Attachment_4_NEPA_Document.pdf

Environmental Assessment Southwest Johnson County Travel and Transportation Management Plan

DOI-BLM-WY-P070-2022-0025-EA

PREPARING OFFICE

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Buffalo Field Office

Wyoming

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Alternatives

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

4 Consultation and Coordination

5 List of Preparers

6 List of Appendices

Appendix A: List of References .................................................................................................................. i

Appendix B: Maps ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Page | 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Summary of Proposed Project

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of approving the Southwest Johnson County (SW JoCo) Travel and

Transportation Management Plan which proposes to designate, maintain, and monitor a transportation network for Southwest Johnson County, Wyoming. The project area, located in

Johnson County, Wyoming, covers an area of 1,008,248 acres total, with 233,477 acres of BLM-administered surface. See Map 1 in Appendix B.

Many routes within Southwest Johnson County have been created by repeated use over many years, which is not conducive to long-term sustainability, resource protection, or positive recreation experiences. A growing local and regional population, coupled with advancements in off-highway vehicle (OHV) technology, as well as global positioning system (GPS) technology clearly depicting land tenure, have contributed to an observed increase in recreational use.

Additionally, the area has experienced ongoing recognition as a hunting destination. These increased recreational demands have, subsequently, placed increased demands on other resources, resulting in user conflicts and impacts to vegetation, soils, cultural resources, wildlife habitat, and other natural and sensitive resources.

It is the duty of the BLM to provide planning and management for logical and sustainable transportation networks that meet public and administrative access needs while preserving landscape resources. This plan is necessary to uphold the legal access rights of the public, account for a range of use activities, consider land vulnerability and resource protection, build upon existing transportation routes, and plan for future needs. To this end, most BLM routes in

Southwest Johnson County were surveyed by Advanced Resource Solutions (ARS), a contractor, in summer 2015 and July 2019, and the rest were inventoried by BLM for subsequent evaluation, for a total of 654 miles of routes. This total includes 13 miles of hiking trails, and of the 654 miles, 154 miles are publicly accessible as of 2019 (this number includes routes accessible via

State lands). This EA provides environmental analysis for the actions of reclaiming routes and designating routes on BLM surface in Southwest Johnson County (SW JoCo). Map 1 in

Appendix B illustrates the project area.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this Southwest Johnson County (SW JoCo) travel and transportation management plan EA is to identify, promote, and meet current and future transportation needs on BLM-administered public lands in the Southwest Johnson County project area by designating roads, primitive roads, and trails as open to the public (some with limitations) or for authorized use, while protecting natural and cultural resources and public safety through reclamation of roads deemed appropriate for removal.

Currently, no formal transportation management framework exists for Southwest Johnson

County. Public demand for recreational uses is on the rise, user conflict is increasing, ecosystem health is affected, and public safety is of concern. A comprehensive management framework, as

Page | 2 established by the 2015 Buffalo Resources Management Plan, is needed to (a) protect wildlife resources such as sensitive wildlife habitat; (b) reduce impacts to soils, water, vegetation, and other resource values; (c) satisfy the public need for recreation, access, and safety; (d) facilitate the multiple-use management of BLM resources and programs; and (e) resolve user group conflicts within the transportation network.

1.3 Decision to be Made

The BLM will decide whether or not to approve the proposed action, and if so, under what terms and conditions agreeing with the Bureau’s multiple use mandate and the 2015 BFO RMP.

1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance

The BFO RMP (USDI BLM 2015) includes several provisions for managing transportation on

BLM-administered lands (USDI BLM 2015, p 135-136, 138-139, 140-146, Appendix S).

Specific travel and transportation management decisions include:

• Trans-6001 Negotiate access across non-BLM-administered lands to isolated public land parcels from willing landowners (p. 140).

• Trans-6002 Evaluate roads constructed under other initiatives (e.g., oil and gas exploration) for inclusion in the BLM transportation system. Roads that are no longer needed for their original purposes are assessed for addition to the BLM transportation system prior to reclamation (p. 140).

• Trans-6021 Close areas to motorized vehicle use to protect sensitive resources as defined in the corresponding special designations and resource sections of the approved RMP and in addition include:

o Lands with wilderness characteristics identified for special management o Middle Fork Canyon o A 500-foot buffer of designated nonmotorized trails (p. 142).

• Trans-6023 Protect big game by seasonally prohibiting motorized vehicle use within big game crucial winter ranges in accordance with WGFD [Wyoming Game and Fish

Department] recommendations.

• Trans-6024 Protect big game by seasonally prohibiting motorized vehicle use within big game calving areas in accordance with WGFD recommendations (p. 142).

RMP Appendix C, Best Management Practices and Required Design Features, includes required design features (RDF) that are necessary for certain activities in greater sage-grouse habitat. The

BLM requires application of all appropriate measures as warranted by the proposal’s site-specific analysis. Those RDFs not included in the project proposal but determined to be appropriate have been applied as conditions of approval.

