 19 Figure 6 The Budworm Response Project Area is depicted by the orange polygon and generally follows

clustered 6th-level hydrologic units. ................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7 Vegetation management adjacent to Lodgepole Creek (Crandall Ranger Station in background)

has resulted in reduced canopy cover, pool formation, and could be contributing to stream channel incision. ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 8 Nez Perce National Historic Trail through the proposed Budworm Response Project area. ....... 31 Figure 9 Windy Mountain IRA sections in the proposed action (outlined in red). ..................................... 34 Figure 10 Windy Mountain IRA overlapped with the Windy Mountain Wilderness Evaluation Area. ..... 35 Figure 11 Treatments units in the proposed action relative to the WUI in the upper Clarks Fork watershed.

The area northeast of LAU 4 does not occur in an LAU. ................................................................... 45 Figure 12 Coverage of Designated Critical Lynx habitat within LAUs in the upper Clarks Fork ............. 50 Figure 13 Boreal toad metamorphs were observed at the Swamp Lake complex July 29, 2015. Dozens of

extremely dense clusters of boreal toads were observed over parts of the Swamp Lake complex. .... 61 Figure 14 A low-volume road (NFSR 116) bisects a small tributary stream adjacent to the Swamp Lake

breeding complex, located adjacent to Unit 1. Boreal toad tadpoles, dead and live metamorphs, and occasionally adults have been observed in wheel ruts along the road. ............................................... 63

Figure 15 Big Game Crucial Winter Range in the analysis area. ............................................................... 72 Figure 16 The treatment units in the proposed action relative to Crandall-Sunlight Bear Analysis Unit. .. 78 Figure 17 Grizzly bear secure habitat (red) in BMU subunit 2, as temporarily affected by the proposed

action. The area shown is a detail of the Squaw Creek treatment units. ............................................. 79 Figure 18 Grizzly bear secure habitat (red) along Highway 296 and the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River in

the BMU subunit 2, as temporarily affected by the proposed action. ................................................. 80

Tables Table 1 Forest Plan management areas in the Budworm Response Project area. ......................................... 4 Table 2 List of Budworm Response Project proposed vegetation treatments............................................... 9 Table 3 Existing System Roads Associated with Treatment Area (Major Haul Routes).............................. 9 Table 4 Existing non-system roads used for haul routes............................................................................. 10 Table 5 Project acres by Habitat Structural Stage ....................................................................................... 14 Table 6 Prescription acreage by cover type for Alternative 2. .................................................................... 16 Table 7 Trend toward Desired Conditions for Vegetation by alternative. .................................................. 18 Table 8 Assessment of treatment area snag reduction benefit potential with pre-fire snag removal. ......... 22 Table 9 Threatened, endangered, and proposed mammal species occurrence in the proposed action area.42 Table 10 Treatment acres relative to NRLMD standards. No treatments in mapped lynx habitat are

proposed for LAU 3. ........................................................................................................................... 46 Table 11 Sensitive wildlife and fish species known or suspected to occur on the Shoshone National

Forest. Shaded rows are species selected for further analysis............................................................. 52 Table 12 Forest Service, Region 2 Sensitive aquatic species carried forward in analysis. ......................... 60

iii

Table 13 Crucial periods for boreal toads (from Keinath and Mcgee 2005). ............................................. 61 Table 14 Determinations for Sensitive Plant Species. ................................................................................ 69 Table 16 Species of Local Concern ............................................................................................................ 70 Table 17 Secure habitat and motorized access values for the Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management Unit.

See text for definitions of OMARD and TMARD. ............................................................................. 81

1

Need for the Proposal Introduction This environmental assessment (EA) describes the Budworm Response Project and presents an analysis of effects related to the project. The Forest Service’s intent is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate consideration of environmental consequences of the proposed action, with a focus on the issues identified by the public and the interdisciplinary team. Additional documentation is located in the project file (a compilation of documents prepared for this project), which can be reviewed upon request. This document, as well as the other project information, is available on the Forest web site at

https://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/shoshone/landmanagement/projects.

Based on information in this EA and the project file, the Responsible Official can decide to take no action, to implement all or part of the proposed action, to implement an alternative to the proposed action, or to defer activities. In the decision, the Responsible Official will determine selection and site-specific location of treatments.

The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the 2015 Revised Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan1). The project proposal is consistent with Wetlands and Floodplains Executive Orders, the Clean Water Act, and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to treat vegetation affected by a western spruce budworm epidemic in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway and to move vegetation in the project area towards desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. More specifically, the purpose of the project is to:

Increase resistance to future insect and disease occurrence. Reduce fuels adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Recover the value of dead timber. Enhance ecological resiliency to promote future forest vegetation and scenery.

The project is needed because:

Forested stands are dense, mature, and even-aged, lacking species and age diversity. Trees in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway corridor have been heavily defoliated for four years

leaving those that survive susceptible to future insect and disease infestation. Conifers are encroaching on aspen habitat. Fuel buildup from dead and dying trees hinders protection of WUI areas from wildfire safely.

Project Location and Existing Condition The proposed Budworm Response Project is located approximately 30 miles northwest of Cody Wyoming along State Highway 296, Chief Joseph Scenic Byway (see Figure 1). The project area is on the Clarks Fork Ranger District of the Shoshone National Forest (SNF).

1 USDA Forest Service. 2015. Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

2

Figure 1 General project location and vicinity.

The Clarks Fork Ranger District is experiencing an ongoing outbreak of western spruce budworm in the Crandall area. Larvae of the western spruce budworm moth feed on foliage of Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir trees causing defoliation. During a defoliation event like the one underway in the project area entire stands of trees will have a reddish brown appearance from the needle damage. Without foliage, trees are unable to photosynthesize nutrients. Repeated severe defoliation (4-5 years) can decrease growth, kill the trees, and leave them more susceptible to other insects or disease, such as bark beetles. The current western spruce budworm infestation is going on its 4th year. See Figure 2.

3

Figure 2 Western spruce budworm damage in the Budworm Response Project area.

In addition to the current outbreak, the area has also experienced insect and disease mortality from spruce beetle, Douglas fir beetle, mountain pine beetle, mistletoe, and Comandra rust. See Figure 3. The project area ranges from roughly 6,000 to 7,600 feet in elevation. Predominant overstory vegetation consists of lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, Subalpine fir, Douglas fir, and aspen.

4

Figure 3 Damage from insects and disease in the Budworm Response Project area.

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan provides direction for managing forest resources through forest-wide and management area direction. The SNF is subdivided into management areas, each with its own set of management prescriptions consisting of desired conditions and accompanying standards and guidelines. Management areas are non-contiguous and may occur throughout the Forest. The majority (89%) of the Budworm Response Project is in Management Area 4.2 defined as Scenic Byways, scenic areas, vistas, and travel corridors (see Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015, Chapter 2 Management Area Direction).

The Budworm Response Project area comprised four Forest Plan management areas displayed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Forest Plan management areas in the Budworm Response Project area. Management

Area Emphasis Acres Treatment Units2

3.5B Backcountry non-motorized recreation 64 3, 6C 5.1 Managed forests and rangelands 133 28 5.4 Managed big game crucial winter range 21 3,5C, 6C,

4.2 Scenic Byways, Scenic Areas, Vistas and travel corridors 1,860

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

2 Some treatment units may fall into multiple management areas.

5

Management Area Emphasis Acres Treatment Units2

1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, 7C, 8C

Total Acres 2,078 Forest Plan direction in the project area also emphasizes maintenance of vegetation diversity, reduction of accumulated fuels from insect infestations and wildfire, and restoration or enhancement of wildlife habitat and forage. Another emphasis in much of the project area is big game crucial winter range.

The Forest Plan provides for vegetation management through a variety of silvicultural techniques and harvest systems to restore ecological function, structure, and composition, and provide products and services to the public. Vegetation management activities should generally be designed to maintain habitat mosaics within the natural range of variability.

Forest Plan Amendment Scenery Scenery is an important value in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway corridor. The degree of acceptable alteration to scenery in the revised Forest Plan is described using the Scenery Management System which applies Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) to each management area. In Scenic Byways, vegetation conditions support SIO of moderate to high and projects in the foreground areas are designed to meet SIO of at least high. See Environmental Effects to Visuals section for a full description of SIO.

To meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, a project-specific Forest Plan amendment will be necessary that will exempt the Budworm Response Project from requirements in a Forest Plan Standard for scenery. The relevant standard is SCEN-STAND-01:

Projects in foreground areas of scenic byways, national scenic trails, or designated wild and scenic rivers shall be designed to meet the scenic integrity objective of at least high.

This change would be applied to areas within the foreground3 of the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway where tree mortality precludes leaving sufficient live trees to maintain a natural appearance. The project-specific amendment would be applicable only to the Budworm Response Project and would not change the applicability of the scenery standard to other projects.

Public Involvement Public involvement for the Budworm Response Project began on August 24, 2016 with a news release announcing an initial public meeting to be held in the Crandall area. The meeting notice was also sent to 76 individuals. The meeting was held on September 1, 2016 in a community meeting site (Painter Outpost) in Crandall near the proposed project area. Thirty-two individuals attended it. Forest Service personnel provided background information about the western spruce budworm, affected tree species, the project area and the project timeline. Personnel in attendance also fielded questions from attendees.

A Legal Notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Cody Enterprise, on October 10, 2016 announcing that the Forest Service was seeking comments on the Budworm Response Project. The Notice was posted on the Shoshone National Forest website and the comment period ran from October 11 to November 9, 2016. In addition, eleven tribes were mailed letters and contacted by phone. Twenty eight comment letters were received during the comment period. Comments received were considered and responses are located in the project record.

3 Foreground is defined as 0 to ½ mile from the scenic byway corridor

6

On May 18, 2017, a second public meeting was held in Cody Wyoming. Twelve individuals attended and were updated on the results of public scoping, issues identified, and the status of project. A Forest Service entomologist presented information on western spruce budworm and the Assistant District Forester from the Wyoming State Forestry Division spoke about assistance available to private landowners.

Issues In the context of environmental analysis, issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand.

The following are the key issues identified by the public and the interdisciplinary team (ID team) members:

• Impacts to scenery in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway • Impacts from temporary roads • Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Area

Proposed Action and Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed in detail; no action and the proposed action. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline of the environmental condition if no agency action is undertaken. The Proposed Action Alternative was developed to accelerate achievement of the purpose and need.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative vegetation treatments would not be applied in the project area. Regeneration efforts would not occur to accelerate the return of affected sites to a productive condition. Because no restoration actions would occur, commercial salvage would not be utilized and the Forest Service would not offer affected wood products for sale. No temporary roads would be needed. Current conditions would continue into the foreseeable future.

Natural recovery of forested stands would occur over a time frame of 4 or 5 decades. Forested stands that are weakened by the budworm epidemic would continue to be susceptible to Douglas fir beetle and other insect and disease infestations. High levels of standing dead trees and wood accumulating on the forest floor would suppress regeneration of future forested stands.

2. Proposed Action The Proposed Action involves treating approximately 2,100 forested acres using a variety of silvicultural methods and post-harvest fuels treatment. Methods would include a blend of even-aged systems such as overstory removal, seed tree, clearcut, and/or shelterwood. In an effort to be responsive to areas where severe western spruce budworm infestation has occurred and continues, a combination of salvage and sanitation cutting would be applied.

The Proposed Action includes the following activities. Acreages are estimates and may vary slightly:

• 1,100 acres of ground based harvest4 • 300 acres of cable harvest5 • 600 acres of a combination of cable and ground-based harvest • Approximately 12 miles of temporary road construction

4 A harvest system that utilizes equipment to skid logs from stump to landing areas. 5 A harvest system that uses cables to fully or partially suspend logs above the ground for transport to a landing.

7

• Approximately 20 miles of road maintenance and/or reconstruction • Decommissioning of temporary roads, post-project activities • 550 acres of post-harvest fuels treatment

The proposal includes mechanical harvest (200-500 acres annually). Total acres implemented annually would depend on a number of factors including market conditions, purchaser availability and interest, and budget constraints, etc. Figure 4 Proposed treatment units by harvest system.

Silviculture Treatments Silviculture treatments are management techniques applied to forest vegetation for specific desired outcomes and involve tending, harvesting, and reestablishing of forested stands. The proposed action would include the following silviculture treatments.

Salvage Sanitation/Seed Tree (SS/ST and SS/ST/Aspen) Approximately 1,100 acres would be treated using a sanitation salvage with seed tree prescription. All dead and dying merchantable trees, greater than or equal to 7 inches, diameter at breast height (DBH) would be removed. These units would have a seed tree prescription applied because they have a high percentage of live multi-species trees remaining. This harvest method consists of leaving healthy trees in clumps or groups as a seed source for future regeneration.

A post-sale timber stand improvement (TSI) treatment consisting of removal of dead and dying trees (less than 7” DBH) would be applied to un-merchantable trees exhibiting infestation. If regeneration dies and budworm infestation subsides, planting would commence immediately post-treatment. Depending on post-treatment stocking levels, trees which provide a seed source for the regenerating stand, would be removed after regeneration is established. Or they would remain as reserve trees to attain other goals such

8

as wildlife habitat. This prescription could involve a complete removal of trees in some areas during implementation if they are dead or dying. The order of preference for tree species left standing would be: healthy Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce.

Trees remaining or “leave trees” would be left in clumps or groups to minimize blow down.

In stands where aspen is present, conifers will be removed to regenerate aspen.

Salvage Sanitation (SS) Treatment units assigned SS are in Inventoried Roadless Areas and would only have a salvage sanitation prescription. This means only dead and dying merchantable trees greater than or equal to 7 inches DBH would be removed. A post-sale TSI treatment would be applied to un-merchantable trees exhibiting infestation. If regeneration dies and budworm infestation subsides, planting would commence immediately post-sale.

Retention of limber pine would be favored where possible throughout the project area. White-bark pine would not be cut.

Overstory Removal (OR) Overstory removal would be applied on approximately 1,000 acres. All trees living and dead seven inches DBH and above would be removed. Treatment units on which the overstory would be removed consist predominantly of Douglas fir. Regeneration would be multi species to promote diverse stands in the future. A post-sale TSI (release and weed)6 would be implemented to remove infected regeneration. If regeneration dies and budworm infestation subsides, planting would commence immediately post-sale.

Fuels Treatments Residual fuels left behind by project activities would be lopped and scattered, whole tree-yarded to piles and burned, thinned, or a combination of these treatments. Post-sale Treatments TSI would be applied post timber sale harvest to remove infected (dead or dying) regeneration. This would likely be accomplished with mechanical and/or hand falling equipment unless otherwise noted to remove infected regeneration or un-merchantable trees.

Post-sale treatments would also meet the following criteria:

• All conifers would be removed from treatment units containing aspen to promote aspen growth. Post-harvest TSI would be applied in all aspen pockets to remove un-merchantable conifers.

• Snags (standing dead trees) would be retained throughout a variety of well distributed age classes across the project area for wildlife habitat and soil. Snags representing the largest age class would be included. Safety of operations would take precedence over snag retention.

• Planting stock would be from locally collected seed from the appropriate seed zone and elevation band.

• Planting would begin post-treatment. Planted or interplanted multi-species would include lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and Douglas fir.

• All planting would be accomplished with container stock grown seedlings using hoedads or augers.

6 Release and weed is a timber stand improvement treatment that allows desirable seedlings to grow by eliminating undesirable vegetation.

9

Table 2 List of Budworm Response Project proposed vegetation treatments.

Treatment Harvest method Acres7 Post Sale

Planting Sanitation Salvage with Seed Tree Ground-based 517 No

Sanitation Salvage with Seed Tree Ground-based 251 Yes

Sanitation Salvage with Seed Tree and Aspen Component Ground-based 203 No

Sanitation Salvage with Seed Tree Cable logging 96 No

Overstory Removal Ground-based 204 No

Overstory Removal Ground-based 436 Yes

Overstory Removal with Aspen Ground-based 64 No

Overstory Removal with Aspen Ground-based 99 Yes Overstory Removal Cable logging 97 No Overstory Removal Cable logging 50 Yes Overstory Removal with Aspen8 Cable logging 62 No Total Treatment Acres 2,080

Transportation Most harvest access would be by existing National Forest System Roads (NFSR), and the existing road system would be utilized to the extent possible (see Table 3 and Table 4). Temporary roads would be used where the existing road system is not adequate to access treatment units and landings. There are approximately 12 miles of temporary roads planned. No temporary roads would be constructed in the Windy Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and all temporary roads would be decommissioned upon completion of project activities. Road maintenance and or reconstruction would potentially be needed on approximately 20 miles of road. Table 3 Existing System Roads Associated with Treatment Area (Major Haul Routes).

7 Acres are rounded. 8 In units with aspen present all conifers would be removed from aspen pockets to promote growth.

NFSR # Road Name Maintenance Level

Miles Required work Prior to Timber Harvest

109 Lodgepole 3 0.3 Pre-haul maintenance

114 Camp Creek 2 3.0 Pre-haul maintenance, minor reconstruction areas 115 Reef Creek 2 4.7 Pre-haul maintenance, reconstruction areas

115.1F Wolverine Creek 1, 2 1.6 Maintenance

116 East Swamp Lake Access

3 0.3 Pre-haul maintenance, spot reconstruction, new culvert

116.B 1 0.9 Maintenance/Reconstruction

116.D 1 1.3 Maintenance/Reconstruction

116.1A Old Swamp Lake Road 1 0.4 Maintenance/Reconstruction 116.1B Cathedral Spur 2 0.7 Maintenance/Reconstruction

10

Table 4 Existing non-system roads used for haul routes.

Route # Miles Notes

N125.1M 0.40 Reconstruct N144.A 0.30 Reconstruct

N296.3J 0.45 Reconstruct

N296.3K 0.40 Reconstruct

N296.3M 0.30 Reconstruct

Actual roads used and number of miles of roads for timber sale access may vary from the roads identified in these tables. Reconstruction may not be needed on the entire lengths of roads listed for reconstruction. In some instances, existing roads need only spot reconstruction work to fix problem areas or provide the minimum standard road. Reconstruction would consist of items such as installing or improving drainage structures, clearing and/or widening narrow portions of roads to provide the minimum standard road width, spot surfacing to provide a stable running surface over weak or unstable soils, or realigning portions of roads.

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

No Temporary Roads It was suggested that building temporary roads should be avoided. The majority of areas where vegetation treatments would be implemented could not be accessed without temporary roads. Therefore this alternative was not carried forward in the environmental analysis because the purpose and need for the project could not be met.

No Treatment in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway Corridor The purpose and need of the Budworm Response Project includes reducing fuels adjacent to the WUI in order to better protect cabins, homes, recreation sites and other structures (values at risk) from potential wildfire. The interface between private property and the Shoshone National Forest lies mainly in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway Corridor because it is the main highway through the area. This alternative was not considered in detail because it would not meet the purpose and need. It would not accelerate recovery of forested stands in the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

117 Squaw Creek 2 0.75

Maintenance/Reconstruction

125 Squaw Creek Salvage S

2 0.5

Maintenance/Reconstruction

125.1B 1 0.47 Maintenance/Reconstruction

144 Deadman Flat 1 3.4 Maintenance/Reconstruction

144.1A 1 1.0 Maintenance/Reconstruction

172 Grease Lake 2 0.33 Pre-haul maintenance, reconstruction areas

296.3I Rapid Creek 1 1.3 Maintenance/Reconstruction 296.3Q Crandall Bridge Pullout 1 0.15 Pre-haul maintenance

Total Miles

21.1

11

No Treatment in Roadless Area This alternative would reduce the acreage of vegetation treatment in the proposed action by 139 acres, which is less than 7 percent. However, the portions of the Windy Mountain Roadless Area that would remain untreated contain continuous fuels with proposed treatment areas outside of the Roadless Area, with no topographical or vegetation break. Eighty eight percent of the roadless acres proposed for vegetation treatment under Alternative 2 are in the WUI, most within one mile of homes and other structures. This alternative does not meet the need to reduce fuels in the WUI and was therefore not carried forward in analysis.

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section focuses on the issues raised during the Notice of Proposed Action formal comment period. Analyses beyond those documented here were completed to support the Responsible Official’s decisions and to ensure compliance with laws and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Those analyses and associated references are part of the project record and available for public review upon request.

The interdisciplinary team analyzed direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and contrasted those with the effects of taking no action. Direct effects occur at the same time and place in which the activity is implemented. Indirect effects occur at a later time or a distance from the site of the activity. Cumulative effects are those impacts that result from the combined effects of the alternative in addition to any effects of past, present, or foreseeable future activities.

Past and current activities and events include natural disturbances such as the mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle outbreaks, white pine blister rust, fire, and climate change. Past and current resource management activities include hazard tree removal, grazing, and road maintenance. Recreation effects may result from recreation events, dispersed camping, hunting, outfitter/guide use, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and unauthorized route creation. Future effects may come from adjacent treatments on private and State lands, road decommissioning, development on adjacent private land, climate change, continued recreation use, and resource management activities. The current condition of the project area serves as a proxy for the impacts of past actions in understanding the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects analysis for this project.

Design Features Project design features (PDF) or Best Management Practices (BMP) are a critical component of mitigating the effects of the proposed action on the environment. For consistency, the term PDF will be used. The project design incorporates PDFs and BMPs and the effects of the proposed action were analyzed with these measures included. The full list of PDFs can be found in Appendix A.

Resources that through initial analysis were not impacted or whose impacts were so limited due to the implementation of best management practices and/or standards and guidelines and therefore not further analyzed include: Air Quality, Rangeland Resources and Recreation.

Environmental Effects on Forested Ecosystem Forest Vegetation Vegetation diversity varies widely across the Shoshone due to variations in elevation, soils, geology, aspect, climate factors and past disturbances. Future vegetation distribution could be shaped by changes driven by climate change such as precipitation, temperature, and disturbance. The SNF has the highest,

12

coldest elevations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) which increase the Forest’s potential for providing refugia9 for species impacted by warming temperatures. Forest Plan desired conditions for vegetation include a diversity of vegetation with a mosaic of cover types and stand structures to form a resilient landscape that provides wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity.

In Forest Plan Management Area categories 1, 2, and 3, natural processes such as fire and insects are the predominant disturbances that influence stand structure and can lead to large fluctuations in stand conditions. In these areas, stands are generally older and patch size is variable with many small patches interspersed among larger patches. The amount of dead/down material is greater in these areas.

Management area categories 4, 5, and 8 receive more frequent vegetation management than management categories 1, 2, and 3. Stand structures and landscape pattern are influenced by prescribed fire, timber harvest, and other silvicultural treatments in addition to natural disturbance processes. In these areas, stands are generally younger with patch size less variable with more mid-size patches, and less down/dead material.

The analysis area consists primarily (97%) of management areas 4 and 5. The diversity of the vegetation within those areas has been shaped by natural disturbances and past management practices. Overall this has led to dense even-aged stands which lack species and age diversity. Where present, multi storied stands are dominated by Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce.

Aspen Aspen cover types exist on approximately 327 acres or less than 2% of the project area. Where aspen is a component of conifer stands, it is being out-competed primarily by limber and lodgepole pines, spruce/fir and Douglas fir.

Areas where aspen is mixed with conifers are being targeted for treatment. This would help meet the Forest Plan direction of maintaining or restoring/increasing the aspen cover type wherever it occurs.

Insect and Disease In recent years a western spruce budworm epidemic has caused significant forest health decline in the project area. Western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) is the most damaging defoliator in Western North America (Furniss &Carolin 1977). Principal hosts are Douglas fir and true firs, and occasionally Engelmann spruce (Harvey 1985, Fellin & Dewey 1982). Budworm feeding is identified by mined buds, missing new growth, and often reddish-brown needle pieces webbed together especially at branch tips. Budworm epidemics are usually readily apparent; stands typically appear singed, as new growth is eaten and webbed needle pieces dry. After multiple years of infestation, tree-tops or even entire trees may be severely defoliated. After defoliation ends, many stands are able to recover. However, four or more years of sustained budworm feeding during outbreaks may lead to near complete defoliation, decreased growth, deformity, and top kill (Furniss &Carolin 1977). Prolonged budworm epidemics may also result in tree death or may increase tree susceptibility to other insects such as bark beetles (Furniss 1981).

Currently, there has been an ongoing spruce budworm epidemic causing heavy defoliation across a large area in the Budworm Response Project area. Much of the affected area has been heavily defoliated for 4 years and appears to be set to have heavy defoliation again in the coming year. Both mature trees and understory trees, where present, have been heavily impacted by the Spruce Budworm through defoliation (Allen 2017).

The susceptibility of stands to tree mortality in the project area can be rated based on certain stand factors. These factors include more than 80% of the stand containing host species for budworm, defoliation

9 Refugia is a location which supports an isolated or relict population of a once more widespread species.

13

continuing for more than 3-5 years, and defoliation severity being moderate or high (Carlson and Wulf 1989).

Overstocked or very dense stands also contribute to increased susceptibility. As budworm larvae disperse in dense stands, they are more likely to land on food sources than in those stands that are more open. Much of the affected area being defoliated over the past few years is dense with overstories of interlocking crowns (Allen 2017).

Multistoried stands provide excellent habitat for budworm as the understory provides a landing spot for larvae as they disperse. Understory, intermediate, suppressed trees and regeneration typically are the hardest hit by defoliation (Allen 2017).

Trees and stands that are fast growing and vigorous generally provide less suitable habitat for budworm compared to more stagnant stands. The stands being affected most by defoliation at this time are generally older and no longer fast growing or vigorous and so would be more susceptible (Allen 2017).

Older stands and trees are more susceptible to budworm damage as they have a larger amount of foliage in the crowns than younger stands and can support larger budworm populations. Again, much of the area currently being affected in the Budworm Response Project area would fall into this category of older trees and stands (Allen 2017).

Many of the same factors that appear to be playing a part in ongoing budworm defoliation, such as dense, mature, and single species (Douglas fir) stands create conditions that are also conducive to Douglas fir beetle infestation. Currently 84% of the project area is in structural stage 4B and 4C, which are the most susceptible to large insect outbreaks. There has not been much Douglas fir beetle activity in the project area over the past 3-4 years compared to the epidemic levels of about 10-15 years ago, but there are remnant pockets present and active in the area (Allen 2017).

Current research emphasizes removing host species (Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce) understory followed by over-story removal of the heavily defoliated host species.

Economics Vegetation management activities take advantage of opportunities to provide wood products while meeting other desired conditions. The project area consists of approximately 140 acres suitable for timber production and 1,700 acres where timber harvest is permitted for other resource benefits. To the extent possible, management activities include supporting economic activity in the local timber industry, providing social and economic support to local communities, and utilizing wood products such as sawtimber, poles, topwood, or slash.

Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative vegetation treatments would not be applied in the project area. Regeneration efforts would not occur to accelerate the return of affected sites to a productive condition. Because no restoration actions would occur, commercial salvage would not be utilized and affected wood products would not be offered for sale. No temporary roads would be needed. Current conditions would continue into the foreseeable future.

Natural recovery of forested stands would occur over a time frame of 4 or 5 decades. Forested stands that are weakened by the budworm epidemic would continue to be susceptible to Douglas fir beetle and other insect and disease infestations. High levels of standing dead trees and wood accumulating on the forest floor would suppress regeneration of future forested stands.

14

Forest Vegetation Diversity It is likely that defoliation of Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce species would continue under this alternative. The probability of future tree mortality in both overstory and understory trees would increase. If no silvicultural treatments are implemented, a decline in vertical and horizontal diversity would continue. Host conifers for budworm such as Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce that comprise approximately 1,320 acres of the project area would decline under no action. This would decrease overall species composition of the project area leading to more shade intolerant species such as lodgepole pine (453 acres).

Aspen Currently there are approximately 327 acres of aspen cover type in the project area. Without vegetation treatment a continued decline in the health and abundance of aspen would occur as shade tolerant conifers outcompeted it (Carlson and Wulf 1989).

Age Classes Under the No Action Alternative and in the absence of fire, older age classes such as Structural Stage 4 (see Table 5 for structural stage definitions) are expected to decline due to increased mortality in both the overstory and intermediate age classes. Structural Stages 2 and 3 would most likely increase after approximately 40 to 80 years as stands move through the stand initiation phase into seedling and sapling stages. Stand regeneration would be minimal in both quantity and diversity because planting would not occur. Stand establishment would take several decades. Over time aspen clones would be expected to decline as conifers suppress future aspen regeneration.

Table 5 Project acres by Habitat Structural Stage

Structural Stage

Description Acres

1M Grass/Forb, M = natural meadow 96 1T Grass/Forb, T = previously treed 5 2T Shrub/Seedling, T = previously treed 12 3A Small to medium diameter (1-9” DBH) < 40% crown

closure 1

3B Small to medium diameter (1-9” DBH) 40-70% crown closure

3

3C Small to medium diameter (1-9” DBH) >70% crown closure

137

4A Large diameter (9+” DBH) <40% crown closure 83 4B Large diameter (9+” DBH) 40-70% crown closure 1166 4C Large diameter (9+” DBH) >70% crown closure 596

5 Old Growth/Over-mature trees 1

Dead Trees/Course Woody Debris Under the No Action Alternative the amount of dead trees/course woody debris (snags) would increase in the short term due to continued and increasing tree mortality. Additionally a proportional increase in coarse woody debris would occur as snags created from the epidemic begin to fall. The majority of small snags (3-8 inches) could fall within the next 15-20 years. Large amounts of down woody material impede natural regeneration and create conditions that could result in future insect and disease infestations. Larger snags may stand on the landscape for 30-40 years. Coarse woody debris in that 15-40 year period would be expected to exceed Forest Plan guidelines for course woody debris and snag retention as middle age classes move to older age classes and snags are created through natural processes.

15

Economics Under the No Action Alternative opportunities to provide wood products would be limited to firewood cutting for personal use only in designated parts of the project area. No new jobs would be created and a majority of the project area would not be harvested due to access and equipment limitations. This alternative would not meet Forest Plan objectives for timber harvest and production.

Insect and Disease Based on the increase in defoliation between 2014 and 2017, and assuming weather conditions adequate for budworm survival persist, it is probable that defoliation of Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce in the project area would continue. If no action is taken insect and disease infestations such as bark beetles and rot would be expected to increase due to a decline in tree health and its ability to resist continued attacks.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Management actions can directly affect the vegetation and environment upon which insects depend. Several management alternatives such as maintaining older multistoried stands that consist of host species such as Douglas fir and spruce would increase susceptibility to budworm. Increasing the amount of non-host species and diversifying age classes and stand structure both horizontally and vertically in the stands would decrease vulnerability to budworm infestation. Douglas fir beetle susceptibility also decreases when maintaining for a diversity of age classes, stand structure, and a mixture of tree species.

Forest Vegetation Diversity Silvicultural treatments provide opportunities to alter stand conditions creating a forest that is more diverse and resistant to insect epidemics. Stands most susceptible to insect damage, such as high-density stands, can be harvested and converted to less dense stands. In stands scheduled for overstory removal or seed tree harvest, individual suppressed or dying trees can be removed, increasing the overall growth and vigor of remaining trees. Treatments such as these that create more open stand conditions, would decrease stand susceptibility to budworm. Open stands produce more vigorous trees and provide less continuity in foliage, which would reduce budworm survival. Treatments that reduce the amount of dense, mature overstory also reduce susceptibility to budworm as the numbers of larger older trees are removed.

