1

Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project

Supplemental Wildlife Report

For Region 4 Sensitive Species: Greater Sage Grouse Prepared by: Anita DeLong Environmental Coordinator South Zone: Pinedale, Big Piney and Kemmerer Ranger Districts Bridger-Teton National Forest

___Anita DeLong____ 7/1/2015, updated 12/3/2015 & 8/8/2016

Signature Date

Concurrence by: Concurrence by: Gary Hanvey Kerry Murphy Forest Wildlife Biologist Acting Forest Wildlife Biologist Bridger-Teton National Forest Bridger-Teton National Forest

Gary Hanvey 7/1/2015 Kerry Murphy 12/3/2015

Signature Date Signature Date

Revised by Anita DeLong on 11/19/2015, based on direction from the Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision for the Northwest Colorado and Wyoming and Land Management Plan Amendments for the Routt National Forest, Thunder Basin National Grassland, Bridger-Teton National Forest, and Medicine Bow National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 2015) as well as comments from Kevin Labrum, Acting Forest Biologist. Reviewed and concurred by Kerry Murphy, Acting Forest Biologist. Revised on 6/28/16, based on second Regional Office review by John Shivik.

2

Table of Contents Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3

Incomplete and Unavailable Information ........................................................................... 5 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 9

Status and Trend ................................................................................................................. 9 Desired Conditions for Sage Grouse Seasonal Habitats ................................................... 12 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................ 16

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 35 Alternative 1 – No Livestock Grazing (No Action Alternative) ........................................... 35

Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................... 35 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives ........................................................................... 46 Determination for Alternative 1 ....................................................................................... 49

Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted and Current Management ............................ 50 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................... 50 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 70 Determination for Alternative 2 ....................................................................................... 70

Alternative 3- Modified Grazing Management ..................................................................... 71 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................... 71 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 94 Determination for Alternative 3 ....................................................................................... 94

Alternative 4- Modified Grazing Management with Riparian Emphasis .............................. 96 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................... 96 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 119 Determination for Alternative 4 ..................................................................................... 119

Effects by Management Actions for All Alternatives ......................................................... 120 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans . 124

Summary of Findings Relative to Forest Plan Direction ................................................ 131 Monitoring Recommendations: ............................................................................................... 133 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 135 Credentials for Anita K. DeLong ............................................................................................ 138

List of Figures Figure 1 Sage grouse connectivity and general habitats with habitat monitoring locations in the

Upper Green River project area during the nesting season of 2015 and summer of 2014 and 2015. ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2 Sage grouse nesting area (5.3 miles radius from a potential lek and a lek) and connectivity and general habitats in the Upper Green River project area. .............................. 8

Figure 3 Pre-settlement Potential Habitat and Current distribution (Stiver et al. 2006) ................. 9

3

Greater Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

The purpose of this analysis is to identify the likely effects to sage grouse from management actions associated with an array of four alternatives to livestock grazing on six allotments in the Upper Green River project area (See description of alternatives in the FEIS, U.S. Forest Service 2015). Four indicators were selected for comparison of the alternatives:

• Herbaceous (grass and forb) canopy cover • Grass height • Preferred forb availability • Riparian function and/or stream bank stability

Although sagebrush height and canopy cover are important components of sage grouse nesting and summer (upland brood rearing) habitats, they were not selected as indicators to compare alternatives because: 1) sagebrush in the project areas are at or near the desired conditions for canopy cover and height; and 2) the effect on these indicators do not differ substantially by alternative or by the permitted livestock allowable use level. Sagebrush canopy cover and height would not change from the existing condition as the result of implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 because livestock do not forage on or trample sagebrush to a measureable degree under these conditions. Sagebrush canopy cover and height would remain as described under the existing conditions for all alternatives and therefore they are not good indicators to compare effects of the alternatives on sage grouse habitats.

Utilization data can be a valuable tool for helping to interpret the influence of livestock herbivory on vegetation trend (Sanders 1998 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Livestock forage on herbaceous vegetation (i.e., grasses and forbs) and herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability are important components of sage grouse nesting and summer habitats. The effect of livestock grazing on the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability are influenced by the level of livestock allowable use, including forage utilization of key forage species and, therefore, differ among alternatives making these indicators effective to use in this analysis.

Likewise, riparian function and stream bank stability are also important components of sage grouse summer habitat and were selected as indicators to compare alternatives. These indicators have been used to evaluate riparian areas throughout the project area by the hydrologist (Robertson 2015) and fisheries biologist (Anderson 2015) and therefore extensive information exists on the existing condition across the allotments. Effects on riparian function and stream bank stability differ by alternative and the permitted livestock allowable use level, making the selection of these indicators effective in comparing the effects of alternatives on sage grouse summer habitat.

Methodology Sage grouse habitat on the Upper Green River project area was suitable and occupied sage grouse habitat, including areas identified as Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas (U.S. Forest Service 2015). In this document, these habitats are also referred to as core, connectivity habitat (both included in Priority Habitat Management Areas), and general habitat (General Habitat Management Area). The Upper Green River project area contains sage grouse connectivity and general habitats (Figure 1), as well as sage grouse habitat surrounding 5.3 miles around a lek and potential lek (Figure 2).

4

We conducted summer habitat (July 1 to November 30) monitoring in connectivity and general habitats during September of 2014. Nesting habitat was not monitored in 2014. In 2015, nesting (March 15-June 30) and summer habitat (July 1 to November 30) monitoring was conducted in June and August/September, respectively. Monitoring sites were randomly selected within suitable vegetation communities identified with the 2007 Bridger-Teton National Forest vegetation layer (2007 satellite imagery) and were stratified by allotment and rotation. In 2014, we sampled an upland and riparian/meadow site by pasture to assess summer habitat in the Upper Green project area. Habitat monitoring was conducted in the Mud Lake Pastures and Mosquito Lake Pastures of the Upper Green River Allotment, Noble Pasture Allotment and the River Bottom Pasture. The number of sites sampled was limited due to limited resources, access difficulties, and time constraints. We did not assess habitat conditions in 2014 for Wagon Allotment as-well-as Tosi-Tepee Rotation and the Gypsum Rotation of the Upper Green River Allotment. In 2015, nesting habitat monitoring was conducted in the River Bottom Pasture, Wagon Allotment, and five pastures of the Upper Green River Allotment. Monitoring sites are displayed in Figure 1.

Habitat monitoring protocol is outlined in the Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010). Sagebrush height and canopy cover were assessed using the line intercept method, herbaceous canopy cover assessed using the Daubenmire frame method, and preferred forb availability using the belt transect method as described by Stiver et al. (2010). The riparian function and stream bank stability indicators were evaluated by the hydrologist (Robertson 2015) and fisheries biologist (Anderson 2015) using the multiple indicator monitoring (MIM, Burton et al. 2011). These indicators were adopted for the sage grouse assessment of riparian/ meadow habitat because they were comparable to the Property Functioning Condition (PFC) method (Prichard et al. 2003) recommended by Stiver et al. (2010), data and assessment for riparian function and stream bank stability were readily available, and data using the PFC protocol was limited. In some cases, primarily along the Green River, the PFC protocol was used instead of MIM. Data on grass height was collected along transects at 5 foot intervals in the nesting and brood-rearing habitats as described in the Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010).

Forest Service Interim direction (US Forest Service 2012) required: “Evaluate habitats when they are seasonally relevant for sage grouse. In general, these dates are associated with major life history requisites:

o Winter – 11/15 - 3/15 o Breeding – 3/1 – 5/15 o Nesting/Early Brood Rearing – 3/15 - 6/30 o Late Brood Rearing – 7/1 - 9/30”

We evaluated summer habitat (late brood rearing habitat) in September 2014 within the period identified by the interim direction (US Forest Service 2012) for late brood rearing. Radio-tagged sage grouse were still using the project area and did not move off to wintering grounds until mid-November. Precipitation during the summer of 2014 was high (8.7 inches at Kendall and 11 inches at Gunsight SNOTEL stations from June 1 to Sept. 30th). Similarly, precipitation for 2015 above average (7.7 inches at Kendall and 8.9 inches at Gunsight SNOTEL stations from June 1 to Sept. 30th). Forbs were succulent and not desiccated when we were identifying forbs for habitat monitoring. Protocol did not require identification of grasses by species. Forb identification was required to determine if five or more preferred forbs were available using the belt transect method. Forbs were primarily identified during site visits. When the identification of a forb species was unknown, a specimen was taken for reference and subsequently identified using a

5

plant key or by the Forest Botanist. In cases where a forb species remained unknown, we assumed the forb species was a preferred forb.

Bryan Bedrosian (formerly with Beringia South and currently with Teton Raptor Center) conducted an aerial survey on May 30, 2014 and found sage grouse breeding activity in the Upper Green project area. This area is referred to as the potential Big Bend lek. In August 2014, nine sage grouse were fitted with GIS radio transmitters in the project area and their movements were monitored in 2014 and 2015. This effort was in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management’s Geophagy Study with the dual purpose of monitoring Pinedale Anticline and Upper Green River sage grouse habitat selection and migration tendencies. In 2015, one of two radio-tagged hens monitored visited the potential Big Bend lek repeatedly during the breeding season along with a radio-tagged cock. This hen and another radio-tagged hen nested in the River Bottom Pasture/livestock driveway. In April 2016, 22 cocks were documented by Wyoming Game and Fish Department strutting at the potential Big Bend lek. For this analysis, the potential Big Bend lek and Warren Bridge 2 leks were used to delineate nesting habitat. A 5.3 mile radius circle defined the nesting area for this sage grouse analysis (Figure 2, based on Holloran and Anderson 2005 and the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment USFS 2015). Nesting habitat was calculated using the 2007 Bridger-Teton National Forest vegetation layer to identify acres of mountain big sagebrush within the 5.3 mile radius of leks.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information New information is currently being collected regarding sage grouse movements and the presence and location of leks in the project area. Limited telemetry data indicates that a portion of the Green River sage grouse population is a migratory population wintering south of the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary, in the Pinedale Anticline area, and migrating north into the Forest to nest and raise broods in the Upper Green River Area. Breeding could be done on leks to the south of the Forest boundary or a lek or multiple satellite leks may be present in Upper Green River area. It is the professional opinion of several wildlife biologists (Gary Hanvey- former Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany Program Manager for BTNF, Dale Woolwine – BLM Biologist, Bryan Bedrosian – Senior Ecologist with the Teton Raptor Center, Joe Bohne-Sundance Consulting, retired Wildlife Biologist with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and A. DeLong- certified wildlife biologist) at least one satellite lek exists in the Upper Green River project area.

In 2014, breeding activity was observed in late May and early June and this area was referred to as the potential Big Bend lek. On April 21, 2015, no breeding activity was observed at the potential Big Bend lek, but five hens and one cock were flushed in route to the observation point for the potential lek site. Dean Clause, Wyoming Game and Fish Biologist, visited the area three mornings in May to look for a lek but found no evidence of strutting males at that site. However, satellite data collected indicated that a radio-marked sage grouse hen (that subsequently nested) and a radio-marked cock repeatedly visited the potential Big Bend lek during the breeding season of 2015, suggesting breeding activity. Connelly et al. (2000) defined an occupied lek as a traditional display area in or adjacent to sagebrush-dominated habitats that has been attended by two or more male sage grouse in at least two of the previous five years. Additional lek surveys are being conducted to verify the presence and location of a lek(s) in the Upper Green River project area.

Regardless of lek location, sage grouse hens are nesting in the Upper Green River project area based on observations of strutting males in 2014, presence of hens and males during the breeding/nesting season in 2014, 2015 and 2016 (April-June), strutting males in 2016, and

6

observations of hens with broods in July and August of 2014 and 2015 in the project area. In addition two radio-marked hens nested in the project area in 2015, one of which was seen with chicks. Additionally, a radio-marked hen nested in the project area in 1998 and 1999. Radio marked hens also nested in the project area in 2016.

Nesting habitat was assumed to be mountain big sagebrush communities within 5.3 miles from the potential Big Bend lek and Warren Bridge 2 lek (Figure 2). However, we did not monitor nesting habitat in 2014 because the potential lek was newly discovered that spring. Nesting habitat data was collected in June of 2015 and preliminary analysis was included in this report. Sagebrush height and canopy cover information collected in the late summer of 2014 can also be used to describe nesting habitat because these values were not expected to change over the summer, however the effects on these indicators do not differ measurably by alternative. Grass height is an important component to nesting habitat; however grass height data is unavailable for 2014 and limited for 2015. Therefore, the effects of the alternatives on grass height are primarily described in relative rather than qualitative terms.

Habitat monitoring for the summer – late brood rearing season was conducted in 2014 and 2015. Habitat assessments were based on small sample sizes collected in two seasons during summers with above average precipitation. Additional sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat monitoring is needed over multiple years to draw more comprehensive conclusions regarding existing vegetation conditions within livestock allotments.

7

Figure 1 Sage grouse connectivity and general habitats with habitat monitoring locations in the Upper Green River project area during the nesting season of 2015 and summer of 2014 and 2015.

8

Figure 2 Sage grouse nesting area (5.3 miles radius from a potential lek and a lek) and connectivity and general habitats in the Upper Green River project area.

9

Affected Environment The Status and Trend section highlights information presented in the Technical Review and Analysis of Scientific Information for the Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on the Bridger Teton National Forest (Bohne 2015). Bohne (2015) provides an assessment of sage grouse status throughout its range, in Wyoming and on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Desired conditions were identified for the Upper Green River project area based on the Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015) and best available science and compared with data collected in the project area describing existing conditions. Sage grouse nesting and summer habitats are present in the Upper Green River project area.

Status and Trend

Distribution The greater sage grouse is resident locally from central Washington, southern Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, southeastern Alberta, southwestern Saskatchewan, southwestern North Dakota, and western South Dakota south to east-central California, south-central Nevada, southern Utah, and northwestern Colorado; extirpated from historical range in southern British Columbia, western Nebraska, and possibly northern Arizona. The range extent of the greater sage grouse is about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles (Figure 3). Current distribution is estimated at 56 percent of the potential pre-settlement distribution. The greater sage grouse species as a whole is represented by many distinct occurrences (subpopulations) (USFWS 2010).

Figure 3 Pre-settlement Potential Habitat and Current distribution (Stiver et al. 2006)

10

Trend Based on data from 2002-2008, total range-wide population size was estimated at approximately 536,000 (USFWS 2010). This estimate, though not precise and based on certain assumptions that may be incorrect, but likely is of the correct order of magnitude. Early accounts suggest that this species was once widespread and abundant in many areas of the West, and there are reports of sage grouse being shot by the wagon-load (Braun 1998). However, neither pre-settlement nor current numbers of sage grouse are accurately known, so the actual rate and magnitude of decline since pre-settlement times are uncertain (USFWS 2010). Short-term trend varies with populations that are relatively stable or may have declined by more than 30 percent. Estimated decline for minimum number of breeding males in 11 states is reported to be 56 percent from 109,990 in 2007 to 48,641 in 2013 (Garton et al. 2015). The number of breeding males is thought to be a relatively accurate index of trends in the total population. Overall population likely is slowly declining with an annual decline of 1.4 percent would result in a decline of 13.2 percent over 10 years. The long term decline is 30 to 50 percent (Bohne 2015).