1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Other NEPA Documents

- Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) - Provides the basic policy guidance for the BLM’s management of public lands.

- National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - Requires analysis of the environmental effects of federal actions.

- 43 CFR 2800 – Rights-of-Way, Principles and Procedures

Page | 3

- 43CFR Part 8340 Off-Road Vehicles

- Executive Order 11644 (1972) [(as amended by E.O. 11989 (1977), Off-Road Vehicles on

Public Lands amended May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26959)] This amendment strengthened protection of the lands by authorizing agency heads to (1) close areas or trails to OHVs causing considerable adverse effects and (2) designated lands as closed to OHVs unless the lands or trails are specifically designated as open to them.

- National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands

(BLM 2001) provides guidance on actions to improve motorized vehicle management designed to protect natural resources.

- BLM Manual MS-1626 – Travel and Transportation Management Manual (BLM 2016) provides detailed policy, direction, and guidance to establish a comprehensive program for travel and transportation planning within the BLM’s planning process.

- BLM Handbook H-8342 – Travel and Transportation Handbook (BLM 2012b) provides specific guidance for preparing, amending, revising, maintaining, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating BLM land use and travel management plans. It provides further guidance related to the objectives, authorities, responsibilities, and policy considerations outlined in

MS-1626.

A travel management plan is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process that is entirely independent of the BLM's planning process. Consequently, travel management planning should not take into consideration R.S. 2477 assertions or evidence. Travel management planning should be founded on an independently determined purpose and need that is based on resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters. At such time as a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM will adjust its travel routes accordingly (USDI BLM

2012).

Where off-road vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence (USDI BLM

2012).

The proposed action conforms to all BLM standards and incorporates appropriate best management practices determined to reduce the effects on the environment.

1.6 Issues Identified for Analysis

The CEQ regulations state that environmental assessments (EA) should “briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis” for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 1501.5) and that agencies should only briefly discuss issues other than significant ones (40 CFR 1500.4(e)). While many issues may arise during scoping, not all of the issues raised warrant analysis in an EA. Issues will be analyzed if: 1) an analysis of the issue is necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives, or 2) if the issue is associated with a significant impact, or where analysis is

Page | 4 necessary to determine the significance of the impact. The following sections list the resources considered and the determination as to whether they require additional analysis.

Issue 1 – How would recreation and access be affected? How would BLM balance motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities?

Issue 2 – How will soils be affected?

Issue 3 – How would the spread of invasive species be prevented?

Issue 4 – Would adequate amounts of suitable habitat for wildlife be retained and/or created?

Issue 5 – How would cultural resources be protected?

1.7 Issues Identified but Eliminated from Further Analysis (If

Applicable)

No issues were brought forth during public scoping. Issues that were brought forth through BLM internal scoping, but were not considered for analysis included:

• Wildland Fire – The question of increased human-caused wildland fire incidents due to creation of roads and the lack of ability to respond to wildland fire due to roads being reclaimed was considered. Wildland fire response and operations are an emergency operation and therefore by policy and regulation exempt from travel management decisions on BLM-administered lands. The publicly accessible roads in the project area have been open to the public for greater than 10 years with no distinguishable increase in human-caused fires from the public’s use of the roads.

• Livestock grazing – The proposed action would not affect the permitted use of any BLM grazing leases or restrict the ability for the maintenance of range improvement projects or livestock husbandry practices. The BLM has not received reported cases of livestock health issues due to public use in the project area.

• Realty/rights-of-way (ROW) – The proposed action would not affect the use of valid exiting ROWs or consideration of future ROWs in the project area.

2 Alternatives

2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

This alternative would continue current management (Map 1 in Appendix B). A transportation network would not be designated, trespass concerns would not be alleviated, user-created routes would continue to proliferate, and most existing roads would not be maintained. Roads that are maintained annually include Billy Creek Access Road and Bar C Road. Some roads are maintained on an as-needed basis: the road in Mosier Gulch Special Recreation Management

Area (SRMA) and the road to Outlaw Cave Campground in the Middle Fork Powder River

SRMA. The Face of the Bighorns Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) would remain closed to motorized vehicles. The hiking trails (Gardner Mountain Trail, Poison Creek Trail, and

Hole-in-the-Wall Trail) would remain closed to motorized vehicles, while the hiking trails in

Middle Fork Powder River SRMA (Fishing Access #1 and #2 Trails and Outlaw Cave Trail)

Commented [WRC1]: Is this an issue? Janelle

Page | 5 would remain closed to motorized and mechanized vehicles.