Any treatments that increase non-host species, such as pine and aspen, would reduce the damage and mortality caused by budworm. Treatments such as salvage and sanitation are best directed at those stands that have been defoliated the heaviest for the longest amount of time as these are most likely to have tree mortality.

Treatments that break up the continuous, even-aged structure of mature dense stands of host trees would reduce long-term insect infestation on the landscape. This would lead to a mix of untreated areas favorable for insects, intermixed with treated areas that are less favorable, thereby preventing insect populations from reaching epidemic levels.

16

Table 6 Prescription acreage by cover type for Alternative 2.

Cover Type

Acreage by Prescription and Cover Type

Overstory Removal and

Aspen enhancement (OR/Aspen)

Overstory Removal

(OR)

Salvage/sanitation, Seed Tree, aspen

enhancement (SS/ST/Aspen)

Salvage/sanitation and Seed Tree

(SS/ST)

Quaking Aspen 134 - 193 -

Douglas fir/Engelmann spruce

128 423 758 11

Lodgepole Pine - 158 - 295

Total 262 581 951 306 Timber stand improvement (TSI) treatment, such as removing or thinning the understory, would reduce the susceptibility of these stands to budworm and other insects and disease.

Aspen Aspen cover types exist on approximately 327 acres or less than 2% of the project area. Treatments that remove all host species from aspen stands would remove any concerns regarding budworm or bark beetles. Under the proposed action in stands where aspen is mixed with conifers, all conifers would be removed to promote aspen growth. Post-harvest treatments would occur in aspen pockets to remove un-merchantable conifers. No conifer planting would occur where aspen clones are present.

Promoting aspen species creates a more diverse forest that results in multiple resource benefits such as enhanced visual landscape diversity, recreation opportunities, increased soil nutrients, understory plant diversity, wildlife habitat, forage, and discontinuous fuels and less susceptibility to stand replacing fires. Aspen are relatively short-lived species and are prone to being re-invaded by conifers as the stands age and die. Maintaining areas of aspen would require multiple entries over time. This would help meet the Forest Plan direction of maintaining or restoring/increasing the aspen cover type wherever it occurs.

Age Classes Under the proposed action tree stands with high densities (Structural Stages 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5) would experience the greatest decline in insect and disease susceptibility as a result of removing dead or diseased overstory and thinning the understory to meet Forest Plan desired conditions for “more resilient, healthy forested stands” (USDA, 2015). Replanting stands with inadequate regeneration would also move them toward Forest Plan desired conditions by increasing acreage in the younger and middle age classes sooner than would occur if unmanaged.

Grasses, shrubs and forbs (SS1 and SS2) would be expected to fully restock within 2 to 5 years post treatment. Aspen clones would increase within 5 to 20 years post conifer removal. The proposed treatments would help diversify aspen age classes and maintain areas of multi age aspen development. The death of older age classes is driven by continued budworm defoliation. In the Proposed Action Alternative trees in this older dead/diseased age class would be removed which would result in an increase in younger and middle age classes immediately after project completion. In 20 to 50 years, however, there would be an increase in the older age classes as ingrowth from a healthy middle age class occurs over time, helping to achieve the desired conditions for older age class structure. In addition, stands in structural stage 2T can be expected to grow into structural stage 3 over the next 5 to 20 years.

17

Dead Trees /Course Woody Debris The total number of snags per acre in all units would be reduced in the proposed action but overall snags per acre across the analysis area would be maintained and would meet Forest Plan guideline VEG-GUIDE-08. This guideline recommends that post-timber harvest, an average of two to three snags per acre be maintained averaged over 1,000 acres.

Vegetation treatments would affect the distribution of snags across the landscape. In harvest units few to no snags would remain on the landscape. Areas outside harvest units would continue to have an increase in snags due to continued tree mortality. Within the analysis area snag levels would continue to exceed Forest Plan direction for about 15-30 years. After 15-30 years natural snag fall would occur and course woody debris would increase.

In the short term an increase in course woody debris would occur post-harvest and prior to slash cleanup. After slash cleanup (generally within 5 years post-harvest) course woody debris would be reduced. Harvest units would maintain course woody debris, where available, to levels consistent with VEG-Guide-09 which recommends that coarse woody debris should be retained and distributed across the harvest unit in accordance Table 7 in the Forest Plan.

Reducing the amount of course woody debris and snags would reduce ladder fuels and fuel buildup on the forest floor within treated stands. This reduction would reduce the threat of crown fire initiation and spread to adjacent stands. High intensity crown fires have the potential to destroy the remaining live overstory and seed source. Natural accumulation of course woody debris would continue as snags continue to fall. Without treatment in some areas snags and subsequent course wood debris accumulation would reduce natural regeneration and/or shade the forest floor resulting in less regeneration and/or favoring only shade tolerant species A forest floor with minimal amounts of course woody debris provides an ideal environment for seedling initiation and survival when naturally regenerating.

Economics A majority of the project area (1664 acres or 79%) consists of acres where harvest is permitted for other resource objectives. An estimated 35,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of commercial timber products is anticipated to be harvested through vegetation management treatments. Additionally jobs would be created through harvesting, hauling, and marketing timber products. Other intrinsic values such as increased recreation opportunities, improved air quality and increased safety through dead and dying tree removal would be obtained through vegetation management.

Insect and Disease Treatments under this alternative focus on salvage of dead trees in all management categories within the analysis area. These treatments would have effects both in the short term and the long term.

Sanitation treatments would remove trees infected with western spruce budworm, dwarf mistletoe, Comandra blister rust, and bark beetles. These treatments, along with TSI treatments, would maintain healthy trees in the younger and middle age classes that would be more resilient to insect and disease attack, and should remain so for at least 30-40 years into the future. Reforestation (planting) would occur immediately postharvest where needed to maintain appropriate forest cover as well as increase species diversity. Conifer type conversions to aspen would also increase horizontal diversity by breaking up contiguous coniferous stands, making portions of the project area more resilient to other large scale disturbances. These treatments, in combination, are in line with Forest Plan desired conditions, goals, objectives, and management direction for maintaining forests resilient to insect and disease attack in the project area.

Management actions can directly affect the vegetation and environment upon which insects depend. For example, in the No Action Alternative, leaving a large area with a single species (Douglas fir) in dense stands would leave the area more susceptible to budworm infestation. In the proposed action increasing

18

the amount of non-host species in the stands would decrease susceptibility to budworm. In general, increasing age class diversity would reduce stand susceptibility to Douglas fir beetle.

Alternative Comparison The table below is a comparison, by alternative, of the trend toward desired conditions for vegetation from the Forest Plan. Table 7 Trend toward Desired Conditions for Vegetation by alternative.

Desired Condition Diversity of

Species

Enhance Aspen

Cover Type

Age Class Diversity

Maintain Down

Woody Material

Provide Economic

Benefit

Current and Future Insect and

Disease Infestation

Alternative

No Action Decrease in acres of tree species diversity

Decrease in acres of aspen cover type

Decrease in variability of Habitat Structural Stage acres

Increase in the amount (%) of Down Woody Material

Decrease in economic opportunities

Increase in acres of future insect and disease infestations

Proposed Action

Increase in acres of tree species diversity

Increase in acres of aspen cover type

Increase in variability of Habitat Structural Stage acres

Decrease in the amount (%) of Down Woody Material

Increase in economic opportunities

Decrease in acres of future insect and disease infestations

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on the forested ecosystem is composed of the four 6th level hydrologic units (HUC) or watersheds that contain the project area (Figure 5): Muddy Creek, Swamp Lake, Barrs Creek, and Lower Crandall Creek. All land ownership within the analysis area was considered, although National Forest System lands represent the greatest acreage. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that affect vegetation within the analysis area primarily include:

• Past timber harvest with associated reforestation and thinning activities • Epidemic levels of insect and disease infestations • Extended drought • Fire suppression

Past and present activities in the analysis area have largely resulted in dense, over-mature stands of trees with little diversity. Past events such as fire suppression and drought have contributed to large areas of mature, single species forest resulting in increased damage from insects. The recent budworm epidemic, which is ongoing, is thriving due to current stand composition and structure. In many of these stands, where defoliation has been heaviest for the past 3 to 4 years, a significant amount of mortality has occurred. Additionally, the large amount of highly stressed trees could be a precursor for increased Douglas fir beetle activity in the analysis area. Past timber harvest with associated reforestation and thinning activities has improved stand composition in localized areas. Though the effects are beneficial they are minor when compared to the condition of forested stands throughout the analysis area.

The proposed action would move the forest composition, age, and structure in the project area to earlier successional stages with greater horizontal and vertical diversity by creating a variety of age and species

19

classes that would provide long term resiliency to large scale forest insect outbreaks. These effects combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a minimal cumulative effect on the forested ecosystem due to small amount of the analysis area being treated. Figure 5 Analysis area for effects on forested ecosystem.

Environmental Effects on Fire and Fuels Fuels and Fire Behavior Environment The Wildfires of 1988 burned in some areas adjacent to the proposed Budworm Response Project. The fire scars can easily be seen near the Camp Creek and Swamp Lake areas. The 1988 Fires in the project area were of mixed burn severity. Areas of high burn severity had complete tree mortality which is natural under drier conditions. Areas that burned cooler in 1988 that had moderate burn severity and some stand replacement are still evident in the project area. Most of the project area was unaffected by the 1988 fires but adjacent areas were heavily impacted. Unburned areas continued to produce more fuel in the absence of fire.

Wildfires are part of the natural forest ecology in the project area and with a relatively long fire return interval of 100 to 200 years, fuels accumulate naturally to a high level that can burn at a moderate to high severity during a fire season (Landfire. 2017). Without wildfire, the natural disturbance factors that can impact a forest at a large scale would be high velocity downdraft winds known as blow-downs, land-slides, or insect and disease. In the project area, insect and disease infestation has resulted in patches of fuel that have approximately 25 to 100% mortality in mixed conifers stands. Western spruce budworm is altering the stand, and unlike wildfire, the result is an increase of fuels at the surface level with the

20

potential to burn intensely. In contrast, wildfire reduces fuels on the ground, replaces the stand, and natural processes reestablish the vegetation and reduce the fire danger for the next 50 to 100 years depending on which conifer species reestablishes the area.

Insect and disease infestations have introduced a higher load of fuel into the ecosystem beyond just the project area. When wildfire returns to this area, a higher intensity wildfire is likely to occur. Over the last decade, the SNF has experienced dramatic, large scale, insect and disease events. The insect and disease outbreaks in the past had been localized and not widespread. This change presents fire managers with an atypical fuel loading that produces higher intensity wildfires. Not only has this created extreme wildfire risk to the SNF and adjacent private lands and homes, it has greatly increased the risk to firefighters who respond to fires in areas full of dead trees which threaten their safety. This situation greatly limits response options when fires start in remote areas on steeper slopes without good road access. Safety zones for firefighters are often non-existent in these situations. Safety zones are areas with sparse fuels or fuels not receptive to burning where firefighters can retreat for safety from radiant and convective heat.

The nearby Gunbarrel Fire of 2008 burned 68,148 acres in steep beetle-killed terrain with no road access and poor safety zones. The fire could not be fought by conventional direct attack methods due in part to the limitations noted above. The Norton Point Fire of 2011, north of Dubois, Wyoming became established in a beetle-killed stand and burned 24,237 acres. Various management strategies, natural barriers, and the weather eventually confined that fire. In 2016 near the project area, the Hunter Peak Fire burned aggressively with a normal composition of brush and forest cover to 3,595 acres in size. The Hunter Peak Fire area was just beginning to show the effects of insect mortality and it required a lot of effort and expense to manage. The Lava Mountain Fire of 2016 also near Dubois was in an area severely impacted by beetle kill and required even more time and effort to manage due to the intense fire behavior that lasted many burn periods in a beetle-killed environment. By the time the Lava Mountain Fire was determined controlled it had burned 14,651 acres.

Recent fires on the SNF clearly demonstrate how readily fuels in areas of insect caused mortality ignite and the hazards they pose to the public and firefighters. These fires are categorized as high intensity wildfires due to the high fuel loading when active. Recent fires required resources from across the nation to manage and cost several million dollars to manage.

The probability of a large fire in areas with insect and disease caused mortality is difficult to determine. The likelihood of an intense fire in these areas is high due to past and present infestations that accelerate the accumulation of fuels on the surface. More fuel increases intensity and how fast fire spreads. The Park County Wildland Urban Interface Protection Plan rated the entire project area as a high risk area in 2008 prior to the current western spruce budworm infestation. The similarity of the environment in the project area to that present where recent wildfires have burned indicates potential for a high intensity wildfire exists.

The factors that interact together to create fire behavior are fuels, weather and topography. Only one of these can, to some extent, be manipulated, the fuel environment. The consumption rate of fuels and fire intensity are determined by the amount of fuel, spatial arrangement, and type of fuel present interacting with topography and weather. Land managers can alter the spatial arrangement and the quantity of fuel.

Of particular concern to firefighters is a fire behavior known as “spotting”. Spotting is the aerial spreading of firebrands from coniferous trees or standing dead snags to areas outside the current fire perimeter. Spotting increases the rate of fire spread by enlarging a fire front and making a larger fire perimeter. Several spot fires can quickly merge and accelerate fire growth. These factors make initial attack efforts less likely to succeed. When initial attack fails, more resources are required to manage a wildfire. As a fire grows, so do threats to the public, fire support personnel, communities, and values at risk.

21

The combustion of tree crowns is referred to as “torching” and the fire behavior is described as “crowning” when the fire travels through tops of the trees independent of the surface fire (NWCG Wildland Fire Glossary, 2017). Standing snags can generate enough heat to initiate torching in the crowns of trees adjacent to them. Crowning fires are the most intense and difficult fires to suppress. Reducing crown fire behavior potential around values at risk is extremely important to protect lives and property.

Risk Environment In the proposed project area, several features are potentially threatened by wildfire or large standing dead or dying trees which can be referred to as “snags”. Consecutive insect and disease epidemics in the area have produced a large amount of dead and dying trees. Falling snags threaten powerlines, access corridors, improvements, residences, major transportation corridors, and the public that uses those transportation corridors. Residents, public service and utility workers, and firefighters are directly threatened by these trees before, during, and after a fire event. Trees, including snags, with characteristics that pose a threat to persons or values are considered hazard trees.

Snags are dangerous to fell unburned and more hazardous to remove if still burning or burnt. It is safer to remove snags from the environment while the wood is unburned and structurally sound. Snags are usually removed approximately 2.5 times the tree height away from a road, fireline, trail, or high use area (S212, 2012 and FSH 6709). Without mitigation firefighting personnel and the public are exposed to a potentially fatal threat. Access and egress in a fire environment has to be maintained for all emergency services. Fallen snags block or prevent access to residences and communities.

The wildland urban interface in the project area consists of homes, outbuildings, and other improvements embedded in a forested setting with a large amount of standing dead and surface fuels as a result of the insect epidemic.

Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative snags would steadily continue to fall by natural processes. Some would impact access and utility corridors and need to be removed by private, Federal, or utility company means. Without a process in place to remove and rearrange fuels, the fuel bed in the forested areas would increase.

Structures and improvements on SNF land would not have an increase in defensible space around them. Snags would not be removed from work areas. The potential fire intensity level would be expected to increase. Under this alternative fuels would continue to accumulate in the WUI as the insect epidemic impacts expand and defensible space near values at risk would decrease.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The first priority for all wildland fires is public and firefighter safety. Federal fire policy clearly prioritizes the protection of life above property and natural resources and gives direction for selecting strategies that accomplish this priority while minimizing exposure to firefighters (USDI/USDA et.al 1995). Part of that strategy is to reduce fuels and mitigate hazards near WUI areas to protect both communities at risk and firefighters. The Proposed Action is consistent with direction for fire and fuels in the SNF Land Management Plan (Shoshone NF LMP, 2015). Two goals stated in the LMP echo national Agency direction. Goal 1 states, “Fire management strategies are designed to achieve land management protection or benefit objectives, are cost effective, and meet safety objectives for firefighters and the public”. Goal 4 states, “Reduce Risk to adjacent communities and natural resources from wildfire. Project design features found in Appendix A would help achieve those objectives.

22

Although the proposed action is not designed to prevent a large wildland fire from occurring in the area, it would alter fuels to lower fire intensity levels on the 2,000 acres treated. The removal of fuels would decrease crowning and torching and the amount of spotting that occurs during fire front passage. This would limit the spread potential produced by spotting. The rate of spread on the surface would not necessarily decrease due to less shading and more airflow in the forest, but the fire would be more prone to surface spread only and less likely to become a crown fire (Collins, 2012). Less spotting around the main fire front is a safer environment for firefighters to engage.

The proposed action would also promote the defensibility of values at risk in or adjacent to the treatment area. Removing the tons of material accumulating from budworm mortality and adding to the fuel load on the surface, would reduce fire intensity. The rate of spread could then be managed more effectively.

Altering fire behavior can be achieved by treating fuels horizontally and vertically. Reducing the density of the horizontal fuel bed would reduce fire intensity resulting in lower potential for crown fire. By removing snags, fewer firebrands would be transported during a fire, decreasing spotting potential. With fewer spot fires a fire would not increase in size or intensity as readily.

Reduction of the fuels in the proposed action would result in mostly surface fires in the post treatment areas. Surface fires are easier to suppress with ground and aerial firefighting resources than crown fires. When fuel loads are reduced near communities and private residences, the probability of being able to protect those values increases.

In the proposed action, potential exposure to firefighters would be reduced by removing snags and reducing the fuel load on the ground on roughly 1,600 acres in the project area (acres treated within ¼ mile of structures). On those same acres, additional fuels will be reduced adjacent to private structures through activities such as thinning, limbing, and piling slash on 155 acres. Project design features were developed to remove or disperse fuels away from roads, improvements, and structures.

As fuel and snags are reduced, ingress and egress in WUI areas would be improved on several miles of roads, and utility corridors would become safer.

Table 8 Assessment of treatment area snag reduction benefit potential with pre-fire snag removal.

Values at Risk Miles of Snag Removal

Chief Joseph Highway (State Highway 296) 7.3 Powerline to Cooke City/Crandall Area 4.5 Crandall WUI, Unit 24 0.2 Crandall WUI, Unit 25 0.1 FSR 114 near Reef Creek 1.2 FSR 172 Lake access 0.7 FSR 114.1 M near Camp Creek 0.6 Russell Creek WUI 0.6

Total 15.2 miles

The cost to taxpayers of clearing the roughly 15 miles noted in Table 8 above by a contracted timber operator under the proposed action would be less than it would be under the control of a fire incident management team supported by costly firefighting infrastructure. It would also generate localized revenue and income. By removing snags along the 15.2 miles of roads in Table 8, fire intensity would be reduced on approximately 550 acres within the project area.

Recent examples of fuel treatment applied prior to wildfire events such as the Gunbarrel and Lava Mountain Fires on the SNF demonstrate the effectiveness of fuels treatments in reducing fire intensity around residences. Post-fire reviews indicate that a combination of mechanical fuels treatments near

23

structures are effective. In the case of the Gunbarrel Fire in 2008, firefighters had more time to put into structure protection in advance of the fire because fuels had been reduced in some areas. The Gunbarrel Fire Report documents how structure protection and suppression efforts were less expensive in areas that had fuel treatments compared to a smaller wildfire on the Custer National Forest that involved structures but no pre-emptive fuel treatments. The report noted less residual smoke problems around the values at risk and less post fire “mop up” measures were necessary. The areas pre-treated near structures ahead of the advancing wildfire did not require time spent on snag removal. Time was spent preparing structures and equipment for effective protection. No structures were reported lost in either of the case studies where fire threatened structures in beetle-kill fuel treated areas (Gunbarrel Fire, 2008 and Lava Mountain Fire, 2017). Firefighters were able to remain and provide protection near structures without being exposed to dangerous levels of heat, smoke, and falling snags.

The proposed project would produce more defensible space around the WUI and reduce threats to firefighters and the public.

Environmental Effects on Fish and Aquatics This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Historic habitat and aquatic population data were obtained from a variety of sources including Forest Service records, Wyoming Game and Fish Department records, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database records, as well as a number of field visits to identified harvest units in 2015 and 2016. Field visits focused on units in close proximity to fishbearing streams, non-fishbearing tributary streams, and perennial wetlands that may support amphibian populations.

Much of the project area is situated along a relatively narrow corridor, with Highway 296 bisecting much of the project area. There are several perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams in the project area. However, most units are located along non-fishbearing streams with the exception of Crandall Creek, Lodgepole Creek, and Squaw Creek. Most streams within the project area eventually drain into the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, one of 14 Wild and Scenic Rivers in Wyoming.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has designated the Upper Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River as a blue ribbon fishery (national importance) and trout production is estimated to be at least 600 lbs./mile of aquatic habitat. Historically, the Upper Clarks Fork and tributaries within the Budworm Response Project were fishless due to a major waterfall several miles downstream near the confluence of Sunlight and Dead Indian Creeks. Even though these streams were historically fishless, the Forest Plan and the interstate Yellowstone cutthroat trout Conservation Strategy and Conservation Agreement recognize the importance of maintaining or improving aquatic habitat, channel stability, and long-term riparian function. Today, fish-bearing streams contain introduced, regionally important sport fisheries including cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, and mountain whitefish. Most streams that have sufficient late-season flows contain a fishery. Wetlands, ponds, and other geographic features support a number of amphibians including Columbia spotted frogs (Region 2 Sensitive (R2S)), boreal toads (R2S), tiger salamanders, and boreal chorus frogs.

Streams and wetland habitats in the project area support a variety of fish and amphibian species. Road construction, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and private land development have likely impacted fish and amphibian habitats to varying degrees. Fire, floods, insect epidemics, climate change, and other events have also influenced fish and amphibian populations and aquatic habitats.

Analysis Area and Project Area The analysis area for this report is reflected in figure 5 and includes several perennial, ephemeral, and intermittent stream reaches and associated wetlands. The analysis area was selected by clustering several 6th level Hydrologic Units where project activities could occur as part of the Budworm Response Project.

24

Potential impacts to fish and aquatics resources are generally limited to areas downstream of the project units unless otherwise disclosed. Figure 6 The Budworm Response Project Area is depicted by the orange polygon and generally follows clustered 6th-level hydrologic units.

Issues and Indicators Most streams in the analysis area that have sufficient late-season flows contain a fishery. Relevant issues that may influence fish or amphibian populations and aquatic habitats include the following:

Canopy Cover and Large Woody Debris Recruitment. Canopy cover shades stream channels, provides microsite conditions favored by several species of amphibians, and provides and regulates nutrient inputs (stream energy) into stream and wetland channels. In undisturbed systems, large woody debris is gradually deposited in stream channels as trees reach maturity, die, and fall into riparian areas and stream courses. Large woody debris can also be deposited in episodic bursts such as blowdown events, after wildfires occur, or during flood events. Large woody debris can persist in stream channels for decades or centuries in some stream systems. As canopy cover matures and dies, large trees fall into stream channels and riparian areas providing diverse stream and riparian habitats. Large material provided by mature conifers is referred to as large woody debris and may include root wads, boles, branches, and other features. Large woody debris is responsible for sorting stream gravels used by spawning trout, pool formation and channel development, channel armoring, and reducing stream energy, particularly during high flows.

25

Stream Temperature Trout require cool, clean water to survive. Canopy cover and large woody debris help shade stream channels and riparian habitats, maintaining stream temperatures within narrow thermal tolerances. Stream temperatures can influence the distribution and community structure of fish populations within stream networks. Trout can be especially vulnerable to increased water temperatures that typically coincide during the low flow period of July through August; some trout, such as Yellowstone cutthroat trout, are less tolerant of warmer water temperatures while brook trout are more tolerant of warmer water temperatures. Species shifts (increases in brook trout, decreases in Yellowstone cutthroat trout) can occur with increases in thermal regimes.

Displacement Trout use a variety of stream habitats throughout the year. Cold-water trout use habitat features such as pools and riffles to complete various aspects of their life history strategies. Trout may spawn in riffles or pool tail-outs where well-oxygenated and clean substrates exist. Trout may use pools to rest, feed, and overwinter. Low water crossings or other disturbance can displace trout from preferred habitats.

Sedimentation Trout require clean water to survive. Increases in sediment can reduce spawning success by burying eggs and reducing oxygen exchange to eggs. Sedimentation can also affect feeding behavior and can result in direct mortality in certain situations. Sedimentation can fill in pools or other habitat features used by trout. Macroinvertebrate production can be reduced by increases in sedimentation. Mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly larvae are important food sources for trout; all of which are highly sensitive to increases in stream sediment. Sedimentation can also impair or fill wetland habitats. Sedimentation can also smother amphibian egg masses resulting in reproductive impairment or failure.

Stream Bank and Stream Bed Stability Stream bank and streambed stability are important for maintaining fish populations. Streambed and stream bank stability maintains pool-riffle sequences and maintains other habitat features such as undercut banks. Vertical instability of stream channels can reduce floodplain connectivity if excessive erosion occurs. When excessive sedimentation occurs, stream channels may respond vertically. In this situation, stream channels can leave the streambed until the channel equilibrates to its new bank form.

Wetlands, ponds, and other geographic features in the Budworm Analysis Area support a number of amphibians including Columbia spotted frogs (Region 2 Sensitive (R2S)), boreal toads (R2S), tiger salamanders, and boreal chorus frogs. Issues that may influence amphibian habitats or populations include the following:

Migration Corridors Many amphibians disperse across upland habitats to colonize new breeding sites. Some amphibians, including toads, spend a large amount of time in upland forested environments. Migration corridors maintain population viability across sites; amphibian populations may experience high year-to-year variation in abundance due in part to precipitation cycles. Genetic variation, population abundance, and long-term persistence of amphibian populations are maintained by allowing amphibians to colonize suitable habitats.

26

Crushing Amphibians can be highly vulnerable to crushing from vehicles or mechanized equipment, especially during breeding or key migration periods. Amphibians may also be drawn to temporary wet areas such as road ruts since these areas tend to have warmer water temperatures early in the season as opposed to groundwater-influenced wetlands or snowmelt-dominated stream channels. Egg masses and tadpoles are ineffective at avoiding mechanized equipment; adults are marginally effective at avoiding mechanized equipment.

Desired Conditions When objectives of projects such as the Budworm Response Project overlap with aquatic resources, the primary goal is to minimize or prevent short-term and long-term resource damage or seek opportunities to minimize future impacts to aquatic resources. Implementation of the Budworm Response Project would improve resistance to future insect epidemics and may reduce the severity of wildfires.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Canopy Cover and Large Woody Debris Recruitment As the budworm infestation continues, trees would continue to be defoliated and many would likely die. Stream shading could be reduced slightly as needles and trees fall to the forest floor. As trees die, increases in large woody debris would increase in some stream reaches, providing and maintaining important pool habitat and channel complexity. This material would persist for perhaps several decades until a fire, flood, or other event modified the distribution or amount of material.

Stream Temperature Stream temperatures would likely remain at or near their current thermal regimes, though sudden events such as blowdown or fire may result in high deviations from current levels if they were to occur. Canopy cover may be reduced as trees die; in time, young conifers and large woody debris would continue to shade the stream channel.

Displacement Fish or amphibians would not be subject to displacement, as there would be no mechanized equipment or low water crossings constructed in the project area. Noise and mechanized equipment would not displace amphibians during key breeding or migration seasons.

Sedimentation Landings, skid trails, or other features would not be constructed. There would be no detectable increase or decrease in sedimentation beyond current levels if the No Action Alternative is selected.

Stream Bank and Stream Bed Stability No mechanized equipment would be operating in or adjacent to stream channels. There would be no temporary stream crossings constructed. Stream bank and streambed stability would not be affected.

Migration Corridors Migration corridors used by amphibians would remain intact. In the long-term (possibly decades) migration corridors could be impacted by influxes of large woody debris falling on the forest floor. Large woody debris would continue to pile up on the forest floor. Microhabitat sites, and overwintering areas would increase, but debris accumulation may inhibit some migrations depending on the extent of deposition and rate of large woody debris decay.

27

Crushing Amphibians would not be susceptible to crushing from mechanized equipment harvesting trees, constructing roads, constructing landings, low water crossings, or hauling timber. Amphibians would still be susceptible to crushing on National Forest System Roads and the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Canopy Cover and Large Woody Debris Recruitment Canopy cover along stream reaches could be reduced by direct removal of trees, however, riparian buffers are in place that would minimize reductions in canopy cover. Fish-bearing streams that could be impacted by direct removal of trees include reaches of Squaw Creek, Lodgepole Creek, and Crandall Creek.

Large woody debris could decrease in some stream reaches. At the analysis area scale, large woody debris recruitment is a not a concern since insect epidemics, fires, and other natural disturbances have resulted in significant mortality of trees across the Forest. At the stream reach scale, large woody debris recruitment is low along Lodgepole Creek, where direct removal has resulted in aquatic habitat simplification (see Figure 6). Design criteria have been developed to address coarse woody debris. Implementation of design criteria would maintain aquatic habitats in Lodgepole Creek. Trout populations would remain at or near current abundances. Figure 7 Vegetation management adjacent to Lodgepole Creek (Crandall Ranger Station in background) has resulted in reduced canopy cover, pool formation, and could be contributing to stream channel incision.

Stream Temperature Currently, stream temperatures are not believed to be a limiting factor for fish or amphibian populations in the project area. It is unlikely stream temperatures would increase to thresholds that would be harmful

28

for aquatic organisms if the action alternative were selected, since most of the units run parallel to stream courses for relatively short stream segments and harvest prescriptions would maintain cover in many areas.

Displacement Temporary roads, skid trails, mechanized equipment, and low water crossings have potential to displace fish or amphibians temporarily. The degree of impact from the proposed action is expected to be low. Best Management Practices, and project design features have been designed to protect amphibians during key movement periods that would minimize impacts to fish or amphibian populations. Low water crossings and other project features with potential to displace aquatic organisms would be temporary and would be rehabilitated soon after harvest activities are completed.

Sedimentation Construction of low water crossings, temporary roads, landings, skid trails, and other activities that result in ground disturbance may result in increases in sedimentation to adjacent wetlands or stream channels. Impacts are expected to be minor and of short duration (2-3 years beyond initial disturbance period). The extent to which these activities impact aquatic habitats are related to the size of the affected area, proximity of activities to the riparian zone, magnitude of disturbance, and other factors including soil type, slope, season of use, and rehabilitation effectiveness.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and adherence to the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook and Forest Service Handbook Direction would minimize impacts to streams and wetlands. Sedimentation is not anticipated to reach thresholds that would be harmful to fish or amphibian populations, so the degree of impact is considered low.

Stream Bank and Stream Bed Stability Stream stability or modifications of riffle-pool sequences, may occur under the proposed action, however, impacts are expected to be minor and of short duration (1-2 years), as temporary road crossings would be established on resilient stream reaches and rehabilitated shortly after their use. Therefore there could be minor impacts to stream bed and bank stability; these areas would generally be limited to areas where direct disturbance occurs (at or immediately adjacent to stream crossings). There would be no detectable impacts to fish or amphibian populations.

Migration Corridors Migration corridors could be adversely affected by the proposed action. However the degree of impact is expected to be low. Project design features have been developed to protect important migration corridors during key amphibian migration periods. Amphibians appear to be well distributed across the analysis area even with the existence of the Chief Joseph Highway bisecting high quality habitats.

Crushing Temporary roads, skid trails, and mechanized equipment that would be used to harvest timber and construct roads and landings, have potential to crush amphibians. Amphibian migration corridors or habitats could impacted by these activities, however, the degree of impact is expected to be low.