Garton et al. (2015) updated earlier comprehensive analysis of greater sage grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence from 1965 to 2007 throughout the species range by accumulating and analyzing additional counts of males from 2008 to 2013. In spite of survey effort increasing substantially (12.6%) between 2007 and 2013, the reconstructed estimate for minimum number of breeding males in the population fell by 56 percent from109,990 breeding males in 2007 to 48,641 breeding males in 2013. They concluded that concerted efforts across both public and private land ownerships that are intended to benefit greater sage grouse show little current evidence of success but more will be required to stabilize these declining populations and ensure their continued persistence in the face of ongoing development and habitat modification in the broad sagebrush region of western North America.

Wyoming supports the largest and most widespread populations of greater sage grouse, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the range-wide population (Bohne 2015). Sage grouse populations have declined in Wyoming and across the West over the last half-century. There have been long-term declines but in more recent years the average number of males at leks has increased in Wyoming, indicating an increasing statewide sage grouse population. Over 44,500 sage grouse cocks were observed on leks in Wyoming in 2006. Trends are more varied at the local scale. Local sub-populations are heavily influenced by anthropogenic impacts (sub-divisions, intensive energy development, large-scale conversion of habitat from sagebrush to grassland or agriculture, interstate highways) have experienced declining populations or extirpation.

In Wyoming the overall annual rate of sage grouse population decline was 5.2 percent for the time period from 1968-2003 but the average annual rate of decline from 1968-1986 was 9.7 percent compared to an average decline 0.33 percent per year from 1987-2003 (Bohne 2015). The number of males per lek declined 49 percent from 1968-2003 in Wyoming. Lows in Wyoming populations were reached in the mid-1990s with some recovery in subsequent 10 years (USRBSGWG 2008). The average lek size in 2013 remained slightly higher than that recorded during the mid-1990s when sage grouse populations were at their lowest level but rebounded in 2015 to over 30 males per active lek. 2015 levels were twice that observed in 2013 (Christiansen 2015 as cited by Bohne 2015).

The sage grouse population that uses the Bridger-Teton National Forest can be evaluated using lek counts at two leks in the Gros Ventre Complex, eight leks on the Jackson Hole Complex, and a lek in the Hoback area. The number of males per lek provides a reasonable index of sage grouse abundance over time. The long term trend in the lek count data suggests a declining sage grouse

11

population reaching a low point in 1996 and again in 2009 with some recovery in the intervening years (Bohne 2015). Sage grouse trends in the Upper Green River project area are unknown. Hens that attend leks in the Upper Green River Valley to the south of the project area likely move to the project area to nest and/or raise their broods. The Warren Bridge 2 lek is located to the south of the Bridger-Teton National Forest within 5 miles of the project area. The Warren Bridge 2 lek counts began in 1995 in which 10 males were observed on the lek. The highest count was observed in 2007 with 154 males and most recent Warren Bridge 2 lek count was conducted in 2013 with 62 males observed (Wyoming Game and Fish Department lek data). Data from the Warren Bridge 2 lek was not used to determine a trend.

Federal Status On March 5, 2010 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced findings in the Federal Register on petitions to list greater sage grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (75FR 13910). They found that listing the greater sage grouse (rangewide) was warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to conserve sage grouse and its habitat was initially identified as one of the major factors in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s finding on sage grouse.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 12-month finding, the identified threats to sage grouse habitat were: habitat conversion for agriculture, urbanization, habitat fragmentation, power lines and transmission corridors and communication towers, fences, roads and railroads, fire, invasive plants, encroachment of Pinyon-Juniper in sagebrush, grazing, energy development and mining, and climate change. The identified threats to sage grouse habitat related to this project are impacts from grazing, invasive species, and fences and water developments. Based on a settlement agreement, the Service completed a status review for greater sage grouse by September 30, 2015.

On September 22, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its finding to list the greater sage grouse to a “not warranted” finding. They found that the greater sage grouse remains relatively abundant and well-distributed across the species’ 173-million acre range and does not face the risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The Service’s decision follows an unprecedented conservation partnership across the western United States that significantly reduced threats to the greater sage grouse across 90 percent of the species’ breeding habitat. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service were partners in this sage grouse conservation effort. These agencies released amendments to their Land Management Plans to conserve sage grouse. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that protection for the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act was no longer warranted and withdrew the species from the candidate species list.

Forest Service Status and Direction In light of the 2010 “warranted” determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and specific threats summarized in the Conservation Objectives Report, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management recognized the need to incorporate explicit objectives and concrete conservation measures into their land management plans and resource management plans, respectively, to conserve sage grouse habitat and potentially avoid the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2015, the Forest Service signed the record of decision implementing the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 2015). The goal of incorporating these specific conservation measures into Forest Service land management plans is to protect, enhance, and restore sage grouse and its habitat and to provide

12

sufficient regulatory certainty such that the need for listing the species under the Endangered Species Act could be avoided.

The Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015 Attachment B) provides the Forest Service direction for sage grouse management on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. This amendment provides conservation measures to protect, restore, and enhance sage grouse and its habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to sage grouse and its habitat. The direction is expressed as desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines. The Forest Service made reasonable attempts to be consistent with the State of Wyoming Core Area Strategy and the Governor’s Executive Order (2015-4), but in a few instances differences exist as a result of other laws or regulations that govern Forest Service activities.

Sage grouse is a sensitive species on the Bridger-Teton National Forest as identified by the Intermountain Regional Forester. Sensitive species are defined as those plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a:

• Significant current, or predicted, downward trend in population numbers or density; or

• Significant current or predicted, downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

The Forest Service objective (FSM 2670.22) for sensitive species management is to "develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions.

This sage grouse analysis was initiated and conducted primarily during the interim direction established in a letter from the Chief of the Forest Service to Regional Foresters in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for sage grouse and sagebrush conservation dated July 1, 2010 (U.S. Forest Service 2010); the Chief’s letter to Regional Foresters in Regions R-1, R-2, and R-4 for conservation and protection of greater sage grouse and its habitat dated October 2, 2012 (U.S. Forest Service 2012); and the Interim Conservation Recommendations for Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (U.S. Forest Service 2012). The interim direction is consistent with the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment. The intent of these interim recommendations was to promote conservation of sustainable sage grouse populations and their habitats while not limiting future options before the Forest Plan amendment process was completed. This specialist report was updated to reflect current Forest Service direction as established by the Greater Sage-grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015) and to determine compliance of the alternatives with the new Forest Service direction.

Desired Conditions for Sage Grouse Seasonal Habitats In greater sage grouse habitat management areas, including all seasonal habitat, 70 percent or more of lands capable of producing sagebrush have from 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover and less than 10 percent conifer cover. In addition, within breeding and nesting habitat, sufficient herbaceous vegetation structure and height provides overhead and lateral concealment for nesting and early brood rearing life stages. Within brood rearing habitat, wet meadows and riparian areas sustain a rich diversity of perennial grass and forb species relative to site potential. Within winter habitat, sufficient sagebrush height and density provides food and cover for the greater sage grouse during this seasonal period. Specific desired conditions for the greater sage grouse based on seasonal habitat requirements are in Table 1 (U.S. Forest Service 2015 - Greater sage grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment, GRSG-GRSGH-DC-002). In priority and general habitat management areas, sagebrush focal areas, and within lek buffers, livestock grazing is managed to

13

maintain or move towards desired habitat conditions in Table 1 (GRSG-LG-DC-036-Desired Condition). Greater than 80 percent of the landscape for the sage grouse Wyoming Basin population meets the nesting habitat objectives and greater than 40 percent of the landscape for the sage grouse Wyoming Basin population meets the summer habitat objectives. These extent percentages do not apply at the project level.

Sage grouse are large upland game birds that inhabit large contiguous areas of sagebrush with meadow and riparian areas to provide for their seasonal life history requirements including food and cover (Patterson 1952, Connelly et al. 2000, Braun et al. 1977). Both the quantity and quality of the sagebrush environment determines suitability for and productivity of sage grouse (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2003). Understories of sagebrush communities should be diverse with an abundance of forbs (flowering herbaceous plants), grasses, and insects (The Upper Green River Basin Sage grouse Working Group 2007). Habitat for sage grouse varies strongly by life-history stage. Critical habitat components include adequate canopy cover of tall grasses (>7 inches) and medium height sagebrush (15 – 32 inches) for nesting, abundant forbs and insects for brood rearing and availability of herbaceous riparian species for late-growing season foraging (Crawford et al. 2004).

The desired condition for sage grouse habitat is sagebrush height, canopy cover and shape which provide adequate food and cover for sage grouse. Within breeding and nesting habitat, sufficient herbaceous vegetation structure and height provides overhead and lateral concealment for nesting and early brood rearing life stages. Sage grouse typically nest under sagebrush and experience greater nesting success than hens that nest under other plant species (Connelly et al 2000, Aldridge and Brigham 2002). Sagebrush 15 to 32 inches in height and 15 to 25 percent canopy cover provide suitable areas for nesting (Stiver et al. 2010, Connelly et al 2000, Gregg et al. 1994). Grass height and cover are also important components of nest sites. In Oregon, Gregg et al. (1994) found that tall grass cover was greater at successful nests than unsuccessful nests. DeLong et al. (1995) found lower predation of artificial nests with more tall grass and medium shrub cover. Likewise, in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming, Doherty et al. (2014) found that grass height in nesting areas had high predictive power of nest success. Average grass height was positively correlated with nest success; tall grass heights had positive effects on nest survival. Holloran et al. (2005) reported that increased residual grass cover and height was important for sage grouse nest success; taller, thicker residual grass cover (minimum of 10 cm within Wyoming big sagebrush) in dense sagebrush stands appeared to increase the probability of a successful nest.

Conversely, other studies have found negative or no relationships between nest survival and grass height although some of these studies were located in peripheral or degraded sage grouse habitat. In northeastern California, Popham and Gutiěrrez (2003) found height of visual obstruction was greater at successful nests (mean of 40.2 cm) than unsuccessful nests (32.5 cm). Visual obstruction of nests was provided by taller shrubs and rock/boulder cover (> 0.5 meter). They found no differences as far as perennial grass cover or height between successful and unsuccessful nest but noted that the native shrub steppe in their study area had been degraded by excessive grazing, juniper encroachment, agriculture and anthropogenic development and thus habitat quality was low. In Canada the northern fringe population of sage grouse, Aldridge and Brigham (2002) found that sage grouse nested in silver sagebrush stands that had greater amounts of tall cover. Overall cover of sagebrush was considerably lower in Canada (5-11%) compared with sagebrush cover in other areas throughout the range of greater sage grouse (15-25%). In Nevada, Coates and Delehanty (2010) found that increased raven numbers had negative effects on sage grouse nest survival, especially in areas with relatively low shrub canopy cover. They also found positive relationship between badger nest predation and understory vegetation which may

14

be a result of the abundance of ground squirrels, primary badger prey, positively related with bunch grasses and forbs. They suggested that badgers encounter and depredate sage grouse nests in areas with greater vegetation understory because these areas are subject to greater frequency of badgers hunting ground squirrels.

Within summer (late brood rearing) habitat, meadows and riparian areas sustain a rich diversity of perennial forb species relative to site potential. Sufficient sagebrush height and density provides food and cover for wintering sage grouse. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004).

In sage grouse habitat management areas identified as core, general, and connectivity habitats, livestock grazing is managed to ensure adequate nesting cover and does not conflict with the attainment of vegetative objectives displayed in Table 1. Greater than 80 of the project area meets the nesting habitat objectives and greater than 40 percent of the project area meets the summer habitat objectives described in Table 1.

Seasonal habitat objectives for the project area were developed based on the Greater Sage-grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015, GRSG-GRSGH-DC-002) and best available science, including the Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitats (Connelly et al. 2000), Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010), and other scientific literature including Crawford et al. (2004), Gregg et al. (1994), Doherty et al. (2014), and Holloran et al. (2005). Desired conditions were established by seasonal life history requirements: breeding and nesting habitats (March 15th to June 30th) and summer habitats (July 1 to November 30th). Desired and existing conditions are described by seasonal habitat using indicators and objectives displayed in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1 Desired* for sage grouse breeding, nesting, and summer habitats.

Habitat General Use

Period

Life Requisite

Indicator Objective

Breeding & Nesting

March 15- June 30

Cover and food

Seasonal habitat extent (percent of seasonal habitat meeting desired conditions)

>80% of the breeding and nesting habitat

Nesting May 15 to June 30

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (mean)

15 to 25%

Nesting May 15 to June 30

Cover Sagebrush height (mean)

16 to 32 in.

Nesting May 15 to June 30

Cover Predominant sagebrush shape

>50% in spreading

Nesting May 15 to June 30

Cover Perennial grass height (mean)

Provide overhead and lateral concealment.

See guideline (Table 2) Nesting May 15 to

June 30 Cover Perennial grass

canopy cover (mean)

>15%

Nesting May 15 to June 30

Cover and food

Perennial forb canopy cover (mean)

>10%

15

Habitat General Use

Period

Life Requisite

Indicator Objective

Summer July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover and food

Seasonal habitat extent (percent of seasonal habitat meeting desired conditions)

>40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat

Summer- upland

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover (mean)

10 to 25%

Summer- upland

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover Sagebrush height (mean)

12 to 32 inches in all other areas.

Summer- upland

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover and food

Perennial forb and grass canopy cover (mean)

>15%

Summer- upland

and riparian

July 1 to Nov. 30

Food Preferred forbs availability

Preferred forbs are common with several preferred species present

Summer – upland

and riparian/ meadow

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover Perennial grass height (mean)

Guideline#: Manage for >4 inches of upland perennial grass height. Retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian / mesic meadow vegetation in all greater sage grouse habitat. (See table 2)

Summer – riparian

areas/ mesic

meadows

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover and food

Riparian function /stream bank stability/ PFC

Meets the riparian function objective, 75 to 85% stream bank stability depending on stream type, or proper functioning condition

Summer – riparian/

mesic meadows

July 1 to Nov. 30

Cover and food

Sagebrush cover adjacent to riparian areas / mesic meadows

Within 328 feet

*Desired conditions are based desired conditions defined in the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015). # Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by the greater sage grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric greenline).

Table 2. Grazing Guideline for Greater Sage Grouse Seasonal Habitat.

Pertinent Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines Areas managed for breeding and nesting1 within 5.3 miles of occupied leks

Perennial grass height:2 When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (from March 15 to June 30) manage for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches.3,5,6 Measure average droop height, assuming current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. Heights will be measured at the end of the nesting period (Connelly et al. 2000). When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from July 1 to November 30) manage for 4 inches5,9 of upland perennial grass height.

16

Pertinent Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines Areas managed for brood rearing and summer habitat 1

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from July 1 to November 30) retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian/mesic meadow vegetation in all7 greater sage grouse habitat.

1 For descriptions of seasonal habitat and seasonal periods of greater sage-grouse, see table 1. 2 Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with >10% sagebrush cover to support nesting. 3 Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. 5 Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50. 6 Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season. 7 All GRSG habitat with greater than 10% sagebrush cover irrespective of lek buffers and designated habitat management areas. 8 In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower vegetation (5–15 cm vs. 30–50 cm; Oakleaf 1971, Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing in spring and early summer (Neel 1980, Evans 1986); moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges and 5-cm for Kentucky bluegrass (Mosley et al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000) (Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and Management of sage-grouse grouse habitat). 9 Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric greenline). These meadows typically have sagebrush within 328 feet of the meadow.