654 miles of roads, primitive roads, and trails total

• 500 miles of roads do not have public access

• 115 miles of primitive roads would be for public, motorized use, open year-round

• 27 miles of roads, primitive roads, and trails would be for public use, open seasonally for wildlife (within the Middle Fork SRMA, according to recommendations from the

Wyoming Game & Fish Department [WGFD]) o 3 miles of roads for motorized use o 23 miles of primitive roads for motorized use o 1 mile of trails for non-motorized and non-mechanized use (Fishing Access #1, Fishing Access #2, Outlaw Cave Trail)

• 12 miles of trails would be for public, non-motorized use, open year-round (Gardner

Mountain Trail, Hole-in-the-Wall Trail, Poison Creek Trail, Clear Creek Trail)

2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative

This alternative would designate a travel and transportation network. Open roads would be signed with route numbers. Billy Creek Access Road and Bar C Road would continue to be maintained annually. Mosier Gulch Road and Outlaw Cave Road would continue to be maintained as needed. The Face of the Bighorns Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) would remain closed to motorized vehicles. One mile of easements would be needed from the

State to access some BLM primitive roads. See Map 2 in Appendix B for these route designations.

654 miles of roads, primitive roads, and trails total

• 45 miles of primitive roads would be for authorized, motorized use

• 82 miles of roads would be for public, motorized use, open year-round o 3 miles of roads o 79 miles of primitive roads

• 27 miles of roads, primitive roads, and trails would be for public use, open seasonally for wildlife (within the Middle Fork SRMA, according to recommendations from the

WGFD)

o 3 miles of roads for motorized use o 23 miles of primitive roads for motorized use o 1 mile of trails for non-motorized and non-mechanized use (Fishing Access #1, Fishing Access #2, Outlaw Cave Trail)

• 0.5 mile of roads within the Mosier Gulch SRMA would be open for public use, with occasional closures for resource protection during spring/snowmelt conditions

• 85 miles of primitive roads would be for public use, limited to aircraft (e.g., helicopter, airplane, glider) only

• 12 miles of trails would be for public, use, open year-round (Gardner Mountain Trail, Hole-in-the-Wall Trail, Poison Creek Trail, Clear Creek Trail) o 2 miles of trail for non-motorized use (Poison Creek Trail, Clear Creek Trail) o 10 miles of trail for non-motorized and motorized (e-bikes, Class I and III only) use (Gardner Mountain Trail, Hole-in-the-Wall Trail)

Commented [WRC2]: Plus another 5 miles in the Middle Fork/Ed O Taylor HMA, but do we need easements since we co-manage with G&F? Amber?

Commented [HAJ3R2]: It depends on what kind of access. An easement would make it legal access for the BLM, co-manage is not a legal binding document.

Page | 6

• 403 miles of primitive roads would be closed and reclaimed as time and funding allow

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the affected environment, specifically the existing or baseline conditions relevant to each issue, followed by a description of the effects projected to result from each alternative. The description of the affected environment will provide the basis for identifying and interpreting potential impacts in a concise manner.

The topography throughout the project area is varied, with the Bighorn Mountains in the western part and gently sloped draws rising to mixed sagebrush and grassland uplands in the eastern and southern parts. Project elevation ranges from 8,410 feet to 10,530 feet (in USFS). Major streams in the project area include North Fork Powder River, North Fork Red Fork Powder River, South

Fork Red Fork Powder River, Red Fork Powder River, Middle Fork Powder River, and South

Fork Powder River.

The climate in the area ranges from semi-arid at lower elevations averaging 10-14 inches of precipitation annually, to montane habitats at higher elevations, averaging 15-19 or more inches of precipitation annually.

BLM-administered land can be accessed via publicly accessible routes including interstate and county roads. Two-track roads and high-clearance vehicle roads branch off interstate and county roads. Motorized access is limited to existing routes. BLM-administered lands can be legally accessed off US Highway 16; State Highway 191; the following county roads: Barnum Road, Brock Road, EK Mountain Road, Greub Road, Hazelton Road, Mayoworth Road, Mesa Road, Middle Fork Road, Rome Hill Road, Slip Road, and TTT Road; and the following easements:

Bar C Road, Billy Creek Access Road, and Hole-in-the-Wall Trail.

3.1 Methodology and Assumptions

Reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area include:

• Increased use of e-bikes

• Increased recreation

• Potential oil and gas development and associated infrastructure (east of I-25)

• Hunting

• Livestock grazing

• Rangeland improvement projects

• Fire suppression activities

• Potential major right-of-way corridors

• Public land visitors accessing landlocked BLM

Commented [WRC4]: Should we omit USFS land all along the western part of the project area? Not sure what to do since USFS is such a big part of the TMA/project area.

Page | 7

3.2 Resource Issue 1

Recreation and Access: How would recreation and access be affected? How would BLM balance motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities?

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Of the 233,481 acres of BLM-administered land within the project area, 93,201 acres (40%) are not accessible to the public. Of the 140,276 acres that are publicly accessible, approximately

68,614 acres (29% of the total BLM) are within one mile of a publicly accessible road. The remaining publicly accessible BLM acres (71,662 or 31% of the total BLM) are more than one mile from roads, via foot or horseback, much of this over rugged, challenging terrain, and some of which requires traveling up to ten miles or more, making it inaccessible for most visitors.