In summary, there could be minor short-term impacts to aquatic life and habitat due to heavy equipment operation, road modifications, harvest activities, and slash treatment activities. Short-term impacts are expected to last 2 to 3 years beyond the period in which ground disturbing activities occur; typically 2 to 3 growing seasons are adequate to stabilize soils, reduce runoff, and for ground cover to increase to the point surface runoff is decreased. The extent to which these activities impact fisheries is related to the size of the affected area, proximity of activities to the riparian zone, and magnitude of disturbance.

The proposed action would involve treating vegetation in select units yet continue to maintain canopy cover, minimize sedimentation and impacts to aquatic physical habitats, and maintain movement corridors used by fish and amphibians. In summary, there could be short-term impacts to aquatic habitats, however,

29

the impacts are expected to be minor and of short duration. Potential impacts to aquatic habitats are also addressed in the Biological Evaluation.

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic habitats in and adjacent to the Budworm Response Project area at a broad level are intact and are capable of supporting a number of fish and wildlife species. Impacts to habitats and populations have been shaped by natural events including insect epidemics, disease, wildfires, and natural erosion processes. Human impacts to habitats and populations include fish stocking, road and highway construction, and urbanization/land development. These impacts are likely to continue. Amphibian populations appear to be intact since most amphibians expected to occur in the project area have been documented. Fish populations in the project area are established due to repeated stocking efforts in quality habitats, and aquatic habitats continue to support a diverse assemblage of amphibians and fish species. It is unlikely implementation of the Budworm Response Project would result in adverse cumulative effects to aquatic habitats, amphibian populations, or fish populations.

The Budworm Response Project analysis area has received mechanical treatments in the past and aquatic habitats are still capable of supporting diverse fish and amphibian populations.

Environmental Effects on Invasive Plants Currently, populations of invasive species are known to exist in and adjacent to the project area. The following species are known to occur in the area: Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Road corridors are the primary locations of these invasive species populations. A comprehensive weed survey has not been completed of the project area so exact locations and populations sizes are estimates. Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) was found in unit 23. Units 7C and 26 are at risk of colonization of houndstongue due to the adjacent two track road that provides a spread vector.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative invasive populations would continue to slowly increase unless herbicide treatments occur.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Invasive plant species have potential to increase across the project area due to timber harvest and fuels activities. Overstory removal and decreased tree canopy will allow more sunlight to reach the ground and could result in an increase in herbaceous species. Sites where ground disturbing activities occur would be at higher risk of invasive plant species spread or colonization. In areas where invasive plant species currently exist and/or a seed bank is present, populations would likely increase due to timber harvest activities and overstory removal.

Treatment of invasive species with herbicides or hand pulling prior to project initiation and a minimum of three years post treatment would aid in reducing invasive plant populations and seed production which would likely mitigate long term effects of the project. See Project Design Feature IS-2 in Appendix A.

30

Environmental Effects on the Nez Perce National Historic Trail

History and Setting The National Trails System Act was enacted in 1968 to establish a system of scenic, recreational and historic trails. The Nez Perce (Nimiipuu or Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail (NPNHT) was added to the system in 1986.

The portion of the NPNHT on the Shoshone National Forest is managed according to the goals of providing scenic hiking and horseback riding opportunities along the trail corridor while protecting and preserving the historic values for which the trail was designated. Tribal partners and the Forest Service Nez Perce National Historic Trail Administration based in Missoula Montana have indicated that respectful use of the trail is necessary, while remembering it is a part of our national heritage. To the descendants of the Nez Perce, the trail is a sacred part of the land they still utilize. There is a desire for succeeding generations to have a sense of the trail history and to understand the need for preservation and protection.

Forest Plan Direction The Shoshone Forest Plan designated the NPNHT Auto Tour Route to Management Area 3.6B. The management area is a mile wide, buffering the trail center line by a half mile on either side. In effect, the Management Area 3.6B boundary and highway corridor are one and the same.

Desired conditions specify that the trail will be managed to protect and represent the historic values of the event for which it was designated while providing a high quality, scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle stock experience. A predominantly natural-appearing environment characterizes the Trail corridor. Improvements such as trailheads, trails, signs, bridges, and fences that enhance the recreation opportunities may be present. There also may be evidence of past and present resource management, but it blends with the natural appearance of the landscape. Vegetation alterations may be present to enhance viewing opportunities. Cutting or removal of trees under circumstances such as reducing fuel loads and fire risk, especially adjacent to private land; curtailing the imminent threat of an insect attack; salvaging dead trees to enhance a scenic view from a prominent overlook; or maintaining wildlife habitat diversity or maintenance of existing facilities can be allowed (see Forest Plan Guideline MA3.6B-GUIDE-01).

Researched Historic Route and Public Recreation Route Other NPNHT “high potential route” segments have been identified on portions of the SNF, in addition to the auto tour route. The Researched Historic Route and Public Recreation Routes also traverse the Forest. The National Trails System Act (16 USC 1251[2] defines high potential route segments in the following manner.

“.. those segments of a trail which would afford high quality recreation experience in a portion of the route having greater than average scenic values or affording an opportunity to vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route.” All high potential routes are important and will be managed consistently with the established nature and purpose of the NPNHT. Tribes will be consulted on all the designated routes. The Shoshone Forest Plan is consistent with the 1990 NPNHT Comprehensive Management Plan (USDA. 1990).

Affected Environment Management Area 3.6B The section of the NPNHT Auto Tour Route in the proposed project area is the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway, State Highway 296. Management Area 3.6B includes the paved highway suitable for passenger vehicles and a Wyoming Department of Transportation right-of-way. Heavy tree mortality is evident in

31

the foreground of the corridor because of four years of western spruce budworm infestation. See the Environmental Effects to Visuals section for a more in depth description of scenery in the corridor.

Travelers along the paved route get a sense of the topography and rugged terrain through which the Nez Perce flight took place. Open vistas along the route help modern day visitors gain an understanding of the challenges faced by the Nez Perce people traversing the immense landscape. Human development, past timber harvest, insect and disease-impacted forested stands, and wildfire are evident in the corridor but blend with the natural appearing environment. See Management Area 3.6B in Figure 7. Figure 8 Nez Perce National Historic Trail through the proposed Budworm Response Project area.

Researched Historic Route and Public Recreation Route The Budworm Response Project treatment units would affect approximately one mile of the NPNHT Researched Historic Route that follows the Reef Creek Trail (NFST #605). This section of trail within the proposed project area has evidence of timber management and recreation activities. Mechanically cut logs, dead falls, and stumps from past logging activity are visible throughout the trail corridor. Recreational activities are visible. For example, the trail tread is well used and, there is a high level of logging out of the trail due to beetle killed trees and snags. This section of the Researched Historic Route is within the Windy Mountain Roadless Area.

The Public Recreation Route does not overlap the proposed project area and will not be discussed further.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Management Area 3.6B

32

Under the No Action Alternative vegetation treatments would not be applied within the project area. As the budworm epidemic proceeds, more standing and downed dead timber would be visible in the foreground of the trail corridor. The large volume of dead and dying trees within the trail corridor could lead to an increase in the intensity of potential wildfires which would temporarily alter the NPNHT corridor. Trees that survive the budworm infestation in the corridor would be vulnerable to subsequent bark beetle infestation that would likely lead to additional tree mortality. The effects of natural disturbances would alter the scenery in the trail corridor as they have in the past, but the effects would be temporary being most evident in the first decade after disturbance.

Researched Historic Route Under the No Action Alternative vegetation treatments would not be applied within the Researched Historic Route corridor. Loss of stabilizing vegetation would accelerate erosion on the slopes and specifically the tread of the trail. The large volume of dead and dying trees within the trail corridor would continue to fall adding to the fuel load and could make travel on the trail unsafe and difficult. Manual trail clearing would continue.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Management Area 3.6B Under the proposed action dead and dying trees would be removed from the NPNHT corridor in the project area. Temporary roads and landings would be constructed in the corridor altering the scenery in the short term. The effects would be temporary and project design features have been included in the proposal to locate them where they are visually subordinate. Evidence of vegetation treatments would be most apparent immediately following treatment, however tree-planting immediately after vegetation treatments in the corridor would accelerate scenic recovery compared to the recovery time in the No Action Alternative.

Researched Historic Route Under the proposed action dead and dying trees within the Researched Historic Route corridor would be removed. Evidence of timber harvest would be visible, particularly in the first few years after vegetation treatment. The scenic aspect of the corridor would be returned to more traditional scenery as trees regenerate. Post-treatment the NPNHT would be more visible and safer for foot and horse travel. Some of the discussion under the Effects to Roadless section would apply to this trail. Effects to visuals under this alternative would be minimized by applying project design features built into the proposed action. For example, treatment units would be designed and laid out to minimize visual impacts during and after project implementation.

Environmental Effects on Roadless Areas Inventoried Roadless Areas provide unique opportunities for dispersed recreation, sources of clean drinking water, and large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion. These areas also provide a buffer against the spread of nonnative invasive plant species, support a diversity of habitats for native plant and animal species, conserve biological diversity, and provide opportunities for study, research, and education. To protect these values and characteristics the Forest Service issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001 (Roadless Rule) which prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas except for stewardship purposes (36 CFR 294). An Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), as defined in the Roadless Rule, is identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, November 2000, and any subsequent update or revision of those maps10.

10 Currently, there is no procedure for updating inventory roadless area maps, so the original maps are still in effect.

33

The Budworm Response Project includes approximately 137 acres of the Windy Mountain IRA which is over 31,000 acres in size (see Figure 6). It is located north of the Sunlight drainage with the primary access via State Highway 296 (Chief Joseph Scenic Byway) and NFSR 101 (Sunlight Road). Trail access is by forest trails 603 and 604 (Lodgepole and Windy Mountain Trails, respectively). Vegetation in the IRA is roughly 45% grasslands, 36% Douglas fir, and 6% lodgepole pine. The elevation ranges from 6,700 to 10,200 feet.

A major portion (93%) of the Windy Mountain IRA was part of the Wilderness Evaluation inventory conducted for the Shoshone National Land Management Plan revision (plan revision) effort completed in 2015. The Forest Service is required to conduct a wilderness evaluation as part of forest planning. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12.70.1 describes the process for identifying and evaluating potential wilderness in the National Forest System (NFS). This process is used by the Forest Service to determine whether areas are to be recommended for wilderness designation by Congress. The Windy Mountain IRA was not recommended for Wilderness designation.

The Windy Mountain Wilderness Evaluation Area is 35,789 acres in size and overlaps the Windy Mountain IRA but is not an exact match. See Figure 8. Because the IRAs have not been updated since 1978, they contain areas that no longer meet roadless characteristics (FEIS Errata, Shoshone National Forest, 2015). Some of the Windy Mountain IRA, including the Budworm Response Project area, contains roads, evidence of historic logging activities, and more recent timber harvest areas. For this reason, the area proposed for treatment was not included in the wilderness evaluation process.

The portion of the Windy Mountain IRA within the proposed action is in the northern section of the IRA in two noncontiguous areas (red circled areas in Figure 7). One area on the eastern side of the project area near Camp Creek is 17 acres in size and within Management Area 4.2 - Scenic byways, scenic areas, vistas, and travel corridors. The other area to the west near Reef Creek is approximately 120 acres in size and is in Management Areas 4.2 and 3.5B - Back country recreation and restoration (winter motorized).

34

Figure 9 Windy Mountain IRA sections in the proposed action (outlined in red).

35

Figure 10 Windy Mountain IRA overlapped with the Windy Mountain Wilderness Evaluation Area.

Timber was harvested in the Windy Mountain IRA in the 1960s and 1970s prior to RARE II which designated it a Roadless Area in 1979. After the 1988 Clover Mist Fire, burnt timber was salvage logged in the IRA where it could be accessed. The IRA contains all or portions of four National Forest System Roads (NFSR):

NFSR 115.1F, Wolverine Creek Road (.76 miles) NFSR 115, Reef Creek (.50 miles) NFSR 115.1A, Reef Creek Spur (.30 miles) NFSR 115.1B, Trailridge Road (.60 miles) These roads are closed to the public, but are maintained on the system for administrative use. Several other roads exist on the periphery or adjacent to the Windy Mountain IRA.

Roadless Characteristics The 2001 Roadless Rule allows for local decisions about timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas provided they maintain or improve one or more roadless characteristics, while focusing on improving threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects; or restoring ecological processes. The following characteristics are generally present in IRAs.

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; Sources of public drinking water; Diversity of plant and animal communities; Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

36

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;

Reference Landscapes; Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites;

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air Large disturbances in the 31,136-acre landscape are primarily from natural events. The Clover Mist Fire in 1988 burned over 11,000 acres in the IRA, some of it stand-replacing. Evidence of the nearly 30-year old fire is still visible. Insect infestations and diseases have also occurred in the area including white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle, and currently western spruce budworm. These past natural events have impacted soil, water, and air to varying degrees over time.

Portions of the Windy Mountain IRA were logged in the past. Effects to soil, water, and air from logging activities are no longer evident.

Natural processes would dominate under the No Action Alternative. Forested stands in the area are mature, dense and lack age and species diversity – conditions which have made them susceptible to western spruce budworm. Trees in the IRA that survive the multiple year budworm defoliation would likely be more susceptible to other insects, particularly Douglas fir beetle (Allen 2017). Ongoing tree mortality would continue to produce coarse woody material, adding to fuel accumulation. Wildfire is a natural occurrence in the analysis area and the Windy Mountain IRA. Under the No Action Alternative, the fuel load would not be reduced.

Sources of public drinking water The Windy Mountain IRA contains a few small streams but is not a source of public drinking water. There would be no effect to public drinking water from the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives.

Diversity of plant and animal communities The portion of the Windy Mountain IRA included in the Shoshone Forest Plan wilderness evaluation was described as having a low diversity of plants and animals (Shoshone National Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C, 2015). This may be due to the relative lack of diverse vegetation and the condition of the forested stands. Under the No Action Alternative species diversity would not be expected to change in the short term.

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land Habitat for the threatened Canada lynx exists within the Windy Mountain IRA. There is also designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx the IRA.

The Windy Mountain IRA is within the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) Core Recovery area for the threatened Canada lynx and lies within Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) 3 and 4. However lynx are extremely rare in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The presence of lynx in the IRA is unknown. See discussion on lynx and habitat needs in the Environmental Effects to Threatened or Endangered Species, Canada lynx section.

The recently delisted grizzly bear depends on large, undisturbed areas of land for survival. A key threat to grizzly survival is the presence of roads, therefore IRAs tend to provide vast tracts of secure grizzly bear habitat.

The No Action alternative would not affect habitat for the threatened Canada lynx or for grizzly bears in the Windy Mountain IRA.

37

The North American wolverine is a species proposed for federal listing that is known to occur at least occasionally on the Shoshone National Forest. The proposed project area does not include denning habitat so neither alternative would affect wolverine denning. In addition, the No Action Alternative would not disturb individuals in the Windy Mountain IRA.

Habitat for species on the Rocky Mountain Region’s Sensitive list (National Forest System Region 2) also exists in the Windy Mountain IRA. A list of sensitive species is included in the Environmental Effects to Sensitive Species section. The No Action Alternative would not affect sensitive species

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation Recreation use in the Windy Mountain IRA is moderate and includes non-motorized activities such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, and hunting. The majority of the area, 86%, is in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class Semi-primitive Non-motorized, 9% is in Semi-primitive Motorized, 5% is in Roaded Natural and less than 1% is in Primitive. The Semi-primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural portions of the IRA are either adjacent to existing roads or within half a mile of the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway. There would be no change to the classes of recreation under the No Action Alternative.

Reference Landscapes Reference landscapes are relatively large undisturbed areas that provide a point of reference against which to measure the effects of development or management on a large scale over time. As such roadless areas provide opportunities for research and education. The No Action Alternative would not affect the reference landscape characteristic of the Windy Mountain IRA.

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality The Windy Mountain Wilderness Evaluation Area was ranked moderate for the ‘natural and degree of disturbance’ category in the Forest Plan revision effort. This means that the area appears mostly free of human disturbance, natural disturbance is evident but does not dominate the landscape, the area visible in the surrounding foreground has signs of human activities, and there are several minor improvements (USDA 2014). The portion of the Windy Mountain IRA proposed for vegetation treatment was excluded from wilderness evaluation due to its proximity to the Chief Joseph Highway, the roads within it, and past human disturbance. Therefore it can be presumed that the portion of the IRA within the proposed project area is ‘moderate’ to ‘low’ for “natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality.” The No Action Alternative would not affect this roadless area characteristic.

Traditional cultural properties/sacred sites The portion of the Windy Mountain Roadless are that overlaps the proposed project area does not contain any cultural or sacred sites other than one mile of the NPNHT. There would be no effect to cultural properties or sacred sites under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air Under the proposed action vegetation would be treated on a maximum of 139 acres, or 0.45% of the Windy Mountain IRA. The majority of these acres (88%) are within the WUI. Disturbance to soil and water would be minor and would be minimized by adherence to project design features described in Appendix A. Harvest would be either by cable or ground-based using existing roads. Impacts to soil and water would be of short duration.

The Proposed Action would not have an effect on sources of public drinking water since there are none in the IRA.

38

Diversity of plant and animal communities Forest Plan desired conditions for vegetation on the Shoshone National Forest include a diversity of vegetation with a mosaic of cover types and stand structures forming a healthy, resilient landscape that provides habitat and connective corridors for all naturally occurring and desired species. The effects on the diversity of plants and animals from treating 0.45% of the IRA would be negligible. Over the long term the proposed action would maintain the composition and increase the diversity of forest species by decreasing stand density in the project area. The proposed action would have a negligible effect, beneficial or negative, on the diversity of plants and animals in the Windy Mountain IRA.

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land As mentioned above, the proposed project area is within the GYA Core Recovery Area for Canada Lynx, and overlaps its designated critical habitat. Within the Windy Mountain IRA, the proposed activities would overlap lynx habitat mapped as per the 2000 Canada lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy. However, there is no overlap with critical habitat identified for the species. See the Canada lynx discussion under the Environmental Effects to Threatened or Endangered Species section.

Although the presence of Canada lynx in the project area and the Windy Mountain IRA is unknown, there is lynx habitat mapped in the project area. The proposed action would affect approximately 0.8% of lynx habitat within the IRA, the majority of which (93%) is within the WUI. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, 97 acres out of 12,223 of lynx habitat would be altered in LAU 4 in the short term. As lynx habitat in the entire project area is poor quality, it is questionable whether the area could support breeding lynx, even under optimal conditions. See the Direct and Indirect Effects discussion for Alternative 2 under the Environmental Effects to Threatened or Endangered Species for Canada Lynx section.

For grizzly bears secure habitat is defined as areas more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route greater than 10 acres in size. The proposed action would temporarily affect approximately 250 acres out of a total of about 27,000 acres of grizzly bear secure habitat within the Windy Mountain IRA. Stated another way, roughly 0.9% of secure habitat in the Windy Mountain IRA would become non-secure during the period of time the roads within and adjacent to the IRA are being used for vegetation removal. See the Grizzly bear Road Density and Secure Habitat section under Environmental Effects to Grizzly Bears section for a more in depth discussion on the effects of the proposed project on grizzly bears and their secure habitat. The unroaded portion of the Windy Mountain IRA would continue to provide large areas of secure grizzly bear habitat.

Sensitive species for Region 2 potentially affected by the proposed action are discussed under the Environmental Effects to Sensitive Species. Please see Tables 11, 12, and 13 for a list of species considered for the Budworm Response Project analysis area. Effects from the proposed action on sensitive species depend on habitat needs but are generally local and temporary in the project area. Effects to sensitive species in the Windy Mountain IRA are even slighter given the small percent of the total roadless area involved in the proposed action.

Under the Proposed Action the Windy Mountain IRA will continue to provide habitat for federally listed species, candidate species, sensitive species and those dependent on large undisturbed areas.

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation The classes of recreation opportunities available in the Windy Mountain IRA would not be affected by the proposed action. Recreation opportunity classes were categorized based on the current situation in the IRA and the proposed project activities would not change them for a several reasons. The total area proposed for treatment is less than half of one percent, roads would not be added to the IRA, and existing roads would be used only temporarily.

39

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality The proposed action would temporarily affect the appearance of the landscape on the 0.45% of the Windy Mountain IRA that would be treated. In the short-term there would be visual evidence of vegetation management treatments.

Traditional cultural properties/sacred sites The project area under the Proposed Action Alternative does not overlap any cultural or sacred sites so there would be no effects to these values. There is an overlap of approximately one mile with the NPNHT. Effects to the trail from removing vegetation would be to scenery from the trail and would be temporary. See the discussion on the effects from Alternative 2 to the Researched Historic Route under the Environmental Effects to the Nez Perce National Historic Route.

Environmental Effects on Soils Soil qualities and management implications were evaluated using the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2017) Soil Web Survey Data for the Shoshone National Forest, Forest Service GIS data, and local field data from 2016. This data was used in a GIS exercise to determine erosion hazards, rutting and compaction hazards, resistance to degradation, and other soil qualities. The ultimate effects of the No Action and Action Alternatives on soil qualities were determined using best available science, Web Soil Survey (NRCS), and professional judgement by the ecologist who completed the analysis.

Soils in the project analysis area are predominantly from the Mollisol order with smaller components of Entisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols. The analysis area for this soils analysis is synonymous with the project area. The soil map units and interpretations can be found in the project file. The soil types throughout the project area are highly variable in other characteristics which were evaluated on a unit by unit basis. These characteristics include steep slopes, erosion hazard, soil rutting hazard, depth to groundwater, compaction hazard, landslide hazard, degradation resistance, and potential for seedling mortality.

Geologic Hazards According to the mapped geologic hazards completed by the Wyoming Geologic Survey, as well as what could be interpreted from more current aerial imagery, several geologic hazards were found within the analysis area. These hazards consist of slope wash, debris flows, rock fall, and landslides. Specific units with geologic hazards can be found in the project record.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects on soil erosion, compaction and rutting, nutrient removal, soil heating, or regeneration hazards. Natural processes would continue to occur and management in the project area would be unchanged from current conditions. Recreation and grazing levels in the area would remain at similar levels to current use. Indirectly, soil could potentially be affected by large, intense, or severe fires resulting from heavy loads of coarse woody debris accumulating on the forest floor. Uncharacteristically severe fires can damage soils by creating hydrophobic soils that are highly susceptible to erosion. Likewise, nutrients and the native seed component in soils can be lost in severe events. Fire can also provide beneficial effects in the project area if intensity and severity remain low.

Geologic Hazards The No Action Alternative would not have direct or indirect effects to geologic hazards. Natural geologic processes would continue in the analysis area unaltered from their current trajectory.

40

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects There are a suite of project design features that would be implemented throughout project planning and implementation to protect soil integrity. Numerous design features protect soils from long term deleterious effects caused by erosion, compaction, nutrient loss, geologic instability, rutting, heating, and promote regeneration potential. Refer to Appendix A for the complete list of design features.

Compaction and Rutting Hazards Compaction affects plant germination, production, and composition, reduces infiltration and increases erosion rates. It also affects the soil microbes inhabiting pore spaces providing vital ecosystem services. Compaction resistance is influenced by soil texture, structure, organic matter content, moisture, and rock fragments. Rutting can cause compaction and also soil displacement. Both compaction and rutting can be caused by heavy equipment operation. Rutting susceptibility of a soil type is determined by depth to water table, rock fragment content, depth to restrictive layer, slope, and the Unified classification of the soil (NRCS, 2017). Direct and indirect effects from the proposed action to both soil compaction and rutting would be minimal and would be avoided by project design features to be incorporated through all project phases. These features identify particularly susceptible soils and limit periods of operation to times of low moisture or frozen soil conditions. Additionally, the project layout ensures that no more than 15% of the project area soils are left in a detrimental condition per the Forest Service’s Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCP) guidance (FSH 2509.25). Pre-project, concurrent, and post-project monitoring would ensure that the 15% goal is met. Restoration design features would also ensure that detrimental areas are rehabilitated to the extent practicable.

Fertility and Nutrient Removal Timber harvesting removes nutrients from a harvested area. Whole tree harvesting, as proposed would remove more nutrients than other types of harvesting because both branches and foliage would be removed with the bole of the tree rather than being left on the ground as slash. Direct effects of this nutrient loss are dependent not only on the style of harvest, but also soil texture, nutrient buffering capacity, soil depth, and site productivity. Indirect effects could include negative effects to long term site productivity for plant species as well as the soil microbial community.

Both direct and indirect effects in the analysis area can be minimized through several conditions already present in the project area as well as through project design features. Several units are proposed to be harvested during winter conditions. Likewise many of the trees that would be harvested are already standing dead. Both of these conditions lead to higher breakage of tops and branches during harvest due to the brittle nature of both cold and dead plant material, leading to an increased nutrient retention on site. Soils that exceed 20 cm in depth to bedrock, have medium to high productivity, have sandy or loamy soil textures, and high nutrient buffers have the highest capacity to buffer nutrient losses (Busse et al., 2014). Soils throughout the analysis area are greater than 20 cm in depth, are primarily sandy or loamy, have estimated medium site productivity, and a high nutrient buffer (NRCS, 2017). These characteristics indicate that while short term nutrient loss may occur from whole tree harvesting, the site reserves would remain sufficient to support remaining vegetation and recover losses within a short time period. In addition, litter, duff, ground cover, and coarse woody debris already downed would be left on site in quantities described in the project design features to support multiple resource objectives, thus further buffering nutrient loss from whole tree removal.

41

Heating There would be no direct effects from prescribed burning under the Proposed Action Alternative as no prescribed burning would occur. Slash pile burning would occur under the proposed action. Piles would be arranged across the landscape (rather than localized). Piles with primarily large diameter fuels would also be limited in size as much as possible. These mitigations should reduce the areal extent affected by fire as well as the detrimental effects of burning piles with the large diameter fuels that ultimately produce soil heating damage effects. All burn piles would receive rehabilitation treatments as described in the project design features to further mitigate any long term effects to soil qualities. Indirect effects from burn piles would also be mitigated with project design features to stabilize exposed soils and recover microbial activity.

Erosion The loss of soil cover from plants or other organic matter speeds the rate of erosion. Soil loss can be caused by sheet or rill erosion particularly during summer thunderstorm events. Generally, erosion hazard increases with steepness of slope. Erosion hazards for areas that have been disturbed by timber harvesting where the soil surface has been exposed between 50 and 75 percent are based on slope and soil erosion factor K (NRCS, 2017). Most units within the analysis area rate as either slight or moderate for erosion hazard, with some severe locations.

Both direct and indirect effects would be avoided with the use of project design features and harvest equipment. Most areas with severe ratings are proposed for cable logging only, which by definition limits ground disturbance. In other areas of potential erosion risks, project design features restrict road, temporary road, and skid trail placement and machine operability that could increase erosion. Design features for organic cover retention decrease the amount of exposed soil while rehabilitation design features promote the restoration of live plant cover in areas that would have exposed soil.

Regeneration Hazard Forests must be restocked within five years of harvest activity completion per Forest Plan direction (USDA, 2015). The likelihood of seedling survival, whether natural or propagated, is largely determined by soil characteristics, climate, and physical features. The direct effect of seedling mortality is plant communities stalled in early succession. Indirect effects of seedling mortality include alterations to surface soil moisture and long-term succession delays.

Seedling mortality should be minimized and seedling survival maximized throughout the analysis areas through replanting efforts in favorable conditions that include minimal flooding and ponding, appropriate depth to a water table, appropriate content of lime, available water capacity, soil moisture regime, soil temperature regime, aspect, and slope (NRCS, 2017).

Geologic Hazards As previously mentioned, several geologically hazards were found within the analysis area. These hazards consist of slope wash, debris flows, rockfall, and landslides. Specific units with geologic hazards can be found in the project record. Direct effects of the action alternative interacting with geologic hazards could result from operating on steep and or unstable slopes. Effects would be minimized by implementing project design features including using cable logging in areas with slopes in excess of 40% and where appropriate, restricting activities in areas with active hazards

42

Environmental Effects on Threatened or Endangered Species All threatened, endangered, proposed, and proposed wildlife species known to occur on or near the Shoshone National Forest were considered in this analysis (Table 6). Effects analysis was completed for any species that occur or could possibly occur within the action area. A Biological Assessment (BA) of effects to threatened, endangered, and proposed species has been prepared and submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This and other information on species considered for this analysis is available in the project file. Table 9 Threatened, endangered, and proposed mammal species occurrence in the proposed action area.

Mammal Species Status Species

occurrence on Forest

General habitat

Suitable Habitat

present in action area

Likelihood of species

occurring in action area

Carry forward

in analysis

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Endangered No Prairie dog

towns No None No

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened Rare Conifer

Forest Yes Possible Yes

Designated Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Designated Yes Boreal Forest Yes Yes Yes

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Proposed Yes

High elevation

conifer forest and cirque

basins

Yes Possible Yes

Aquatic Species There are no federally listed fish or amphibian species within the analysis area. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that would result in impacts to federally listed fish or amphibian species that may occur downstream of the project area.

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) On March 24, 2000 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the Canada lynx as threatened, identifying a distinct population segment in the contiguous United States (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2000). Availability of snowshoe hares during the winter appears to be a primary limiting factor for lynx in the Northern Rockies. Because the main cause of lynx mortality is winter starvation (USDA Forest Service 2007a), lynx habitat conservation measures focus on maintaining an adequate quantity and quality of snowshoe hare habitat.

The primary forest types that support snowshoe hare are Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, mixed spruce-fir, mixed aspen and spruce-fir, mixed lodgepole and spruce-fir, and lodgepole pine (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). Secondary foraging habitat includes aspen, several willow species, and moist Douglas fir stands (Ruediger et al. 2000). Dry forest cover types (e.g., ponderosa pine and dry Douglas fir) do not provide lynx habitat (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013).

43

The key component of snowshoe hare habitat is dense understory vegetation. During winter, lynx forage for hares in vegetation that provides high densities of young conifer stems or branches that protrude above the snow (Ruediger et al. 2000). High densities of snowshoe hares have been found in dense stands of regenerating lodgepole pine saplings tall enough to protrude above the snow line in winter (McKelvey and McDaniel 2001; Hodges and Mills 2005); mature Douglas fir and lodgepole pine/spruce-fir stands with well-developed understories and good canopy cover (Hodges and Mills 2005); thinned lodgepole pine stands 50 to 60 years post-harvest (Zimmer et al. 2008); and structurally diverse older multi-storied spruce-fir stands (Berg et al. 2012). The common element in all these studies was dense cover within 2 to 4 meters of the ground. Research in other portions of the Northern Rockies has shown similar results, with winter snowshoe hare habitat often found in the stand initiation, understory re-initiation, and old forest multi-storied structural stages (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Snowshoe hares avoid young clear-cuts and very young conifer stands that do not extend above the snowpack (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Snowshoe hares typically occur at low densities in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, being naturally limited by the amount of moist boreal forest, topography, and climate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The dry climate, low productivity of volcanic soils, and naturally patchy boreal forest cover in the eastern Absaroka Range results in poor quality snowshoe hare. As a result, lynx are rare in the proposed project area.