Existing Condition

General Description of Indicators by Seasonal Habitats Approximately 46,881 acres has been designated as sage grouse habitat (general and connectivity habitats) in the Upper Green River project area, or about 14 percent of the designated sage grouse habitat (core, general, and connectivity) on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. This does not include additional nesting habitat acres (5.3 mile radius of potential leks) in the Upper Green project area that extends beyond the general and connectivity habitats.

Mountain big sagebrush occurs below 9,000 feet on approximately 17 percent of the project area and is a common dominant of sagebrush communities. Idaho fescue usually dominates the understory, but Richardson’s needlegrass may be dominant in some areas. Other common graminoids include slender wheatgrass, sedges, timber oatgrass, Columbia needlegrass, and prairie junegrass. Common forbs include sulphur buckwheat, lupine, rockcress, prairiesmoke, western yarrow, and northwest cinquefoil. Above 9,000 feet, subalpine big sagebrush is dominant (Booth and Hayward 2015).

Existing vegetation in the project area is the result of past climatic regimes and disturbances, both natural and human-caused. Fire, timber harvesting, livestock and wildlife grazing and other natural and human-caused disturbances have played significant roles in shaping existing conditions. Upland shrub communities may have increased in density and cover because of reduced competition from grasses and forbs, and because a reduction of fine fuels has reduced the spread of wildfires (Tart 1996). The spread of wildfires may also have been reduced by fire suppression (Booth and Hayward 2015).

Most sagebrush communities on the project area (61%) exceed 25 percent canopy cover Table 3. Region 4 of the Forest Service identified the desired sagebrush cover (Forest Service Handbook FSH 2209.21-2005-1) as 10 percent with 0-5 percent shrub canopy cover; 50 percent with 6-15 percent cover; and 40 percent with > 15 percent shrub cover. The mix of structure and age classes of sagebrush is currently outside the historic range of variation (U.S. Forest Service1997).

17

Although sagebrush communities are important nesting and summer habitats for sage grouse, sagebrush canopy cover and height were not selected as an indicator to compare alternatives because livestock do not forage on, trample, or change sagebrush to any measureable degree under these conditions.

Table 3 Percent of sagebrush communities by canopy cover class for the project area and for sage grouse habitat.

Canopy cover class

Acres sagebrush in project area

Percent of project area

Acres of sagebrush in sage grouse habitat by canopy cover

class as measured by sage grouse monitoring

Percent of sage grouse

area monitored

<10% 3,727 8 1,724 18

10–25% 15,870 31 7,296 75

>25% 31,017 61 726 7

Winter Habitat (November 15 – March 15) Upper Green project area is not known to support wintering sage grouse and therefore, winter sage grouse habitat was not assess or analyzed for this project. The sage grouse summering in the Upper Green River project area are a migratory population as evident by movements of radio-tagged sage grouse off of the project area. Nine sage grouse were radio-tagged in the project area during August 2014. These birds left the project area by mid-November 2014, migrating south to lower elevation sagebrush communities off of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, near the Pinedale Anticline area. Radio-tagged sage grouse returned to the Upper Green River project area in the spring of 2015.

Breeding Habitat (March 15- June 30) Connelly et al. (2000) defined an occupied lek as a traditional display area in or adjacent to sagebrush-dominated habitats that has been attended by two or more male sage grouse in at least 2 of the previous 5 years. The Warren Bridge 2 lek is located approximately 4 miles to the southeast of the Beaver Twin Allotment, off of the project area. As of 2012, this lek was considered occupied (Wyoming Game and Fish Department data). Because the lek is located off of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, breeding (lek) habitat was not assessed. On May 30, 2014, an aerial flight was conducted in the Upper Green project area to survey for leks and breeding activity. Sage grouse breeding activity was observed in the Upper Green River project area. Although the surveys were conducted late in the breeding season, 9 males were observed strutting and a total of 23 hens or roosters were in the same general vicinity on June 7 to the west of the Wagon Creek Allotment. This site is located on private land and therefore the existing condition was not evaluated. A ground survey was conducted in the spring of 2015 with no evidence of breeding activity, although hens and cocks were observed in route. However, satellite data indicated that a radio-marked sage grouse hen (that subsequently nested) and a radio-marked cock repeatedly visited the potential Big Bend lek during the breeding season of 2015, suggesting breeding activity. Additional surveys in subsequent years are needed to determine whether a lek exists in the Upper Green River project area.

18

Nesting Habitat (May 15 to June 30) Sage grouse hens nest in sagebrush communities of the Upper Green River project area. The nesting area considered for this analysis was a 5.3-mile radius from a lek or potential lek, which encompassed 33,400 acres. A portion of this area, approximately 12,980 acres, consisted of mountain big sagebrush community type which was considered nesting habitat for this analysis (Figure 2). The nesting habitat overlaps entirely with capable and suitable acres identified as in the FEIS (U.S. Forest Service 2015 Rangeland Vegetation section, as capable and suitable to support livestock grazing. There were no areas determined to be unsuitable for livestock grazing with respect to sage grouse.

Results of the nesting habitat monitoring indicate the existing condition for sage grouse nesting habitat. Nesting habitat data for the herbaceous indicators were collected during June 22-24 of 2015. Monitoring sites were representative of the pastures in which they were located. Average grass height ranged from 5.2 to 10.3 inches during the end of the nesting season. Five of eight monitoring sites (63%) meet the 7-inch grass height objective and three sites (37%), located in Wagon Creek Allotment (6.1 in), Mud Lake West (5.2 inches) and Mosquito SW (5.6 inches) pastures of the Upper Green River Allotment, did not meet the 7-inch grass height objective. These three pastures where ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season. Two of the eight pastures monitored were grazed by livestock during the nesting season with ended on June 30th , but the monitoring sites were ungrazed at the time of monitoring. Both pastures met the 7-inch grass height objective (Mud Lake East and Mosquito SE pastures). There was no evidence of grazing at any of the randomly located monitoring sites at the time of monitoring.

Grass height values presented in Table 4 may generally represent an upper range of the grass height potential in pastures for this time of year because in 2015 there were relatively good growing conditions (high precipitation) and monitoring sites were ungrazed at the time of measurement. However monitoring was conducted about one week prior to the end of the nesting season, grass height may have increased slightly with an additional week’s growth, and can vary due to a variety of factors. Sample size was limited to one monitoring site per pasture and grass height may vary across the pasture.

Most allotment/ pastures with monitored nesting habitat were ungrazed during the entire nesting season ending on June 30th. Only two pastures (Mud Lake East and Mosquito SE Pastures) were grazed by livestock during the nesting season and both pastures met the 7-inch average grass height objective (8.0 and 7.2 inches, respectively). The livestock driveway may also have been grazed as the cattle were herded through the area to their allotments. Monitoring indicated that this roadside area also met the 7-inch grass height objective (8.6 inches). Mosquito SE and Mud Lake East pastures were grazed by livestock a maximum of 18 days during nesting season assuming livestock entered the pasture at the start of the preapproved 7-day early on date.

Similarly, the perennial grass canopy cover did not meet the 15 percent objective in Wagon Creek Allotment (9.9%) and the Mud Lake West (13.2%) pasture of the Upper Green River Allotment. These pastures were ungrazed by livestock at the time of habitat monitoring. Further data collection and assessment are needed to determine if low grass values are a function of monitoring site location and are not reflective of the pasture as a whole or if these pastures (Wagon Creek Allotment and Mud Lake West) cannot achieve the desired conditions for grass height and canopy over based upon low ecological site potential or if current conditions reflect degraded habitat conditions.

19

Perennial forb canopy cover exceeded the desired 10 percent objective for all pastures monitored, ranging from 23.5 percent in Mud Lake East pasture to 52.3 percent in Wagon Creek Allotment. Preferred forbs were available for foraging grouse and young chicks but offered little in the way of lateral concealment for nesting sage grouse due to the low stature of forbs. Forbs ranged in height from 1.3 inches in Wagon Creek Allotment to 5.3 inches in the River Bottom pasture.

Sage grouse nesting habitat generally meet the desired conditions in the project area during 2015. Approximately 80 percent of the nesting habitat surveyed met the perennial grass height, grass canopy cover, forb canopy cover and preferred forb objectives, assuming that the monitoring site represented the entire pasture. Approximately 20 percent of the nesting habitat surveyed did not meet the perennial grass height and/or grass canopy cover objectives due to some reason other than direct grazing. A 4-inch or greater residual grass height carried into the following years nesting season provides nesting cover and is associated with increased nest success (Holloran et al. 2005). Eight of the 10 upland monitoring sites surveyed had a 4 inch or greater average grass height. This represented approximately 90 percent of the nesting habitat surveyed, assuming that the monitoring site represented the entire sage grouse nesting habitat within the pasture. Mosquito SE pasture and Roaring Fork Allotment contained grass heights less than the 4-inch objective.

Because the grass height data was available subsequent to this analysis, the effects of the alternatives on grass height during the nesting season are described in relative rather than qualitative terms. However, the data collected in 2015 supports this analysis in that a 7-inch grass height objective during the nesting season and 4-inch residual grass height objective post grazing are attainable under current management and in a high precipitation year. Although the forage utilization level at the end of the sage grouse nesting season (June 30th) was not available, there was little to no evidence of livestock grazing at the random monitoring sites during the nesting season even though livestock entered some allotments early (a one week early extension had been granted).

20

Table 4 Sage Grouse Nesting Habitat Data Collected in June of 2015 and Residual Grass Height Data Collected in Aug/Sept 2015

Pasture/ Allotment (acres of sagebrush in

sage grouse nesting habitat)

Shrub Canopy Cover

(%)

Sagebrush Height (inch)

Perennial Grass

Canopy Cover (%)

Perennial grass height (inch)

Perennial forb

canopy cover (%)

Forb height (mean)

Preferred Forbs

Pasture grazed or ungrazed during the

nesting season

Residual grass height, late to post grazing

Aug/ Sept (inch)

Desired Conditions (objective)

15-25 16-32 > 15 >7 >10% - common (> 5 preferred

species)

- >4

Wagon Creek Allotment (114 acres)

14.3 13.3 9.9 6.1 52.3 1.3 common ungrazed 6.2

Mud Lake W Pasture (1,490 ac)

15.5 15.9 13.2 5.2 30.6 4.8 common ungrazed 5.1

Mud Lake E Pasture (2,946

acres)

22.0 14.7 27.8 8.0 23.5 3.8 common grazed 8.9

Mosquito SW Pasture (285

acres)

11.0 13.8 61.7 5.6 35.9 1.7 common ungrazed

Mosquito SE Pasture (958

acres)

21.6 13.7 25.5 7.2 35.1 3.3 common grazed 2.6

Mosquito NE Pasture (1,259

acres)

12.5

Mosquito NW Pasture (702

acres)

7.4

Upper Gypsum Pasture (1,300 ac)

17.5 24.4 30.3 10.3 48.5 4.3 common ungrazed 18.1

Tosi Pasture (1,199 acres)

4.6

21

Pasture/ Allotment (acres of sagebrush in

sage grouse nesting habitat)

Shrub Canopy Cover

(%)

Sagebrush Height (inch)

Perennial Grass

Canopy Cover (%)

Perennial grass height (inch)

Perennial forb

canopy cover (%)

Forb height (mean)

Preferred Forbs

Pasture grazed or ungrazed during the

nesting season

Residual grass height, late to post grazing

Aug/ Sept (inch)

Roaring Fork (148 acres)

3.7

River Bottom Pasture (1,117

acres) 8.0 21.5 49.3 9.1 37.5 5.3

common ungrazed 5.9

Livestock driveway

7.0 14.2 15.9 8.6 24.6 3.3 common herded through

22

Table 5 Acres of sage grouse late brood-rearing and summer habitat (proposed connectivity and general habitats).

Allotment/ Pasture

Riparian Herbland

Silver Sagebrush/

Shrubby Cinquefoil

Willow Riparian and

Meadow Total

Grass/ Forbland

Low/ Alkali Sagebrush

Mountain Big

Sagebrush

Spiked Big Sagebrush

Badger Creek 2.3 58.4 44.9 105.7 60.0 Beaver-Twin 1.1 Noble Pasture 1 56.2 15.8 81.8 153.7 38.2

Noble Pasture 2 145.2 16.7 9.3 171.2 1.5 Noble Pasture 3 108.0 21.2 100.5 229.6 10.7 Noble Pasture 4 89.8 2.0 41.7 133.5 2.3 Roaring Fork 22.9 908.4 95.0 1026.3 6.1 2042.5

Wagon Creek 9.9 2.0 49.6 61.4 10.3 114.2 Mud Lake East 92.7 440.5 482.4 1015.5 34.0 3007.7 245.6

Mud Lake West 41.0 1376.7 724.1 2141.7 1453.1 107.8

Fish Creek Pasture

3.0 5.7 9.7

Mosquito Northeast Pasture

69.1 887.1 41.5 997.7 23.3 1150.7 18.3

Mosquito Northwest Pasture

45.7 408.9 46.1 500.6 19.2 10.7 691.1

Mosquito Southeast Pasture

9.6 656.9 258.2 924.6 668.6

Mosquito Southwest Pasture

538.1 9.2 547.3 9.3 83.1

Tosi Pasture 25.2 5.2 30.4 64.3

Upper Gyp Pasture

65.2 1020.2 968.5 2053.9 167.7 8.8 1245.4 14.7

Lower Gyp Pasture

5.4 134.1 37.9 177.4 9.8 6.8 633.0

River Bottom Pasture

45.0 765.6 543.3 1353.9 8.0 2651.6

Grand Total 807.9 7277.6 3539.0 11624.5 266.3 50.6 13924.9 396.0

23

Table 6 Sage Grouse Summer Data Collected in 2014 and 2015: Late Brood Rearing Habitat

Pasture/

Allotment

Sagebrush

Canopy Cover

(%)

Sagebrush

Height (inches)

Perennial

Grass n Forb Canop

y Cover

(%)

Preferred

Forbs are

common &

number of

species

Upland Perenn

ial Grass Height (inches

)

Riparian/ (Riparian Function

/ streamba

nk stability)

Riparian

Preferred

Forbs &

number of

species

Height of herbaceous riparian/mea

dow vegetation

(inches)

Desired Conditions (objective)

10-25 12-32 > 15 common

(> 5)

> 4 Meets objectives

common

(> 5)

> 4

Noble Pasture Allotment

4 17.1 24.9

16 21.1 22.8

29 82.7 49

common 4

species

- 7.4 3.3

Does not meet

objectives

common

2 sp. in sedge and rush

dominated site

- 1.8 6.6

Roaring Fork Allotment

10 18.9

16 15.4

37 27

common

- 3.7

Meets objective

common

- 9.9

Wagon Creek Allotment

21.1 13.4 46 common

6.2 Meets objective

common

7.2

Mosquito NW Pasture

22 9

17 15.4

62 82

common

- 7.4

Wagon Creek

does not meet

stability objective

common

- 9.9

Mosquito SW Pasture

17 20 40 common

- Meets objective

common

-

Mosquito SE Pasture

12 14.6

20 19

42 73

common 4

species

- 2.6

Meets objective except

erosion at stream

crossing in Wagon

Creek focus area

common

- 5.8

24

Mosquito NE Pasture

12 26.7

17 22.7

26 40

Common 4

species

- 12.5

Meets objective

common

- 18.5

Mud Lake W Pasture

27 14.9

19 19.8

28 81

common

- 5.1

Meets objective

common

- 8.4

Mud Lake E Pasture

18 11.9

16 19.6

32 83

common

- 8.9

Generally meets

objective except at confluenc

e of Roaring Fork and

Green River and section of

Crow Creek

Common, 3

species

- 2.5

Upper Gypsum Pasture

26.4 21.6 69.2 common

18.1 Meets objective

1 sp. (shrubs cinquef

oil cover type)

13.9

Lower Gypsum Pasture

9.7 21.8 72.9 common

12.9 Trending towards objective

- -

Tosi Pasture

10.1 18 53 common

4.5 - - -

Livestock driveway

8 20 28 common

Meets objective

common

River Bottom Pasture

18.2 20.3 59.1 common

5.9 Meets objective

- -

Summer Habitat (July 1 to November 30) As sagebrush habitats desiccate, grouse usually move from sagebrush to more mesic sites (Connelly et al. 2000). Sage grouse broods occupy a variety of habitats, including sagebrush (Martin 1970, Drut et al. 1994), relatively small burned areas within sagebrush (Pyle and Crawford 1996), wet meadows (Drut et al. 1994), farmland, and other irrigated areas adjacent to sagebrush habitats (Connelly and Markham 1983, Connelly et al. 1988) from late June to early November (Connelly et al. 2000). Forbs and insects are an important component of brood-rearing habitat (Patterson 1952, Drut et al. 1994, Hagen et al. 2007).