Within the project area, motorized travel is limited to existing roads and primitive roads. See

Map 3 in Appendix B for a map of recreation resources.

There are three Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) in the project area: Mosier

Gulch SRMA, Middle Fork Powder River SRMA, and Hole-in-the-Wall SRMA. SRMAs are managed to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, and benefits where recreation is the predominant use.

Mosier Gulch SRMA is a day-use only site that includes a short section of the Clear Creek Trail with one vault toilet, a kiosk, a grill, and six picnic tables. Camping and campfires are prohibited, but allowed recreation uses include non-motorized biking on the Clear Creek Trail, hiking, picnicking, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting. The site and parking areas are accessed via foot or bicycle on the Clear Creek Trail and via vehicle from US Highway 16.

Portions of the 12.6-mile Clear Creek Trail which begins in Buffalo, heads west towards Mosier

Gulch, and continues into the Bighorn National Forest, intersect BLM-administered land within the Mosier Gulch SRMA (0.4 mile).

Middle Fork Powder River SRMA is located 21 miles southwest of Kaycee and contains a campground and three non-motorized, non-mechanized hiking trails: Outlaw Cave Trail (0.5 mile), Fishing Access #1 Trail (0.3 mile), and Fishing Access #2 Trail (0.4 mile). The Outlaw

Cave Campground has twelve campsites, a single vault toilet, fire rings, and picnic tables. The

SRMA is accessed via motorized vehicle and has parking areas at the trailheads for Fishing

Access #1 and #2 Trails and at the campground, which is also the trailhead for the Outlaw Cave

Trail. Recreation activities include off-highway vehicle travel, hunting, camping, hiking, picnicking, wildlife viewing, and fishing (at three different fishing access locations). Outlaw

Cave Road is closed to motorized use from January 1 to April 14 for resource protection. The Ed

O. Taylor Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA) (Wyoming Game & Fish lands, co-managed with the BLM through a cooperative agreement) is located west of the campground and contains the Miller Trail (0.6 mile on State land). The Ed O. Taylor WHMA is closed to human presence January 1 through May 14 for wildlife protection. The Middle Fork Powder River, which bisects the SRMA, has been recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic River status, with 11.6 miles flowing through BLM. This designation helps preserve rivers with outstandingly remarkable values in a free-flowing condition for the benefit of present and future generations.

The Middle Fork Powder River is accessible by foot via the four trails within the SRMA and the

Page | 8

Ed O. Taylor WHMA.

Hole-in-the-Wall SRMA is an area with no services located at the end of Natrona County Road

105. A three-mile trail starting on State Lands brings users to the BLM lands’ historically important notch in the Red Wall. Recreation activities include hunting, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and fishing. A parking area at the trailhead on State land is accessible via 4WD high clearance vehicles in dry weather.

There are five Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA) within the project area: Face of the Bighorns/North Fork ERMA, Gardner Mountain ERMA, Kaycee Stockrest ERMA, South

Bighorns ERMA, and a portion of the Walk-in-Area ERMA. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain recreation activities commensurate with the management of other resource uses.

Face of the Bighorns/North Fork ERMA contains the Poison Creek Trail, at 1.6 miles, located about twenty miles southwest of Buffalo. Recreation uses on this non-motorized trail include hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and hunting. Mountain biking is allowed on this trail, though the last quarter mile is not recommended for bicycles due to the steepness of the terrain.

The trailhead parking area is accessible via vehicle from Billy Creek Access Road. There are no other recreation developments in this ERMA, and the predominant recreation uses are hunting, hiking, OHV riding, and dispersed camping.

Gardner Mountain ERMA contains the Gardner Mountain Trail, about ten miles west of Kaycee.

This 10.5-mile (round trip) trail is closed to motorized vehicles and acts as the access point to the

Gardner Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA). The trailhead is accessed by motorized vehicle via WY-191/Mayoworth-Slip Road and has a parking area, beyond which recreation uses are limited to biking, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and hunting. There are no other recreation developments in this ERMA, and the predominant recreation uses are hunting, hiking, and dispersed camping.

Kaycee Stockrest ERMA is located within one mile of Kaycee city limits and provides opportunities for OHV use, hunting, camping, and target shooting. There are no recreation developments within this ERMA.

South Bighorns ERMA encompasses the publicly accessible land mostly to the southwest of the

Middle Fork Powder River SRMA and some BLM land to the east. Common recreation activities include OHV riding, hunting, and dispersed camping. There are no recreation developments within this ERMA.

The Walk-in Area ERMA includes BLM parcels scattered throughout the Buffalo Field Office and includes one 2,200-acre BLM parcel within the SW JoCo project area. This ERMA supports

G&F walk-in hunting and fishing areas in conjunction with the State of Wyoming and private landowners to promote public access to public lands.