Recent survey efforts for lynx in Wyoming have focused on areas with higher quality snowshoe hare habitat that is known to have historically supported lynx, such as the Wyoming Range and Togwotee Pass areas, Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests. The last verified lynx in Wyoming was in 2010, 165 miles southwest of the project area. Lynx surveys in the Wyoming Range, Yellowstone National Park, and Togwotee Pass produced detections dating 1998–2009 (Murphy et al. 2006, Berg et al. 2006). Recent surveys (2014–2017) on the Bridger-Teton and southern Shoshone National Forests in these and other areas did not produce detections.

There is no consistent record of past lynx occupancy in the project area. The nearest recent location of lynx observation (unverified) was in 1988, approximately 4 miles to the north of the project area (Wyoming Natural Diversity Data Base 2016). The National Lynx Survey had a positive lynx detection nearby in Sunlight basin in 2002, and a possible lynx track was detected in the Beartooth Range in 2009 (Holmes and Berg 2009).

Vegetation management can affect habitat suitability for lynx. Reductions in stem density alter food and cover availability so that these stands have little or no value for snowshoe hares. Removal of only larger diameter overstory trees may have little effect on snowshoe hare habitat, and may even improve snowshoe hare habitat by creating openings with higher levels of sunlight and soil moisture that stimulate understory growth (USDA Forest Service 2007a). In Wyoming, Berg et al. (2012) found hare densities (as measured by pellet counts) was highest in young (30–70 year old) regenerating lodgepole pine and mature, multi-story spruce-fir forests. Although snowshoe hare density did not increase with increasing stem densities in mature, multi-story patches of forest. However, hare density in young regenerating forests did increase positively with increased stem densities (Berg et al. 2012).

Lynx Habitat Management Guidance In January, 2000, the first edition of the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) established early conservation measures for lynx habitat. It recommended that Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs)—land units that contain all components of lynx habitat in patches sufficiently large to support lynx—be delineated to facilitate analysis and monitoring of the effects of habitat management (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). The project area intersects three Lynx Analysis Units (LAU):

44

• LAU2 Beartooth • LAU3 Crandall • LAU4 Sunlight

These LAUs represent the analysis area for the project. Due to a limited amount of lynx habitat, LAUs were not delineated to the east of LAUs 2, 3, and 4, and immediately adjacent to LAU 4.

The overstory vegetation in the project area is dominated by Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and quaking aspen. A majority of these stands are currently experiencing substantial mortality due to western spruce budworm. Defoliation of Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce will likely continue under the No Action Alternative. Most of these stands lack the dense cover, so offer little high-quality snowshoe hare habitat. Thus, the area’s ability to support lynx is likely very limited, and is expected to continue to decline as the effects of the western spruce budworm outbreak continue in the near term. Most of these stands are adjacent to dry Douglas fir stands that are not mapped as lynx habitat, and thus are low-quality snowshoe hare and lynx habitat prior to the onset of budworm activity.

LAU 2 (Beartooth) includes the Squaw Creek treatments described in the proposed action. This LAU 2 is 104,998 acres in size, of which 103,157 acres are on national forest land in the Republic, Pilot, Squaw, and Gilbert Creeks; the headwaters of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River; and portions of the Beartooth Plateau. About 15.3% of lynx habitat in LAU 2 exists in the stand initiation structural stage. Under the existing condition, 2.3% of lynx habitat has been regenerated over the last ten years (2007–2016).

LAU 3 (Crandall) totals 109,877 acres and encompasses proposed treatments near the Crandall Ranger Station. About 50.3% (28,733 acres) of lynx habitat in the LAU is currently in stand initiation structural stage, including previous disturbances such as the 2016 Hunter Peak wildfire. Lynx habitat is poor in this LAU owing to the extensive coverage of habitats dominated by dry Douglas fir.

LAU 4 (Sunlight) totals 120,860 acres, and supports naturally fragmented lynx habitat due to an abundance of meadows. This LAU supports mostly secondary foraging habitat, being comprised of principally of Douglas fir and lodgepole pine open understories. Approximately 13.6% of this LAU 4 is currently in stand initiation structural stage. Under the existing condition, 1.5% of lynx habitat has been regenerated over the last ten years (2007–2017).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, the project area would continue to support habitat mapped under the Lynx Conservation Strategy in the amounts and successional stages described in the previous section. Continued loss of conifers due to budworm and other tree diseases would result in reduced levels of horizontal cover provided by conifers. The loss of the conifer canopy and boughs in the understory would likely increase the density of the deciduous forest understory due to the reduction in shading and increased moisture.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Direct Effects of Treatment on Lynx These are the direct effects of the project on individual lynx. They occur during project implementation. A short-term incidental disturbance and temporary displacement of lynx may occur as a result of human activities, including road maintenance and use. However, because lynx

45

are extremely rare in this area, no disturbance effects would be expected. For the same reason, no mortality of lynx due to strikes by project vehicles, loss of reproduction, or loss of recruitment would be expected. Such effects are discountable, that is, highly unlikely to occur.

Indirect Effects of Vegetation Treatment on Lynx and their Habitat Indirect effects to lynx habitat are those caused by the action. They occur later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. The proposed action involves approximately 2,000 acres of vegetation treatment, including overstory removal, sanitation salvage, seed tree, and aspen enhancement. No pre-commercial thinning is proposed.

The proposed action would treat 536 acres of lynx habitat. Overstory removal, seed tree, clearcut, and/or shelterwood silvicultural treatments (described above) would convert lynx habitat to an unsuitable condition. The remaining acreage, about 1,464 acres, is outside of mapped lynx habitat, and is both inside and outside LAUs. About 863 project acres are outside LAUs, and would have no effect on lynx habitat.

Figure 10 and Table 10 display the amount and location of lynx habitat that is currently available by LAU, and how much will be affected relative to the NRLMD’s standards.

Figure 11 Treatments units in the proposed action relative to the WUI in the upper Clarks Fork watershed. The area northeast of LAU 4 does not occur in an LAU.

46

Table 10 Treatment acres relative to NRLMD standards. No treatments in mapped lynx habitat are proposed for LAU 3.

The mechanical treatments in this alternative would result in a reduction of snowshoe hare habitat within the WUI treatment areas (LAUs 2 and 4), and negative effects under the NRLMD. This effect has already been addressed in a tier 1, formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly all of the treatment areas occur within the WUI (Figure 9). Analyses were completed to determine if the allowance for treatments in the WUI may be applied, given caveats provided in the NRLMD. For example, fuel treatment projects within the WUI may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. This alternative meets this requirement based on the acreages provided in Table 10.

The WUI exemption also specifies that fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet standards shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on the Shoshone National Forest. The cumulative total would be well within the 6% Forest-wide limit: to date, the Shoshone National Forest has used 11,671 acres of its 35,820 acre limit provided as incidental take of lynx habitat during a tier 1 formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This alternative would result in 12,177 acres used under the WUI allowance.

LAU2 Beartooth LAU 2 includes fragmented lynx habitat totaling approximately 51,468 acres, of which 127 acres (0.25% of lynx habitat) occur within project units. This activity would result in 16.0% of the LAU in stand initiation structural stage (consistent with VEG S1), meaning trees have been removed and a new timber stand is initiated or “regenerated”. After the treatments in this alternative, the total regeneration of lynx habitat in a 10 year period would be 2.5%, well under the requirement to regenerate less than 15% in a ten year period through timber management projects in an LAU (consistent with VEG S2). All of the proposed treatment units in LAU 2 are within the WUI, and treated lynx habitat is covered by the tier 1 consultation (allowance under VEG S6). No lynx habitat outside the WUI will be treated in this LAU.

LAU 3 Crandall LAU3 totals 109,877 acres. Treatments will occur near the Crandall Ranger station. All treatments are outside of lynx habitat and not discussed further with regard to the NRLMD.

LAU 4 Sunlight LAU4 is 120,860 acres in size, supports 41,076 acres of lynx habitat, and supports most of the treatment units. The proposed action treats 379 acres of lynx habitat inside the WUI and 30 acres outside. The proposed 409 acres of treatment would result in 14.6% coverage of the LAU in stand

LAU 2 Beartooth Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Total LAU Acres 104,998 104,998 Acres of Lynx Habitat 51,468 51,468 Percent lynx habitat in Stand Initiation Structural Stage 15.34% (7,897) 16.0% (8,024) Percent Regen harvest in lynx habitat in past 10 years 2.3% (1,130) 2.5% (1,257) Acres of Treatments in Lynx Habitat w/in the WUI 0 127 Acres of Treatments in Lynx Habitat outside the WUI 0 0 Incidental damage (exception acres) to lynx habitat by salvage harvest 0 0

LAU 4 Sunlight Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Total LAU Acres 120,860 120,860 Acres of Lynx Habitat 41,076 41,076 Percent lynx habitat in Stand Initiation Structural Stage 13.58% (5,579) 14.6% (5,988) Percent Regen harvest in lynx habitat in past 10 years 1.5% (604) 2.5% (1,013) Acres of Treatments in Lynx Habitat w/in the WUI 0 379 Acres of Salvage Treatments in Lynx Habitat outside the WUI 0 30

47

initiation structural stage, a 1% increase over existing conditions. With implementation of the proposed action, the total regeneration of lynx habitat in a 10 year period would be 2.5%, well under the requirement to regenerate less than 15% through timber management projects in the LAU.

In LAU 4, the exception for salvage harvest allowed in Standard VEG S6 would be applied on 30 acres outside the WUI. Here, incidental damage (a reduction in cover available to snowshoe hares on skid trails) would result from the salvage harvest. Salvage harvest would not result in adverse effects to the overstory because these stands are already dead or dying. Although these activities are likely to negatively impact lynx until snowshoe hare habitat returns through forest succession, the effects would be very minor when considering the marginal nature of the existing habitat and the ongoing effects of the western spruce budworm infestation. It is questionable whether the area could support resident or breeding lynx, even under optimal conditions.

A project design feature (WL-7) was included to limit incidental damage from skid trails to 10% of lynx habitat in 4 treatment units that extend outside the WUI. Incidental damage to snowshoe hare habitat would occur when understory vegetation is damaged by skid trails needed to remove logs during salvage harvest. The proposed action would meet the requirements of the Forest Plan because it would modify little understory cover (<10% of lynx habitat outside the WUI). In sum, all standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan for lynx habitat would be met.

In all treatment units, the release of the understory growth will occur in response to the removal of conifers. Some stands will regenerate with adequate density in the understory to provide habitat for wintering snowshoe hares and other small animals yearlong, thus improve prey available to lynx. Skid trails will also be re-seeded with native vegetation, and tree replanting will occur as appropriate, improving horizontal cover. These features address guidelines in the NRLMD: mature conifer habitat would still dominate lynx habitat on the LAU scale and would provide for alternate prey and lynx denning habitat. Treatments would rapidly regain horizontal cover at ground level. Only 536 (4%) of 149,667 total acres of lynx habitat lynx habitat in the aggregate of LAUs 2, 3, and 4 would be treated in this alternative.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area is the forested portion of LAUs 2, 3 and 4; and adjacent private and state lands. The area is composed primarily of National Forest System property. State and private lands adjacent to the SNF contain very little lynx habitat. Past, present, and future activities on private and state lands within and immediately adjacent to the project area that affect lynx and their habitat include timber management, grazing, and further residential development. Habitat modification or conversion through development reduce and fragment lynx habitat. Reasonably foreseeable effects also include ongoing residential development. However, habitat loss for lynx on state and private lands is minor because they support little habitat. Thus, this effect is insignificant.

On federal lands, prescribed burning, commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, hazard tree removal, and firewood gathering, and fire suppression have affected lynx directly and/or affected lynx habitat, primarily by reducing horizontal cover. Other sources of impact (past and present) include maintained and primitive roads, off-road (OHV) trails, dispersed recreation, and fall hunting.

In the future, natural or anthropogenic disturbances could occur and alter large portions of this landscape. These include high wind events, insect and disease epidemics, and natural or human-caused wildfire. Depending on the extent of the altered landscape, the indirect effects of these disturbances may result in vegetation in early stages of succession. This could eventually (>20-25 years) benefit lynx by creating a mosaic of early successional habitats, some that support high hare densities and late successional stands with downed woody debris for security and denning.

48

In sum, the direct and indirect effects of this alternative, together with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities described above, will have very little effect on lynx at the LAU level because understory vegetation that provides horizontal cover at ground level will recover quickly and because the treatments cover a small fraction of lynx habitat in the 3 LAUs. The habitat that would be treated is already of marginal quality for snowshoe hare and lynx, and within that context, the quantity of habitat affected would be very small.

After reviewing the current status of the Canada lynx and its habitat in the LAUs, the effects of the proposed vegetation treatment actions, and the cumulative effects; I have determined that the proposed action is in compliance with Forest Plan direction for lynx habitat. There would be a minor, temporary reduction in lynx foraging habitat, owing to the extensive coverage low-quality habitat for snowshoe hares. The western spruce budworm epidemic will continue to degrade lynx habitat through defoliation and tree mortality despite the proposed treatments. A biological assessment will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS with an effects determination, consistent with requirements under section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the revised designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2014). In the 2014 rule, the primary constituent elements (PCE) of lynx critical habitat were defined as boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and containing: presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, which include dense understories of young trees, shrubs or overhanging boughs that protrude above the snow, and mature multi-story stands with conifer boughs touching the snow surface; winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time; sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads; and matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range.

In 2009, approximately 648,123 acres of the Shoshone National Forest were designated as critical habitat for the Canada lynx. This acreage is about 11.1% of the 5,849,060 acres of designated critical habitat in Greater Yellowstone Area Unit 5, (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014).

The majority of the proposed treatment units are not in designated critical habitat (Figure 2). Units no. 28 (133 acres), no. 24 (7 acres) and no. 25 (8 acres) are entirely within critical habitat.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, degradation of snowshoe hare habitat in the project area would likely continue due to the continuing effect of budworm and resulting increased vulnerability of conifers. Bark beetle activity in the project area could also degrade lynx critical habitat. The boreal forest habitat type (lynx foraging habitat) will continue to decline in the near term, with increasing fragmentation of suitable habitat. Matrix and denning habitat would not be affected in their function because lynx would still readily travel through the fragmented foraging habitat and still locate suitable denning sites within their home range.

49

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Lynx Analysis Unit 2, Beartooth and Lynx Analysis Unit 3, Crandall Under the Proposed Action, about 148 acres of vegetation treatment would occur in designated Canada Lynx Critical Habitat, or 0.02% of the Canada Lynx Critical Habitat on the Shoshone National Forest (Figure 13). The treatments would result in a short term reduction in snowshoe hare habitat due to the removal of cover in mature multi-story stands. Losses of cover include conifer boughs at or near the ground, trunks of trees, some snags, and some woody debris. These effects would be minor considering the existing poor quality of boreal habitat in these areas. The total area of proposed action in LAU 2 is 132.6 acres (127 in mapped lynx habitat, 5.6 acres in matrix habitat), which is 0.09% of the 104,999 acre LAU. Here, the effects to the primary constituent elements are insignificant (unmeasurable). The total area proposed for treatment in LAU 3 is 15.1 acres, is entirely in matrix habitat, and is 0.01% of the 109,877 acre LAU. Thus, this effect is also insignificant. Similarly, habitat changes that would occur near the Crandall Ranger Station area and Squaw Creek units are very minor. In the aggregate the project is too small in spatial scale to change the functionality of the primary constituent elements in the combined LAUs and in Greater Yellowstone Area Unit 5 as a whole.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this project is comprised of LAUs 2 and 3. There is no designated Canada Lynx Critical Habitat in LAU 4.Adjacent state or private lands are not designated critical habitat.

Forest Service activities that have altered lynx habitat include road management that provides automobile and snowmobile access to lynx habitat and carries disturbance effects; timber harvests that typically reduce the coverage of foraging habitat; fire suppression (sustain cover long-term, but at risk of large-scale fires that reduce cover long-term) , and recreation management (disturbance effects). Short-term or long-term natural and anthropogenic disturbances could also alter large portions of this landscape in the future. These include high wind events, insect and disease epidemics, and natural or man-caused wildfires. Such disturbances often sets vegetation back to early stages of succession.

The cumulative effects—the direct and indirect effects interacting with the effects of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities described above—will have very little effect on lynx critical habitat at the scale of the cumulative effects analysis area. The existing habitat would be of low quality for snowshoe hare and lynx, and treatments small in spatial scale relative to the combined LAUs and Greater Yellowstone Area Unit 5. The treatments would not impede lynx movement through matrix habitat during project implementation or after completion because lynx could easily walk around logging equipment, and because residual woody debris would be piled and burned.

After reviewing the existing conditions for Designated Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx in the project area, the effects of the proposed vegetation management actions, and the cumulative effects; I have determined that Alternative 2 is in compliance with Forest Plan direction for this species’ critical habitat. A biological assessment will be prepared and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with an effects determination, consistent with requirements under section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

50

Figure 12 Coverage of Designated Critical Lynx habitat within LAUs in the upper Clarks Fork watershed.

Wolverine On February 4, 2013, a proposed rule was published to list the wolverine as a federally threatened species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). While this proposed rule was later withdrawn, the court vacated the withdrawal, effectively returning the process to the stage of the proposed listing rule published in 2013 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). The proposed listing determined that the effects of climate change on wolverine habitat and trapping, when considered cumulatively with habitat loss resulting from climate change, are the primary threats to the species. It also found that land management activities either do not negatively affect wolverines, or occur at such a small scale as to not represent a substantial threat. Wolverines establish maternal dens in deep snow, which provides cover for their young. Areas with persistent snow cover late into the spring are therefore necessary for denning habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2013).

Wolverines are known to occur at least occasionally on the east side of the Absaroka Range on the Shoshone National Forest, but are considered rare (Murphy et al. 2011). It is likely that they at least occasionally travel through the analysis area, and resident breeding individuals may also overlap portions of the project area. A formal survey for wolverines occurred from 2004 to 2009 that included very generally the project area, with no wolverines detected (Murphy et al. 2011). A second formal wolverine detection effort was undertaken in winter 2017 by Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel with survey grid cells (including a camera station less than 3 miles from the western-most proposed action unit) to the west of the project area, with no wolverine detections in or near to the project area. The nearest wolverines detected through this effort in

51

2017 were approximately 40 miles south of the project area (L. Tafemeyer, pers. comm; April 2017).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects No effects to wolverines would occur under the No Action Alternative. The area would continue to support low-elevation (< 8,000 feet) habitat occasionally used by wolverines.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Treatment units would be located at low elevations outside of potential wolverine foraging and denning habitat. Disturbance effects from project activities would be limited to temporary displacement of wolverines that rarely travel through the area and would be discountable. Wolverine foraging habitat would likely improve due to an increased density of regrowth understory vegetation that supports more mid-sized and small mammals than in the currently existing forest.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this project is comprised of the entire upper Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River watershed (upstream of Bald Ridge Recreation Area), including those portions of the Custer-Gallatin National Forest that contribute hydrologically to the area. This portion of the watershed is large enough to encompass the home range of at least one wolverine.

On federal lands, prescribed burning, commercial timber harvests (including 6 prior salvage sales), hazard tree removal, firewood removal, and fire suppression have affected wolverine habitat. Other sources of impact (past and present) include maintained and primitive roads, off-road (OHV) trails, and dispersed recreation sites. Forest Service management of these activities has had only minor effects on wolverine directly and indirectly because they occur at small spatial scales relative to wolverine home ranges, and because they typically occur at elevations below habitats (alpine and subalpine habitats > 8,000 feet) commonly used by wolverines.

Activities on private and state lands within the cumulative effects analysis area include principally grazing, residential development, and commercial development. Although these activities serve and sources of direct disturbance and habitat modification that fragments wolverine habitat, they also have only minor effects on wolverine because they occur a small spatial scale and occur at elevations below habitat typically used by wolverines.

In sum, the direct and indirect effects of this alternative, together with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (i.e., the cumulative effects) described above, will have very little effect on wolverines. The proposed action is consistent with Forest Plan direction to provide sufficient habitat to contribute to the survival and recovery of proposed species such as the wolverine. The area is outside of wolverine denning habitat, wolverine occurrence in the area is very uncommon, and project activities will occur at a small scale and at low elevation relative to a typical wolverine home range. A biological assessment will be prepared and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with an effects determination, consistent with requirements under section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

52

Environmental Effects on Sensitive Species

Wildlife Sensitive species identified for the Shoshone National Forest were considered, and an effects analysis completed for those that potentially occur within the project area (Table 11). Species under analysis were then grouped according to their habitat requirement and/or ecological niche. Species that did not occur in the project area were dismissed from further analysis.

Table 11 Sensitive wildlife and fish species known or suspected to occur on the Shoshone National Forest. Shaded rows are species selected for further analysis.

Species Occurs

on Forest

Habitat

Suitable Habitat in

Project Area

Present in Project Area

Method for Determining Occurrence

Carried Forward

in Analysis

?

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

Yes

Dry habitats where open grasslands and shrublands are interspersed with low-mid-elevation mature xeric forests creating ample edges

Yes Possible Habitat relationship Yes

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

Not known to

occur

Canyons, shear rock cliffs, with nearby permanent water

Marginal Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship No

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Yes Caves, forested stream sides

Marginal (no known

caves)

Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship No

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

Yes

Coniferous and deciduous forest, riparian and edge habitat

Yes Possible

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

Yes

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus)

No Dry sites of sagebrush & grassland in gentle to flat terrain

No No Habitat relationship; Field survey

No

Water vole (Microtus richardsoni)

Yes

Subalpine & alpine riparian areas with narrow channel, gentle streams & stream banks with deep, well-developed soils

Yes Yes

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

Yes

River otter (Lontra canadensis)

Yes Rivers, lakes, large streams Yes

Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

No

53

Species Occurs

on Forest

Habitat

Suitable Habitat in

Project Area

Present in Project Area

Method for Determining Occurrence

Carried Forward

in Analysis

?

American marten (Martes americana)

Yes

Dense coniferous forest Yes Yes

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

Yes

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis)

Yes Alpine and cliff habitat, low elevation sagebrush/grasslands

Yes Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

No

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Yes Large, fish-bearing lakes and rivers and adjacent areas.

No nesting habitat or

winter roosts

present.

Possible occasional presence

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

No

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator)

Yes Shallow lakes and large ponds Yes

Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship; Field survey

No

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Yes Swift forest rivers and streams Yes

Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship No

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Yes

Mature montane coniferous and mixed forests

Yes Yes

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

Yes

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)

Yes Open prairie No Unlikely Habitat relationship No

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)

Yes Cliffs Yes Yes

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

Yes

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Yes Marshes, meadows, grasslands, & cultivated fields

Yes Possible Habitat relationship; Field survey

No

54

Species Occurs

on Forest

Habitat

Suitable Habitat in

Project Area

Present in Project Area

Method for Determining Occurrence

Carried Forward

in Analysis

?

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

No High plains short-grass prairie & desert No No

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

No

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus)

No Grasslands No No Habitat relationship No

Black tern (Chlidonias niger)

No Marsh No No Habitat relationship No

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

No Open, dry treeless areas on plains, prairies, and deserts

No No Habitat relationship No

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus)

Yes Subalpine spruce/fir Yes Possible Habitat relationship Yes

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

Not known to

occur

Basin-prairie shrublands, grasslands, marshes

No No Habitat relationship No

Lewis' woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)

No Open canopy ponderosa pine forests

Marginal habitat present

Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship No

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

Yes Spruce/fir forests Yes Possible Habitat relationship Yes

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Yes Coniferous forests Yes Possible Habitat relationship Yes

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

No Open sagebrush, grasslands, deserts, pastures and prairies

No Unlikely Habitat relationship No

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri)

Yes

Mountain-foothills & basin-prairie sagebrush Yes Yes

Habitat relationship; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

See section for Management Indicator Species

55

Species Occurs

on Forest

Habitat

Suitable Habitat in

Project Area

Present in Project Area

Method for Determining Occurrence

Carried Forward

in Analysis

?

Greater Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Yes Sagebrush/grasslands No No

Habitat relationship, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

No

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

Not known to

occur

Great plains grasslands; basin-prairie shrublands

No No Habitat relationship No

Hudsonian emerald (Somatochlora hudsonica)

Not known to

occur Boggy ponds No No Habitat

relationship No

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)

Species or habitat

is suspected to occur on NFS lands

Milkweed producing meadows No No Habitat

relationship No

Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

Species or habitat

is suspected to occur on NFS lands

Meadows producing native nectar and pollen plants.

Yes Possible; habitat not influenced

by proposal

Habitat relationship No

Sensitive Species Associated with Coniferous Forests Species that occur or could occur in this habitat type in the project area are: American marten, northern goshawk, boreal owl, and olive-sided flycatcher.

American marten are widespread throughout the Shoshone National Forest. Late-successional forest with a complex understory structure are preferred by this species, especially more mesic spruce-fir and lodgepole pine cover types. The complex structure of late successional (or old growth) stands provides overhead protection from predators along with prey such as red squirrels and small mammals. Due to small patches of late-successional conifer stands in the project area, martens are expected to be present. Due to widespread effects of fires and beetle kill, quality marten habitat has most likely declined in the area. There is one occurrence record for martens near the analysis area (Beartooth Plateau) from the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, but marten are expected in and near the project area due to their widespread distribution.

The northern goshawk occurs throughout the Shoshone National Forest, although known nesting locations are rare. For nesting, this species prefers mature conifer forests with canopy closure and open understories. Nesting territories often include a variety of habitats that are used for foraging. Suitable nesting and foraging habitats are located in the project area. Records from the the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database indicate that this species occurs regularly found in

56

the project area. One known goshawk nest is documented in proposed action unit 2/1C. At least two young were likely fledged in 2004 (Smith et al. 2005). Goshawk presence was confirmed in 2010, 2013, and 2016; indicating the likely presence of a nesting territory.

Surveys on the Forest have documented the presence of boreal owls (Cerovski 1999). Forest types most commonly used by this owl are subalpine forest habitats dominated by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. The project area extensively supports these habitats, in addition to mixed conifer forests with scattered openings, ideal habitats for boreal owl breeding sites. A single boreal owl observation is on record from 1998 roughly 5 miles to the northwest of the project area.

The olive-sided flycatcher is common throughout Wyoming and the Shoshone National Forest where suitable breeding habitat—subalpine coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests—is present. Late-successional conifer stands with canopy gaps and recently burned areas are especially important for breeding. Closed-canopy stands are rarely used. There are no occurrence records for the species in the project area, although it is likely present.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to coniferous forest habitat from management activities themselves.

Stands in the mature structural stage are currently widespread in the project area and vicinity, and habitat for these species is not limiting. However, many of the area forests are experiencing western spruce budworm and bark beetle mortality, and are at high risk for a stand replacement fire. Insect and disease mortality within mature conifer stands would likely continue to increase. Based on recent tree mortality elsewhere in the SNF, tree mortality could reach levels whereby most mature trees are dead and most stands no longer provide habitat for these species. Following needle drop from western spruce budworm and bark beetle-killed trees, habitat availability for at least the next 80–100 years for martens, goshawks, and boreal owls would decline; and local populations would decrease. Habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher would improve with increasing bark beetle mortality and stand replacing fires.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Mature forest cover would be reduced by the proposed treatments. Treatments would render mature stands unsuitable or marginal habitat for species (above) that are dependent on late successional habitats. However, the long-term effects of this alternative may not be measurably different from those expected in Alternative 1. There is one known goshawk nest in the project area. Project design features were included to protect this and newly discovered breeding territories.

Although late successional coniferous forest habitats would be negatively affected for American marten, northern goshawk, boreal owls; this effect would be local in scale (about 2,000 acres) and unlikely to influence populations at the forest-wide scale. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for vegetation diversity and old growth would be met. Thus, for the forest-dwelling species in this section, this project “may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The treatments would benefit olive-sided flycatchers.

57

Sensitive Species Associated with Snags Species that occur or could occur in this habitat type in the project area are fringed myotis and the black-backed woodpecker.

The fringed myotis is an uncommon bat. Northwest Wyoming is on the northern edge of its range. There is a fringed myotis observation from 2009 near Beartooth Lake, 5.5 miles northeast of the nearest project unit at Squaw Creek, and another observation 18 miles west in Yellowstone National Park during 2004 (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2016). This bat is typically found in dry forest habitats mixed with sagebrush and grasslands, and occurs mostly at lower elevations than this habitat type on the SNF. However, fringed myotis have been documented in high-elevation spruce-fir habitats in portions of their range (Keinath 2005). Because this bat shows high fidelity to areas with large-diameter snags (tree roosts), retention of this forest component as a design feature for vegetation management projects is critical.

The distribution of the black-backed woodpecker is closely associated with boreal and montane coniferous forests. Although this woodpecker is found in a variety of coniferous forests—including lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, and Engelmann spruce—its habitat use is strongly associated with recently-burned forests. Species’ abundance increases in burns immediately after a fire, but use of burned areas decreases 3–5 years following a fire after wood-boring insects are no longer abundant (Taylor and Barmore 1980). Although the project area is close to recent burns (Hunter Peak fire), black-backed woodpeckers are probably present in low densities because most of the proposed treatment area is unburned.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to snag habitat from management activities. Snags would continue to be recruited through spruce budworm mortality, stand replacement fire, and other vegetation disturbances. Habitat would be widely available, and not limiting for snag dependent species.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects In this alternative, mechanical treatments would reduce the availability of snags within the project area, a large portion of which is now experiencing high conifer mortality due to western spruce budworm activity. Many snags would be retained as part of the project design; snag losses would be a small fraction of those currently on the project area and vicinity. Thus, the effects of this alternative on the black-blacked woodpecker would be minimal.

This alternative will reduce large snags used by fringed myotis for roosting. However, this species is at the edge of its range on the Shoshone National Forest, and is uncommon throughout Wyoming. It is unlikely that the species does occur within the project area, and therefore the loss of existing roost sites would be inconsequential. Although some snags would be lost during the treatments, snags in the project area and vicinity would continue to be abundant and well-distributed at a landscape level. Thus, for the fringed myotis and the black-backed woodpecker, this alternative “may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Sensitive Species Associated with Sagebrush and Grassland Steppe Species that occur or could occur in this habitat type in the project area include Brewer’s sparrow.

58

Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident in this habitat on the Forest. It is a sagebrush obligate that is often the most abundant songbird in this community. Their abundance is limited in the mixed forested and meadow settings that occur in the project area. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Data lists this species in several locations within the project area (WYNDD 2016). Long term population declines have been observed in Wyoming and throughout the rest of its range (Holmes and Johnson 2005). The causes of Brewer’s sparrow declines are uncertain, but possibly linked to widespread degradation of sagebrush shrub-steppe habitats.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The sagebrush cover type occupies only a very small fraction of the analysis area. The continued effect of spruce budworm and bark beetle infestations in the project area would result in no effect to Brewer’s Sparrow.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects There should be little effect on Brewer’s sparrow habitat—vegetation treatments would occur within forested habitats. Sagebrush habitats only occur adjacent to potential treatment units in the Squaw Creek and Crandall Ranger Station areas. The use of roads by project vehicles would temporarily displace Brewer’s sparrows from sagebrush habitats along unit access routes, a minor effect. Therefore the Proposed Action Alternative “may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.”

Sensitive Species Associated with Riparian or Wetland Habitats Species that may occur in this habitat type are water voles and peregrine falcons.

Water voles are widely distributed of the SNF, occurring on all five ranger districts (Priday 1998, Priday 1999, Priday et al. 1998). They occur in alpine or subalpine wet meadows and riparian areas adjacent to narrow, low-gradient stream channels with deep, well-developed soils (Klaus and Beauvais 2004). The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD 2016) contains a record of a water vole on the Beartooth Plateau, 8 miles northeast of the project area. The greatest threat to this species’ habitat is overgrazing by ungulates and stream bank compaction. Because vegetation management typically does not occur in meadows or riparian zones, it is not a threat to water vole habitat.