The sagebrush, shrubby cinquefoil, meadows and riparian habitats in the project area provides sage grouse brood rearing habitat. From July 22 to August 4th, 2014, 24 hens most with broods were observed along Forest Service Road 600 and 660 from Kendall guard station north to Wagon Allotment. Hens with broods were observed in the Mosquito Lakes Pastures and Mud Lake Pastures on August 16-17, 2014. Forty-one sage grouse including hens, chicks and males

25

were flushed north of Mosquito Lake and 29 in the Mud Lake West Pasture. Majority of birds were located in dense cinquefoil/silver sage habitat types where soil moistures were relatively high, and forb species and insects (primarily grasshoppers) were abundant.

Approximately 26, 262 acres of the 46,881 acres identified as connectivity and/or general habitat is considered suitable summer habitat for sage grouse in the Upper Green River project area. The brood rearing habitat overlaps entirely with capable and suitable acres identified as in the FEIS (U.S. Forest Service 2015 Rangeland Vegetation section and Booth and Hayward 2015), as capable and suitable to support livestock grazing. There were no areas determined to be unsuitable for livestock grazing due to sage grouse concerns.

Summer habitat met the desired habitat conditions for sage grouse across the brood-rearing habitat with some exceptions as described in Table 1. Monitoring results for summer or late-brood rearing habitat are presented in Table 6. Herbaceous (grass and forb) canopy cover in the uplands met the objective in all pastures monitored (>15%) and ranged from 26 to 83 percent. Preferred forbs were common with 5 or more preferred forb species available in most pastures with the exception of the Mud Lake East, Noble, and Upper Gypsum pastures which contained 3 species of preferred forbs or less. High forb diversity was not expected at a Noble Pasture site because it was dominated by rushes and sedges.

In 2015, the 4-inch residual grass height in the uplands and herbaceous vegetation height in the riparian/meadow areas met the 4-inch objective with the exception of in portions of Noble Allotment, Mosquito SE, and Mud Lake E pastures. In 2014, grass height was not measured, however general observation was that grass height was greater than 4 inches during the monitoring site visits conducted in September with some exceptions (DeLong observations 2014 and monitoring photos). Precipitation was above normal for June through September in 2015 and 2014. Monitoring sites were ungrazed or lightly grazed to more heavily grazed at monitoring sites not meeting objectives. Utilization data at monitoring sites were not collected.

The majority of the streams in the project area met the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives and is generally in a healthy, functioning condition (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015). Three focus areas (Tosi Creek focus area, Klondike Creek focus area, and Wagon Creek focus area), Wagon Creek in Mosquito NW Pasture, and a segment of Crow Creek and the Green River at the Roaring Fork confluence in the Mud Lake East Pasture of the Upper Green River Allotment are located within the sage grouse summer habitat and do not meet the riparian function or stream bank stability objective (Robertson 2015).

The extent of the summer habitat for sage grouse that meets the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives was approximately 80 percent of area monitored.

26

Numerous wetlands within sagebrush (left photo) and dense stands of cinquefoil/silver sage (right photo) provide sage grouse summer habitat in Mosquito Lake Pastures (8/2014).

Existing Conditions by Allotment/Rotation

Badger Allotment Badger Allotment contains 8 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) within 5.3 miles of the Warren Bridge 2 lek located south of the project area which was considered insufficient area for nesting habitat. Badger Allotment also contains 166 acres of summer habitat, comprising of 106 acres of riparian and meadow habitat and 60 acres of mountain big sagebrush. The summer habitat overlaps with 14 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the allotment.

Sage grouse habitat monitoring was not conducted in this allotment. Therefore, no data is available for the sagebrush canopy cover and height, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability and grass height indicators. The riparian function for the Big Twin and Little Twin Creeks meets the riparian function objective (Robertson 2015). This allotment likely meets the summer habitat objectives and livestock grazing guideline for sage grouse because it has had two years of non-use by livestock and existing riparian conditions meet the riparian function objective.

Beaver-Twin Allotment Beaver-Twin Allotment contains 320 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) within 5.3 miles of the Warren Bridge 2 lek located south of the project area and only 1 acre of summer habitat. The nesting habitat overlaps with 5 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the allotment.

Sage grouse habitat monitoring was not conducted in this allotment. Therefore, no data is available for the sagebrush canopy cover and height, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability and grass height indicators. Although the existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability was unmeasured, it is near its potential and likely meets the objectives and livestock grazing guideline because livestock use of the pasture occurred in 1 out of 5 years (2009-2013). Range ground cover and species composition indicators were below objective in the middle of the allotment (proposed Twin Creeks Pasture), likely due to season-long grazing and the livestock concentrated use of this area (Booth and Hayward 2015).

27

The riparian function for the Big Twin and Little Twin Creeks meets the riparian function objective (Robertson 2015). This allotment likely meets the summer habitat objectives for sage grouse based on four years of non-use by livestock and existing riparian conditions meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives.

Noble Pastures Allotment Noble Pasture Allotment does not provide suitable nesting habitat for sage grouse because this allotment is flood irrigated throughout the summer which results in saturated soils that support meadow rather than upland vegetation. There are 50 acres of mountain big sagebrush across four pastures of the allotment which is likely an insufficient amount of area to support nesting sage grouse. Sagebrush canopy cover ranged from 4 percent (below nesting objective) to 25 percent and average height ranged from 16 to 23 inches (meets objective).

Noble Pastures Allotment is four irrigated pastures that provide summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse have been observed in the Noble Pastures during the summer and likely are attracted to the forbs available as the conditions dry in other areas. Approximately 688 acres of riparian and meadow habitat and 50 acres of upland habitat is available in Noble Pastures Allotment. This summer habitat overlaps with 100 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the allotment. Herbaceous canopy cover was 29 to 83 percent and met the 15 percent objective (Table 6). Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available in two of three sites monitored. In 2015, grass stubble height was below the 4-inch height objective at one of two upland and riparian monitoring sites and did not meet the 4-inch objective. This was consistent with observations in 2014. Although grass height was not measured, grasses and forbs were below the 4-inch objective for meadows at the end of the grazing season. The Tosi Creek focus area located in Pasture 1 and the Klondike Creek focus area located in Pasture 4 do not meet the riparian function objective due to unstable banks and low willow recruitment (Robertson 2015). In addition, there is soil compaction and hummocking in Pasture 3 which does not meet the riparian function objective.

Therefore, Noble Pastures Allotment provides marginal summer habitat because riparian function does not the meet the objective and grass height is below objective.

28

Northwest corner of Noble Pasture 1 looking south (9/15/2014).

Roaring Fork Allotment Roaring Fork Allotment contains approximately 148 acres of nesting habitat in sagebrush communities.

The allotment contains approximately 3,075 acres of summer habitat, comprising of 1,026 acres of riparian and meadow habitat and 2,049 acres of sagebrush habitat. This summer habitat overlaps with 69 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the allotment.

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that all sage grouse indicators met the objectives in the Roaring Fork Allotment (Table 6). Shrub cover was 10 to 19 percent with an average sagebrush height of 15 to 16 inches at an upland monitoring site. These values met the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 10-25 percent and 12-32 inches. Herbaceous canopy cover was 27 to 37 percent which meet the 15 percent objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available both in the upland and riparian areas. This met the preferred forb availability objective. In 2015, grass stubble height met the 4-inch objective in an upland and riparian/meadow site. Although grass height was not measured in 2014, grasses and forbs met the 4-inch objective for meadows at the end of the grazing season based on field observations and photos taken during the site visit. Roaring Fork met the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives (Robertson 2015). Therefore, Roaring Fork Allotment provides suitable summer habitat for sage grouse.

29

Roaring Fork upland site (left photo) and meadow site (right photo) met sage grouse objectives (2014).

Roaring Fork focus area has a downward trend in species composition (Hayward 2014) and this may impact preferred forb availability at this localized site. This focus are is impacted primarily by wintering elk that congregate at the Upper Green River feedground and sun on this south facing slope.

Wagon Creek Allotment Wagon Creek Allotment is located completely within the designated sage grouse nesting and summer habitats. It contains 114 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 186 acres of upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps 100 percent with the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the allotment. Habitat monitoring was conducted in 2015 in nesting and summer habitats.

Sage grouse nesting habitat data was collected in late June 2015 except for the residual grass height data which was collected in September (Table 4). The June monitoring site was located in an arid site with low stature sagebrush and forbs. Sagebrush canopy cover was 14.3 percent and 13.3 inches in height which were below the sagebrush objectives. Existing perennial grass canopy cover and height (9.9% and 6.1 inches, respectively) were below the objectives (15% and 7 inches). Perennial forb canopy cover (52%) and late-season, residual grass height (6.2 inches) met the objective (15% and 4 inches, respectively). The Wagon Allotment was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season and there was no evidence of grazing when nesting monitoring was conducted.

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that all sage grouse indicators met the objectives in the Wagon Allotment (Table 6). Shrub cover was 21.1 percent with an average sagebrush height of 13.4 inches in an upland monitoring site. These values met the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 10-25 percent and 12-32 inches. Herbaceous canopy cover was 46 percent which met the 15 percent objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb

30

species available both in the upland and riparian areas. Perennial grass height in the uplands (6.2 inches) and herbaceous height in the riparian/meadow areas (7.2 inches) met the 4-inch stubble height objective. Wagon Creek in the Wagon Allotment met the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives (Robertson 2015). Therefore, Wagon Allotment provides marginal nesting habitat and suitable summer habitat for sage grouse.

Upper Green River Allotment

Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation is located within the designated sage grouse nesting and summer habitats. It contains 4,539 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 8,024 acres of summer habitat including upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps with 34 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the rotation.

Nesting habitat met herbaceous indicators in Mud Lake East pasture (27.8% and 8 inches) and this pasture was grazed by livestock during the nesting season. Herbaceous indicators were below the objective for perennial grass height and canopy cover in the Mud Lake West pasture (13.2% and 5.2 inches, respectively) and this pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season (Table 4). There was no evidence of livestock grazing at either monitoring sites when surveyed during the nesting season. Shrub cover ranged from 15.5 to 22 percent and an average sagebrush height of 14.7 to 15.9 inches at upland monitoring sites for Mud Lake West and East pastures. These values are comparable to the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 15-25 percent and 16-32 inches for nesting habitat. Residual grass stubble height measured late in the grazing season met the 4-inch objective in both pastures (5.1 and 8.9 inches).

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that most sage grouse indicators met the objective in the Mud Lake pastures. Herbaceous canopy cover was ranged from 28 to 83 percent which met the 15 or greater percent objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available both in the upland and riparian areas with the exception of one riparian/meadow site in Mud Lake East pasture (2015) with only 3 preferred forb species and a residual grass height of 2.5 inches. This area was heavily grazed by livestock. In 2015, residual grass height met the 4-inch objective and ranged from 5.1 to 8.9 inches. Grass height was not measured in 2014, but grasses and forbs likely met the 4-inch objective for upland and riparian/meadow areas at the end of the grazing season based on observations during site visits and photos.

Shrub cover ranged from 11.9 to 27 percent with an average sagebrush height ranging from 16 to 19.8 inches at upland monitoring sites for Mud Lake West and East pastures. These values met the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 15-25 percent and 15-32 inches for nesting habitat.

Raspberry Creek supported well vegetated stream banks and meet the riparian objective. A segment of Crow Creek at the southwest corner of Mud Lake East and a small spring on the hillside lacked herbaceous vegetation and showed sign of willow pedestaling. This segment of Crow Creek did not meet the riparian function objective (Robertson 2015). A segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork did not meet the riparian function objective due to hummocking and soil compaction likely due to a concentration of elk associated with the Upper Green River elk feedground (Robertson 2015, Winthers 2015). Fish Creek Focus Area was located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat.

31

Mud Lake East meadow site (left) and upland site (right photo) in 2014.

Mosquito Lake Rotation Mosquito Lake Rotation contains 3,206 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 5,645 acres of summer habitat including upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps with 49 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the rotation.

Nesting habitat met most herbaceous indicators in Mosquito Lake SW and SE pastures with some exceptions. In Mosquito Lake SW pasture, the perennial grass canopy cover (61.7%) met the objective (>15%), but the average grass height (5.6 inches) fell below the 7-inch objective (Table 4). This pasture was not grazed by livestock during the nesting season and there was no evidence of grazing at the time of monitoring. In Mosquito Lake SE pasture, the perennial grass canopy cover (25.5%) met the objective (>15%) and the average grass height (7.2 inches) met the 7-inch objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available. There was no evidence of livestock grazing at the monitoring site when surveyed, although livestock grazed the pasture during the nesting season. Residual grass stubble height measured late in the grazing season met the 4-inch objective in two of the three pastures monitored in the Mosquito Lake rotation and ranged from 2.6 to12.5 inches. Shrub cover ranged from 11 to 21.6 percent and an average sagebrush height of 13.7 to 13.8 inches at upland monitoring sites. These values were less than the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 15-25 percent and 16-32 inches for nesting habitat.