There is also one area twenty miles southwest of Buffalo that is identified as lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC). These lands are designated as parcels that meet a size requirement of 5,000 roadless acres and contain naturalness and either outstanding opportunities

Page | 9 for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The BLM keeps an updated inventory of lands with wilderness characteristic resources and often manages the land to protect and preserve some or all of those characteristics. The Face of the Bighorns LWC, at 6,856 acres, is legally accessible by foot or horseback only through adjacent BLM lands.

Recreation trends show a steady increase over the last several years with projections that this trend will continue (Cordell 2008; Cordell 2012; Outdoor Foundation 2019; Rice et al. 2021;

White et al. 2014). Both population growth and increased visitation may place more physical demand on the existing route network, with the potential to increase user conflicts and trespass.

Improvements in technology, including OHVs and e-bikes, may increase both use and user conflicts.

3.2.2 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 1 (No Action)

The current road network does not include signage to advise visitors of publicly accessible roads or rules and regulations of the area. This could lead to trespassing, increased conflicts between private landowners and the public, increased impacts to wildlife and vegetation, and increased litter and human waste.

This alternative has a higher potential for long-term impacts from user created routes becoming established. Road proliferation could lead to road deterioration, road abandonment, and braided routes as users attempt to avoid poor road conditions by driving around them. There may also be reduced opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Without an active and documented travel management plan, these impacts would continue unchecked.

As new oil and gas development takes place within the planning area (east of I-25, where public access is limited), new roads would be constructed. Potential major rights-of-way corridors may also increase roads and other infrastructure. These new roads would also increase access for wildland firefighting and emergencies.

With 154 miles of publicly accessible roads, as recreation use increases, without a designated road network or signage, there would likely be an increase in trespassing, user conflicts, wildlife conflicts, and route proliferation which may lead to erosion and unsafe driving conditions.

Opportunities for solitude, self-reliance, route finding, and foot and horseback travel would be reduced. While opportunities for motorized recreation would increase, opportunities for non-motorized recreation would decrease.

The 500 miles of roads on inaccessible BLM would continue to be unavailable for public use, prohibiting motorized recreation opportunities in those areas.

Livestock grazing will continue to be authorized within the project area. Without signage or route designation, public use and potential trespass or off-road usage may result in increased human/livestock interactions.

3.2.3 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under this alternative, 115 miles of roads would be open year-round for public access plus an additional 27 miles open seasonally, which is fewer than the no action alternative. The

Page | 10 reclamation of redundant roads along with a designated travel and transportation network would reduce user-created roads and trails. Opportunities for solitude, self-reliance, route finding, and foot and horseback travel would increase. While opportunities for motorized recreation would decrease, opportunities for non-motorized recreation would increase.

Signs would improve the recreation experience and prevent trespass. The addition of e-bikes allowed on some trails would improve the experience for motorized recreation, but may worsen the experience for others.

Designated roads in isolated BLM parcels, for those who have the means to get to those isolated parcels via aircraft, would improve the experience for those visitors.

3.3 Resource Issue 2

Soils: How will soils be affected?

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Routes within the travel management area (TMA) were field visited by Buffalo Field Office resource specialists and Advanced Resource Solutions (ARS) field staff to determine if the route is in suitable condition for public vehicle use and would require minimum maintenance. Routes on BLM lands with and/or without public access were evaluated to be closed where undue resource damage was occurring, alternative routes were available, or public access was determined to be unnecessary. Routes were also evaluated for evidence of active excessive soil erosion occurring. Several factors were considered when characterizing the erosion presently occurring for each route. These factors include reviewing the route inventory field notes and attributes collected, specifically those that indicated erosion was occurring; route inventory photos and aerial imagery interpretation; the water erosion potential rating of the soil mapping unit impacted; and professional knowledge of the BLM resource specialists during onsite investigations. Most of the routes analyzed in this document were categorized as either a road as defined in the 9113 manual and assumed some type of soil excavation and assigned a soil disturbance width of 20’ feet. Primitive roads as defined in the BLM 9115 Primitive Roads

Manual is a linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles.

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards; for the purpose of this plan a primitive road has had no excavation or flat blading methods of disturbance and was assigned a soil disturbance width of 14’ feet. Trails were assigned a soil disturbance width of 2’ feet. Where excessive resource damage was occurring or predicted to occur, the route was proposed to be closed since no maintenance actions are scheduled.

The soils in the project area are a product of soil-forming factors including climate, organisms, relief (topography), parent materials, and time. These soil forming factors of this diverse geographic area formed soils with textures ranging from sandy to clayey families, rock fragments ranging from less than 15% to greater than 60% throughout the soil profile and soil depths ranging from very shallow to deep. The deeper soils with little rock content are mostly found on the interior portions of lower foothills and terraces or adjacent to drainage channels. The shallower, rocky soils are found along mesa rims and canyon side slopes. Routes on areas dominated by either rock outcrop or high rock content in the soil matrix are somewhat resilient to surface impacts, while the finer textured soils containing little rock in the near surface horizons

Page | 11 are more prone to accelerated erosion when disturbed.