The peregrine falcon was listed as endangered in 1970 due primarily to environmental contaminants. Recovery efforts (including reintroduction efforts on the Shoshone National Forest) were highly successful and led to their delisting in 1999. Two primary factors which currently limit their occurrence are availability of nesting sites and prey. Peregrines nest on cliffs which are usually large, associated with water (riparian and wetland-loving prey), and contain ledges having a substrate suitable for egg laying. They often have alternate nest sites on adjacent cliffs. Peregrines forage almost exclusively on other birds. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database shows nineteen observation records of peregrine falcons in the analysis area between 1989 and 2001 (WYNDD 2016). The nearest eyrie with repeated, annual observations is about 5 miles to the north on the Beartooth Plateau. There are four more eyries within a 10 mile radius of the project area.

59

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative will result in no direct changes in water vole habitat because no vegetation management and associated activities such a road building would occur. Natural disturbance processes in meadows or riparian habitats that support conifers—such as budworm activity or wildfire—would likely improve meadow vole habitat by increasing conifer mortality, decreasing transpired water by trees, and increasing soil moisture and sunlight in the forest understory, improving conditions for deciduous shrubs, grasses, sedges, and seeds that are used as food by water voles.

Habitat for the peregrine falcon, including nesting areas and prey base, would remain unaffected by vegetation management and related activities. Budworm activity and wildfire would continue to affect riparian zones with conifers by affecting soil moisture and sunlight reaching the understory (see water voles).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects In this alternative, the application of best management practices for watershed conservation (see project design features for aquatic wildlife, hydrology, roads) would be effective at maintaining water quality, hydrologic function, riparian zones, and wetlands; thereby protecting water vole habitat.

There are no known eyries within the project area, and known nests are distant (5 miles) from the project area. Thus, there would be little disturbance to nesting or foraging peregrines from the proposed vegetation treatments. None-the-less, some temporary disturbance and displacement of foraging birds would likely occur. Because of their limited spatial scale, however, the proposed action treatments would not affect the overall abundance and diversity of prey at the home range scale of area peregrines.

Thus, for the water vole and the peregrine falcon, this alternative will have no impact on the water vole or peregrine falcon.

Hoary Bats This species is broadly distributed in the United States, including Wyoming, but is uncommon in the state. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database contains a possible observation of a hoary bat 0.5 miles northwest of the Crandall Ranger Station in 2009, suggesting that this species’ may occur in the project area. The hoary bat forages for moths over water sources that occur within forested habitats and along riparian corridors. They extensively uses edge habitats for foraging and roosting (Hester and Grenier 2005). Threats to this species include loss of forest habitat, pesticides, and mortality from wind turbine and cell tower collisions (Hester and Grenier 2005).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects No effects to the hoary bat would occur directly from vegetation management, because no treatments would occur. Habitat changes associated with spruce budworm activity and wildfire (see water voles) would continue to occur.

60

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Vegetation treatments would reduce the coverage of some large conifers such as Douglas fir that provide moths for foraging hoary bats. However, numerous design features such as H-15 would protect meadows, riparian habitats, and wetlands; thus maintain foraging habitats for hoary bats. The spatial scale of the treatments (about 2000 acres) would be limited (about 2,000 acres), an area not large enough to reduce hoary bat populations at the scale of the SNF. Thus, this alternative “may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the hoary bat.

Sensitive Aquatic Species There are a number of R2S aquatic species in the project area that could be impacted by the proposed action. Species not known to occur in the project area or those that would not be impacted by the proposed action have been dismissed from further consideration; a list of these species can be found in the project record. Impacts to R2S wildlife and plants will be addressed in the wildlife and botany/ecology reports or included as part of the project record. Table 12 Forest Service, Region 2 Sensitive aquatic species carried forward in analysis.

Species Status11 Sensitive Species Carried Forward for Analysis Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas)

S

Yes: Species has been documented in the project area.

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)

S

Yes: Species has been documented in the project area.

Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipens)

S

Yes: Species has potential to occur in riparian areas, streams, wetlands and ponds, but has not been documented in the project area.

Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus)

S

Yes: Species have been documented in the project area.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri)

S

Yes: Species have been documented in the project area.

Boreal Toad Boreal toads range over much of northwestern North America from the southern Yukon to Nevada. In Wyoming, they occur in the western and south-central mountain ranges. On the Shoshone National Forest, boreal toads have been documented most frequently on the Clarks Fork Ranger District, but infrequently elsewhere. It is believed the Swamp Lake complex supports one of the highest assemblage of boreal toads within the state of Wyoming. Surveys conducted in 2015 documented the presence of thousands of boreal toad metamorphs (Figure 11). This breeding site is located adjacent to Budworm Response Unit 1.

11 S = sensitive species

61

Figure 13 Boreal toad metamorphs were observed at the Swamp Lake complex July 29, 2015. Dozens of extremely dense clusters of boreal toads were observed over parts of the Swamp Lake complex.

Boreal toads require shallow wetlands for breeding, terrestrial habitats for foraging, and burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). Landscapes surrounding boreal toad breeding sites are as important for survival as the breeding site itself (Keinath and Mcgee 2005). Adults may spend up to 90% of their adult life in upland terrestrial habitats (Jones et al. 2000). Adults can also travel great distances (in excess of 5 miles) with females generally migrating greater distances than males. Boreal toads have low reproductive output; females do not begin breeding until they are six years old, do not breed every year, and unlikely live past 9 years (Keinath and Mcgee 2005). Boreal toads may utilize rodent burrows, deadfall piles, rockslides, or even slash piles as winter hibernacula. There are several identified breeding sites on the Clarks Fork Ranger District, however, specific knowledge of how toads use upland terrestrial habitats, migration corridors, and overwintering hibernacula is scarce. Road use, timber harvest, treating slash, and other activities may impact crucial periods of boreal toad lifecycles (Table 13). Table 13 Crucial periods for boreal toads (from Keinath and Mcgee 2005).

Period Events Timing Breeding Period Breeding begins 2-4 weeks after

appearance of open water

Mid-May to mid-June (July at higher elevations)

Hatching Eggs hatch 1-2 weeks after being laid

Late May to late June (Late July at higher elevations)

Metamorphosis Tadpoles metamorphose into toadlets in approximately 2 months

Late July to late August (Late September at higher elevations)

Toadlet Dispersal Toadlets leave natal area Highly variable

62

Period Events Timing Overwintering Adults and juveniles occupy

winter habitat Late September to mid-May

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Boreal toads appear to be well distributed across the analysis area and there is no indication populations are in decline as has been observed throughout parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Under the no-action alternative, boreal toads would continue to persist in similar densities and locations they currently occupy.

It is unlikely boreal toad populations would be impacted positively or negatively by the current insect epidemic.

Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in no impact to boreal toads.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Timber harvest can directly impact boreal toads by crushing, and toads are especially vulnerable during dispersal periods from breeding sites and during late summer when adults migrate into upland habitats. Significant mortality has also been observed when roads and trails occur in boreal toad habitats and migration corridors. In some studies, this source of mortality has caused substantial impacts to amphibians (Lehtinen et al. 1999). Sedimentation into breeding ponds can also affect boreal toads directly and indirectly by affecting water quality and reproductive success.

The existing condition of National Forest System Road (NFSR) 116 and possible increased use of it to access Unit 1 is of concern (Figure 12). This low volume, low maintenance road had segments that were identified as being in poor condition in 2015 and 2016 and may serve as a population sink for boreal toads. Approximately one dozen boreal toads were observed crushed along this segment in 2016. Mortality of egg masses, larvae, adults or juveniles would likely increase if logging activity increases, the road is maintained in its current state, and the road is a primary access route to Unit 1. Direct and indirect impacts from crushing, loss of overwintering habitat, fragmentation of migration corridors, and changes to water quality can be avoided by implementing appropriate design criteria.

63

Figure 14 A low-volume road (NFSR 116) bisects a small tributary stream adjacent to the Swamp Lake breeding complex, located adjacent to Unit 1. Boreal toad tadpoles, dead and live metamorphs, and occasionally adults have been observed in wheel ruts along the road.

Design criteria for watershed and soil protection would reduce impacts to boreal toad breeding sites, migration corridors, and upland habitats. These design criteria would help reduce impacts to boreal toads. See Appendix A for a list of all project design criteria.

Implementation of the Budworm Response Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The rationale for this determination is boreal toad habitat, including wetlands and stream courses, would be avoided during key breeding periods in this project. While there could be impacts to individuals, it is believed implementation of the Budworm Response Project would retain connectivity to preferred habitats, maintain breeding sites and important migration corridors. The Budworm Response Project would maintain boreal toad habitat conditions and possibly improve habitat conditions in the long term if improvements to NFSR 116 can be achieved.

Columbia Spotted Frog Columbia spotted frogs occur only in northwestern North America from British Columbia to Utah. In Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service (Region 2), their distribution occurs on the Bighorn and Shoshone National Forests. They inhabit a variety of vegetation communities, including coniferous or mixed forests, grasslands, and riparian areas. Typically, they are found near water since relative humidity at 65% at 25 C (77F) is lethal to spotted frogs in approximately 2 hours (Dumas 1964).

64

There are relatively few documented Columbia spotted frog breeding sites on the SNF, most of which are concentrated in the tributaries to the Upper Wind River and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River. It is highly likely numerous breeding sites are present on the Shoshone that have not been reported or mapped; two additional suspected breeding sites were identified on the Shoshone in the summer of 2014; one adjacent to the North Fork Shoshone River and the other on the Beartooth Plateau. Recent surveys conducted by WYNDD as part of groundwater dependent ecosystem inventories have also identified new areas where Columbia spotted frogs had not been previously observed.

Trend information for Columbia spotted frogs on the Shoshone is lacking, however, at a broad scale, the species appears stable across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Patla and Keinath 2005). High quality habitats in the Budworm Response Project area were surveyed in 2015 and 2016 in part of the project area; Columbia spotted frogs were documented in the Swamp Lake complex (adjacent to Unit 1), though not in high abundance. Evidence of breeding activity (presence of egg masses, tadpoles, juveniles, etc.) was not apparent during site visits that coincided with typical breeding periods.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in no impact to Columbia spotted frogs.

Columbia spotted frogs have been documented in the analysis area and adjacent to the project area. Their current distribution and abundance does not appear to be affected by the current budworm epidemic and it is unlikely Columbia spotted frog populations would be impacted positively or negatively by the current outbreak.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Spotted frogs can be directly or indirectly impacted by timber harvest activities by crushing, loss of cover and alterations in microsite conditions that affect humidity and temperature. Habitat fragmentation or isolation that can result as a consequence of timber harvest and road construction activities are examples of indirect impacts to the species.

Design criteria have been developed to reduce impacts to stream courses, wetland habitats, riparian areas, and boreal toads. These design criteria are believed to be adequate to maintain Columbia spotted frog populations across the planning area.

Implementation of the Budworm Response Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Rationale: Design criteria have been developed to protect boreal toad habitats during key breeding periods, and design criteria have also been developed that would protect wetlands, stream courses, and other habitats. While Columbia spotted frogs are not as terrestrial as boreal toads, design criteria developed for boreal toads would also sufficiently protect Columbia spotted frog wetlands and breeding sites, if they exist. While there could be impacts to individuals, it is believed implementation of the Budworm Response Project would retain connectivity to preferred habitats, protect breeding sites if they exist, as well as important migration corridors.

Northern Leopard Frog This member of the Ranidae family (true frogs) ranges across North America, but distribution is spotty in arid portions of the Western United States. It may coexist and sometimes hybridize with

65

the plains leopard frog. It is found in a variety of habitats, from grass and brush lands to high montane areas. It is the most cold adapted of the leopard frogs. This frog uses areas of perennial water with growth of aquatic vegetation, but may forage far from water in damp vegetation (Stebbins 1985). Regionally, these frogs occur as high as 3,353 m (11,000 ft.), and occur in much of Wyoming (except the Tetons and Red Desert). Females begin depositing their eggs soon after the ice melts in May or June and the larvae metamorphose in late summer (Livo 1998).

Numerous factors are responsible for the Northern leopard frog’s decline. In Region 2, populations have been negatively impacted from grazing, recreation, road development, facilities construction, logging, and hydrologic alteration caused by the development of water resources. Other threats include fish stocking and introductions of infectious diseases, such as chytrid fungus (Batatrochytrium denndrobatitis) (Smith and Keinath 2007). Amphibian surveys conducted by WYNDD in high quality habitats on the Clarks Fork Ranger District have not yielded any northern leopard frog observations and historic observations have not been documented near the project area. The Forest is aware of several observations occurring on the Wind River Ranger District during the mid-1990s, however, reports of recent sightings are rare.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in no impact to Northern leopard frogs across the project area.

While apparently suitable habitat for Northern leopard frogs exist in the project area, they have not been detected despite several attempts to verify their presence.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Finding Implementation of the Budworm Response Project will result in no impact to Northern leopard frogs across the planning area.

Rationale: While it is possible Northern leopard frogs exist in the Budworm Response Project area, they were not detected during recent surveys and the forest aquatics specialist is unaware of recent or historic observations suggesting they are present in the project area. If they indeed exist in the project area, design criteria that have been developed to protect boreal toads, wetlands, streams, and water influence zones would be adequate to protect Northern leopard frogs and maintain their habitats.

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout historically occupied about 17,720 miles of habitat in Montana, Wyoming, southern Idaho, northwestern Utah and northeastern Nevada. In Wyoming, conservation populations occupy about 4,050 stream miles (Endicott et al. 2016). Yellowstone cutthroat trout are the only native trout on the SNF, and are thought to have historically occupied the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River upstream to a major waterfall occurring near the confluences of the Clarks Fork, Dead Indian Creek, and Sunlight Creek. State stocking programs above the falls and in many perennial tributary streams have resulted in colonization and naturalization of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the upper Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone. Tributary streams near or within the project area that contain Yellowstone cutthroat trout include the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, Crandall Creek, and Lodgepole Creek.

66

Threats to Yellowstone cutthroat trout include non-native fish introductions, irrigation, agriculture, logging, mining, and over harvest. Non-native fish introductions are the greatest threat to persistence of Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations (Kruse et al. 2000) due to direct/indirect competition or hybridization. Hybridization with rainbow trout and other cutthroat trout species is considered a leading cause of loss of Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations (Kruse and Hubert 2000). Populations in Crandall Creek are slightly hybridized (<10%) and are considered a conservation population. Populations elsewhere (Lodgepole Creek, Upper Clarks Fork) have experienced higher degrees of hybridization (greater than 10% with rainbow trout and/or other subspecies of cutthroat trout). As with many cutthroat trout populations, it is likely there are individuals within the population that retain high genetic integrity, however, the genetic structure of these populations has not been recently evaluated.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in no impact to Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

Rationale: Distribution and abundance of Yellowstone cutthroat trout is likely to persist in its current state regardless of the budworm epidemic. Yellowstone cutthroat trout have persisted through fire, droughts, floods, and insect epidemics. It is unlikely Yellowstone cutthroat trout would be adversely or positively impacted by not addressing the budworm infestation.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects The Budworm Response Project’s Unit 25 is situated adjacent to Crandall Creek; Unit 24 inclu des a reach of Lodgepole Creek. The remainder of harvest units within the Budworm Response Project are located away from occupied habitats. Logging activities near streams can decrease stream cover, reduce the amount of future large woody debris recruitment and pool development favored by Yellowstone cutthroat trout during low flow and summertime periods.

While there would be potential for some increase in sediment at the reach scale, potential increases in sediment would be negligible at the stream scale, especially considering the design criteria that would be implemented to protect the water influence zone, wetlands, stream courses, and soils. There would be some potential for large woody debris to be reduced, particularly in Unit 24 along Lodgepole Creek. Lodgepole Creek at the Crandall Work Center is a Forest Administrative Site; trees have been removed for structure protection from wildfire (including the 2016 Hunter Peak fire), and protection from overhead hazard, which will likely last decades.

Removal of trees, mowing, and subsequent removal of trees and woody debris from Lodgepole Creek has likely resulted in some channel incision and habitat simplification. Additional removal of trees, canopy cover, and woody debris as part of the Budworm Response Project may further reduce habitat quality favored by Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other aquatic-dependent species, but it is highly unlikely it would result in detrimental impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout at the population scale.

Design Criteria added to the Proposed Action to protect Yellowstone cutthroat trout requires that project activities avoid removal of existing dead and fallen woody debris in the Lodgepole Creek channel. Removal of existing material is allowed only if necessary to protect health/human safety or to prevent impacts to existing infrastructure.

67

Finding Implementation of the Budworm Response Project may result in impacts to individual Yellowstone cutthroat trout, but would not lead towards a trend to federal listing or loss of viability on the planning area.

Rationale: Design criteria that have been developed to protect the water influence zone, stream courses, soils, and wetland habitats are adequate to protect existing Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations. Most units within the project area are located away from streams that contain Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations with the exception of relatively small harvest units located on Lodgepole and Crandall Creeks. Potential short-term impacts that may result from highly localized loss of stream cover, and possible minor increases in sediment need to be weighed against relatively large expanses of intact habitat and potential impacts that could result from wildfires if one were to occur. It is unlikely vegetation treatments at the scale being proposed would result in increases in sediment, reductions in canopy cover, or other factors that would translate to detectable reductions of Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations in the area.

Mountain Sucker Mountain suckers are found throughout most of Western North America, ranging from southern Canada to Utah and from California to western South Dakota. In Region 2, they are widely distributed in some areas, but sparsely distributed in others. At a regional scale, information regarding mountain sucker populations is insufficient to identify population trends (Belica and Nibbelink 2006); however, the Natural Heritage Network ranks mountain suckers as secure in Wyoming.

Stream connectivity, changes in habitat quantity, habitat fragmentation, and introduction of non-native fish species have been identified as risk factors for mountain sucker populations. Mountain suckers can be found as high as 10,000 feet in the Wind River Mountains (Baxter and Stone 1995). On the SNF, they appear to be widely distributed, occurring in many of the larger streams or river systems. Mountain suckers in the Budworm Response Project area were historically absent due to the presence of natural fish barriers. They have been stocked into upper portions of the Clark’s Fork Yellowstone River where populations still exist but they are not known to occupy other perennial streams near the project area.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of the No Action Alterative would result in no impact to Mountain Sucker populations.

Rationale: Mountain Suckers are relegated to the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not impact populations downstream of the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Design criteria that have been developed to protect water influence zones, wetlands, stream courses, and soils would protect occupied habitats in the Clarks Fork River from degradation.

Implementation of the Budworm Response Project would result in no impact to Mountain Sucker populations.

68

Rationale: Mountain Suckers are relegated to the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River. Implementation of the Budworm Project would not result in habitat degradation to the Clarks Fork River.

Sensitive Plant Species The Shoshone National Forest is home to 26 USFS Region 2 sensitive plant species. Table 14 includes those sensitive plant species with known or potential habitat within the analysis area. While all 26 species were initially analyzed, only 15 of those with known populations or potential for habitat occurrence in the project area were carried forward into more detailed analysis. There are two species with analysis requirements known to be present in the analysis area. The analysis area for this sensitive plant species analysis includes all areas within the defined project boundaries as well as a one mile buffer from the project edge. The buffer was analyzed with the rationale that sensitive species habitat within that distance could be indirectly affected by project activities.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects All species carried forward for detailed analysis had a determination of “no impact” under the No Action Alternative as little to no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 2, based on the analysis and information available, a determination of “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability,” (MII) is made for roundleaf orchid and Absaroka goldenweed. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

• The one known occurrence of round-leaf orchid within the project area boundary would be protected through project design features that would exclude the population and add a buffer to reduce effects of opening the canopy that could reduce soil moisture and protective shading/cooling effects in addition to potential trampling by cattle. For those units that have potential downstream effects to the Swamp Lake Botanical Special Interest Area (SIA) that contains known populations, project design features would be implemented to mitigate any changes to quantity and quality of run-off originating in these units. If some individuals were to be lost due to the proposed action, viability of the species on the SNF would not be jeopardized due to the more than 3,000 individuals found in more than 10 additional locations on the Forest.

• The specific preferred habitat of Absaroka goldenweed is present within the project area but would be largely avoided by timber harvesting activities. Road maintenance may occur in or on the edges of meadow and grassland habitats. Project design features to avoid any known or currently unknown occurrences would minimize effects to individuals. If some individuals were to be lost due to this action, viability of the species on the SNF would not be jeopardized due to several thousand individuals found in local abundance in this area.

Based on the analysis and information available, a determination of “no impact” is made for lesser panicled sedge, livid sedge, English sundew, Chamisso’s cottongrass, slender cottongrass, simple bog sedge, Greenland primrose, Barrat willow, sageleaf willow, myrtleleaf willow, sphagnum moss, and lesser bladderwort. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

69

• Known occurrences of these species are proximate to the project area. Project design features would be implemented to mitigate any changes in quantity and quality of water flowing out of the project area into Swamp Lake Botanical SIA that would have any habitat effects.

Based on the analysis and information available, a determination of “no impact” is made for entireleaf goldenweed and Hall’s fescue. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

• The preferred habitat of this species is minimally present within the project area and would be undisturbed by timber harvesting activities. Project design features to avoid any unknown occurrences would minimize effects to individuals.

The detailed analysis of sensitive plant species and soils can be found in the project record.

Table 14 Determinations for Sensitive Plant Species.

Scientific Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Likelihood of Effects Determination

Likelihood of Effects Determination

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round leaf orchid Low NI12 Low MII13 Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge Low NI Low NI Carex livida Livid sedge Low NI Low NI Drosera anglica English sundew Low NI Low NI Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso's cottongrass Low NI Low NI Eriophorum gracile Slender cottongrass Low NI Low NI Festuca hallii Hall's fescue Low NI Low NI Kobresia simpliciuscula Simple bog sedge Low NI Low NI Primula egalikensis Greenland primrose Low NI Low NI Pyrrocoma carthamoides var. subsquarrosa Absaroka goldenweed Low NI Low MII Pyrrocoma integrifolia Entire-leaf goldenweed Low NI Low NI Salix candida Sageleaf willow Low NI Low NI Salix myrtillifolia var. myrtillifolia Myrtleleaf willow Low NI Low NI

Sphagnum angustifolium Low NI Low NI 12 NI= No Impact 13 MII=May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability

70

Scientific Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Likelihood of Effects Determination

Likelihood of Effects Determination

Sphagnum moss

Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort Low NI Low NI

Environmental Effects on Species of Local Concern Table 15 Species of Local Concern

Species Species

Occurrence on Forest

General Habitat

Suitable Habitat Present

in Project

Area

Species Present

in Project Area

Carry Forward

in Analysis

Rocky Mountain Elk Yes Forests, Meadows Yes Yes Yes Mule Deer Yes Forests, Meadows Yes Yes Yes

Moose Yes Willow, Riparian Yes Yes Yes

Yellowstone Checkerspot Yes

Wet sedge meadows, low

elevation shrubs Yes Unknown Yes

Clark’s Nutcracker Yes Whitebark Pine, Limber Pine Yes Yes Yes

Elk / Mule Deer

Habitat and Trend Elk and deer use forests and sagebrush-grasslands similarly, and so were grouped for analysis. The needs of elk and deer were a major factor in the formulation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for diversity, wildlife, timber, range, and management activities. Elk requirements served as the basis for standards and guidelines relating to the size of structural diversity units, the amount of horizontal diversity, the amount of grass-forb stages in forested areas, for road management, and many others. Elk and mule deer inhabit almost all portions of the SNF during some portion of the year. The current forest-wide elk and mule deer populations are well above viable levels, with sufficient numbers to allow hunting seasons that are often lengthy and often with opportunity for harvest of antlerless animals. Some herd units are at or above population objectives, although more liberal hunting seasons, combined with other cumulative factors of predation by large predators and drought conditions, have caused a decreasing trend in many populations on the Forest.

Crucial winter ranges on and near the project area are depicted in Figure 13. Winter range was defined as areas where suitable habitat was used annually by a proportion of the herd during the winter period. Crucial winter range is much more important, and was defined as a component of the winter range that was necessary for the population to sustain itself at or above the population objective over the long term. Sagebrush and grasslands are an essential seasonal habitat component for both elk and mule deer. Elk and mule deer forage in sagebrush and grassland types a high percentage of the time during the fall, winter, and spring. Both species forage in the

71

sagebrush-grassland, but the grass-forb understory is the preferred component except in extreme conditions. Sagebrush and associated vegetation also provide cover for deer yearlong. Sagebrush steppe is also a preferred cover type for newborn deer and elk during the birthing period.

The Clarks Fork Elk herd was estimated at 3,517 animals in 2015, slightly above the population objective of 3,300 animals (McWhirter 2016b). Much of this herd unit is characterized by migratory animals in the Sunlight Basin and Crandall Areas, with substantial numbers of non-migratory elk on the Absaroka and Beartooth Front. The Squaw Creek proposed treatment area is within elk Spring/Summer/Fall range. The proposed Crandall treatment units are within elk crucial winter range and elk parturition (birthing) range. The bulk of the proposed project area is within elk winter and yearlong range, and the proposed treatment units farthest to the southeast are in elk crucial winter range (units 23, 23/7C, 7C, 26/7C).

The Clarks Fork Mule Deer herd was estimated at 3,500 animals in 2015, which is 30% below the population objective of 5,000 individuals. Much of this herd is characterized by migratory deer, but substantial numbers of non-migratory deer are associated with agricultural areas off the forest to the east. Migratory deer, the deer present in the project area, exhibit relatively poor productivity. The project area overlaps approximately 1,519 acres of mule deer crucial winter range (Wyoming Game and Fish data), and also overlaps winter yearlong range, and spring, summer, and fall range.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Elk and deer habitat would continue to change in the project area due natural disturbance processes such as spruce budworm and wildfire. Continued succession of conifers to later seral stages would lead to declines in forage quality and quantity for elk and deer due to shading and reductions in soil moisture. Where it occurs, spruce budworm mortality of conifers would open up the canopy and increase forage availability. Wildfires would increase both the quality and quantity of forage.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Forage quality and quantity would be enhanced by the proposed treatments. Highly palatable, deciduous browse species such as aspen and willow would be regenerated by mechanical treatments. This alternative has the potential to cause disturbance and displacement of deer on crucial winter range if treatments were to occur during winter. To minimize effects on mule deer on crucial winter range, treatments would occur in only a subset of treatment units that support crucial ranges for mule at one time, rather than simultaneously over the entire project area. These measures would permit winter operations to occur, yet avoid most impacts to wintering mule deer.

Temporary roads associated with the action alternative would not impede big game movements. The treatment units and areas immediately adjacent to roads (within ¼ mile) would be avoided by elk and deer during harvest. Short-term effects of disturbance or displacement would be minor, as the distance and duration of displacement would be temporary. Overlap between the treatment units and parturition areas would be minimal, and project activity and road use would not occur during the main parturition periods, because seasonal soil and moisture conditions would preclude project activity.

There would be some reduction in hiding and thermal cover due to vegetation treatments. However, due to the largely roadless and non-motorized character of area adjacent to the project

72

area, secure habitat for elk would remain abundant. All roads that were reconstructed and opened for the project, as well as temporary roads, would be closed to motorized use when the project was completed.

Overall, this alternative would improve elk and deer habitat by increasing the quality and quantity of forage within important seasonal ranges. On a herd unit scale, it is unlikely that these habitat improvements would result in significant improvements in population size or performance for either species. A variety of factors such as predation, hunter harvest, precipitation, winter severity and others affect short and long term population trends. However, the proposed action contributes toward population increases in local numbers of elk and mule deer. Figure 15 Big Game Crucial Winter Range in the analysis area.

Moose

Habitat and Trend Moose use deciduous riparian vegetation and aspen cover extensively, in addition to coniferous forests. The critical components of moose habitat are browse (primarily willow, aspen, and other deciduous species), and subalpine fir for winter food and cover.

Willow and aspen habitat types in the project area are in poor condition due to lack of age class diversity, heavy encroachment by spruce and other conifers, and drought effects. Riparian habitat along the Absaroka Front (including the project area) is naturally limited to narrow strips along

73

streams due to the steep topography. As a result, moose are thought to be more dependent upon spruce-fir forest types in this area during winter. Mature conifer forest are also important for thermal cover during the warmer months (Becker 2008). Heat stress may be a limiting factor if adequate thermal cover is not present, as moose in Wyoming are near the southern extent of their range.

Moose are well distributed throughout the Shoshone National Forest wherever suitable habitat occurs. The project area is within the newly created Absaroka Moose Herd Unit. Moose densities are very low in this area, thus there is a lack of population data and no population estimate (McWhirter 2016c). The current Wyoming Game and Fish Department management direction is to allow some moose hunting opportunity while encouraging moose numbers to grow, or at least be maintained. The viability of populations on the Forest is not currently an issue. The project area does not overlap moose crucial winter range, and is almost entirely within designated spring-summer-fall moose range identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Moose populations are likely to remain at low levels under this alternative. Willow and aspen vigor and abundance would continue to decline in the project area until a major disturbance such as wildfire occurred. Mature conifer stands providing browse and thermal cover are currently abundant, although spruce budworm and bark beetle mortality in many portions of the area is likely reducing their value as thermal cover that reduces heat stress. Wildfire may greatly reduce the availability of mature conifer forest in the future, and to the detriment of moose.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Mechanical treatments would improve the vigor and abundance of willow and aspen, thereby improving moose forage in the project area. However, the treatment of conifer stands would also greatly limit their value as thermal cover, and increase heat stress. Regardless, the value of many conifer stands as thermal cover would be reduced due to spruce budworm-caused mortality if they were not treated. Improvements in forage are expected to outweigh negative effects of decreases in thermal cover under this alternative. There would be some displacement of moose from treatment areas during harvest activities, but these effects would be minor due to their relatively short duration.

Improvements in moose forage under this alternative could lead to local improvements in moose demographic parameters, although numerous factors besides habitat (such as predation, climate, etc.) affect population trends as well. At the herd unit scale, changes in changes in population trends under this alternative would be immeasurable. Because this project impacts such a small acreage of moose habitat, the proposed action is not expected to have any measurable effects on moose population trends forest-wide. Regardless, the proposed action likely contributes favorably toward sustaining local moose populations.

Yellowstone Checkerspot (Euphydryas gillettii)

Habitat and Trend This species’ favored habitats include wet meadows; small streams; open riparian habitats; and forest communities dominated by lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir; cottonwood, and aspen. Checkerspots often occur in fire-disturbed locations. Adults feed on flower nectar and

74

mud. Twinberry honeysuckle is the primary larval host plant. Western valeriana and snowberry are also used.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, habitat conditions for the checkerspot are likely to slowly improve. As western spruce budworm and other tree diseases defoliate conifers and contribute to conifer mortality, soil moisture and sunlight at the ground level will improve, leading to greater coverage and density of understory shrubs and other plants used by the butterfly for food and egg laying.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Similarly to the No Action Alternative, the treatments to remove dead and diseased conifers would improve checkerspot habitat because understory shrubs and deciduous trees (aspen) would be stimulated by increased levels of sunlight and soil moisture, at least until conifer numbers and crown cover is restored (several decades). With regard to the forest understory, the treatments would provide quicker and more-widely distributed improvements in checkerspot habitat than in the No Action Alternative because the effect of the treatments would be immediate. Thus, the proposed action helps sustain local checkerspot populations, at least until conifer regeneration again leads to canopy closure.