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that most sage grouse indicators met the sagebrush height and canopy cover, herbaceous canopy cover, and preferred forb availability objectives in the Mosquito Lakes rotation (Table 6). Shrub cover ranged from 9 to 26.7 percent in the uplands and average sagebrush height ranged from 15.4 to 22.7 inches. These values compare to the sagebrush canopy cover and height objectives of 10-25 percent and 12-32 inches for nesting habitat. Herbaceous canopy cover ranged from 26 to 82 percent and met the 15 or greater percent

32

objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available both in the upland and riparian areas with the exception of Mosquito SE and NE pastures which had four preferred forb species in the uplands. Herbaceous height in the riparian/meadow areas met the 4-inch objective and ranged from 5.8 to 18.5 inches. Residual grass stubble height met the 4-inch objective in two of the three pastures monitored in the Mosquito Lake rotation and ranged from 2.6 to12.5 inches in 2015. Although grass height was not measured in 2014, grasses and forbs likely met the 4-inch objective for meadows at the end of the grazing season based on site visits and photos.

Wagon Creek does not meet the stream bank stability objective in the Mosquito NW. In the Mosquito SE Pasture, Wagon Creek is well vegetated at the Wagon Creek focus area where an electric fence has been maintained to exclude cattle, although erosion at the cattle crossing was noted as a concern (Robertson 2015).

Mosquito SW Pasture silversage (left photo) and upland site (right photo), 9/16/14.

Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation contains 2,130 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 95 acres of designated summer habitat including upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps with 25 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the rotation.

Nesting habitat was not monitored for this rotation.

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that all sage grouse indicators met the objective in the Tosi pasture. Herbaceous canopy cover was 53 percent which met the 15 or greater percent objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available in the

33

upland. In 2015, residual grass height met the 4-inch objective with an average of 4.5 inches. Sagebrush canopy cover was 10.1 percent and sagebrush height was 18 inches and both met the objective. Monitoring was not conducted in a riparian/meadow site.

Tosi Creek meets the riparian function objective and Tepee Creek Focus Area does not meet the objective (Robertson 2015).

Gypsum Creek Rotation Gypsum Creek Rotation contains 1,346 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 4,318 acres of designated summer habitat including upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps with 43 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the rotation. However, sage grouse habitat use is greater in the connectivity habitat located along the Green River and limited in the area identified as general habitat within this rotation. Although the Gypsum rotation is within 5.3 miles of the potential lek, sage grouse use of the Gypsum rotation may be limited because of topography and forested areas limits grouse access to these sagebrush communities, as suggested by movements of radio-tagged sage grouse and lack of sage grouse observations in the Gypsum pastures.

The Gypsum rotation met all habitat objectives for nesting habitat (Table 4) and all habitat objectives for summer habitat with one exception (Table 6). Preferred forbs were limited to one species in a shrubby cinquefoil community type. However, there were signs of only light grazing and forbs may have been limited due to presence of short willows and tall grass. The Upper Gypsum pasture was ungrazed during the nesting season.

Average grass stubble height along South Gypsum Creek was 8.7 inches (Booth and Hayward 2015) which meets the 4-inch grass height objective for meadows at the end of the grazing season. Gypsum Creek meets the riparian function objective and South Gypsum Creeks is moving towards riparian objectives and desired conditions (Robertson 2015).

River Bottom Pasture/ Livestock Driveway River Bottom Pasture contains 1,117 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) and 4,014 acres of designated summer habitat including upland, meadow and riparian habitats, combined. The sage grouse habitat overlaps with 35 percent of the area identified as capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the pasture.

Nesting habitat met the objectives for herbaceous indicators in the River Bottom pasture and livestock driveway (Table 4). Perennial grass canopy cover ranged from 15.9 to 49.3 percent and grass height ranged from 8.6 to 9.1 inches, meeting the objectives of greater than 15 percent and 7 inches, respectively. Forb canopy cover ranged from 24.6 to 37.5 percent and forb height ranged from 3.3 to 9.1 inches, meeting the forb canopy cover objective of greater than 10 percent. There was no objective for forb height. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available. The River Bottom pasture was not grazed by livestock during the nesting season and there was no evidence of grazing at the time of the June monitoring. Cattle were herded through the livestock driveway to the allotments in the spring during the nesting season. There was no evidence of grazing at both monitoring sites during the nesting season. In the fall, cattle drifted through the River Bottom pasture to the southern Forest boundary. Residual grass stubble height measured late in the grazing season met the 4-inch objective for the River Bottom pasture in the uplands. Shrub cover ranged from 7 to 8 percent and an average sagebrush height of 14.2 to 21.5 inches at upland monitoring sites. Sagebrush canopy cover was below the

34

objective of 15-25 percent and sagebrush height met the objective of 16-32 inches for nesting habitat.

Monitoring of summer habitat indicated that most sage grouse indicators met the objective in the River Bottom Pasture. Sagebrush canopy cover ranged from 8 to 18.2 percent and sagebrush height was 20 to 20.3 inches. This met the objectives of 10-25 percent and 12 to 32 inches, respectively, in summer habitat objective with the exception of low sagebrush canopy cover at one site. Herbaceous canopy cover was 28 to 59.1 percent which met the 15 or greater percent canopy cover objective. Preferred forbs were common with at least five preferred forb species available. This met the preferred forb availability objective. Residual grass stubble height was not measured in the riparian/meadow areas. The River Bottom Pasture provides suitable forage and herbaceous cover in nesting and summer habitats.

35

Environmental Consequences This section describes the direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 on sage grouse and their habitats. Effects on nesting habitat and summer habitat are provided based primarily on four indicators: herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function/ stream bank stability. Following the description of direct and indirect effects by alternative, there is a discussion of cumulative effects and the alternatives’ compliance with Forest Plan, relevant laws, regulations, policies and plans for all alternatives combined.

Alternative 1 – No Livestock Grazing (No Action Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would not occur on the six allotments after approximately 2 years. In the absence of cattle grazing, more grasses and forbs would be available to sage grouse than described in the existing condition. Alternative 1 would provide the greatest amount of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in nesting and summer habitats and therefore would provide the most suitable sage grouse nesting habitat and best meets the desired condition for riparian areas of all alternatives. Alternative 1 would meet the preferred forb availability objective but forbs may be less available than under Alternative 3 and 4 which proposes moderate to light grazing in riparian areas, respectively, because light grazing reportedly enhances forb availability to sage grouse (Crawford et al. 2004). Overall, Alternative 1 best meets the desired conditions for sage grouse and would provide suitable nesting and summer habitats.

Nesting Habitat (May 15-June 30)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase under Alternative 1 compared with existing conditions because less grass would be consumed as forage across the six allotments. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height expressed under this alternative would be near the potential for each allotment less the amount consumed by wildlife.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height under Alternative 1 would provide the greatest amount of overhead and lateral concealment of sage grouse nests, incubating hens, and chicks compared to all action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Hagen et al. (2007) reported that grass height was greater at nest sites than at random locations. Gregg et al. (1994) found that successful sage grouse nests had greater canopy cover of tall grasses (>7 in.) surrounding the sagebrush nest site than unsuccessful nests. In northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana, Doherty et al. (2014) found that greater average grass height had positive effects on nest survival. In Wyoming, Holloran et al. (2005) found that taller, thicker residual grass cover in dense sagebrush stands appeared to increase the probability of a successful nest. Therefore, Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success in the project area because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Patterson 1952, and Call 1979 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004).

Alternative 1 is the most likely to meet or move nesting habitat towards the herbaceous canopy cover objective (>25%) and the grass height objective (>7 in.) in sagebrush areas, because livestock would not remove grasses and forbs, plant vigor would improve over time with reduced grazing pressure, and seed set would occur yearly. Alternative 1 would provide the maximum herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the absence of livestock grazing. Alternative 1 is

36

most likely to meet the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height objectives and desired conditions for nesting habitat of all alternatives. This alternative would provide desired conditions for sage grouse nesting habitat across 80 percent or more of the nesting habitat in the project area (meets the 80% extent objective, Table 1).

Summer Habitat (July 1-November 15)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height The pattern of habitat use during the brood-rearing period is related to changes in food availability and hens with broods are typically found where forb abundance is greatest (Klebenow 1969, Drut et al. 1994 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Hagen et al. (2007) found that brood areas had significantly taller grasses and greater forb and grass cover than at random locations. Under existing conditions, herbaceous canopy cover and preferred forb availability in uplands and riparian areas generally meet the objectives (>15% and common with >5 present, respectively). Grass height met the >4 inch objective in the uplands and meadows with the exception of the Noble Pastures Allotment and Mosquito SE and Mud Lake E pastures in the Upper Green River Allotment. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be greater than existing conditions and near the potential for each allotment less the amount consumed by wildlife. This would result in increased sage grouse hiding cover and increased brood survival due to reduced predation. All pastures and allotments would met or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height objectives. Alternative 1 would provide the greatest herbaceous canopy cover and grass height of all the alternatives.

Preferred forb availability Crawford et al. (2004) reported that brood-rearing habitat may be enhanced by well-managed grazing practices that favor upland forb production (e.g., fall grazing) and prescribed light (< 40%) to moderate (40-60%) spring grazing which can remove standing herbage and make forbs more accessible (Smith et al. 1979, Fulgham et al. 1982 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004 ). However, consumption of forbs by livestock may limit their availability to sage grouse (Call 1979 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) and reduction in perennial grass height in the uplands can reduce nesting success (Gregg et al 1994, Doherty et al. 2014). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004).

Therefore, Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than existing conditions, Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs potentially less abundant or available. However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function. Alternative 1 would provide more favorable riparian foraging habitat than Alternative 2 (55 - 65% forage utilization) in which livestock is likely to consume sage grouse preferred forbs.

Riparian function/ Stream bank stability Under Alternative 1, riparian function within the sage grouse summer habitat would improve relative to existing conditions at the fastest rate of all alternatives as described in the Riparian and Fisheries sections (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015). The riparian function would improve specifically at three focus areas (Tosi Creek focus area, Klondike Creek focus area, and Wagon

37

Creek focus area), a segment of Crow Creek and a segment of the Upper Green River in the Mud Lake East Pasture, and Wagon Creek in the Mosquito NW Pasture. These areas of concern are located in sage grouse summer habitat and their improvement would provide more succulent forbs and insects later in the summer, thereby enhancing brood rearing habitat. Alternative 1 best meets the desired condition for riparian function and stream bank stability of all alternatives and would meet or move all allotments towards the desired conditions for sage grouse habitat.

In summary, Alternative 1 would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives across 40 percent or more of the sage grouse summer habitat in the project area (meets the extent objective, Table 1).

Additional Effects – Structural Improvements Approximately 62 miles of fencing would be considered for removal under Alternative 1and the majority of these fence miles would likely be removed. Approximately 14 miles of fence along the Forest and allotment boundaries, campgrounds, administrative sites and inholdings would remain in place. Fence removal would have a beneficial effect on sage grouse because grouse collide with wire fences due to poor visibility and can become injured or killed (Christiansen 2009). Vehicles would be used to remove fencing materials. There is a potential that sage grouse nests, chicks, and/or adults could be crushed or injured by vehicles during fence removal; however, this effect is expected to be slight. Shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline would be crushed by vehicles and fencing material; this would have a short term negative effect. There would be a reduction in fence maintenance under Alternative 1 which would result in long-term beneficial effects on shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline compared with the action alternatives in which plants would continue to be crushed during fence maintenance. Alternative 1 would have a small increase in shrub and forb cover along fencelines which would have minor beneficial effects to sage grouse habitat. Alternative 1 has the fewest miles of fencing maintained on the project area of all alternatives. The effect of implementing Alternative 1 would be the fewest number of sage grouse injuries and mortalities associated with fence collisions and minor benefits to sage grouse habitat with reduction in vehicular use along fencelines.

Four water developments and associated water troughs would be considered for removal under Alternative 1. Capturing water from springs using pipelines and troughs may adversely affect wet meadows used by grouse for foraging (Connelly et al. 2000). Removal of spring developments, return of natural water flow to meadows, and decrease in water consumption in summer habitats would benefit sage grouse. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential to increase water availability, prolong soil moisture in meadows, and increase effective meadow area supporting preferred forbs. This is especially important in summer habitat in dry years.

Effects by Allotment/Rotation

Badger Allotment This allotment contains an insufficient amount of nesting habitat to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible.

Badger Allotment contains 166 acres of summer habitat all of which would be ungrazed by livestock. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase under Alternative 1 compared with existing conditions because less grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment. This would result in increased sage grouse hiding cover and increased survival likely

38

due to reduced predation. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Neel (1980 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) found that rest rotation grazing increased forb abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada compared with no grazing. However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2.

Riparian function of Big Twin and Little Twin Creeks would be best met under Alternative 1.

The boundary fence located between the Badger and Beaver-Twin Allotments would be removed under Alternative 1, but this fence is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be minimal to none and similar among alternatives.

Therefore, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met for Badger Allotment under Alternative 1. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4, and similar to Alternative 2. The Badger Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the minimal and similar to the action alternatives.

Beaver-Twin Allotment Beaver-Twin Allotment contains 320 acres of nesting habitat. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase under Alternative 1 compared with existing conditions because less grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat as livestock would not graze in the allotment. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height expressed under this alternative would be near the potential for the allotment less the amount consumed by wildlife. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment. Forb canopy cover may decrease slightly because of the increase in grass canopy cover and competition for soil moisture and nutrients. Forb canopy cover and preferred forb availability would likely meet or move towards the objectives and desired condition.

This allotment contains an insufficient amount of summer habitat to consider effects of the alternative on summer habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible.

The boundary and internal fencing located the Beaver-Twin Allotment would be removed under Alternative 1, but these fences are located outside designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be minimal to none and similar among alternatives.

Therefore, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and stream bank stability objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4, and similar to Alternative 2. The Beaver-Twin Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be minimal to none and similar among alternatives.

39

Noble Pastures Allotment This allotment contains approximately 50 acres of sagebrush which is an insufficient amount of habitat to consider effects on nesting habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible. Effects of the alternative on early brood rearing habitat during the nesting season are similar to the effects described for summer habitat which provides late brood rearing habitat.

Noble Pastures Allotment contains 688 acres of summer habitat all of which would be ungrazed by livestock. Crawford et al. (2004) reported that livestock grazing can have negative or positive impacts on sage grouse habitat depending on the timing and intensity of grazing, and which habitat element is being considered. Early season light to moderate grazing can promote forb abundance and availability in both upland and riparian habitats. Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. These findings are typically for non-irrigated pastures. Under existing conditions and Alternative 2, 50 percent utilization with 2-3 times over grazing constitutes heavy grazing, but the effects of this management is offset in part by flood irrigating the pastures. Herbaceous stubble height is currently and would remain less than 4 inches, which does not meet the grass height objective. However, herbaceous canopy cover and forb availability would continue to meet the objectives.

Under Alternative 1 herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and meet and exceed the objective because considerably less grass and forbs would be consumed as forage by livestock and herbaceous production would be high with continued flood irrigation. This would result in increased hiding cover and increased survival due to reduced predation, although herbaceous vegetation height would exceed that preferred by sage grouse. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse reportedly prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004) and sustained by irrigation. Moderate use equates to a 4-inch residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004).