The soils in the lower elevation, more arid portions of the planning area are mostly classified in the soil orders Aridisols (soils of dry climate regimes) and Entisols (soils with very limited development) and have little organic matter throughout their vertical profile. At the higher elevations, soils are mostly in the soil orders Alfasols, Inceptisols, and Mollisols (soils having darkened, organic matter enriched surfaces).

Of special importance are routes impacting highly erodible soils and soils with steep slopes. The

Buffalo RMP defines highly erosive soils using the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), soil erodibility factor data and slope to identify soil mapping units containing highly erosive soils. There are map unit polygons identified as highly erosive soils throughout the project area, based on the above criteria. Routes typically avoided these areas or were closed if excessive erosion was noted. Wind erosion was not analyzed in the project due to the route classification. Most roads are classified as a primitive road (2-tracks) which, by definition, has a vegetative strip between the wheel tracks. The wind erosion prediction model includes having a bare soil area of adequate size to allow salutation of soil particles to initiate soil erosion by wind. The designated routes would have adequate vegetative cover to prevent fugitive dust particulate matter. Based in part on these guidelines, the soil metrics used to assess impacts between alternatives are miles of routes that would remain open and of special concern miles (acres) of routes potentially located on highly erosive soils.

Soils within the planning area are described in more detail in the Soil Surveys of Johnson Area, Wyoming, Northern and Southern portions (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service).

Soil impacts from routes are described in detail in the 2015 Buffalo Field Office RMP. Overall, soil impacts from routes are dependent on site specific soil properties, route characteristics, vehicle type and volumes. The Recreation Guidelines developed by the BLM (USDI, Bureau of land Management 2000) are intended to be applied to all public lands. The guidelines would be applied to some degree on the planning area for both alternatives, including the No Action

Alternative, the primary attributes that impact soils resources between the alternatives include total miles and type of road open, miles of routes (acres) open with applied restrictions, and of special interest the miles of routes on sensitive soils (erodible soils), and the miles of routes proposed for closure and eventual reclamation. Adaptive management principles, allowing for corrective action to be taken as needed, such as route relocation, and seasonal closure due to excessively wet or dry periods would be implemented.

3.3.2 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 1 (No Action)

With the implementation of this Alternative, travel would be restricted to designated routes, and all off-route travel would be prohibited except for horseback or foot travel. With the No Action

Alternative all (654 miles) of existing roads, primitive roads, and trails (potentially impacting

1,095 acres of soil) would remain open to motorized or nonmotorized use. Of these travel routes, 135 acres of routes would occur on soils with a severe water hazard. Most of the existing routes lack design features, adequate monitoring, and maintenance which would result in an increase in accelerated soil erosion and decline in soil productivity. Under this alternative, in the long term, soil health and productivity would be expected to decline over time as more user created routes

Page | 12 and diffuse travel use increases. Consequently, ground surface disturbance would increase, decreasing the potential for healthy native vegetation communities and resulting in accelerating soil erosion. Some additional user created routes would be expected over time. User-created routes typically do not receive the expertise needed to properly locate, design, and construct routes resulting in progressively increasing accelerated soil erosion. Other actions that would increase erosion include the lack of support facilities such as designed parking areas, which would result in progressively more acres being disturbed from diffuse parking and route use.

Additionally, public education efforts to minimize impacts to soil resources such as signs, seasonal closures, and closure barriers would not occur. Thus, with the No Action Alternative, impacts to soil resources would progressively increase over time and result in secondary impacts to other resources.

3.3.3 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action 3 miles (7.27 acres) of road, 79 miles (134.06 acres) of primitive roads, and 12 miles (2.9 acres) of trails would remain open year-round for public use, resulting in a total of 144.23 acres of potential soil disturbance without any applied restrictions. Project area routes without restrictions are primarily accessed from existing county or publicly accessible roads that are located, designed, constructed, and maintained to not alter the soil resource. Also, under this action potentially 85 miles (144.24 acres) of primitive roads would remain open for aircraft only, to access public lands. There would be very limited, site-specific, irregular use anticipated on these routes. An additional 45 miles (76.36 acres) of primitive roads on BLM lands that would be accessible for authorized use, (e.g., by the grazing lessee for allotment management activities and range improvement projects). These actives would be very limited and restricted to seasonal use when resource damage is less likely to occur. Under the proposed action 3 miles (7.27 acres) of roads, 23 miles (39.03 acres) of primitive roads, and 1 mile (.24 acres) of trails would be closed seasonally for wildlife management according to recommendations from the WGFD. These seasonal closures (46.54 acres) correspond to seasonal weather patterns and would help restrict use during the most active moisture events, thus restricting use and limiting the amount of potential soil erosion. In summary, the total acreage of potential soil disturbance without any applied restrictions is 144.23 acres. There are 46.54 acres of disturbance with seasonal wildlife restrictions and 220.60 acres of potential road disturbance with very limited seasonal “authorized use” and “aircraft access” with BLM applied special use restrictions. Of special importance are highly erodible soils. Approximately 60 miles (101.61 acres) of existing routes, of which are on soils with a severe erosion potential, would be closed and allowed to rehabilitate, reducing soil erosion, compaction, and revegetated through natural encroachment of surrounding native vegetation. An additional 6.2 miles (11.31 acres) of existing routes on highly erosive soils would also have strict wildlife timing restriction applied which would also reduce impacts to the soil resource. With the proposed action, 13 miles (21.99 acres) of primitive roads and 1 mile (.15 acres) of trails would remain open. This would result in an