Clark’s Nutcracker

Habitat and Trend On the Shoshone National Forest, this species is typically associated with pine (whitebark pine and limber pine), boreal (Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir), and montane forests (Douglas fir). Nutcrackers tend to inhabit sites at or near tree line during the summer, and low-elevation forests during the fall and winter. Nutcrackers nest on conifer tree limbs, and forage for seeds, nuts, berries, insects, and snails on the ground and in trees. Seed collection and caching by nutcrackers helps to regenerate whitebark pine forests.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Clark’s nutcracker habitat would gradually decline under the No Action Alternative, primarily due to the continued loss of live conifers that produce seeds used by the bird as major food source. The declining trend would continue until natural conifer regeneration proceeded to the extent that seed production was restored, likely decades. However, as understory cover increases in response to increased sunlight and moisture afforded by reduced conifer canopy and completion for moisture, foraging for nutcrackers for other foods such as berries would temporarily improve, benefitting local populations.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Despite the fact that silvicultural treatments in the proposed action would temporarily reduce food sources for nutcrackers by removing live conifers and seed production, the forest stands would move conifers more rapidly (versus the No Action Alternative) toward a productive, seed-bearing condition. Similarly to the No Action Alternative, the increased production of berries and other

75

understory foods that results from overstory removal would immediately benefit nutcrackers as well.

Environmental Effects on Beaver

Habitat and Trend Beavers inhabit permanent water sources of almost any type but prefer low gradient streams (which they modify), ponds, and small lakes. They require water that is deep enough such that it does not freeze to the bottom. Beaver occur in areas of suitable habitat throughout the SNF, although habitat is naturally limited due to the physical characteristics of many streams (i.e., high stream gradients, erosive volcanic soils, narrow valley bottoms). Habitat quality has declined due to loss of deciduous vegetation in riparian and adjacent areas in streams having the physical characteristics to support beaver. Conifer encroachment caused by succession has led to the loss of cottonwood, aspen, and willow in riparian areas. Willow and aspen are essential food sources for beaver. The project area is adjacent to the Swamp Lake wetlands complex which historically supported beaver.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects In the No Action Alternative, conifer mortality and loss of canopy cover associated with western spruce budworm and other tree diseases, where it occurs in riparian areas and vicinity, would help sustain willow and aspen. However, where disease-related tree mortality was absent, riparian and aspen habitat in the project area would continue to advance to later successional stages that are dominated by conifers, and that are unfavorable to beaver. The condition of willow and aspen would decline, as would beaver numbers.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action is likely to benefit beaver and their habitats by reducing conifer competition and regenerating or releasing stands of deciduous vegetation, although beaver habitat would still be limited due to the limited riparian habitat in the project area. Mechanical conifer removal would also increase soil water available for growth of willow and aspen. With regard to aspen and riparian communities, the Proposed Action Alternative would contribute toward attaining Forest Plan vegetation goals and objectives (USDA Forest Service 2015). Due to the small amount of actual riparian habitat affected or improved in comparison to the amount of habitat forest wide, however, this alternative is not expected to have any measurable effects on forest-wide population trends of beaver.

Environmental Effects on Grizzly Bears

Habitat and Population Trend The assessment area is within occupied grizzly bear habitat (Schwartz et al. 2006). Bears in this area are part of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. In total, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has increased from estimates ranging between 230 and 312 bears when listed in 1975 to approximately 717 bears in 2015 (Haroldson et al. 2016). A recent demographic review determined that the current method of estimating population size is conservative and underestimates the true population size (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2012). This demographic review also concluded that the estimated annual rate of population growth decreased

76

from 4.2-7.6% from 1983–2001 to 0.3–2.2% for 2002-2011 (van Manen et al. 2016). Recent studies confirm that population growth has slowed and the population is showing density dependent population regulation. The species occupies almost all suitable habitat in the Demographic Monitoring Area (Haroldson et al. 2016). This change from a growing population to a nearly stable one was attributed to the effects of the population reaching biological carrying capacity, declines in food resources, or some combination of those factors.

Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem were removed from the threatened species list in 2007. However, a court decision in 2009 resulted in the Yellowstone grizzly bear population being placed back on the threatened species list. In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again removed the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the federal list of threatened species, leaving management to the state wildlife management agencies in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming with federal oversight for 5 years. Guidance for grizzly bear habitat and population management is provided by the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, a document amended to the forest plans for the national forests within the ecosystem.

The assessment area for the Budworm Response Project is inside the primary conservation area for the grizzly bear, as identified in the conservation strategy. Areas inside the PCA were divided into Bear Management Units (BMUs) for the purpose of analyzing and monitoring changes in habitat. The assessment area lies within the Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management Unit #29 (Figure 14), which includes Republic, Pilot, Crandall, Sunlight, and Dead Indian Creeks; the upper Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River; and portions of the Beartooth Plateau. This area provides high quality habitat during all seasons, and is consistently occupied by grizzly bears.

Road Density and Secure Habitat Grizzly bears are known to be sensitive to the effects of human access, especially motorized activity. Studies addressed the effects of roads on grizzly bears and, to various degrees, universally showed negative impacts (Claar et al. 1999). The most common theme is that motorized routes generally displace bears, and they use the habitat adjacent to motorized routes less than distant areas. Further, grizzly bear survival improves as “secure” habitat and elevation increase, but declines as road density, number of homes, and site developments increase. Thus, roads and developed sites are considered hazards to grizzly bear survival (Schwartz 2010). Results vary with habitat quality, cover, traffic volume, season, and other variables.

The date chosen to establish a baseline for secure habitat was 1998, the year the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem achieved its demographic recovery goals. The percent of secure habitat within each bear management subunit must be maintained at or above levels that existed in 1998 (2016 Conservation Strategy). Secure habitat is defined as areas greater than 10 acres in size that are more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route used by the public or by the Forest Service for administrate travel. Motorized use of roads, at any time or frequency during the non-denning season, reduces otherwise secure grizzly bear habitat by the acreage associated with the 500 m buffer.

Only roads that are physically impassable to motorized vehicles (e.g., trucks or off road vehicles) by virtue of physical barriers—Kelly humps, dense vegetation regrowth, downfall, road washouts—are considered “closed” to motorized travel for purposes of identifying secure habitat. Thus, only physically-impassable roads and unroaded areas contribute to the acreage of secure grizzly bear habitat.

Temporary reductions in secure habitat inside the PCA below baseline levels may occur if (1) only one project is active in a grizzly bear subunit at a time, (2) the total acreage of active projects within a BMU does not exceed 1% of the acreage in the largest subunit within that BMU, (3) the use of project roads is limited to administrative purposes that support the project, (4) project

77

implementation does not reduce secure habitat below baseline levels for more than 4 consecutive years, and (5) the collective set of project roads that reduce secure habitat below baseline levels are closed to all motorized travel after 3 years, and project roads are decommissioned such that secure habitat is restored within 1 year after road closures.

The Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management subunit 2 is 202,348 acres in size and provides 166,148 acres of secure grizzly bear habitat that covers approximately 83% of the subunit. This level is below the 2015 average of 87.0% secure habitat for bear management subunits across the PCA, and higher than the adjacent bear management subunits. Crandall-Sunlight subunit #1 and Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management subunit #3 have 82% and 81% secure habitat, respectively (Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team 2016). Most of the secure habitat in the BMU is located within the North Absaroka Wilderness or the Inventoried Roadless Areas that support large, contiguous areas where grizzly bears can meet their biological requirements with little disturbance from humans.

Open road density has been used as a measure of human impacts to grizzly bear habitat, and is considered in maintaining the 1998 baseline for impacts to grizzly bear habitat (Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2015). The 2015 Shoshone National Forest Plan and 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem do not impose any mandatory standards pertaining to motorized route density. However, the SNF tracks and reports annually to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee values for road access in the form of Seasonal Open Motorized Access Route Density (OMARD—the per cent of each BMU subunit that exceeds 1.0 miles of open road per square mile, calculated seasonally). Also reported is Total Open Motorized Access Route Density (TMARD; the per cent of each BMU subunit that exceeds 2.0 miles of road per square mile that is open to motorized travel, calculated over the entire non-denning season for grizzly bears). Seasonal OMARD is measured for two seasons: Season 1 (March 1–July 15), and Season 2 (July 16–November 30). Gated routes that prohibit public access for an entire season do not count toward seasonal route density (i.e., season of closure) but do contribute toward TMARD (Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations 2015). All motorized routes open to the public and or administrative personnel during any portion of the non-denning season contribute to TMARD. Decommissioned routes that are managed for long-term closure to all motorized use do not contribute to OMARD or TMARD and do not detract from secure grizzly bear habitat.

78

Figure 16 The treatment units in the proposed action relative to Crandall-Sunlight Bear Analysis Unit.

79

Figure 17 Grizzly bear secure habitat (red) in BMU subunit 2, as temporarily affected by the proposed action. The area shown is a detail of the Squaw Creek treatment units.

80

Figure 18 Grizzly bear secure habitat (red) along Highway 296 and the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River in the BMU subunit 2, as temporarily affected by the proposed action.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects on grizzly bears and their secure habitat, as no road construction or vegetation management would occur.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Grizzly bears would likely avoid areas when mechanical treatments were in progress. Bears that did use the area during project implementation would be unlikely to accidently obtain human food from field workers because food storage requirements would be in effect. Compliance monitoring and enforcement of the attractant storage order and other elements of the Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan by forest officers would occur on a regular basis. Personnel would be informed of possible risks to bears, and crews would be trained in measures to minimize bear-human conflicts, attractant storage, appropriate human behavior in conflict situations, and the use of bear spray. These measures have been effective at preventing bear-human conflicts associated with timber sales on the Shoshone National Forest in the past. Bear-human conflicts are therefore not expected.

Temporary road construction would reduce grizzly bear secure habitat and increase total motorized access route density during project implementation (Table 17). The proposed action would create 12 miles of temporary roads, and reconstruct 23 miles of existing forest system roads. The use of existing system roads during the project would not reduce secure bear habitat because such roads are currently in use.

81

The proposed action complies with all requirements of the secure habitat standard in the conservation strategy, which allows for incursions during federal projects into secure grizzly bear habitat on a temporary basis. Even if all project roads were used simultaneously (would not be the case), the standard would still be met. Only this one temporary project would be active during its implementation in the Crandall 2 subunit. The total acreage of secure grizzly bear habitat temporarily affected by the project would not exceed 1% of the total acreage of the largest subunit (here subunit 2) within the Crandall-Sunlight BMU. Based on a 500-meter buffer around all passable, motorized routes (public or administrative use), the proposed action would temporarily affect approximately 1.8 mi2 (1,183 acres) of secure habitat, approximately 0.58% of the 316.3 mi2 (202,348 acres; without lakes) in subunit 2. Temporary roads would be decommissioned following project completion, and secure habitat restored within one year of completion of project activities.

Secure habitat in subunit 2 would be temporarily reduced by 0.6% in the Proposed Action Alternative. Implementation of the proposed action would not reduce secure habitat in Crandall- Sunlight BMU subunits 1 and 3.

In the analysis for subunit 2, OMARD values remained constant during Seasons 1 and 2, but TMARD values increased by 11% (Table 17). There were no changes in these values for the other subunits.

Vegetation cover would be reduced by timber harvest. Changes in the distribution and quantity of cover are not necessarily detrimental to grizzly bears (Blanchard and Knight 1996). Effects to grizzly bear foraging habitat would be very limited, as the forested areas proposed for treatment currently provide little forage value for bears. Mechanical treatments would result in an increase in herbaceous vegetation in the forest understory, some of which would provide forage for bears. While vegetation is a large part of a bear’s diet, it is relatively low forage value compared to more limited high-calorie foods like meat, whitebark pine nuts, and army cutworm moths (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 2007).

In summary, this alternative’s principal effect would be a temporary reduction in secure grizzly habitat and displacement of bears from treatment sites during project implementation. However, large acreages of secure habitat would be available adjacent to treatment units, and throughout the remainder of the BMU. All secure habitat temporarily reduced by these alternatives would be restored after temporary roads were closed. The potential for conflicts would be reduced by application of food storage regulations and bear safety training. No mortality of grizzly bears is anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

Table 16 Secure habitat and motorized access values for the Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management Unit. See text for definitions of OMARD and TMARD.

Crandall-Sunlight BM Subunit 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Secure Habitat (%) 81.9 81.9

Secure Habitat (mi2) 106.2 106.2

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) during Season 1 (March 1–July 15) 12.5 12.5

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) during Season 2 (July 16–November 30) 18.5 18.5

82

Total Motorized Access Road Density >= 2 mi/mi2 (%) 6.27 6.27

Crandall-Sunlight BM Subunit 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Secure Habitat (%) 82.7 82.1

Secure Habitat (mi2) 261.5 259.7

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) Season 1 14.8 14.8

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) Season 2 16.0 16.0

Total Motorized Access Road Density >= 2 mi/mi2 (%) 11.2 12.6

Crandall-Sunlight BM Subunit 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Secure Habitat (%) 81.1 81.1

Secure Habitat (mi2) 179.9 179.9

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) Season 1 14.3 14.3

Open Motorized Access Road Density >= 1.0 mi/mi2 (%) Season 2 18.8 18.8

Total Motorized Access Road Density >= 2 mi/mi2 (%) 10.4 10.4

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area was defined as the Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management Unit. The area primarily encompasses U.S. Forest Service lands, but includes private and state lands as well. This area was chosen because it is sufficiently large to meet the ecological requirements of an individual grizzly bear.

Because the entire BMU is dominated by Forest Service lands, future activities on state or private lands by comparison are very limited in scope. State and private actions are not anticipated to influence road construction on SNF lands, and thus do not detract from secure habitat in the cumulative effects area Hunting, horseback riding, fishing, camping, and general dispersed recreation are conducted by private individuals using state, private, and national forest land. Food storage is required in the entire cumulative effects area; therefore, potential bear conflicts are minimized.

Past and ongoing activities in the cumulative effects area include domestic livestock grazing, prescribed burning, commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, road decommissioning, hunting, horseback riding, fishing, personal use firewood gathering, camping, and general dispersed recreation. Modifications to grizzly bear habitat have resulted from road building, timber harvest, livestock grazing, residential development adjacent to National Forest System lands, and suppression of wildfire.

Past and current activities contribute to present habitat conditions, including the amount of secure habitat available to grizzly bears. With regard to temporary roads, protections for secure habitat were incorporated into project design features, as required by the conservation strategy. Thus, the

83

direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, primarily the displacement of bears from otherwise secure habitat, are short-term. Considering the existing and foreseeable impacts to grizzly bears across the cumulative effects area, and specific project design features for bears, the proposed action would add little to the cumulative effects. Less than 1% of secure grizzly bear habitat in the Crandall-Sunlight Bear Management Subunit 2 would be temporarily affected.

Effects Determination and Rationale After reviewing the current status of the grizzly bear and its habitat, the environmental baseline for the area, the effects of the vegetation treatment actions, and the cumulative effects, it was determined that the proposed action is consistent with the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear and SNF Forest Plan. The proposed action meets the Secure Habitat Standard. There would be temporary, but no permanent, reductions in secure habitat associated with the project. Vegetation treatments would not affect the grizzly bear food supply. The direct and indirect effects of the project would be minor additions to the cumulative effects that otherwise allowed the recovery and delisting of the grizzly bear under its recovery plan and conservation strategy.

Environmental Effect on Visuals The degree of acceptable alteration to the landscape is provided by the Shoshone Forest Plan and is described in terms of Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives. The objectives are based on the visibility of landscapes and incorporate Management Area objectives in the Forest Plan.

The scenic resource evaluation of the BRP area began with a review of spatial data of inventoried visual resource attributes for content and accuracy. Field reconnaissance of the project area was conducted to verify the scenic inventory mapping information. This included examination of the visual experience from within and outside the study area. The Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for the BRP were formulated using GIS and incorporating Forest Plan Management Area designations and the Distance Zone visual resource attribute. No further modifications were made to the database and all relevant GIS information for the scenery resource was determined accurate.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) SIO provide qualitative measurable standards to assess the scenery resource based on the landform characteristics and the level of public concern. They are established by incorporating the following visual resource elements: variety class, viewing sensitivity, and distance zone. In providing a measure by which to describe scenic effects, these objectives include:

High SIO: “Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer” 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.

Moderate SIO: Management and design activities will be subordinate to the landscape character of the area. Changes in the landscape may be evident to the casual observer but appear as natural occurrences when contrasted with the appearance of the surrounding landscape.

Low SIO: Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. Activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type.

84

Very Low SIO: Land Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape. Yet when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence.

Distance Zones Visibility, mapped in terms of distance zones, is a measure of how visual changes are perceived in the landscape. Changes in form, line, color, and texture become less perceptible with increasing distance. The Forest Service describes visibility in terms of three distance zones: foreground, middleground, and background (USDA Forest Service 2007). Areas not visible from visual priority travel routes and use areas are termed “seldom seen”. Each distance zone describes the level of detail or change that can typically be perceived when viewing the landscape.

Foreground: (0 - ½ mile) – The portion of the seen area in which detail in the landscape becomes noticeable. Foliage and fine textural details of vegetation are normally perceptible within this zone.

Middleground: (½ - 3 to 5 miles) - The portion of the seen area in which details of foliage and fine textures cease to be perceptible and objects in the landscape are perceived mainly by their form. Vegetation appears as outlines or patterns.

Background: (3-5 miles and greater) - The portion of the seen area where texture and color are weak, and landforms become the most dominant element. Background views of the mountain ranges frame the horizon in this landscape. The visual elements of line and form are dominant. Strong color contrasts of sufficient size may still be noticeable. There are no units visible from Background distance zone within or adjacent to the project area.

Seldom Seen Area: Topography sometimes prevents portions of landscapes from being viewed at any distance from the selected travelways or use areas. These landscapes, not visible in the foreground, middleground, or background from any of the selected travelways or use areas, are considered Seldom-Seen since we know they may be seen, at a minimum, from aircraft and by the occasional viewer wandering through the forest.

Existing Visual Condition The Landscape Character within the BRP area is divided into several common and distinct landscape features: mountain tops, mountain slopes, mountain lakes, foothills and dense forest. Existing vegetation within the project area includes Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, Douglas fir, limber pine, lodgepole pine, aspen and willows. Most of the visually dominant forest types are in older age classes.

The majority of the attractiveness or visual variety within the project area is class “A”, distinctive, especially in the areas where past management activities are not evident. Other portions of the project area are variety class “B”, which is represented in the more uniform forest stands with landform diversity and some variety due to aspen mix. Generally the area is highly scenic, unique, and distinct due to the landscape variety in vegetation, geology, water features and dramatic landforms.

Over the past century, roads in the project area have been constructed and reconstructed on a fairly regular basis. Uses of the roads have primarily reflected dual primary purposes of commodity extraction and amenity appreciation (scenery, hunting and wildlife viewing and recreation).

Almost all of the Forest system roads were constructed before the development of the Visual Management System (VMS). Within the analysis area, the casual observer does not notice most existing project roads due to the high to moderate visual absorption capability of the diverse

85

landforms and vegetative landscape character. From the foreground views, the forest canopy screens and/or hides most of the road cuts and fills.

Project Area SIO The existing project area SIO range from High to Low. Much of the existing visual condition (EVC) meets High SIO. Most of the project area currently meets the allocated SIO identified in the 2015 Shoshone Forest Plan.

Desired Condition The desired visual condition for the project area is described in the current Forest Plan. It provides guidance for managing visual resources in a way that maintains or improves the quality of recreation opportunities. Management activities are not evident or remain visually subordinate along forest arterial and collector roads and primary trails. In other portions of the area, management activities may dominate in foreground and middleground, but harmonize and blend with the natural setting. Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable visual quality. Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements of the landscape to improve visual variety is also used.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1 No Action and assuming no wildfire, some temporal changes within the project area would be evident. The forest would appear natural to most casual observers, including tourists and general recreation visitors. Portions of conifer stands may continue to decline and die due to insects and disease, as experienced recently in much of the project area. Over time, tree mortality as observed from the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway, may cause a reduction in the visual variety class of the project area.

At the same time, conifers may continue to encroach upon aspen clones with the possibility of some loss of clones over the next two to three decades. The change to the visual condition of the project area where encroachment occurs will result in reduction in visual variety and landform diversity and may be unnoticeable to the casual forest visitor. In the event of a wildfire the Existing Visual Condition of the project area could be drastically altered, leaving black tree trunk skeletons and a scorched understory. In the long term, the existing visual condition may be reduced by wildfire with unintended consequences.

Foreground The foreground views would be most affected. Within the foreground, existing visual conditions are declining in lodgepole/whitebark stands and will continue to deteriorate as additional insect infestations occur, creating a future visual condition where tree mortality could lower the condition below Moderate SIO in the next few decades, similar to effects occurring in other portions of the Shoshone National Forest. Whether or not fire occurs, the form, line, texture, and especially color of the vegetative landscape will likely continue to change and negatively affect the existing visual condition with the inevitable effects of ongoing insect and disease infestations. If fire were to occur, the short term loss to scenery could be evident on a large scale, but over time would gradually tend toward recovery possibly returning to Moderate to High SIO over the next several decades.

Middleground and Background Views Again assuming no wildfire, the deteriorating visual effects of declining vegetation due to insect and disease may accelerate over the next few decades. Long term recovery rates (40 to 50+ years)

86

would be expected. Wildfire has the potential to affect large acreages, depending on the weather and other wildfire conditions, resulting in heavily altered appearing landscape or Very Low SIO.

Project Area SIO Under Alternative 1, project area SIO would continue to range from High to Low. The majority of the project area should remain in High to Moderate SIO unless unexpected and catastrophic events such as fire were to alter the appearance of the landscape. Most of the project area currently meets the allocated SIO with the exception of some recently managed areas seen in the foreground along the Chief Joseph Byway.

Under the No Action Alternative, the crowded, overstocked conditions in portions of the project area could continue. The vast stands of dead lodgepole pine detract from the scenic qualities of the landscape. Together, these elements would maintain the uncharacteristic vegetative mosaic across the landscape. If the vegetation is consumed by fire, or widespread insect infestations, the desired landscape character would be lost.

Conclusions Under the No Action Alternative, the crowded, overstocked conditions in portions of the project area could continue. The vast stands of dead lodgepole pine detract from the scenic qualities of the landscape. Together, these elements would maintain the uncharacteristic vegetative mosaic across the landscape. If the vegetation is consumed by fire, or widespread insect infestations, the desired landscape character would be lost.

Alternative 1 would be in compliance for scenery resources. SIO would be met within the project area since no management activity would occur under this alternative. Changes would be from ecological processes.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed project would have both negative and beneficial effects on visuals. The visual effects of forest management activities would be greatest immediately following completion of the project. Within 5 years, vegetation would begin to grow, transitioning a change in color from brown to light green. Green trees retained in the project area would reduce the overall contrast of new growth with the surrounding forest. From 5 to 20 years after tree removal, young trees would become established reaching a height of approximately 15 feet and further reducing the color contrast with adjacent forested areas. After 30 years, the emerging forest would achieve a height of maturity. Edge lines forming the boundary of harvested areas would also become less apparent; the appearance further reduced by symmetrical design.

Following project implementation, some of the treatment units within the BRP area would meet Moderate to Low SIO within 3 to 5 years. Realizing that scenic integrity would continue to deteriorate with or without vegetation treatment, as described in the effects of Alternative 1, long-term forest health and scenic sustainability and enhancement become the primary and common management principle.

After project activities are implemented, insects and disease are expected to continue to affect stands in older age classes outside treatment areas, potentially resulting in broad areas of standing dead trees. With the anticipated conditions, wildfire would be a continued threat, and could significantly alter the condition of existing conditions in both overstory and understory vegetation. Project activities would help reduce fuels and consequential wildfire risks and hazards near cabins and some Forest Service facilities within the project area. This would help to protect

87

these features that play an important role in the scenic quality, history and “sense of place” within the project area.

Immediately following project activities, scenic character and integrity would be altered and scenic integrity temporarily diminished from its current natural appearance, especially across the timbered portion of the project within the foreground view as seen from Chief Joseph Scenic Byway. The duration of impacts would depend on revegetation of the area. For example, in areas with aspen clones recovery of scenic integrity due to aspen regeneration could be expected to reach Moderate in 5 to 10 years. Areas planted with conifers could recover to Moderate SIO in 20 to 30 years. On some low productivity sites, the recovery might take more than 30 to 50 years to achieve a recovered and natural appearing forest.

Reduction of hazardous fuels can have benefits to scenery. In the long term, proposed vegetation treatment should result in substantial net positive scenic benefits meeting Moderate, and with time, High SIO. Visual recovery under this alternative would occur sooner than if left untreated.

Foreground From the casual observer’s perspective in the foreground, immediate negative visual effects are expected. Compared to the project area’s existing forested and other mixed landscape settings, the foreground visual quality is expected to be temporarily adversely affected for approximately 5 to 20 years depending on species regeneration (e.g. aspen versus conifers).

In the foreground, mechanical treatment units would most likely not meet High SIO, and probably would reduce the visual conditions below Low SIO in portions of the project area, especially as seen from Highway 296 - Chief Joseph Scenic Byway. Roughly 10 to 20 years may pass until Low SIO or better is met based on visual evidence of management.

Foreground settings would be altered immediately after clear cuts (including those with reserves), aspen enhancement, thinning, and selective overstory removals. These treatments would create more open vistas and filtered view openings from the roadways and other recreation facilities; increased vistas of geologic formations and dramatic landforms; open stands near lodges, cabins and other recreation facilities; and expanded open meadows.

The effects of most ground level disturbances to vegetation and soil should begin to diminish within the first growing season. The duration of this process is directly related to the extent of disturbance. In two or three years, native grasses and herbaceous vegetation would cover most sites. The presence of herbaceous and native grasses would help to restore the visual quality of foreground views from Highway 296.

Within foreground aspen treatments and where aspen tree stems are to be left in a jack straw configuration to protect regeneration from over-browsing by wildlife, it would take approximately two decades to recover to Moderate SIO. In the meantime the temporary adverse impact would probably reduce the SIO to Low.

After five to 20 years, temporary adverse visual effects are anticipated to metamorphose into healthy and visually vibrant forest settings with younger age classes of conifers and fresh sprouted and spreading aspen.

In the long-term (a few decades) scenic integrity enhancement through mechanical treatment is a practical and efficient strategy to speed up the transition from a forest with high mortality to a visually enhanced scenic resource; wildfire would be the only other method possible for fast ecological transition.

Within a few decades (possibly more on low productivity sites) and with continued management and absence of wildfires, the benefits from the proposed action would include:

88

• Rejuvenation of aspen clones and riparian areas for enhanced seasonal foliage contrast and increased potential for wildlife viewing.

• Increased stand structure variability for scenic variety. • Increased filtered views through and within proposed treatment units with overstory removal

and clearcuts with reserves. • Enhanced irregular edge pattern defined by the contrast of reforested areas against managed

openings for wildlife and structure protection from wildfire. • Defined and enlarged meadow settings. • Enhanced and broader fall color contrast with surrounding conifer dominated mountainsides. • Healthier stands with more robust and vibrant vegetative landscape with less wildfire

propensity during the next century and until the next succession cycle. • Enlarged and broader landscape openings with more expansive views. Middleground and Background Views Few background views exist where they are not superseded by overlying middle ground views from other observation locations and travel routes. Therefore, this analysis will analyze background synchronously within the middleground portion of the viewshed.

The visual effects of treating the foreground would extend beyond to middle and background viewsheds.

Reduction of hazardous fuels can have benefits to scenery within the project area, especially in the long term (approximately 30 or more years). After the forested portion of the landscape recovers and attains High SIO levels, more visual diversity is anticipated. Many of the detailed benefits would be the same as the foreground effects for Alternative 1, described above. Other long-term benefits to middleground and background viewsheds are: • Enhanced and more diverse mosaic patterns at a broad landscape scale. • Enhanced aspen fall color and dramatic aspen mosaic patterns throughout all seasons in the

long term. • Younger regenerated stands provide accentuated and fine textures across the slopes while

enhancing the chromatic forest hues inherent to each.

The effects of harvest and road construction would over time regain naturally occurring characteristics as seen by the casual observer. The landscape would begin to resume those visual characteristics anticipated by the general public immediately after implementation and within the short term timeframe. Design criteria has been established with regard to all management activities to increase the rate of visual recovery.

Cumulative Effects Analysis of other activities occurring in the area include roadside hazard tree removal and firewood cutting. These activities create lines and forms in the vegetative canopy and result in cut stumps and slash piles visible from roadsides.

Removal of hazard trees occurs at specific distances from the road corridor. This may often result in a geometric corridor of forest vegetation and textures along the roads adjacent to treatment units that appears unnatural and may be obvious to forest visitors.

The effects of treatments vary in duration and intensity depending upon site-specific conditions. It is anticipated that the short term effects of cut stumps and slash would diminish over time as under-story vegetation grows above the stumps. Long term, it may take 5-years or longer for vegetation to break up the lines and geometric forms of hazard tree removal and firewood cutting

89

activities. However, accelerated regeneration of the understory due to the removal of the overstory would result in species diversity and increased variety in color and texture to the landscapes.

In areas where proposed activities overlap with the hazard tree removal and firewood cutting, design features would be in place that would reduce the impacts of the activities on visual resources. By implementing the design features, proposed activities would meet the intended SIO eventually, but not immediately upon implementation of the activity. Additionally, implementation of these measures minimizes short-term negative impacts and would result in longer term, positive effects to the scenic quality of the project area.

Conclusions Implementation of this alternative would likely result in not meeting the desired visual condition within some units in the project area. The SIOs assigned in the Forest Plan within the project areas provided the primary qualitative analysis indicator when determining direct and indirect effects. The proposed management activities associated with Alternative 2 would be visible within and adjacent to the project area, particularly along the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway. Immediately following project implementation, management activities would create temporary adverse visual impacts. Visual impacts from these management activities as seen from roads and recreation facilities, would vary after treatments are completed. The degree of visual impact would vary on a case by case basis dependent on treatment type, as well as aspect and distance from viewers. In areas of concentrated dead trees, a jackstraw effect within natural regeneration re-establishment could potentially occur. In the future, it is anticipated that the project area would regenerate toward naturally occurring forested characteristics moving the landscape toward the Desired Future Condition.

Environmental Effects on Water Resources The Budworm Response Project area falls within four 6th-level watersheds adjacent to the North Absaroka Class 1 airshed. The majority of the subwatersheds are classified as functioning properly meaning they have minimal undesirable human impact on natural, physical, or biological processes, and if resilient and able to recover when disturbed by large natural disturbances or land management activities (USDA, Forest Service 2011). Surface water resources in the project area generally consist of perennial and ephemeral channels, and groundwater resources are evident in the form of seeps, springs, and groundwater dependent wetlands. Precipitation is derived from late winter or early spring snow accumulation with the remaining contributions coming from summer rainfall. The State of Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality classifies these waters based on designated uses for which the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses is maintained and protected. The highest classification within the project area is 2AB which provides for water quality to protect the following uses: drinking water, fisheries (cold water), aquatic life other than fish, fish consumption, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry, and scenic value (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2013a) (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2013b).

Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for each impacted resource. Resources that were not impacted and therefore not further analyzed include: municipal watersheds. The project is not within any designated municipal watersheds.