Likewise, Alternative 1 would provide more favorable meadow foraging habitat than Alternatives 3 and 4 with proposed 40-50 percent forage utilization and 2-3 times over grazing (heavy grazing), because grass, sedge, and forb height would be taller providing some escape cover and more canopy cover of preferred forbs. Alternative 1 would support a faster rate of riparian function recovery on Tosi Creek than under Alternatives 3 and 4 and similar rate of recover on Klondike Creek which would be fenced out under Alternatives 3 and 4. Overall, Alternative 1 with continued flood irrigation would better meet the sage grouse riparian function objective than the action alternatives.

All boundary fences located in the Noble Pastures Allotment would remain, but internal fences would be removed. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would result in crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be slightly lower under Alternative 1 than for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, because the length of fenceline would be the least in Alternative 1.

40

Therefore, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would be best met in the Noble Pastures Allotment under Alternative 1. The allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be reduced under Alternative 1 compared to existing conditions and the lowest potential compared to the action alternatives.

Roaring Fork Allotment Roaring Fork Allotment contains approximately 148 acres of sagebrush nesting habitat. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase under Alternative 1 compared with existing conditions because less grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat as a result of no livestock grazing. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height expressed under this alternative would be near the potential for the allotment less the amount consumed by wildlife. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

The allotment contains approximately 3,075 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase under Alternative 1 compared with existing conditions because less grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment. This would result in increased sage grouse hiding cover and increased survival likely due to reduced predation. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Neel (1980 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) found that rest rotation grazing increased forb abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada compared with no grazing. However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function are expected to continue to meet objective. The Roaring Fork Allotment would continue to provide suitable summer habitat for sage grouse that meets the desired condition.

The Roaring Fork focus area is an upland site with a downward trend in species composition under existing conditions. Under Alternative 1, preferred forb availability which is influenced by species composition, would remain the same or improve slightly because elk would continue to graze the north facing slope heavily impacting the focus area. Livestock grazing would not contribute to the impacts on species composition or preferred forb availability at the focus area. Roaring Fork would continue to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives.

All boundary fences along the Roaring Fork Allotment and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be removed under Alternative 1. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because they would not collide with fencing and would not experience injury or mortality due to collisions. The action alternatives would maintain

41

fencing in Roaring Fork Allotment which would result in more injury and mortality of sage grouse than Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more than under Alternative 2. The Roaring Fork Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse would not collide with fences in the allotment because fencing would be removed.

Wagon Creek Allotment This allotment contains about 114 acres of nesting habitat, primarily mountain big sagebrush. Under current management, livestock enter the allotment in July, after the nesting season and grass canopy cover and height did not meet the objectives for nesting habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and residual grass height carried into the following years nesting season would increase compared to existing conditions and would move the allotment towards the habitat objectives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants in the summer. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005).

The Wagon Creek Allotment provides sage grouse summer habitat (186 acres). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and riparian function would increase compared to existing conditions and at the fastest rate of all alternatives. Alternative 1 would continue to meet these habitat objectives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Preferred forb availability would be less under Alternative 1 than Alternatives 3 and 4 because sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Under Alternative 1, grass and sedge height would reach maximum potential height without livestock grazing and would therefore provide less preferred forb availability than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 1 would provide more forb availability than Alternative 2 which constitutes heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization.

The boundary fence along Wagon Allotment would not be removed under Alternative 1 because the allotment borders private grazing land. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar for all alternatives and to existing conditions because the length of fence is the same. Vehicles would continue to be used periodically along the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, vegetation would be crushed with negligible negative effects and at a similar rate under all alternatives.

In summary, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function would meet or move towards the habitat objectives for Wagon Allotment under Alternative 1. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more than under Alternative 2. The Wagon Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences and habitat loss associated with fence maintenance would be minor and the same for all alternatives.

42

Upper Green River Allotment

Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation This rotation contains 4,539 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the sagebrush communities would increase compared to existing conditions and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives at the fastest rate of all alternatives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. However, there is a possibility that the Mud Lake West pasture would not met the grass canopy cover and height objectives if the site potential was the limiting factor. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

This rotation contains 8,024 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and would meet or move towards the objectives. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2. Riparian function of Raspberry Creek would continue to meet objective. The segment of Crow Creek currently not meeting the riparian function objective would improve at the fastest rate of recovery with the removal of livestock as proposed under Alternative 1 compared to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Riparian vegetation would reestablish and increase along the Crow Creek which would improve sage grouse brood rearing habitat. The segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork that does not meet the riparian function objective would improve with the removal of livestock but may continue to not meet the riparian function objective under Alternative 1 because of impacts are primarily associated with the artificially high number of elk feed during the winter at the Upper Green River elk feedground.

All fencing for the Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be removed under Alternative 1. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because they would not collide with fencing and would not experience injury or mortality due to collisions. The action alternatives would maintain fencing in Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline and more injury and mortality of sage grouse than under Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives, although grass canopy cover and grass height in the Mud Lake West pasture could still fall below the nesting habitat objectives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more

43

than under Alternative 2. The Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse would not collide with fences in the allotment because fencing would be removed.

Mosquito Lake Rotation This rotation contains 3,206 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability in the sagebrush communities would increase compared to existing conditions and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives at the fastest rate of all alternatives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

This rotation contains 5,645 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and meet the objectives. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely to occur under Alternative 2. The stream bank stability of Wagon Creek in the Mosquito NW would increase at the fastest rate of recovery under Alternative 1 compared to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 because livestock would not consume riparian vegetation along the stream banks. The Wagon Creek focus area would continue to be well vegetated and erosion associated with cattle crossing the creek would decrease, but erosion at the crossing associated with unauthorized vehicle use may continue. The Wagon Creek focus area would continue to move towards the desired condition.

All fencing for the Mosquito Lake rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be removed under Alternative 1. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because they would not collide with fencing and would not experience injury or mortality due to collisions. The action alternatives would maintain fencing in Mosquito Lake rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline and more injury and mortality of sage grouse than under Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more than under Alternative 2. The Mosquito Lake rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summers habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse would not collide with fences in the allotment because fencing would be removed.

44

Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation This rotation contains 2,130 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the sagebrush communities would increase compared to existing conditions and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives at the fastest rate of all alternatives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

This rotation contains 95 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and continue to meet the objectives. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely to occur under Alternative 2. Riparian vegetation would increase along Tosi Creek and the creek would continue to meet the riparian function objective. Riparian vegetation would increase along in Tepee Creek focus area and improve riparian function however, negative impacts associated with the existing log structures and cabling on Tepee Creek, including channel scouring, would continue under Alternative 1 and may prevent the creek from reaching the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives and desired conditions (Robertson 2015).

Boundary fences located between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the private inholding would remain, but other internal fences would be removed. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be slightly lower under Alternative 1 than for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, because the length of fenceline would be the lowest in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more than under Alternative 2. The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summers habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be reduced under Alternative 1 compared to existing conditions and the lowest potential compared to the action alternatives.

Gypsum Creek Rotation This rotation contains 1,346 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the sagebrush communities would increase compared to existing conditions and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives at the fastest rate of all alternatives because livestock would not consume

45

herbaceous plants. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

This rotation contains 4,318 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and meet the objectives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Riparian vegetation would increase along Gypsum and South Gypsum Creeks and would meet the riparian function objective because riparian vegetation would hold the stream banks.

All fences located on the southern Forest boundary would remain, but internal fences would be removed. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be slightly lower under Alternative 1 than for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, because the length of fenceline would be the lowest in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function/stream bank stability objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. The Gypsum Creek rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summers habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be reduced under Alternative 1 compared to existing conditions and the lowest potential compared to the action alternatives.

River Bottom Pasture/ Livestock Driveway Under Alternative 1, livestock would not be trailed through sage grouse nesting and summer habitat. This pasture contains 1,117 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the sagebrush communities would increase compared to existing conditions and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives at the fastest rate of all alternatives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Alternative 1 would likely support the highest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the greatest (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005) and because livestock would not trample on nests or cause nest abandonment.

This pasture contains 4,014 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 1, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would increase and continue to meet the objectives because livestock would not consume herbaceous plants. Alternative 1 would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be taller and forbs less accessible and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in

46

riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2. Riparian function of the Upper Green River would continue to meet the objective. Riparian vegetation would increase along the stream bank and improve stream bank stability and riparian function.

The majority of fences located in or on the boundary of the River Bottom Pasture would remain, including the southern boundary fence, Kendall Warm Springs exclosure, and the fences surrounding the Whiskey Grove Campground, Noble Pastures Allotment and private inholdings. The only exception is the boundary fence between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture which would be removed. The potential short-term effect of vehicle driving along the fenceline to coil and remove fencing material would be crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability. The long-term effect of fence removal would be beneficial effects to these herbaceous indicators compared to existing conditions because vehicles would not be used to periodically drive the fenceline for fence maintenance and therefore, would not crush herbaceous vegetation. The long-term effect of maintaining fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline. There would be beneficial effects to sage grouse because collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be slightly lower under Alternative 1 than for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, because the length of fenceline would be the lowest in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would be best met under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives. Preferred forb availability would be less than that available under Alternatives 3 and 4 and more than under Alternative 2. The River Bottom Pasture would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summers habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 1. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be slightly reduced under Alternative 1 compared to existing conditions and the slightly lower potential compared to the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives Under the National Environmental Policy Act, "cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment (i.e. sage grouse habitat) which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taken place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis areas are bounded both in space and time. The cumulative effects analysis area for sage grouse is the areas identified as the State of Wyoming including Pinedale anticline areas where Upper Green River sage grouse winter and the Bridger-Teton National Forest with emphasis on the Upper Green River project area. Spatial boundary was the State level because trend information was available and Bridger-Teton National Forest is the unit level in which viability determinations are made. The temporal boundary for this analysis is 10 years into the past and future. This temporal boundary was selected because 10 years is the life of a typical term grazing permit. Within this analysis area past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have the potential to impact sage grouse habitat included in this analysis were the Green River Corridor Recreation Planning, Pinyon Osborn Vegetation Treatment, Upper Green River Elk Feed Program, climate change, oil and gas development, residential subdivisions, and historical livestock grazing.

Table 7 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions used in cumulative effects analysis.

47

Other Projects / Activities

Project Description Potential Effects Effect on Sage Grouse and Habitat

Green River Corridor Recreation Planning (future)

An assessment of existing roads and campsites within the Green River Corridor. Project would reduce recreation impacts associated with dispersed camping and off-road vehicle use along the Green River.

Net increase of vegetation and stream bank stability along Green River with areas of reduction associated with planned recreation use.

Beneficial effects primarily to summer habitat. Potential net increase in grass height, herbaceous canopy cover, forb availability and riparian function in sage grouse nesting and summer habitats along the Green River.

Pinyon Osborn Vegetation Treatment (future)

Project (about 26,000 acres) would reduce conifer fuels and restore shrub and aspen communities using mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. The proposed treatments will likely be reduced.

Reduce sagebrush canopy cover and height in the short-term and increase herbaceous canopy cover and height.

Short-term negative effects on nesting and summer habitats because project would reduce sagebrush canopy cover and height. Short-term benefits to summer habitat as result of increased herbaceous canopy cover and height. Long-term benefits once sagebrush regenerates and increases in height and canopy cover because of improved age class diversity of sagebrush community and increases in herbaceous understory possible if livestock managed effectively. Potential for invasive plant establishment.

Upper Green River Elk Feedground (present)

Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. feeds about 500 elk during the winter (U.S. Forest Service 2008) along the Upper Green River near the confluence of Roaring Fork.

Reduced vegetation and riparian function along the Green River near the feedground. Reduced plant species composition due to elk foraging near the feedground.

Effect described as part of the existing condition. Continued impaired riparian function along the Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork and impaired species composition at the Roaring Fork focus area result in negative effects to sage grouse nesting and summer habitats.

Climate Change General increase in air temperatures and decrease in precipitation

Ground cover would increase and sagebrush communities across Wyoming would become more vulnerable to fire, insects and disease. Potential 12 % reduction in sagebrush and grouse nesting habitat in southwestern Wyoming by 2050 (Homer et al. 2015)

Sagebrush communities on the Bridger-Teton National Forest are higher elevation and receive relatively more precipitation than the majority of sagebrush communities in Wyoming. These high elevation, peripheral areas may become more important to sage grouse as climate changes.

Oil and Gas Development

Establishment of wells and production of oil and natural gas in Wyoming, particularly the Pinedale Anticline

Fragmentation and reduction of sagebrush habitat. Oil and gas production and increased vehicle activity

Reduces quality and quantity of sage grouse lek, nesting, summer and winter habitats through loss of habitat and increased

48

Other Projects / Activities

Project Description Potential Effects Effect on Sage Grouse and Habitat

area affects the sage grouse population that uses the Upper Green project area.

contributes to CO2 emissions and reduced air quality.

disturbance. Oil and gas development associated with decline sage grouse populations. Negatively affects the Upper Green River sage grouse population primarily due to loss of winter habitat, reduced winter survival, disturbance of breeding activity and potential decline in the number of sage grouse nesting and summering in the project area.

Residential subdivision

Construction of residential homes and commercial development

Fragmentation and reduction of sagebrush habitat

Reduces quality and quantity of sage grouse breeding, nesting, summer and winter habitats through loss of sagebrush habitat and increased disturbance.

Historic livestock grazing (past)

Historically, grazing intensity was much higher in the project area and there are residual effects to stream and riparian conditions that are still detectable in some areas in the project area. Some of the areas that have been identified as having low stream bank stability and impaired riparian vegetation conditions are on a recovery trajectory from historical grazing impacts. These areas that have long-term grazing impacts are limited in extent across the project area and most have been identified as focus areas including Tepee Creek, Wagon Creek, Klondike Creek, Tosi Creek focus areas. (Anderson 2015)

Effect described as part of the existing condition. Riparian vegetation, stream bank stability, and riparian function have been impacted in some areas that have been historically overgrazed, most notably focus areas. This results in negative effects to sage grouse brood rearing habitats (summer habitats) and is discussed in direct and indirect effects by alternative.

The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 (negative effects) combined with the effects of the Green River Corridor Recreation Planning (beneficial effects), Pinyon Osborn Vegetation Treatment (short-term negative and long-term beneficial effects) , Upper Green River elk feed program (negative effects), climate change (slight negative effects), oil and gas production (negative effects), and residential development (negative effects) may contribute to a trend towards a loss of viability to the population on the Bridger-Teton National Forest because the net cumulative effect would be a decline in sage grouse habitat conditions. The cumulative effects of Alternative 1 (greatest beneficial effects), Alternative 4 (beneficial effects greater than Alt. 3 and less than Alt. 1) or Alternatives 3 (beneficial effects) when combined with the effects of the Green River Corridor Recreation Planning (beneficial effects), Pinyon Osborn Vegetation Treatment (short-term negative and long-term beneficial effects), Upper Green River elk feed program (negative effects), climate change (slight negative effects), oil and gas development (negative effects) , and residential development (negative effects) would not contribute to a trend towards a loss of viability to the population on the Bridger-Teton National Forest because the net cumulative effect would result in either maintaining or, in most cases, improving current habitat conditions for sage grouse in the project area. This conclusion was reached by using the indicators for direct and indirect effects (herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian

49

function) from the proposed activities described in the alternatives and adding them to the expected effects from other management activities described in Table 7.