84% reduction of the routes that potentially impact highly erosive soils. Additionally, 6 miles

(11.31 acres) of routes on highly erosive soils would have seasonal use restrictions, further reducing the potential disturbance to the sites. The Proposed Action would not result in adverse changes to soil erosion, health, and productivity.

The total amount of soil disturbance projected for the proposed action is 144.24 acres of roads open with year-around access, 46.54 acres of potential soil disturbance with limited seasonal

Page | 13 wildlife restrictions, and 220.6 of disturbance projected “special use” designation and restrictions and aircraft access only. Under the preferred alternative 403 miles or 683.88 acres would be closed and allowed to reclaim. These routes were areas with excessive erosion potential and/or erosion currently occurring, other resource issues, and/or redundant routes. Compared to the No

Action Alternative approximately, 403 miles of primitive roads would be reclaimed, resulting a

62% reduction in motorized routes.

With the implementation of this plan, and adhering to adaptive management principles, accelerated soil erosion would be minimized on the designated route system. Some small amount of soil erosion would be expected with implementing the proposed action, especially during seasonal weather conditions of moisture and drought and vehicle use. Soil productivity and soil surface conditions would improve over time as selected existing routes are closed and allowed to rehabilitate. The proposed routes and the removal of redundant and/or excessively eroded degraded locations would support BLM’s mission to support stable, productive, healthy functioning soils. Collectively, the proposed action would result in substantially less impact to the soil resource than the No Action Alternative and would meet the intent of public land access needs. The existing remaining routes would meet the design requirements outlined in the

Recreation Guidelines developed by the BLM (USDI, Bureau of land Management 2000) which are intended to be applied to all public lands. The intent of the guidelines is to achieve and sustain healthy soil resources from recreational activities, including modes of travel and be designed and maintained in accordance with the Design Features of the BLM 9115 Primitive

Roads Manual which complies with the BLM’s Recreation Management Guidelines to Meet

Public Land Health Standards. Collectively, these components of the Proposed Alternative would result in less impact to the soil resource than the No Action Alternative and would meet the intent of Buffalo Field Office RMP.

3.4 Resource Issue 3

Weeds: How would the spread of invasive species be prevented?

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.2 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 1 (No Action)

3.4.3 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

3.5 Resource Issue 4

Wildlife: Would adequate amounts of suitable habitat for wildlife be retained and/or created?

3.5.1 Affected Environment

The BFO RMP identified wildlife species occurring in the SW JoCo project area. The

Page | 14 subsections below provide more information on select species with potential to occur within the project area based on databases compiled and managed by BLM BFO wildlife staff, Wyoming

Game & Fish Department (WGFD), and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD).

Site specific information is described below for species known or suspected to be an issue.

Rationale for species not discussed in detail below can be referenced in the administrative record

(Summary of Special Status Species Habitat and Project Effects) for the RMP.

The SW JoCo project area lies within multiple big game herd units for elk, mule deer and pronghorn antelope. White-tailed deer can also be found within the SW JoCo project area, though white-tailed deer primarily occupy the stream and river corridors on privately owned surfaces at lower elevations. For these reasons, white-tailed deer will not be discussed further.

The project area includes yearlong, spring/summer/fall, and winter yearlong seasonal ranges for both mule deer and pronghorn. Winter yearlong ranges have a year-round population, and a variable amount of influx from surrounding seasonal habitats during winter months.

Spring/Summer/Fall habitats are those areas that normally experience too harsh of a winter to have yearlong use. Animals from these habitats move into winter yearlong habitats for the winter months. The SW JoCo project area also has mule deer and elk delineated crucial winter range and elk parturition areas. These areas receive additional RMP considerations due to their importance during critical life stages and stressful times of the year.

According to the WGFD’s 2021 job completion reports, publicly available on the WGFD’s website, mule deer herd units within the project area are the Upper Powder River, and to a lesser extent the Pumpkin Buttes, North Bighorn, and Southwest Bighorns herd units. The Upper

Powder River herd unit is estimated to be 65.8% below the WGFD objective and all other herd units within the SW JoCo project area are below the objective as well, though to a lesser extent than the Upper Powder River (WGFD 2021). The Powder River herd unit has been below the objective for multiple years preceding the 2021 report.