The project area and associated effects analysis use the sixth level watershed boundaries as the basis. This includes the following subwatersheds: Muddy Creek Composite (100700060106),

90

Swamp Lake Composite (100700060301), Barrs Creek Composite (100700060303), and Lower Crandall Creek Composite (100700060203). The analysis for water resources includes effects to air quality, sediment, bed and bank stability, flow regimes, temperature, water purity, riparian ecosystems, wetlands, and floodplains. A primary factor in determining the effects to water resources are the design features that serve to minimize effects.

The water resources effects analysis assumes the proposed action includes PDF described in Appendix A. It should be noted that the water influence zone is not a management exclusion zone for this assessment. Therefore the provisions in the PDF are designed to minimize and mitigate effects to water resources. The ability to implement adaptive management practices when the effectiveness of PDF are not sufficient is part of the expectation of these mitigation measures (USDA, Forest Service 2012).

Analysis and Indicators The water resources analysis is based on comparison of effects to water resources of key indicators. Each water resource focus area is explained to provide rationale for the indicators used to measure effects and compare alternatives.

Sediment Rivers function in a state of dynamic equilibrium and are constantly adjusting to changes in climate and landscape which are shown through changes in sediment and water inputs. The adjustments occur in the form of lateral migration and changes in channel width, depth, and sinuosity. Activities that increase sediment beyond what the channel can move, can result in deposition in the interstitial spaces which reduces hyporheic14 flow and fish spawning habitat (Palmer, Lettenmaier, Poff, Postel, Richter, & Warner, 2009).

Most sediment delivered to streams comes from a source zone that varies based on topography, soils, and ground cover alongside the stream. Disturbed areas connected to streams like roads and other disturbed soils near streams can deliver sediment to waterways during runoff events.

Unpaved roads are also a major source of sediment in forested watersheds. Road prisms, cut-slopes, and inside ditches are subjected to concentrated runoff. Erosion rates are generally highest during road construction and decrease over time as the soils stabilize. Even abandoned roads can produce significant amounts of sediment until they revegetate (USDA, Forest Service, 2008b). Not only will roads located adjacent to stream channels or other waterbodies increase the probability of road related sediment reaching the stream, but roads that impinge on streams can also increase bed and bank erosion by reducing channel sinuosity (MacDonald and Stednick 2003) (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010).

Streamside vegetation serving as filter strips have been used to prevent overland flow and soil erosion from reaching surface waters. The role of the vegetated filter strip is to decrease the velocity of the overland flow by creating surface roughness allowing sediment to settle out and overland flows to infiltrate into the undisturbed soils. The characteristics that determine filter strip efficiency include width, vegetative and litter cover, surface roughness, and microtopography (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010).

Indicators for Effects Analysis: 1) Miles of connected disturbed areas on existing roads. 2) Number of stream crossings on temporary roads, and 3) Miles of temporary road within the water influence zone.

14 Region beneath and lateral to the stream where there is a mixing of surface water and shallow groundwater.

91

Bed and Bank Stability Bed and bank stability can be damaged from trampling by animals or humans, vehicle impact, degraded bank vegetation, or excessive flow augmentations. Streams can be made wider and shallower, pools and overhanging banks can be destroyed, and much sediment can be added to streams.

Riparian vegetation directly affects stream channel characteristics and streambank stability. It armors stream banks and binds bank sediment as well as provide stabilization and maintenance to naturally undercut banks. Where effects to bank stability occur, there is the potential to create effects downstream.

Trees along the banks have also been shown to provide for the maintenance of streambank stability. Large wood affects geomorphic, hydrological, and ecological processes in streams and rivers. It affects erosion, sediment deposition and transport, gravel bar formation, and channel and floodplain sedimentation (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010).

Indicators for Effects Analysis: Number of temporary stream crossings.

Flow Regimes Flow regimes can be altered by major changes in cover type or ground cover, dense road networks, or water projects. Flow alteration is considered a key factor in how climate and other stressors affect river ecosystems. Maintaining natural variations in flow is critical to both stream health and ecological integrity. Natural flow regimes are representative of the unaltered landscape and reflect the interaction of precipitation, temperature, soils, geology, and land cover. Additionally, these flow regimes support different ecological communities (Palmer, Lettenmaier, Poff, Postel, Richter, & Warner, 2009). Changes in flow can occur from tree mortality as well as timber harvest activities.

As tree mortality occurs, there is decreased water transpiration which increases soil moisture and the potential availability of water for runoff or use by understory vegetation. Dead standing trees will continue to intercept precipitation which, in-turn, reduces the potential for water yield increases. In multi-storied stands, studies have shown that stand structure continues to provide for snow and precipitation interception with the live understory mitigating the effects of the dead trees (USDA, Forest Service, 2008b).

Water yield increases have also been shown to occur from timber harvest activities and prescribed burning by decreasing vegetation. At the sub-watershed scale (6th level HUC), the minimum detectable level for increases in water yield is a removal of 15% of the basal area, and noted increases occur where there is between a 20-25% decrease in basal area (Troendle, et al. 2001) (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010). However, in order to see detectable increases in runoff related to vegetation removal, annual precipitation must exceed between 18 and 20 inches. Precipitation up to this threshold is used for evapotranspiration, and a small percentage beyond it is lost to interception and consequent evaporation. The remainder contributes to runoff. Average annual precipitation for this area is 24 inches, so beyond approximately 20 inches, the rest of the precipitation goes toward runoff and if fuel management or harvest areas within the watershed equal or exceed 15% this would indicate a detectable increase in runoff at the watershed scale (MacDonald and Stednick 2003).

Methods to mitigate these hydrologic effects include: 1) Maintaining a diversity of cover types and leaving fine and coarse woody slash on-site and in openings in order to retain surface roughness which maintains soil moisture and consequently supports revegetation, 2) Minimizing harvest operations in riparian areas and considering wider riparian buffer widths, and 3) Retaining

92

green vegetation (i.e., understory and overstory) both inside and outside riparian areas (USDA, Forest Service, 2008b).

Indicators for Effects Analysis: 1) The percentage of each subwatershed where riparian and overstory vegetation is being affected, and 2) The average annual precipitation compared to annual evaporative losses.

Stream Temperature Summer water temperature is increased, and winter water temperature is decreased by removing shade, reducing low flows, or damaging banks so streams are wider and shallower. Dissolved oxygen is usually reduced when summer water temperature is increased. Such impacts impair the suitability of water bodies for aquatic biota.

Water temperature varies within and among stream systems based on topographic shade, upland and riparian vegetation, ambient air temperature, relative humidity, altitude, latitude, discharge, water source, and solar angle. Direct sunlight warms streams, particularly during periods of low flow. Stream segments in different parts of a drainage basin vary in response and sensitivity to activities that alter the above drivers. While there are many influences on stream temperature, riparian and upland vegetation is one of the few factors that can be actively managed to influence stream temperature. This is especially important in headwater streams for moderating thermal fluctuations (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010). Indicators for Effects Analysis: Miles of stream and acres of wetland that are within the water influence zone that are included in harvest units.

Water Purity Streamwater nutrient responses to timber harvest have been shown to vary by locality and physiographic region. However nutrient responses to silvicultural activities are generally minimal and water quality is not affected (Stednick 2000). At the plot scale, for timber harvest areas, there may be an increase in nutrient concentrations in surface waters, but even these increases have not been shown to be significant relative to drinking water standards. At the watershed scale (5th level watershed), this nutrient flux is not apparent. In general, timber harvest has a minute effect on nutrient related water quality, and increases are short-lived (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). In addition, if vegetation is reestablished quickly, nutrient exports are short-lived and do not represent a threat to water quality (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010). Indicators for Effects Analysis: Percent of the vegetation affected that may contribute to nutrient related water purity.

Riparian Ecosystems Riparian ecosystems provide shade, bank stability, fish cover, and woody debris beneficial to aquatic ecosystems. They also provide key wildlife habitat, migration corridors, sediment storage and release, and contribute to surface-ground water interactions. Composition and structure of riparian vegetation can be changed by actions that remove certain species and age classes. Riparian ecosystems are mosaics that vary by width and plant community type.

Riparian areas are an important long-term source of large wood for streams and floodplains. The effectiveness to deliver large wood to riparian areas generally declines at distances greater than one tree height from the stream; however, timber harvest only adjacent to riparian buffers eliminates large wood recruitment and increases the potential for windthrow (Troendle, MacDonald and Luce 2010).

Riparian functions and values that can be affected by mechanical treatments or prescribed burning include shade (including dead overstory, live overstory, and understory veg), sediment filtering,

93

bank stability, and woody debris input. Riparian treatments should only maintain or improve stream or riparian conditions. Severe fire in riparian areas can cause extensive damage to plant cover and litter layers which can cause increases in streamflow velocity, sedimentation rates, and stream temperatures; the short term stream impacts are debris flows, ash flows, and increased suspended sediment. However, riparian areas are resilient and even after severe fires, pre-fire conditions may be reached again in only a few years (USDA, Forest Service, 2008b).

Indicators for Effects Analysis: Acres of riparian and upland vegetation within the water influence zone that are included in harvest units or are subject to changes in vegetation.

Wetlands and Floodplains Wetlands control runoff and water quality, recharge ground water, and provide special habitats. They are also often areas of ground water discharge. Actions that may alter their ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, drainage patterns, and long-term plant composition can impair these values. Wetlands and floodplains serve to moderate impacts to natural shifts in condition.

Executive Order 11990 requires that management actions avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and avoid new construction in wetlands whenever practicable alternatives exist. Any new construction in wetlands shall be available for early public review (Protection of Wetlands 1977).

Relative to floodplains, Executive Order 11988 requires that actions shall avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Most relevant for this project is the direction to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains (Floodplain Management 1977).

The Forest Plan, in various sections, also states that fen wetlands shall be protected and that hydrologic function and integrity shall be maintained (2015).

Indicators for Effects Analysis: 1) Actions that are or will affect wetlands, 2) Actions that will modify the natural beneficial values of floodplains, and 3) Miles of new construction in wetland, and 4) Miles of road maintenance in wetland.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative included consideration of natural disturbances as well as management activities. In addition, unforeseen natural events such as wildfire could occur in the future, but factors affecting resources such as location, size, and intensity are unknown. As such, only effects from the currently occurring beetle and budworm infestations are considered for the No Action Alternative.

Sediment Within the No Action Alternative, there are no temporary roads, so the only sediment indicators to consider are those on system roads. While it is recognized that there is a sediment contribution from existing system roads, there are some where known concerns exist. The NFSR 116 and 116.1A roads are adjacent to a wetland area, and the prisms for each have the potential to introduce fill material into wetlands.

Sediment inputs from these roads would continue and when properly permitted are within the bounds of existing regulatory permits. Review of these roads should occur by Forest staff regarding options for to minimize sediment delivery.

94

Bed and Bank Stability There would be no temporary roads or associated stream crossings under the No Action Alternative, so there would be no effects. However, given the current budworm infestation, the amount of standing dead timber could result in changes to the bed and bank stability from treefall or other natural disturbances. It is expected that this would still be within a natural range.

Flow Regimes The dendrologic vegetation in the project area watersheds have been affected by both pine beetle and spruce budworm resulting in various stages of mortality across the watershed. The percentages of each stage as well as the amount of live understory vegetation is unknown. However, it is known that the effects from bug infestations are resulting in large scale tree loss of all age classes. Given that the annual precipitation exceeds evaporative losses, it is likely that there would be an increase in runoff and shallow groundwater.

Under the No Action Alternative, it is expected that there may be an increase in runoff and shallow groundwater in the project area.

Stream Temperature Overstory vegetation, even after trees have died, still provides some level of shading, and riparian vegetation would remain intact. Effects of the current infestation are likely to result in increased sun exposure and some level of stream warming during the low flow period until riparian and overstory vegetation is reestablished. This could last anywhere from five years for riparian vegetation reestablishment to several decades for the overstory.

Water Purity The entire stand of trees within each subwatershed in the project area is affected by the insect infestation. There may be an increase in nutrient concentrations given the scale of the outbreak, but quantitative estimates are not available.

Riparian Ecosystems Under the No Action Alternative natural processes would continue to occur within these watersheds including the above mentioned effects to stream temperature, water quality, flow regimes, and sediment. While there would be some level of effect to riparian ecosystems, it is expected that this would be within a natural range and result in minor impacts.

Wetlands and Floodplains The No Action Alternative results in no changes to wetlands that are outside their natural range of acceptable disturbance. There are no actions associated with the No Action Alternative that would modify the natural beneficial values of floodplains. There would be no new construction in wetlands. Currently there are 0.5 miles of road maintenance on the current road prism of an existing road (NFSR 116 and 116.1A) that would constitute a wetland fill; however, permits would be acquired as necessary. This may create a hydrologic disconnection.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Sediment The changes in the amount of sediment delivered to streams from miles of connected disturbed areas from existing roads would be the same as in the No Action Alternative.

95

There are seven stream crossings on temporary roads in the Proposed Action Alternative. Two are on perennial streams (i.e., Deadman Creek and Camp Creek). The PDFs in place for this project would minimize effects resulting in short term and minor sedimentation effects. The proposed project includes 1.7 miles of temporary roads within water influence zone areas, but with the provisions in the PDFs, effects would be minor and short-term (i.e., 3-5 years).

Bed/Bank Stability Project design features were created to preserve long-term large wood sources, minimize harvesting equipment near water resources, direct the location of temporary roads to ensure that bed and bank stability are protected, and direct rehabilitation of these sites. The stream crossings will create localized changes to temporary stream crossings, but these areas will be fully rehabilitated to their previous dimensions following use. Where effects occur, they would be short-term and minor.

Flow Regimes The percentage of each subwatershed that would be harvested under this alternative ranges from 0.1% to 6.0% of the total subwatershed acreage, and as such the effects from the proposed action would not be realized at the watershed scale beyond that noted in the No Action Alternative. In terms of the annual precipitation versus evaporative losses affecting flow regimes, there would be no change from the No Action Alternative. The annual precipitation is anticipated to exceed evaporative losses which means that there would likely be increases in runoff and shallow groundwater presenting as seeps and springs.

Based on the percentages being harvested and annual precipitation and evaporation amounts, the effects from the Proposed Action would be negligible, and any noticeable changes would be attributed to the effects of beetle and budworm related tree mortality within the subwatersheds.

Stream Temperature Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would be 13 miles of stream and 35 acres of wetland in the treatment units with the longest stream segment being approximately 0.9 miles on Reef Creek. Project design features were created to ensure that long-term large wood sources are retained through buffer strips and modified silvicultural prescriptions in the water influence zone. The proposed action, with the built in design features, is anticipated to result in no effects to stream temperature.

Water Purity Nutrient responses to silvicultural activities in the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal and have no discernable affect to water purity.

Riparian Ecosystems There would be 170 acres of water influence zone within the proposed project which is less than 1/10th of the total unit area. Project design features were created to ensure that long-term large wood sources would be retained through buffer strips and modified silvicultural prescriptions in the water influence zone. The design features mitigate effects to riparian ecosystems.

Wetlands and Floodplains Wetlands in the project area would be protected by design features, and where there is the potential for effects, PDFs would mitigate them. Floodplains would not be affected due to provisions in the PDFs. The proposed action would not result in new or temporary roads constructed in wetlands, consequently there would be no effects.

96

For floodplains and wetlands, the proposed project activities would avoid long and short term adverse impacts.

Cumulative Effects A wetland fen and nearby groundwater dependent wetlands in Unit 7 of the project area have been impacted by grazing actions (e.g., trampling). The potential increase in access that the proposed action would create could contribute to the degradation of these sites. The scale of effects to the fen would be lessened through implementation of the PDF H-20 which includes complete avoidance of the two known fens in and adjacent to the unit. and their groundwater. Range staff will review these sites to identify any necessary adaptive management prescriptions to protect these sites. Through implementation of this PDF impacts will be avoided.

Conclusion Effects to water resources, where present, are generally minor and short term for both the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives.

A-1

Appendix A – Design Features The project design features (PDF) listed below are part of the proposed action and are intended to minimize or avoid potential adverse environmental effects while meeting project objectives. The following PDF would be implemented in addition to applicable forest plan standards and guidelines, the Forest Service Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25); the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, and the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). All Resources (AR) Roads, Skid Trails, Landings

(ROADS) Aquatics (AQ) Sensitive Plants (P) Cultural Resources (CR) Silviculture (S) Fuels Management (FM) Smoke Management (SM) Hydrology (H) Soils (SOILS) Invasive Species (IS) Visuals (V) Rangelands (R) Wildlife (WL) Recreation (REC)

Design

Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

All Resources

Aquatics

AQ-1 Protect amphibian populations

Drop portions of Unit 1 and 1C beginning from approximately the intersection of NFSR 116 and the highway (see Map 1), extending along a line south-southeasterly to the southern boundary of Unit 1. Boreal toad is a Region 2 Sensitive Species.

Portions of Unit 1 and 1 C (Refer

to map)

Professional Judgement

AQ-2 Protect boreal toad migration and metamorph dispersal routes

Avoid timber harvest within 2.5 km of the boreal toad breeding site adjacent to Unit 1 and Unit 1C boreal toad breeding sites from May 15-July 15. 0

All units within 2.5 km of boreal toad breeding

sites (Unit 1 and 1C west of

yellow line, Unit 7)

Modified from Keinath and McGee 2005

AQ-3 Protect boreal toad migration and metamorph dispersal routes

Avoid timber harvest within Unit 7 from May 15-July 15 to reduce noise and crushing hazards during key terrestrial movements to and from the breeding site adjacent to unit.

Unit 7

Modified from Keinath and McGee 2005; Fish Biologist

A-2

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

AQ-4 Protect Region 2 Sensitive amphibians from crushing and maintain water quality

Improve drainage along NFSR 116 during periods of low toad activity (mid-September to mid-May). Install culverts or similar drainage features during periods of low toad use to reduce ponding in the road prism and drainage ditches to the extent practicable.

NFSR 116 See Fish Report

AQ-5 Protect wetland habitats

Consult with fisheries biologist prior to layout of temporary access road into Unit 11 (near Deadman Creek). Habitat for boreal toads.

Temporary road to Unit 11

Professional Judgement

AQ-6 Maintain YCT habitat

Avoid removal of existing dead and fallen woody debris in Lodgepole Creek channel. Remove existing material only if necessary to protect health/human safety or to prevent impacts to existing infrastructure.

Unit 24/Lodgepole

Creek

Professional Judgement

Cultural Resources

CR-1 Protect cultural sites

Avoid ground disturbance/timber harvesting activities within 50 meters of site 48PA3483 Unit 26 Professional

Judgement

CR-2 Protect cultural sites

If any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area shall halt immediately, the Forest Archeologist and SHPO staff contacted, and the materials evaluated by an archeologist.

All units SHPO

Fuels Mgmt

FM-1 Promote firefighter and public safety

Remove commercial and non-commercial standing dead or dying trees that are within .25 miles from structures in the WUI to ensure canopy breaks to reduce fire spread in the buffer zone.

Units 24, 25, 5, 15, 23

Firewise Landscape for Utah. University of Utah. December 2012. Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. September 15, 2008. A Mathematical Model for Predicting Fire Spread in Wildland Fuels Forest Service Res Paper INT-115, 40 p. Intermountain

A-3

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden UT. [0338]

FM-2 Promote firefighter and public safety

In areas where slope exceeds >35%, a state highway intersects, and WUI is present, mechanically fell dead snags, then lop and scatter fuels to less than 2 feet height.

Units 23, Russell Creek Fuels.

Health and Safety Code Handbook, FSH 6709.11, USDA Forest Service, December 1999. Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. September 15, 2008.

FM-3 Promote firefighter and public safety

Within WUI areas, felled trees would be whole tree yarded to landing areas to make a buffer zone .25 miles from structures with no more than 15 tons per acre remaining on the surface.

Units 28, 24, 25, 5, Reef Creek Fuels, 14, 15,

23.

Firewise Landscape for Utah. University of Utah. December 2012. Health and Safety Code Handbook, FSH 6709.11, USDA Forest Service, December 1999. Incident Response Pocket Guide, January 2014. PMS 461. NWCG Publication. A Mathematical Model for Predicting Fire Spread in Wildland Fuels Forest Service Res Paper INT-115, 40 p. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden UT. [0338]

FM-4 Promote firefighter and public safety

Along state highway 296 ensure slash piles are not ignited simultaneously to avoid violating minimum acceptability visual standards for highway speeds in the area that could threaten the safety of motorists, stock, fire personnel, and wildlife.

Units 24, 25, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDI/NRCS et. al. 2011 A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests,

A-4

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

Technical Publication R8-TP-11. Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality. Chapter 10: Smoke Management.

FM-5 Prevent hazardous fuel buildup

Treat slash piles within two years post contract to eliminate accumulated hazard fuels. All units

Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. September 15, 2008.

Hydrology

H-1 Springs: Protect Water Resources

Springs will be protected by total avoidance unless approved by hydrologist/ecologist/aquatic specialist. Minimum buffer distance of 50 feet from the spring source where adjacent slopes are less than 35%, and minimum distance of 100 feet where adjacent slopes are greater than 35%.

Wyoming Forestry Best Management

Practices (Wyoming State

Forestry Division, 2006)

Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices (Wyoming State Forestry Division, 2006)

H-2 WIZ: Protect Water Resources

Buffer all wetlands, perennial streams, and intermittent streams with defined channels by 50 feet on either side of the high water mark. Within this zone, harvesting operations shall not occur. Exceptions include designated skid trails and stream crossings as described in the project design features (H-7 to H-16). If variable widths are necessary in specific units, this shall be prescribed and agreed to by both the silviculturist and hydrologist. Where there’s conflict among Design Features utilize that feature which provides the highest level of protection for water resources.

All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25; Professional Judgement

H-3 WIZ: Protect Water Resources

Maintain 70% of the original understory perennial vegetation in the WIZ (averaged over entire unit) to provide for a filter strip and prevent sediment delivery to water resources.

All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25; Professional Judgement

H-4 WIZ: Protect Water Resources

Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in any stream, swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.1

H-5 WIZ: Protect Water Resources

Leave naturally existing rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour. Remove wood and debris created by the logging activity.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.3

A-5

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

H-6 WIZ: Protect Water Resources

Keep log landings, slash piles, and skid trails out of the WIZ, including swales. All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.1

H-7

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Limit construction of stream crossings to the minimum number, width, and length needed. Coordinate with the fish biologist and/or hydrologist in the layout of stream crossings in those units with perennial streams to ensure that bed or bank stability is not compromised.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25; Professional Judgement

H-8

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Reshaping of the upper and lower streambanks is expected, but shall be minimized. The roadway shall be armored where the upper banks are manipulated unless the Soil Scientist confirms that soil substrate provides sufficient armoring.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25; Professional Judgement

H-9

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

If manipulation of the lower gravel bank is required, material shall be pulled back away from the river. The bank shall not be pushed into the river. Discharge of materials into the river shall be minimized.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25; Professional Judgement

H-10

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Construction of the stream crossing shall not include the placement of sand, gravel, or other material into live water. All units Forest Service

Handbook 2509.25

H-11

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Prior to high water, all temporary fills, materials, and structures shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation. The lower and upper banks shall be restored to the approximate pre-project conditions.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25

H-12

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State permits, pass normal flows, and be armored to withstand design flows. Coordinate with hydrologist and fish biologist.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.2

A-6

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

H-13

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other aquatic life.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.2

H-14

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient. (WCP 12.2). All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.2

H-15

Stream Crossings: Protect Water Resources

Favor bridges, bottomless arches or buried pipe-arches for those streams with identifiable flood plains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts. Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension.

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.2

H-15 Wetlands: Protect Water Resources

• Keep roads and skid trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative.

• Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands.

• If roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to sustain flow patterns.

• Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow surfaces.

• Utilize harvest methods that minimize the discharge of material (sediment, slash, and woody debris).

• Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands.

All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 12.4

H-16

Chemical Pollutants: Protect Water Resources

Put vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas on gentle upland sites. Mixing, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. All units

Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – 15.1

H-17

Season of Operation: Protect Water Resources

To prevent damaging wet areas winter harvest is suggested on units with over 25% WIZ unless that unit can be split to accommodate a winter harvest on the area of concern.

Units: 25, 8/2C, 24, 14/4C, 24

Professional Judgement

H-18

Season of Operation: Protect Water Resources

The following Units have between 10.1% to 25% of the area within the WIZ and may require a winter season of operation designation.

Units: 7, 9, & SQW, 3C, 4C, 7C, 2, 2/1C, 2/6C, 3/6C

Professional Judgement

A-7

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

H-19

Sale Layout: Protect Water Resources

For Winter Harvest Units: Prior to snow cover, identify buffer boundaries and landing/slash locations when wet or potentially wet areas can be identified to ensure that concentrated use sites, landings, slash piles, burn piles, firewood piles, etcetera are in dry upland areas. Harvest options in these areas should minimize slash deposition/accumulation into the wet areas or their water influence zones.

Any units that are winter-

logged

Professional Judgement

H - 20

Fen Wetlands: Protect Irreplace-able Water Resources

Complete avoidance of the two known fens in unit and their groundwater. Range staff will review these sites to identify adaptations to the timber sale management prescriptions to protect these sites.

Unit 7 Professional Judgement and Monitoring Data

Invasive Species

IS-1 Prevent introduction or spread of invasives

The cleaning of off-road equipment prior to entering National Forest System lands to prevent the spread of noxious weeds is covered under provisions BT 6.35 or B 6.35 in the timber sale contract.

All units (INVS-GOAL-01), (INVS-STAND-04)

IS-2 Prevent introduction or spread of invasives

Invasive species survey and treatment of known populations should occur pre-harvest. Treatments should occur for three years post-harvest. Treatment acreage will depend on the level of invasive species response to ground disturbing activities during harvest.

All units (INVS-GOAL-01)

Sensitive Plants

P-1 Site protection

The Forest Ecologist shall survey for TES plants before implementation. Any known TES plant populations will be buffered and the necessary mitigation action for each species shall be taken.

All units Forest Plan

P-2

Ecological integrity of TES plant habitats Prevent introduction or spread of invasives

Effective ground cover shall be established on disturbed areas, (which may include temporary roads, slash piles, constructed skid trails, and landings). Planting or seeding will include native plant species as recommended by the Forest Service native species policy and directed by forest ecologist. Sites will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally from the localized adjacent seed source where site characteristics allow. For the benefit of TES plant habitats, it is required that only native species be used for seeding. Certified weed-free seed shall be used.

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria (INVS-STAND-02), (INVS-STAND-03)

A-8

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

P-3

Ecological integrity of TES plant habitats and populations

Provide a buffer strip around known Amerorchis rotundifolia population boundary where no vehicle ground disturbance, including any timber harvest activities will be allowed. Tree planting will be allowed within the buffer area, but will avoid the known population boundary. All planting will be done by hand and will occur while roundleaf orchid is detectable (June – September). The Forest Ecologist will mark the population and buffer boundary prior to project implementation.

Units 16 and 18 Professional Judgement

P-4

Ecological integrity of TES plant habitats and populations

Dead trees will be felled or down trees will be left around the perimeter of the buffer to form a natural fence, approximately 3 feet high, to minimize cattle grazing in the roundleaf orchid habitat. This action should occur as soon as possible after harvest and prior to the next season’s grazing.

Units 16 and 18 Professional Judgement

Rangeland

R-1 Minimize conflict with grazing

Coordinate with district Rangeland Management Specialist during logging operations. Pasture rotations and cattle movement can then be adjusted if needed to not interfere with operations of either activity.

All units Professional Judgement

R-2

Protect range manage-ment structures

Repair or replace any range improvement structure (fences, water tanks, spring boxes, etc.) that must be altered to complete timber harvest activities.

All units Professional Judgement

Recreation

REC-1 Promote public safety

Manage timber harvesting in the vicinity of Camp Creek to minimize impacts to dispersed camping. Timing to be determined.

Camp Creek urea units

Professional Judgement

REC-2 Maintain public access/Protect facilities

Protect the integrity and access of dispersed campsites. Forest Service signs should remain unblocked and damage-free.

Units 1, 7, 12, 13, and 25.

Other units as needed.

(MA4.2-GOAL-02)

REC-3 Maintain public access

Keep access open to the extent possible to the public pullout at the Badger Spring pipe directly adjacent to the Clarks Fork Highway. The public uses this for water.

Unit 21 Recreation Specialist

REC-4 Promote public safety

Recreationists using the area should be notified (via signs, public contacts, etc.) when management activities are occurring.

All units

Recreation Specialist Public Relations Plan

A-9

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

REC-5

Protect public access and facilities/ Promote public safety

Protect all trails, trailheads, and picnic areas within the project area. They are to remain open and usable after project completion. The Reef Creek trailhead facilities and trail should remain open and useable to the extent possible during management activities. Reef Creek Trail #605 will be protected and restored.

Units 2, 3, and 4. (RDTR-GUIDE-01), (RDTR-GUIDE-02),

REC-6

Prevent unauthoriz-ed motorized use

To avoid unauthorized off-highway use, all temporary roads would be closed with appropriate rehabilitation after treatment. Measures such as slash and rock placement and ditching should be taken where necessary to preclude unauthorized use. Motorized recreation opportunities within the project area are limited to existing, designated Forest Service Roads.

All temporary roads

(RDTR-GOAL-02), (RDTR-GOAL-09),

ROADS

ROADS-1

Temp Road Construction - Protect Soil & Water Resources

Coordinate with the hydrologist to ensure that the 15 mandatory best management practices for silvicultural roads are applied.

All units

Clean Water Act, Section 404(f)

ROADS-2

Permanent Road Construction/ Reconstruction/ Relocation - Protect Water Resources

Work with hydrologist, fisheries biologist, soil scientist and botanist to acquire required permits and define erosion control provisions.

All units Professional Judgement

ROADS-3

Soil Integrity & Water Quality - Protect Resources

Install cross drains and rolling dips to disperse runoff into filter strips (outside of the WIZ) and minimize connected disturbed areas (WCP 13.1 & 13.2).

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25

ROADS-4

Soil Integrity & Water Quality - Protect Resources

Armor rolling dips and cross drains to minimize sediment mobilization. The soil scientist may waive this requirement based on soil aggregate properties (WCP 13.1).

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25

A-10

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

ROADS-5

Soil Integrity & Water Quality - Protect Resources

Construct roads where feasible, with rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts (WCP 13.1). All units Forest Service

Handbook 2509.25

ROADS-6

Soil Integrity & Water Quality - Protect Resources

Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch erosion and failure (WPC 13.2).

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25

ROADS-7

Soil Integrity & Water Quality - Protect Resources

Empty cross drains onto stable slopes that disperse runoff into filter strips. On soils that may gully, armor outlets to disperse runoff. Tighten cross-drain spacing so gullies are not created (WCP 13.3).

All units Forest Service Handbook 2509.25

ROADS-9 Coordinat-ion: Protect Water Resources

Road package site visit will occur the field season prior to finalizing and include hydrologist, fish biologist, soil scientist, TSA, and engineer.

All units Professional Judgement

Smoke Mgmt

SM-1 Ensure that air quality standards are met.

All burning within the State of Wyoming will comply with the Wyoming DEQ Air Quality Division Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) for Smoke Management as outlined in Chapter 10, Section 4 of the WAQSR and the associated Smoke Management Program Guidance Document.

All units

Wyoming DEQ Air Quality Division Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) for Smoke Management, Ch. 10, Sec. 4 and associated Smoke Management Program Guidance Document.