Determination for Alternative 1 Implementing Alternative 1 will have “Beneficial Impact” to sage grouse and sage grouse habitat on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Rationale: Alternative 1 would have “Beneficial Impact” on sage grouse and sage grouse habitat because herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function/stream bank stability would all meet or move towards the objectives at the fastest rate of recovery and would reach the highest levels of any alternative. Grass height and herbaceous canopy cover in nesting habitat would be the most favorable (greatest) among all of the alternatives because livestock grazing would not reduce these components. Scientists concluded that tall, dense grass and forb cover at nest sites enhanced nesting success (Connelly et al. 2000, Greg et al. 1994, Holloran et al 2005, Doherty 2014). Thus, Alternative 1 would provide the best nesting habitat, greatest nest concealment from predators, and greatest nesting success of all alternatives. Preferred forbs may be slightly less available in riparian areas under Alternative 1 than Alternative 4 and 3 because light to moderate livestock grazing has been demonstrated to make preferred forbs more available to sage grouse (Crawford et al. 2004). However, preferred forb availability under Alternative 1 is expected to meet objective for this indicator and desired conditions. Under Alternative 1, about 62 miles of fencing would be removed in the Upper Green River project area and 14 miles would be maintained. This would reduce the potential for sage grouse to collide with fences, compared to existing conditions, and would reduce injury and mortality – all of which would be beneficial effects. Retained fences would in part serve the purpose of keeping livestock off of the Bridger-Teton National Forest when adjacent to private lands, which would have a net beneficial effect to sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

The sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River is important habitat to maintain the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, because it comprises more than 14 percent of the habitat area on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. At the Forest (unit) scale, Alternative 1 would provide adequate amounts of suitable habitat for sage grouse in the project area or 46,881 acres of connectivity and general habitat in or moving towards desired conditions for nesting and brood rearing sage grouse.

In addition, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River area provides a potential dispersal route between the Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population to the relatively isolated Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations, although Schulwitz et al. (2014) did not demonstrate genetic connectivity between these populations. Connectivity corridors are important for maintaining the transmission of genetic material between populations (State of Wyoming, Executive Order 2015-4). Otherwise, isolated populations may result in negative fitness consequences that could result in local extirpation and/or loss of unique genetic diversity (Schulwitz et al. 2014). The sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River provides a connectivity corridor and the potential for demographic and genetic exchange to the Gros Ventre and Jackson populations that inhabit an addition 185,779 area of core, connectivity, and general sage grouse habitat on the Bridger-Teton National or 56 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. As a result, the Upper Green River corridor is important to the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest because Alternative 1 would positively contribute to sage grouse occupying approximately 70 percent of the habitat on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

50

At a larger scale, these beneficial effects on sage grouse habitat and to the viability of sage grouse on the Forest scale would contribute negligible beneficial effects to the entire species when considering trend towards federal listing because the sage grouse habitat on the Forest is a small proportion of the habitat in Wyoming and in light of the magnitude of negative impacts associated with other activities such as climate change, oil and gas development, and residential development occurring throughout the State. Although, the Upper Green River habitat is currently considered periphery habitat, it is relatively high elevation and receives high precipitation for sagebrush communities and may become more important in light of climate changes.

Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted and Current Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Utilization data can be a valuable tool for helping to interpret the influence of livestock herbivory on vegetation trend (Sanders 1998 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Likewise, Clary and Webster (1989) stated that the level of utilization occurring on a site is the most important consideration in grazing management. Forage utilization levels differ by alternative and were used to evaluate impacts on sage grouse habitat indicators because utilization level was the most influential activity on sage grouse habitat. Under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, forage utilization would range from 50 to 60 percent maximum in the uplands and 55 to 65 percent forage utilization in the riparian areas.

This alternative allows the greatest amount of forage consumed by livestock and therefore, the grass and forbs available to sage grouse would be the lowest under Alternative 2 compared with all other alternatives. Alternative 2 would provide the least amount of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in nesting and summer habitats and therefore would provide the lowest amount of suitable sage grouse nesting and foraging habitat. Alternative 2 would not meet the desired condition for riparian function in allotments with 65 percent forage utilization (Robertson 2015) and decline in preferred forb availability below objective would be likely because heavy grazing would remove herbaceous vegetation and degrade riparian conditions compared to existing conditions. Overall, Alternative 2 would not meet the desired conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats.

Nesting Habitat (May 15-June 30)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height Herbaceous species in sagebrush plant communities are predominantly cool-season plants (C-3) that are vulnerable to defoliation during late spring and early summer (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavy grazing (approximately 60% or greater utilization by weight) during this time has predictable results: 1) the vigor, yield, and canopy cover of late-seral grasses and forbs decrease; 2) early-seral species may increase; and 3) transition of sagebrush uplands to higher ecological status is inhibited (Mueggler 1950, Eckert and Spencer 1986, Laycock 1987 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). These effects would be expected under Alternative 2 because livestock grazing would be permitted at a maximum of 60 to 65 percent maximum forage utilization in upland and riparian/meadow areas, respectively, which is considered heavy grazing.

Beaver-Twin, Roaring Fork, Wagon, and the Upper Green River Allotments contain sage grouse nesting habitat while Badger and Noble Pastures Allotments do not. Livestock grazing would overlap in time and space with the sage grouse nesting season and nesting habitat in the Roaring

51

Fork and Upper Green River Allotments. In these allotments, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted with a permitted 50-60 percent forage utilization compared with existing conditions (30% forage utilization under current management), because considerably more herbaceous vegetation could be consumed as forage.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height under Alternative 2 would provide the least amount of overhead and lateral concealment of sage grouse nests, incubating hens, and chicks compared to all other alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4). Hagen et al. (2007) reported that grass height was greater at nest sites than at random locations. Gregg et al. (1994) found that successful sage grouse nests had greater canopy cover of tall grasses (>7 in.) surrounding the sagebrush nest site than unsuccessful nests. In northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana, Doherty et al. (2014) found that greater average grass height had positive effects on nest survival. In Wyoming, Holloran et al. (2005) found that taller, thicker residual grass cover in dense sagebrush stands appeared to increase the probability of a successful nest. Therefore, Alternative 2 would likely support the lowest level of nesting success in the project area because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives.

In addition livestock may trample nests or cause nest abandonment which has been reported to occur occasionally (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Patterson 1952, and Call 1979 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Nest trampling and abandonment would likely occur at similar to slightly greater rates under Alternative 2 than Alternatives 3 and 4 because the alternatives would permit about the same number of livestock (although Alternative 2 permits 270 head more than Alternatives 3 and 4 in the Mosquito Lake rotation of the Upper Green River Allotment) and authorize the same season of use with an infrequent (about 2 out of 10 years) one week shift prior to the season of use that would occur in nesting areas under Alternative 2 but not in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Under existing conditions, average grass height ranged from 5.2 to 10.3 inches during the end of the nesting season and 2.6 to 18.1 late in the grazing season. Five of eight monitoring sites (63%) meet the 7-inch grass height objective and three sites (37%), located in Wagon Creek Allotment (6.1 in), Mud Lake West (5.2 inches) and Mosquito SW (5.6 inches) pastures of the Upper Green River Allotment, did not meet the 7-inch grass height objective. Two (Mosquito SE pasture and Roaring Fork Allotment) of 10 monitored did not meet the residual grass height (>4 inch) objective post grazing season. Alternative 2-Grazing as Permitted would move herbaceous canopy cover and grass height further away from 7 and 4 inch objectives in sagebrush areas identified as sage grouse nesting habitat.

Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommended that managers consider delaying grazing of known nesting areas until after the nesting season. Rotational grazing systems are one way to provide areas (i.e., pastures) free from livestock disturbance during nesting. This benefit may be offset if heavy use occurs in the grazed pastures (Holechek et al. 1982), especially since sage grouse can display high site fidelity (Fischer et al. 1993 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004).

Grazing would occur after the nesting season in Beaver-Twin and Wagon Allotments even with the 1 week possible early extension and therefore, livestock grazing would not affect the 7-inch grass height objective during the nesting season for these two allotments. The 4-inch grass height objective during the summer season (post livestock grazing) is aimed at carrying residual grass nesting cover into the following nesting season and would be a relevant indicator for all allotments with nesting habitat (Beaver-Twin, Roaring Fork, Wagon, and the Upper Green River Allotments). Alternative 2 is the least likely alternative to meet the 4-inch grass height objective

52

in sage grouse nesting habitat because the permitted forage utilization is the greatest, 50 percent in Beaver-Twin Allotment and Roaring Fork Allotment south of the Green River to 60 percent in the Roaring Fork Allotment north of the Green River, Wagon Allotment and the Green River Allotment in the uplands under Alternative 2 compared to 50 percent for all allotments in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Alternative 2 allows for season-long grazing of sage grouse nesting habitat in the Beaver-Twin, Roaring Fork and Wagon Creek Allotments which reduces the residual grass cover and height available during the nesting season in the following year across these allotments. Season-long grazing has the greatest overlap in time and space between livestock grazing and sage grouse nesting. Livestock have the entire season of use across the sage grouse nesting habitat within the allotment to graze, reducing herbaceous canopy cover and grass height important for sage grouse nesting. Therefore, season-long grazing system would annually reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height over the greatest nesting area compared with a rotation system (Alternatives 3, 4, and certain allotments in Alternative 2) or no livestock grazing (Alternative 1). Season-long livestock grazing potentially reduces sage grouse nesting success to the greatest degree, followed by rotational grazing system, then no livestock grazing.

A deferred and rest rotation system reduces the overlap in time and space between livestock grazing and sage grouse nesting by limiting livestock to one pasture of the allotment during nesting season (ending June 30th) and alternates this grazed pasture yearly. The grazed pasture would have reduced herbaceous cover and grass height, but the ungrazed pastures would provide nesting areas with more herbaceous cover, grass height and less disturbance and may enhance nesting success. The Mud Lake/Fish Creek, Tosi/Tepee Creek and Gypsum Creek Rotations of the Upper Green River Allotment are deferred rotations and the Mosquito Lake Rotation of the Upper Green River Allotment is a rest rotation. Therefore, the Upper Green River Allotment would provide ungrazed areas of nesting habitat yearly under Alternative 2. These ungrazed pastures would have more herbaceous canopy cover providing overhead and lateral concealment from predators; however, livestock would be concentrated in the grazed pastures were nesting cover may be less suitable and nest failure more common.

Under Alternative 2, a one week shift in the season of use could apply to the 4 allotments containing nesting habitat (Beaver-Twin, Roaring Fork, Wagon Creek and Upper Green River Allotments and the River Bottom Pasture/livestock driveway). The extension would not affect nesting habitat during the nesting season in the Beaver-Twin and Wagon Creek Allotments but would affect the Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments and the River Bottom Pasture/livestock driveway. A shift of up to one week to the permitted season of use could be authorized for any given year by the District Ranger on an infrequent basis (approximately 2 years out of 10). This would slide the season of use a maximum of one week prior to or one week following the permitted season of use; the season of use would remain the same number of days. The entry dates for Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments could occur as early as June 9th, when a one week shift prior to the permitted season of use is granted. This action would increase livestock use in nesting habitat during the nesting season by a maximum of 7 days or a 29 percent increase. The effect of a one week shift prior to the season of use would be a reduction of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height by an additional 29 percent of the herbaceous off-take expected on the typical nesting season of use. In addition, a slight increase in nest abandonment and trampling would be expected, which would decrease sage grouse nesting success.

53

Alternative 2 is least likely of all alternatives to meet the 7-inch nesting grass height objective during the nesting season in pastures grazed by livestock and least likely to meet the 4-inch grass stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season intended to carry over adequate residual grass cover for the following year’s nesting season. Alternative 2 would likely not meet desired conditions for herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the sage grouse nesting habitat across the project area.

Summer Habitat (July 1-November 15)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height The pattern of habitat use during the brood-rearing period is related to changes in food availability and hens with broods are typically found where forb abundance is greatest (Klebenow 1969, Drut et al. 1994a as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Hagen et al. (2007) found that brood areas had significantly taller grasses and greater forb and grass cover than at random locations.

Under Alternative 2, forage utilization permitted would range from 50 to 60 percent in the uplands and from 55 to 65 percent in riparian/meadow areas. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be considerably less than existing conditions under current management (30 - 50% forage utilization of key forage species). Alternative 2 permits the largest utilization level of all the alternatives. This utilization level would translate to the least amount of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height available in sage grouse summer habitat (upland and riparian) of all alternatives and likely would result in these indicators falling below the respective objectives.

Preferred forb availability Crawford et al. (2004) reported that brood-rearing habitat may be enhanced by well-managed grazing practices that favor upland forb production (e.g., fall grazing) and prescribed light (< 40%) to moderate (40-60%) spring grazing which can remove standing herbage and make forbs more accessible (Smith et al. 1979, Fulgham et al. 1982 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004 ). Alternative 2 would allow spring and summer grazing in riparian areas at heavy utilization levels (55-65%, season-long in Badger, Beaver, Roaring Fork and Wagon Allotments) which would result in declines in forb abundance and species diversity below objective and limit sage grouse forb availability (Call 1979 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004).

To the extent that heavy livestock grazing contributes to the establishment of invasive and increaser forbs that are preferred forage by sage grouse such as common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), western salsify (Tragopogon dubius), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), fleabane (Erigeron spp.), sweetclover (Melilotus spp.), and milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), preferred forb availability in nesting and summer habitats may slightly increase preferred forb availability, but would have negative effects on rangeland species composition objectives (Booth and Hayward 2015). Alternative 2 would likely not meet desired conditions for availability of preferred forbs because the level of grazing intensity is greater than that reportedly beneficial to sage grouse forb availability (Crawford et al. 2004) and is expected to result in decreases in riparian function which reduces soil moisture and forb availability.

Riparian function/ Stream bank stability Under Alternative 2, forage utilization of up to 55 to 65 percent would cause riparian areas, especially those currently in less than desired condition, to decline in riparian function and stream

54

bank stability at the fastest rate of all alternatives as described in the Riparian report (Robertson 2015). Stubble heights at the greenline of streams and within meadows would be expected to be less than 4 inches and cattle would browse on willows as herbaceous vegetation became unavailable. The reduction in riparian vegetation would result in less root mass stabilizing stream banks and increased high water flows and erosion, resulting in declines in riparian function and stream bank stability. In the long-term overall declines in riparian function would have negative effects on sage grouse forb availability and summer habitat due to loss of forb abundance and species diversity. Declines in riparian function at focus areas and areas of concern would be the result of 55 to 65 percent forage utilization because streambank would lack riparian vegetation to prevent erosion and stabilize stream banks. Specifically, the riparian function would decline and continue to not meet the objective at three focus areas (Tosi Creek focus area, Klondike Creek focus area, and Wagon Creek focus area), a segment of Crow Creek and a segment of the Upper Green River in the Mud Lake East Pasture, and Wagon Creek in the Mosquito NW Pasture. These areas of concern are located in sage grouse summer habitat.

During the spring, Alternative 2 would provide more favorable riparian foraging habitat than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing) because grass/sedge height would be shorter and forbs more accessible and livestock grazing intensity may be reduced due to succulent forage in the uplands. However these effects would be reversed in the late summer because livestock would tend to congregate more in the riparian/meadow areas and grazing at 55 to 65 percent would reduce the availability of succulent plant species and/or causes declines in riparian function. Alternative 2 (55-65% forage utilization) would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat than Alternative 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be shorter, forbs less accessible, and riparian function declining.