Pronghorn antelope herd units within the project area are the Hazelton, and to a lesser extent, the

Middle Fork, Crazy Woman and Copper Mountain herd units. The project area consists of a large portion of the Hazelton herd, which is managed with a landowner and hunter satisfaction-based objective, rather than a population objective. The current satisfaction objective of 60% is being met. The other three herd units are managed based on population objectives. The Middle

Fork herd unit is 36.7% below the WGFD objective and the Crazy Woman herd unit is 26% above the objective. Both of these herd units are on the south end of the project area. The Copper

Mountain herd is minimally represented within the project area, but the population is 45.1% below the objective, according to the 2021 job completion report.

Elk are a conspicuous wildlife species in the project area, and the South Bighorns herd unit is the primary herd unit represented within the project area. The North Bighorn herd unit is minimally represented, and a portion of the project area is considered OUT by the WGFD’s seasonal range mapping. OUT areas are areas that do not contain enough animals to be important habitat, or the habitats are of limited importance to the species. The South Bighorn herd unit is estimated to be

43% above the WGFD population objective, and even beyond the objective range of ±20%. The objective is tough to achieve due to elk residing in protected or private parcels that restrict harvest and management (WGFD 2021).

Page | 15

Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming are considered a BLM sensitive species and a sagebrush obligate. In accordance with the BLM Manual-6840 (BLM 2008), sensitive species are afforded the same level of protection as candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The affected environment for sage-grouse is discussed in the BFO RMP as part of the Special Status

Species-Wildlife section. Twenty-six sage-grouse leks occur within the SW JoCo project area boundary, and an additional two leks are within two miles of the project area boundary, an indication that additional habitats within the project area could be providing nesting habitat.

Current management of nesting habitats prioritizes all suitable habitat within core population areas, suitable habitat within four miles of an occupied lek within connectivity areas, and suitable habitat within two miles of an occupied lek in general habitat management areas. Core and connectivity areas collectively make up the BLM’s priority habitat management area (PHMA).

The majority of the project area is considered a general habitat management area, though a large number of project area roads are within the Natrona Core area portion of the project area. There are approximately 210,760 acres of Core area within the project area. Nineteen of the project area leks are within the Natrona Core (PHMA).

The project area provides habitat for numerous raptor species. According to BFO’s geospatial data, there are 156 documented raptor nests within the SW JoCo project area. Surveys of nests have been variable with some nests having multiple surveys and others having only been observed once; some with recent surveys and others that have not been surveyed for years. Some of the documented nests may no longer be present and many more likely exist that have not been documented. Species documented nesting in the project area include bald eagle, burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, great-horned owl, peregrine falcon and red-tailed hawk. The Clear Creek and Powder River riparian corridors within the SW JoCo project area have been identified as consistently used eagle winter roost corridors and provide nesting habitat.

Prairie dogs are a BLM sensitive species, and their colonies create unique ecosystem habitats that a variety of other animals utilize or depend upon. There are 21,647 acres of prairie dog colonies documented in the project area. Occupancy of the colonies varies based on disease, extirpation due to poisoning on private lands, and prairie dogs immigrating to re-occupy suitable habitats of previously eliminated populations. BLM sensitive species commonly associated with prairie dog colonies that are documented or expected to occur within the SW JoCo project area are swift fox, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover, and burrowing owl. These species could be found throughout the project area and are not exclusively found in prairie dog colonies. Though many raptor and migratory bird species utilize prairie dog colonies for foraging activities, burrowing owls often select vacant prairie dog burrows for nesting.

Suitable habitat for migratory birds, including those listed as BLM sensitive species, is present throughout the SW JoCo project area. Migratory birds may be found within any of the habitat types within the project area including big sagebrush steppe, mixed grass prairie, conifer wooded steppe, and to a lesser extent, riparian habitats. The mixed grass prairie and sagebrush habitats support the greatest number of migratory birds considered special status species.

The SW JoCo project area was evaluated for the presence of all federally threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species as identified on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) website (USFWS 2023). Based on field visits to the area and a review of historical Commented [WRC5]: Wyatt, do you have a citation for the List of References?

Page | 16 data, no threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the project area. Suitable habitat is present for the threatened Ute ladies’ tresses orchid and the USFWS area of influence for the species overlaps the SW JoCo project area; however, surveys conducted throughout the rest of Johnson County had negative findings (WYNDD 2007), and there is no likelihood of occurrence within the project area according to WYNDD habitat modeling. The proposal is expected to have no effect on threatened or endangered species.

3.5.2 Environmental Impacts—Alternative 1 (No Action)

Effects to wildlife would be common to nearly all species. Roads fragment habitat, and use of roads displaces wildlife, essentially making areas unavailable for use, thereby decreasing productivity of the habitat.