Soils

SOILS-1

Reduce soil erosion, maintain soil moisture

Organic ground cover should be maintained at approximately 50% averaged across the unit and scattered to reduce soil erosion and surface runoff. Where it is available, any organic material to be left onsite should be scattered across units in a discontinuous fashion.

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Specialist; GTR NRS-163; National BMPs

SOILS-2 Maintain soil productivity

Machine piling of slash should be conducted to leave topsoil in place, avoiding displacement of soil into piles or windrows. Slash piles should be located in areas to prevent as much soil damage as

All units FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; National BMPs

A-11

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

possible and will be rehabilitated following project completion (see P-2).

SOILS-3

Prevent resource damage, improve soil quality and integrity

The soil in compacted project areas will be ripped 4-8 inches after project completion to increase infiltration and soil porosity. Ripping should occur when soils are dry. In required areas (see hydrology pdfs and P-2) slopes will be re-contoured and activity areas will be seeded with native species. Slash and woody material may be placed on soil surface in these areas to prevent erosion and create microsites amenable to seed germination. Slash placement on ripped areas should blend into the surrounding areas without distinct lines. Compaction is defined as equipment impacts that result in either a compression of the soil profile or increased resistance to penetration. Soils with a disturbance rating of 2 or 3 should be considered for ripping (Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol, 2009). These locations will be identified by the sale administrator and or Forest Ecologist.

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria, Specialist; Wyoming State BMPs

SOILS-4

Protect water resources; minimize surface runoff and sediment transport.

Use a combination of slash treatment and installation of water bars on temporary roads, landings, skid trails and fire control lines to prevent or minimize the volume of water flowing over these areas and associated erosion. Use to divert surface water to where it will not cause erosion. Spacing recommendations should be based on soil type, topography, road dimensions, road aspect and climate.

Use the following water spacing guide. Spacing is in feet.

Skid Trails and Fire Control Lines

Grade % Granitic or Sandy Soils

Clay or Loam

Shale or Gravel

5 - 10 250 300 400 11-25 150 200 300 Over 25 75 100 150

Temporary Roads and Landings

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Wyoming State BMPs

A-12

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

Grade % Granitic or Sandy Soils

Clay or Loam

Shale or Gravel

2 - 5 400 500 600 6-12 200 250 300

SOILS-5

Reduce soil erosion, protect soil quality and integrity

Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40%. Soil types which are more susceptible to erosion and are prescribed for overstory removal should be limited to 30% slopes. Temporary roads and skid trails shall be located to avoid active flows and toe slopes of existing landslides.

All units. Susceptible soil types are found in these areas:

Partial units: 18, 19, 28, 7C, 26,

23/7C, Full units: 21, 22,

23, 8C

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Wyoming State BMPs; National BMPs

SOILS-6 Protect soil quality and integrity

Ground based equipment will be operated only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit (dry), or protected by sufficient snow depth or frozen soil during winter conditions. Typically, that limit is at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. The plastic limit is exceeded if the soils can be rolled into 3 mm threads without breaking or crumbling. Actual ground conditions and operating limits will be monitored by the sale administrator and or forest ecologist. Operations will be limited when excessive rutting, puddling or runoff of sediments into waterbodies could result or when ground and snow conditions change such that soil damage becomes likely.

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Wyoming State BMPs; National BMPs

SOILS-7 Protect soil quality and integrity

Limit season of operability in units with soils subject to severe soil rutting hazard and or shallow groundwater to winter only with appropriate frozen soil depth or snow cover or to cable logging operations (see Soils-10).

Units fully susceptible: 1, 2, 3, 12, 16, 4, 1C,

6C Units partially

susceptible: 26, 7C, 4C, 15, 5,

2C, 8C, 3C, 28, 2, 18, 17, 15, 7

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Wyoming State BMPs; National BMPs

SOILS-8 Protect soil quality and integrity

In snow-covered, unfrozen soils, use tractors or skidders to compact the snow for skid road locations only when adequate snow depth exists. Avoid steeper areas where frozen skid trails may be subject to erosion the next spring.

All units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; Wyoming State BMPs; National BMPs

A-13

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

SOILS-9

Reduce soil erosion, protect soil quality and integrity

Cable based equipment will avoid skidding in units with soils highly susceptible to damage on slopes greater than 60% to prevent detrimental soil disturbance. The Forest Ecologist will assist during timber sale layout to identify those highly susceptible areas where the 60% slope limit will apply.

3C, 4C, 7C, 8C, and 26.

National BMPs; Professional Judgement

SOILS-10 Protect soil quality and integrity

Cable yarding operations should be stopped when soil moisture levels are high if the specific type of yarding system results in unacceptable soil disturbance and erosion within cable corridors or activity areas.

All proposed cable units

FSH 2509.25 Ch 10, Mgmt Measures and Design Criteria; National BMPs

SOILS-11

Reduce soil erosion, maintain soil moisture

In units where a chipper is used to treat infected regeneration or understory vegetation, chips may be spread across the unit. Depths should not exceed 2 inches in order to promote seed germination.

All units Professional Judgement

Visuals

V-1 Protect Scenic Values

For those units located in High Scenic Integrity Objective along the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway, the Forest Landscape Architect will work with the project Silviculturist, Planning Forester, and Fire Management Staff on the design and layout of units in order to minimize visual impacts during and after project implementation.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-2 Protect Scenic Values

All timber sale equipment should be removed from units immediately following completion of project activities.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement (SCEN-GOAL-02)

V-3 Protect Scenic Values

Temporary road locations would be designed and located to fit the landscape with a minimum degree of landform alteration limiting the amount of earthwork. Planning the design of alignments and reseeding of cut and fill slopes should consider minimizing impacts to scenic resources.

General comment – all

units

Professional Judgement (SCEN-GOAL-01), (SCEN-GOAL-02)

V-4 Protect Scenic Values

Where feasible, retain screening trees one tree-height below roads and landings (including portions of cable units) when units are seen from Chief Joseph Scenic Byway. Avoid creating a straight edge of trees by saving clumps of trees and single trees with varied spacing.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 22,

23,

Professional Judgement (SCEN-GUIDE-02)

V-5 Protect Scenic Values

Blackout boundary and leave trees post-sale in the visual corridor. Utilize visual tree marking within 300 feet of Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,

Professional Judgement

A-14

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

20, 21, 22, 23, 25.

V-6 Protect Scenic Values

Minimize skyline corridors (particularly with Cable Units seen from Chief Joseph Scenic Byway) and work with the Forest Landscape Architect to blend the resulting corridors in with the surrounding environment.

General comment – all

units

Professional Judgement

V-7 Protect Scenic Values

Visual appearance of log landings, roads, gravel pits, borrow areas, and bladed skid trails should be minimized within 300 ft. of Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-8 Protect Scenic Values

Aesthetic values should be considered when selecting landing locations. Sale Administration staff should consult with the Forest Landscape Architect during implementation to identify options to minimize impacts in visually sensitive areas.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-9 Protect Scenic Values

Within 300 ft. of Chief Joseph Scenic Byway, consideration should be given to processing trees and decking logs out of sight of the highway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-10 Protect Scenic Values

Views of skid trails should be minimized from the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-11 Protect Scenic Values

In the sensitive foreground areas within 300 ft of the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway stumps shall be cut to 8 inches or less.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

Visuals 2 Slash Treatments

V-12 Protect Scenic Values

If slash piles are seen in the foreground from Chief Joseph Scenic Byway take necessary actions to achieve 95% or more consumption within 2 years after project implementation and curing. Following burning, concentrations of unconsumed slash would be scattered.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-13 Protect Scenic Values

Slash, root wads and other debris will be removed, burned, chipped or lopped to a height of 2 feet or less within the Byway. The effect of scattering the

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,

Professional Judgement

A-15

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

slash should mimic the adjacent natural environment wherever possible.

20, 21, 22, 23, 25.

V-14 Protect Scenic Values

Remove individual damaged residuals trees from view within 300’ of Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-15 Protect Scenic Values

During temporary or permanent road construction, (including maintenance or reconstruction) clear all slash and root wads from view in the immediate foreground, as seen from Chief Joseph Scenic Byway.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

V-16 Protect Scenic Values

Post-harvest, cut and remove residual standing small -diameter individual trees within the scenic byway corridor.

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,

25.

Professional Judgement

Wildlife

WL-1 Protect nesting goshawks

a. Treatment units would be surveyed for active goshawk nests at least once prior to project implementation. b. A ¼-mile “no project disturbance” buffer would in effect around active goshawk nests from 4/1–8/31. c. A ¼-mile “no project treatment” buffer would be defined around active and inactive (< 5 years) goshawk nests.

All units

FSH 2670.32 GTR WO-71 Forest Plan SENS-STAND-02 Forest Plan SENS GUIDE-02 Forest Plan SENS-GUIDE-11

WL-2 Protect nesting raptors

A 300-foot no project disturbance buffer would be in effect around active raptor nests (excepting goshawks, see WL-1) from 5/1–7/31.

All units Migratory Bird Treaty Act SENS-STAND-07

WL-3 Protect secure grizzly bear habitat

Use of temporary roads during project implementation will be limited to administrative purposes associated with project activities.

All units

2016 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, as provided in the Shoshone National Forest Plan

WL-4 Protect secure grizzly bear habitat

Project implementation shall not reduce grizzly bear secure habitat below baseline levels for more than four consecutive years. The collective set of temporary or reconstructed roads that reduce grizzly bear secure habitat below baseline levels shall be closed to motorized travel after three years.

All temporary and

reconstructed roads

2016 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, as provided in the Shoshone National Forest Plan TES-GOAL-03 TES-STAND-01 TES-STAND-04

A-16

Design Feature by Resource

Resource Objective Design Feature Units/Location

Source

WL-5 Protect secure grizzly bear habitat

During its implementation, this will be the only project that reduces grizzly bear secure habitat within the Crandall/Sunlight #2 BMS.

All units

2016 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, as provided in the Shoshone National Forest Plan TES-GOAL-03 TES-STAND-01 TES-STAND-04

WL-6

Avoid human-bear conflicts and habituation of bears to humans

Full cooperation in meeting grizzly bear management goals and objectives would be a condition of receiving and holding contracts. Contractors and their employees would be informed of possible risks to bears and people when working in grizzly country. Crews would be trained in measures to minimize bear-human conflicts, proper attractant storage, bear behavior, human behavior in conflict situations, and use of bear spray; and would comply with the Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan. Compliance monitoring and enforcement of the attractant storage order by a forest officer would regularly occur. Contracts would be cancelled or temporarily suspended as needed to resolve a grizzly-human conflicts or conflicts with other wildlife (Contract Provision B8.33).

All units

2016 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, as provided in the Shoshone National Forest Plan Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC 1531 and Forest Service Manual direction 2670

WL-7 Protect lynx foraging habitat

Limit incidental loss of snowshoe hare habitat in multistory-mature or late successional forest to ≤ 10% of the acreage of these forest types within treatment units. Snowshoe hare habitat is defined as sites averaging > 35% horizontal cover up to 2 meters above ground level.

Non-WUI portions of units 1; 6C; 1/6C; 3;

3/6C 28

Shoshone National Forest Plan

WL-8 Protect wintering mule deer

During winter, stagger the timing of work in crucial mule deer winter range such that some undisturbed areas are always available for mule deer use.

All units Shoshone National Forest Plan SPLC-STAND-03

B-1

Appendix B – Glossary Bankfull Stage – An established river stage at a certain point along a river which is intended to represent the maximum safe water level which will not overflow the river banks or cause any significant damage within the reach of the river.

Cable logging - A harvest system that uses cables to fully or partially suspend logs above the ground for transport to a landing.

Clearcutting – A method of harvesting and regenerating trees in which all trees are cleared from a site and a new, even-aged stand of trees is grown.

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The tree diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. DBH can be measured quickly with a specially calibrated diameter tape that displays the diameter measurement when wrapped around the circumference of a tree.

Distance Zones – Measure of how visual changes are perceived in the landscape. The Forest Service describes visibility in terms of three distance zones: foreground, middleground, and background.

Ephemeral Stream - A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed or catchment basin).

Even-aged Silvicultural Systems – A planned program of treatments for managing forest stands designed to create or maintain a stand with predominantly one age class. Even-aged silvicultural systems include overstory removal, seed-tree, clearcutting, and shelterwood.

Fens - Peat-forming wetlands that receive nutrients from sources other than precipitation: usually from upslope sources through drainage from surrounding mineral soils and from groundwater movement. Because of the large historical loss of this ecosystem type, remaining fens are that much more rare.

Ground-based Logging - A harvest system that utilizes equipment to skid logs from stump to landing areas. Hyporheic - Region beneath and lateral to the stream where there is a mixing of surface water and shallow groundwater.

Initial Attack – A planned response to a wildfire given the wildfire’s potential fire behavior. The objective of initial attack is to stop the fire and put it out in a manner consistent with firefighter and public safety and values to be protected. Interstitial Space - Overstory Removal – The cutting of trees that make up the upper canopy layer in a stand of trees in order to allow trees or other vegetation in an understory to grow.

Perennial Stream - A stream or reach of a channel that flows continuously or nearly so throughout the year.

Refugia - A location which supports an isolated or relict population of a once more widespread species. This isolation can be due to climatic changes, geography, or human activities such as deforestation and overhunting.

Release and Weed - Release and weed is a timber stand improvement treatment that allows desirable seedlings to grow by eliminating undesirable vegetation

Riparian Area - A transition area between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem that is identified by soil characteristics or distinctive vegetation communities that require free or unbound water.

B-2

Sanitation Salvage - A harvest of trees for the purpose of removing insects or diseases from a stand of trees. Sanitation harvesting is used to prevent the diseases or pests from spreading to other nearby trees.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) - Provide measurable standards by which to assess the scenery resource based on the landform characteristics and the level of public concern. SIO are established by incorporating the following visual resource elements: variety class, viewing sensitivity, and distance zone. SIO are ranked from very low to very high. Seed-Tree – Removal of the stand except for a small number of trees left to provide seed for the regenerating stand. Shelterwood – A method of harvesting trees in a series of steps (two or three) designed to improve the vigor and seed production potential of trees left behind. It involves cutting most trees but leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade to produce a new age class. Slash - Organic plant debris resulting from cutting of trees and shrubs. Includes limbs, twigs, and wood chunks. Swales - A landform feature lower in elevation than adjacent hillslopes, usually present in headwater areas of limited areal extent, generally without display of a defined watercourse or channel, which may or may not flow water in response to snowmelt or rainfall. Swales are usually moist or marshy.

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) – A combination of intermediate treatments designed to improve growth and composition of the forest; often spoken of as TSI. Water Influence Zone (WIZ) – The land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining long-term integrity of aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is most (USDA Forest Service). Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – The line, area, or zone where structures or other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.

C-1

Appendix C – References Cited Aldous, Allison R, and Leslie B. Bach. 2014. "Hydro-ecology of groundwater-dependent

ecosystems: applying basic science to groundwater management." Hydrological Sciences Journal.

Allen, K., Dymerski, A. and Shotzko K. 2017. Defoliation By Western Spruce Budworm in the Clarks Fork Canyon, Shoshone National Forest Wyoming, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Forest Health Protection.

Anonymous. 2016. 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Baxter, G. T. and M. D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Becker, S. 2008. Habitat selection, condition, and survival of Shiras moose in northwest Wyoming. Master of Science Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 217 pages.

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. (2006, August 23). Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment (online). USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf

Berg, N., B. Smith, R. Gray and J. Burghardt. 2006. Greater Yellowstone Lynx Study 2005/2006 Annual Report. Endeavor Wildlife Research Foundation.

Berg, N., E. Gese, J. Squires and L. Aubry. 2012. Influence of forest structure on the abundance of snowshoe hares in western Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(7):1480–1488.

Biederman, Joel A., Andrew J. Somor, Adrian A. Harpold, Ethan D. Gutmann, David D. Breshears, Peter A. Troch, David J. Gochis, Russell L. Scott, Arjan J.H. Meddens, and Paul D. Brookds. 2015. "Recent tree die-off has little effect on streamflow in contrast to expected increases from historical studies." Water Resources Research.

Blanchard, B. and R.R. Knight. 1996. Effects of Wildfire on Grizzly Bear Movements and Food Habits. Pages 117-122 in J.M. Greenlee, editor.

Brooks, M. H., Campbell, R.W., Colbert, J. J., Mitchell, R.G. and R.W. Stark, eds. 1985. Managing trees and stands susceptible to western spruce budworm. Tech. Bull. 1695. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Canada-United States Spruce Budworm Program.

Brouillard, Brent M., R.V. Dickenson, Kristen M. Mikkelson, and Johathan O. Sharp. 2016. "Water quality following extensive beetle-induced tree mortality: interplay of aromatic carbon loading, disinfection byproducts, and hydrologic drivers." Science of the Total Environment 649-659.

Carlson, C.E. and N.W. Wulf. 1989. Silvicultural strategies to reduce forest susceptibility to the western spruce budworm. Agric Handbook 676. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, State Cooperative Research Service.

Carlson, Joan. 2008. Potential risks and impacts to soil and water resources from mountain pine beetle mortality, treatments and wildfire in Colorado and Wyoming National Forests. White Paper, USFS, Bark Beetle Steering committee.

C-2

Cerovski, A. 1998. Boreal owl surveys in the Shoshone National Forest. Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Lander, WY.

Claar, J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conrad, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T. wittinger, H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. Pages 7.1-7.63 in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: a Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pages.

Collins, B.J., Rhoades, C., Battaglia, M.A., Hubbard, R.M. The effects of bark beetle outbreaks on forest development, fuel loads and potential fire behavior in salvage logged and untreated lodgepole pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 284, 15 November 2012, Pages 260–268.

Dhar, Amalesh, Lael Parrott, and Christopher D.B. Hawkins. 2016. "Aftermath of mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia: stand dynamics, management reponse and ecosystem resilience." Forests 7 (171).

Dumas, P.C. 1964. Species-pair allopatry in the genera Rana and Phrynosoma. Ecology 45(1): 178-181.

Endicott, C., L. Nelson, S. Opitz, A. Peterson, J. Burckhardt, S. Yekel, D. Garren, T. Koel, B. Shepard. 2016. Range-wide status assessment for Yellowstone cutthroat trout (oncorhynchus clarkia bouvieri): 2012. Yellowstone cutthroat trout Interagency coordination group

Fellin, D. G. and J. E. Dewey. 1982. Western spruce budworm. Forest insect & disease leaflet 53. United States Department of Agriculture.

Floodplain Management. 1977. Executive Order No. 11988 (42 F.R. 26951, May 24).

Furniss, M.M. 1962. Infestation patterns of Douglas-fir beetle in standing and windthrown trees in southern Idaho. J. Econ. Entomol., 55: 486-491.

Furniss, M.M. 1965. Susceptibility of fire-injured Douglas-fir to bark beetle attack in southern Idaho. J. For., 63: 8-11.

Furniss, M.M., M. D. McGregor, M.W. Foiles, and A.D. Partridge. 1979. Chronology and characteristics of a Douglas-fir beetle outbreak in northern Idaho. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-59, 19 pp.

Furniss, M.M., R. L. Livingston, and M.D. McGregor. 1981. Development of a stand susceptibility classification for Douglas-fir beetle. In: Symposium Proceedings, Hazard Rating Systems in Forest Pest Management (Univ. Georgia, Athens, Ga., July 31 - Aug. 1, 1980). USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-27, Washington, D.C., pp. 115-128.

Furniss R.L. and V.M. Carolin. 1977. Western Forest Insects. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1339. .S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team. 2015 Grizzly bear habitat monitoring report. Pages 103-122 in F.T. van Manen, M.A. Haroldson, and B.E. Karabensh, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Hard, J., Tunnock, S. and R. Eder. 1980. Western spruce budworm defoliation trend relative to weather in the Northern Region, 1969-1979. Forest Insect & Disease Management.

C-3

Report No 80-4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Northern Region. State & Private Forestry.

Haroldson, M.A, F.T. vanManen, and D.D. Bjornlie. 2016. Bear Monitoring and Population Trend: Estimating Number of Females with Cubs: Assessing Trend and Estimating Population Size from Observations of Unique Females with Cubs. Pages 5-29. in F.T. VanManen, M.A. Haroldson, and B.E.Karabench, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Harvey, G.T. 1985. The taxonomy of the coniferophagous Choristoneura (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): a Review. In: Sanders, C. J., R. W. Stark, E. J. Mullins, and J. Murphy, Eds., 1985: Recent Advances in Spruce Budworms Research. Proc. CANUSA Spruce Budworms Research Symp., Bangor, ME, Canadian Forestry Service.

Health and Safety Code Handbook, FSH 6709.11. , USDA Forest Service, December 1999. Chapter 20 Supplement 709.11-2006-1, January 2006.

Health and Safety Cody Handbook, FSH 6709.11, USDA Forest Service, December 1999. Chapter 22.48g, pp. 55-56.

Hester S.G., Grenier M.B. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game andFish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, WY.

Hodges, K., and L. S. Mills. 2005. Snowshoe hares in Yellowstone. Yellowstone Science 13: 3-6.

Holmes, M and N. Berg. 2009. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Lynx Study. Endeavor Wildlife Research Foundation. Jackson, WY.

Holmes, J., and M. Johnson. 2005. Brewer’s sparrow: a technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Ecosphere Environmental Services, Durango, CO. 57 pages

Incident Response Pocket Guide, January 2014. PMS 461. NWCG Publication, pp. 22-25.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2012. Updated and evaluating approaches to estimate population size and sustainable mortality limits for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2014. Motorized Access Analysis for Monitoring Grizzly Bear Habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Spring, 2014.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp.

Jones, M.S., S. Brinkman, K. Scherff-Norris, L.J. Livo and A. M. Goebel. 2000. Boreal toad research in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

Keinath, D. and M. Mcgee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/borealtoad.pdf.

Keinath, D. 2005. Fringed myotis: a technical conservation assessment. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, WY. 63 pp.

C-4

Klaus, M. and G.P. Beauvais. (2004, January 20). Water vole (Microtus richardsoni): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/watervole.pdf

Klein, W. and D. Bennett. 1995. Surveys to Measure Tree Damage Caused by a Western Spruce Budworm Outbreak on the Carson National Forest, 1984 and 1991. R3-95-1, Southwest Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Kruse, C. G., W. A. Hubert, and F. J. Rahel. 2000. Status of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Wyoming waters. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:693-705.

Kuhns, Michael and Barbara Daniels. Firewise Landscape for Utah, University of Utah. December 2012.

Landfire, Fire Regime Groups. 2017. Available on line at https://www.landfire.gov/geoareasmaps/2012/CONUS_FRG_c12.jpg

Lehtinen, R. M., S.M. Galatowitsch, and J.R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19:1-12

Lessard, E.D. and J.M. Schmid. 1990. Emergence, attack densities, and host relationships for the Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) in northern Colorado. Great Basin Nat., 50: 333-338.

Livo, L.J. 1998. Identification guide to montane amphibians of the southern Rocky Mountains. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Loeffler, C. 2001. Boreal toad conservation plan and agreement. Boreal toad recovery team. 76pp+ appendices.

MacDonald, L.H., and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and Water: A State-of-the-Art Review for Colorado. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196., Colorado State University.

Marston, R.A., and J.E. Anderson. 1991. "Watersheds and vegetation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Conservation Biology 338-346.

McKelvey, K, K. Aubry, and Y. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. In Ruggiero, LF. et al. eds. The ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

McKelvey, K.S. and G.W.McDaniel. 2001. An analysis of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) numbers in Island Park based on pellet sampling and capture/recapture trapping. Unpublished report, USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Science Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, USA.

McWhirter, D. 2016a. Clark’s Fork bighorn sheep herd unit. Pages 145-152 in 2015 Job Completion Report for the Cody Region. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

McWhirter, D. 2016b. Clark’s Fork elk herd unit. Pages 131-138 in 2015 Job Completion Report for the Cody Region. Wyoming Game & Fish Department.

Meyer, C.B., D.H. Knight, and G.K. Dillon. 2004. "Historic variablity for the upland vegetation of the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming." Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Botany.

Moody, D., C. Anderson, D. Bjornlie, and J. Emmerich. 2005. Wyoming Grizzly Bear Occupancy Management Guidelines. 23 pages.

C-5

Murphy, K.M., Potter, T.M., Halfpenny, J.C., Gunther, K.A., Jones, M.T., Lundberg, P.A. and Berg, N.D., 2006. Distribution of Canada lynx in Yellowstone National Park. Northwest Science, 80(3), p.199.

Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, and J. Squires. 2013. Wolverines in Greater Yellowstone. Yellowstone Science 19(3): 17-24.

Negron, J.F. 1998. Probability of infestation and extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the Colorado Front Range. For. Ecol. Manage., 107: 71-85.

Negron, J.F., W. C. Schaupp, Jr., K. E. Gibson, J. Anhold, D. Hansen, R. Thier, and P. Mocettini. 1999. Estimating extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the central and northern Rockies. West. J. Appl. For., 14: 121-127.

NWCG, 2017. Online publications “A-Z Glossary” of wildland fire terminology. https://www.nwcg.gov/glossary/a-z

Ohlander, C.A. 1997. "Clean Water Act Monitoring and Evaluation." USDA, Forest Service, Region 2.

O’Neill, Susan. P. Lahm, A. Mathews. Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDI/NRCS et. al. 2011. 12p.

Palmer, Margaret A., Dennis P. Lettenmaier, N. LeRoy Poff, Sandra L. Postel, Brian Richter, and Richard Warner. 2009. "Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options." Environmental Management 44: 1053-1068.

Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 2008. Prepared by Technical Forestry Services in cooperation with Park County Wyoming, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming State Forestry, Wyoming Game & Fish, Yellowstone National Park, and Bureau of Land Management, September 15, 2008.

Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf

Powell, D.C. 1994. Effects of the 1980s Western Spruce Budworm Outbreak on the Malheur National Forest in Northeastern Oregon. R6-FI&D-TP-12-94, Forest Insects and Diseases Group, Pacific Northwest Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Priday, J. 1998. Sensitive species inventory. Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Shoshone National Forest. Interim completion report - Challenge cost share agreement # 110214109512. Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., Lander, WY.

Priday J. 1999. Shrew and small mammal survey Shoshone National Forest. In Interim completion report: sensitive species inventory. B. Oakleaf, ed. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program. Lander, Wyoming. Pages 20-24.

Priday J., T. Laurion, B. Luce, R. Lockman, and L. Hunt. 1998. Shrew and small mammal survey Shoshone National Forest. In Interim completion report: sensitive species inventory. J. Priday, ed. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program. Lander, Wyoming. Pages 12-19.

Protection of Wetlands. 1977. Executive Order No. 11990 (42 F.R. 26961, May 24).

C-6

Reeve, A. F. Lindsey, and S. Buskirk. 1986. Historic and Recent Distribution of the Lynx in Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY.

Range-Wide YCT Conservation Team. 2009. Conservation strategy for Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) in the States of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena. Conservation Agreement.

Rothermel. Richard C. 1972. A Mathematical Model for Predicting Fire Spread in Wildland Fuels Forest Service Res Paper INT-115, 40 p. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden UT. [0338]

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S.Gniadek, B. Holt, L.Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT 142 pp.

Schmitz, R.F. and K.E. Gibson. 1996. Douglas-fir Beetle. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 5. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. R1-96-87.

Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, K. Gunther, and D. Moody. 2006. Distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 2004. Ursus 17:63-66.

Schwartz, C., M. Haroldson, and G. White. 2010. Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(4):654-667.

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Smith, Hamilton, G. Beauvais, and D. Keinath. 2005. Survey of Historic Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Locations on the Shoshone National Forest 2004. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Southern Group of State Foresters. June 2010. A User's Guide on Forest Roads and Their Section 404(f) Exemption Status. April 2017.

Squires, J, B. Oakleaf, N. DeCesare, S. Tomson, L. Ruggiero. 2003. Distribution of Lynx and Other Forest Carnivores in The Wyoming Range, Southcentral Wyoming. Final Report. USDA Forest Service Region 4 Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Stednick, J.D. 2000. "Timber Management." Chap. 10 in Drinking water from forests and grasslands: A synthesis of the scientivic literature, by George E. Dissmeyer, 246. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Resarch Station.

Stottlemyer, R. and C.A Troendle. 2001. "Effect of canopy removal on snowpack quantity and quality, Fraser experimental forest, Colorado." Journal of Hydrology (2001): 165-176.

S-212 Wildland Fire Chain Saws, December 2012. NFES 002662. NWCG Publication, p. 4C.12.

Taylor, D.L. and W.J. Barmore, Jr. 1980. Post-fire succession of avifauna in coniferous forest of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Wyoming. In Workshop proceedings: Management of western forest and grasslands for nongame birds. R.M. DeGraaf and N.G. Tilghman, editors. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-86. Pages 130-145.

C-7

Troendle, Charles A., Marc S. Wilcox, Greg S. Bevenger, and Laurie S. Porth. 2001. "The Coon Creek water yield augmenation project: implementation of timber harvesting technology to incrase streamflow." Forest Ecoogy and Management 179-187.

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, and C.H., Larsen, I.J. Luce. 2010. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. RMRS-GTR-231, USDA, Forest Service.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Clean Water Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders. March 8. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-laws-regulations-executive-orders.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution. January 4. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview.

—. 2016. "Wetlands." Wetlands Classification and Types. October 26. Accessed May 26, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-types#fens.

USDA Southern Region, 1989. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests, Technical Publication R8-TP-11. pp. 29-32.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/npnht/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_055670

USDA Forest Service. 2006. "FSH 2509.25." Forest Service Handbook.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests. Record of Decision. 69 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, MT. 534 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Record of Decision. Missoula, MT. 67 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan. 2015 Revision. 295 pages.

USDA, Forest Service. 2012. "National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands."

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/shoshone/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5199919

n.d. "Wilderness.net Air Quality Toolbox." Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolboxes&sec=air.

USDI/USDA et al. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. Federal Register 65 (58); 16052- 16086.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Outline: Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Region 6.

C-8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Programmatic biological opinion of the 2013 biological assessment for the revised Shoshone National Forest land and resource management plan. November 20, 2013. 32 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules. Federal Register 78 (23); 7864-7890.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Final Rule: endangered and threatened wildlife plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and revised habitat distinct population segment boundary. Federal Register 79 (177); 54781-54846.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule for the North American Wolverine. Federal Register 81 (201); 71670-71671.

van Manen, F. T., Haroldson, M. A., Bjornlie, D. D., Ebinger, M. R., Thompson, D. J., Costello, C. M. and White, G. C. (2016), Density dependence, whitebark pine, and vital rates of grizzly bears. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., 80: 300–313.

Wildland Fire Decision Support System. 2017. One Mile and Hunter Peak Wildfires courses of action. http://wfdss.usgs.gov with user access and available at Shoshone National Forest.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Chapter 10: Smoke Management.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2013a. "Chapter 1 of Wyoming's Water Quality Rules and Regulations." Cheyenne, WY: Water Quality Division.

—. 2013b. "Wyoming Surface Water Classification List." Water Quality Division.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2016.

Zimmer, J.P., Tyers, D.B. and Irby, L.R., 2008. Winter snowshoe hare habitat use within a silviculturally impacted area. Intermountain J. Sci, 14, pp.40-50.

50 CFR Part 17 (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0003; 4500030113). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern or Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 77 Fed. Reg. 71 (April 12, 2012). Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States.