Additional Effects – Structural Improvements Approximately 76 miles of existing fence would be maintained for livestock management. Reconstructed fences would conform to the Fencing Riparian Area Guideline and the Structural Improvement Standard which would benefit sage grouse by increasing visibility of riparian fences. In Sublette County, Wyoming, Christiansen (2009) reported sage grouse mortality associated with fences and found that fence markers reduced grouse mortality by 61 percent. Fence markers in the upland nesting areas are not part of Alternative 2; therefore, sage grouse injury and mortality associated with fences in sage grouse habitats would continue similar to existing condition. Motorized vehicle traveling overland and along fencelines could be used to maintain fences. There is a potential that sage grouse nests, chicks and adults could be crushed or injured by vehicles used to maintain fencelines, although the effect is expected to be slight.

Four water developments and associated water troughs would remain under Alternative 2. Capturing water from springs using pipelines and troughs may adversely affect wet meadows used by grouse for foraging (Connelly et al. 2000). Connelly et al. (2000) recommended in order to protect summer habitat, avoid developing springs for livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or trough, design the project to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring. No additional water developments are proposed under Alternative 2, 3 or 4; therefore effects of water developments and water trough under Alternative 2 is the same as under existing conditions and the same for all action alternatives.

Table 8 (p. 120) compares the effects of livestock management actions on sage grouse and their habitats among the alternatives.

55

In summary, Alternative 2 is least likely of all alternatives to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives in the sage grouse summer habitat across the project area (does not meet the extent objective, Table 1).

Effects by Allotment/Rotation

Badger Allotment This allotment contains an insufficient amount of nesting habitat (8 acres) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because sage grouse use of this small area would be minimal and any effect would be negligible.

Badger Allotment contains 166 acres of summer habitat which would be grazed season-long by livestock. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted compared with existing conditions because more grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment (permitted 50% forage utilization of key forage species compared with 30% under existing conditions and current management). Season-long grazing beginning on July 1st with an occasional (2 out of 10 years) on date as early as June 24th would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover objective because livestock would graze grasses repeatedly prior to seed set and grasses would likely not reseed. This would result in decreased herbaceous canopy cover, sage grouse hiding cover and decreased sage grouse survival likely due to increased predation. Alternative 2 (50% in upland and 55% forage utilization of key forage species in riparian areas) would provide similar foraging habitat in the spring compared with Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) in the short-term because grass/sedge height, forbs accessibility and preferred forbs abundance would be similar but the long-term trend would be decreasing under Alternative 2 due to season-long grazing. Alternative 2 would likely continue to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability for summer habitat in the Badger Allotment with a possibility of downward trends due to season-long grazing resulting in reduced plant vigor and lack of seed production (Booth and Hayward 2015).

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (< 40% utilization) to moderate (40-60% utilization) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Neel (1980 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) found that rest rotation grazing increased forb abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada compared with no grazing. However, season-long grazing may have a negative effect on forb abundance. Under Alternative 2, streams would likely see an increased amount of use by livestock which would lead to a decrease in stream bank stability and riparian vegetation establishment (Robertson 2015). The riparian function objective would likely not be met in the long-term because of season-long grazing.

The boundary fence located between the Badger and Beaver-Twin Allotments would be maintained under Alternative 2, but this fence is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in Badger Allotment and similar among alternatives.

In summary under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met with the possibility of downward trends due to season-long grazing in Badger Allotment. The 4-inch grass height objective may not be met for Badger Allotment due to season-long grazing. The Badger Allotment would likely not provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse.

56

Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the minimal and similar among the action alternatives.

Beaver-Twin Allotment Beaver-Twin Allotment contains 320 acres of nesting habitat; however, livestock grazing in this habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th. The livestock season of use is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability was unmeasured but is near its potential and likely meets the objectives because livestock use of the pasture occurred in 1 out of 5 years (2009-2013) under current management. Alternative 2 would likely continue to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 50 percent livestock forage utilization following the nesting season, with a possibility of downward trends due to season-long grazing resulting in poor livestock distribution and reduced plant vigor in high use areas.

Although the grass height would not be grazed by livestock during the nesting season, the grass height post grazing season is an important indicator for residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat subsequent to the livestock grazing season would likely not be met in the uplands under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (season-long with 50% utilization in upland and riparian areas) because season-long grazing allows for a 122 day season of use and potentially poor livestock distribution which could overlap with sage grouse nesting habitat and likely result in grass height below 4 inches. The grass height post grazing season would be the lower in Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted compared with Alternative 3 because the 3 pasture deferred rotation reduces the number of days spent in the nesting habitat to approximately 40 days and provides time for grass regrowth in 2 out of 3 years. The grass height post grazing season would be lower in Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted compared with Alternative 4 also because of the 3 pasture deferred rotation system and because a 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas would likely be the early trigger to move livestock to the next pasture and effectively reduce the number of days the nesting habitat would be grazed to less than 40 days and therefore, less grass would be consumed by livestock.

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (< 40% utilization) to moderate (40-60% utilization) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Neel (1980 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) found that rest rotation grazing increased forb abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada compared with no grazing. However, season-long grazing may have a negative effect on forb abundance. Under Alternative 2 (55% forage utilization, season-long), streams would see an increased amount of use by livestock which would lead to a decrease in stream bank stability and riparian vegetation establishment (Robertson 2015). The riparian function objective would likely not be met in the long-term because of season-long grazing.

This allotment contains an insufficient amount of summer habitat (1 acre) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible.

The existing fences would be maintained in the Beaver-Twin Allotment under Alternative 2, but these fences are located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in Beaver-Twin Allotment and is similar among alternatives.

57

In summary under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met with the possibility of downward trends due to season-long grazing. The 4-inch grass height and riparian function objectives would not be met for Beaver-Twin Allotment. The Beaver-Twin Allotment would likely not provide suitable forage and cover in nesting habitat for sage grouse primarily due to season-long livestock grazing that could result in concentrated livestock us in sage grouse habitat for more than 40 days. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the minimal and similar among the action alternatives.

Noble Pastures Allotment This allotment contains approximately 50 acres of sagebrush which is an insufficient amount of nesting habitat to consider effects on nesting habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible. Effects of the alternative on early brood rearing habitat during the nesting season are similar to the effects described for summer habitat which includes late brood rearing habitat.

Noble Pastures Allotment contains 688 acres of summer habitat which would continue to be flood irrigated and grazed by 2 herds of cattle, season-long in Pasture 4, and 2 to 3 times over grazing in Pastures 1, 2 and 3 with 65 percent forage utilization of key forage species. This would result in less herbaceous canopy cover and grass height than under existing conditions (50% utilization under current management) and would not meet the sage grouse habitat objectives and desired conditions. Livestock enter and exit the allotment in Pasture 3 and use the pasture when soils are saturated resulting in soil compaction which would be expected to continue to not meet the soil quality objective under Alternative 2 (Winthers 2015). Crawford et al. (2004) reported that livestock grazing can have negative or positive impacts on sage grouse habitat depending on the timing and intensity of grazing, and which habitat element is being considered. Early season light to moderate grazing can promote forb abundance and availability in both upland and riparian habitats. Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. These findings are typically for non-irrigated pastures. Under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, 65 percent forage utilization with 2-3 times over grazing and season-long grazing in Pasture 4 would result in less than 4 inches stubble height and constitute heavy grazing. Alternative 2 would reduce the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height slightly compared with existing conditions (50% forage utilization and similar grazing system). This would have negative impacts to sage grouse habitat. Herbaceous stubble height would remain less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective. A 15 percent increase in forage utilization would also result in declines in the herbaceous canopy cover and forb availability below the objectives.

The livestock season of use is June 14th through September 20th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The possible one week shift in the season of use would not affect the sage grouse habitat substantially because the shift is in response to precipitation and plant phenology (resulting in early or late range readiness) and same number of days would be effectively grazed (resulting in similar amount of herbaceous material consumed by livestock).

Tosi Creek and Klondike Creek focus areas would not meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted and Current Management. If the current forage utilization level (50%) increased to the maximum authorized (65%), increased alteration along the stream channel, decreased vegetative cover, and decreased stream bank stability would be expected (Robertson 2015). The soil compaction and

58

hummocking in Pasture 3 would continue to not meet the soil quality objective because livestock would continue to enter and exit the allotment through Pasture 3 and would graze the pasture at 65 percent utilization with 2 to 3 times over grazing. Overall, Alternative 2 would be least likely to meet the sage grouse summer habitat objectives of all alternatives.

All fences located in the Noble Pastures Allotment would remain under Alternative 2. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would remain the same as existing conditions and would be less than Alternatives 3 and 4 (proposes additional fencing) and more than Alternative 1 (proposes fence removal).

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would not be met in the Noble Pastures Allotment under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. The allotment would not provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 2 would remain similar to existing conditions, less than Alternatives 3 and 4, and greater than Alternative 1.

Roaring Fork Allotment Roaring Fork Allotment contains approximately 148 acres of sagebrush nesting habitat. Livestock grazing in this habitat would occur during the nesting season which ends June 30th. The livestock season of use is June 16th through October 15th, season-long, which would decrease grass canopy cover and height. A possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years) which would extend the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season or affect residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season. The existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability was unmeasured during the nesting season of 2014. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (50 to 65% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30%) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 60 to 65 percent livestock forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas, respectively. Alternative 2 would support the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives and likely below the desired habitat objectives (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005). Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and similar rate to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same.

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (40-60% utilization, Crawford et al. 2004). Neel (1980 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) found that rest rotation grazing increased forb abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada compared with no grazing. However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. Under Alternative 2, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function are expected to not meet the

59

objectives at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian areas. The Roaring Fork Allotment would not provide suitable nesting habitat for sage grouse.

The allotment contains approximately 3,075 acres of summer habitat. Under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease compared with existing conditions because more grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment. This would result in decreased sage grouse hiding cover and decrease survival likely due to increased predation. Alternative 2 (65% forage utilization) would provide less favorable riparian foraging habitat in the spring than Alternatives 4 (35% forage utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) because grass/sedge height would be shorter and preferred forbs less abundant. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). However, these effects could be reversed in late summer if season-long livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function as likely under Alternative 2 (proposes season-long grazing). Under Alternative 2, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function are expected to not meet objective. The Roaring Fork Allotment would not provide suitable summer habitat for sage grouse.

The Roaring Fork focus area is an upland site with a downward trend in species composition under existing conditions. Under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, preferred forb availability which is influenced by species composition, would decline because of livestock grazing and elk grazing could reach a maximum of 60 percent forage utilization (the highest of all alternatives). This would negatively impact the focus area and not allow for recovery. Livestock grazing would contribute to negative impacts on species composition or preferred forb availability at the focus area.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, implementation of the authorized 65 percent forage utilization would result in an increase in livestock use and decrease in stream bank stability and decrease in vegetation cover along the stream channel. Implementation of 65 percent forage utilization of key forage species would likely result in Roaring Fork Creek not meeting the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives (Robertson 2015).

All fences in the Roaring Fork Allotment and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would remain under Alternative 2. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would remain the same as existing conditions and Alternatives 3 and 4 because these alternatives do not propose any new fencing and all action alternatives would maintain the existing fenceline. Alternative 2 would maintain fencing in Roaring Fork Allotment which would result in potentially more injury and mortality of sage grouse colliding with fences than Alternative 1 which proposes to remove fences in the allotment.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would be lowest under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted compared to all of other alternatives and likely not meet the objectives due to high forage utilization levels (maximum of 60-65%) and season-long grazing. The Roaring Fork Allotment would not provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 2 would remain similar to existing conditions and Alternatives 3 and 4, and greater than Alternative 1.

60

Wagon Creek Allotment This allotment contains about 114 acres of nesting habitat, primarily mountain big sagebrush. The livestock season of use is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior (July 8th) or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). Livestock grazing in sage grouse nesting habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th and therefore would have no direct effect on nesting habitat during the nesting season. The existing condition of the grass canopy cover and grass height were below objective, but forb canopy cover and preferred forb availability met the objectives. During the nesting season, nesting habitat would be minimally impacted by livestock management under Alternative 2 because livestock would not graze the allotment during the nesting season, although there is a possibility of downward trends in nesting habitat due to reduced herbaceous plant vigor and reduction in residual grass height as a result of heavy grazing (60-65% forage utilization, season-long) following the nesting season.

Although the grass would not be grazed by livestock during the nesting season, the grass height post grazing season is an important indicator for residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. Residual grass provides cover for sage grouse nests and influences nesting success (Connelly et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 1994, Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005). The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat subsequent to the livestock grazing season was met under current management (50% utilization and 45 days of use) but would likely not be met in the uplands under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted because season-long livestock grazing (92 day season of use) with 60 percent maximum forage utilization in the uplands would remove considerable amounts of grass. Alternative 2 would likely provide the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because the residual grass height would be the lowest of all alternatives and likely below the 4-inch objective providing the least amount of lateral nest concealment.

The entire Wagon Creek Allotment (186 acres) provides sage grouse summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the allotment met the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives in the late brood rearing summer habitat. Under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease compared to existing conditions because forage utilization would increase from 50 percent (existing condition) to 60 – 65 percent (Alternative 2). Canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability would likely not meet the habitat objectives due to heavy livestock grazing. Livestock would consume the greatest amount of herbaceous material under Alternative 2 (60% utilization) compared with the Alternative 3 and 4 (50% utilization), and Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

The grass height post grazing season would be the lower in Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted compared with Alternative 3 and 4 because the livestock season of use would be longer (92 days verses 45 day, respectively) and forage utilization greater, allowing more herbaceous plant material to be removed.

Preferred forb availability would be less under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (<40%) to moderate (40-60%) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote

61

invasion by undesirable species. Alternative 2 would reduce the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height compared with existing conditions (50% forage utilization). This would have negative impacts to sage grouse habitat. Herbaceous stubble height would remain less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Permitted, the riparian function of Wagon Creek would be maintained at objective because rocks and boulders armor Wagon Creek in this allotment, preventing alteration or trampling of the banks by livestock. If forage utilization increased from 50 (current management/existing conditions) to 65 percent (Alternative 2), there would likely be a slight increase in livestock use along the riparian areas, but with the armoring and willow component along the stream banks, the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely be met in Wagon Creek (Robertson 2015).

The boundary fence along Wagon Allotment would be maintained under Alternative 2. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is the similar for all alternatives and to existing conditions because the length of fence is the same for all alternatives.

In summary, the Wagon Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in the nesting habitat during the nesting season because livestock use of this habitat occurs post nesting season with possible negative impacts on residual grass cover (reduction in height) decreasing nest concealment. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability would not meet the summer habitat objectives because of high livestock forage utilization (60-65%) and potential 92-day livestock use of the allotment. Therefore, the Wagon Allotment would not provide suitable forage and cover in the summer habitat. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all alternatives.

Upper Green River Allotment

Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation This rotation contains 4,539 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the objectives with the exception of grass canopy cover and grass height in Mud Lake West pasture. Under Alternative 2, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (60-65% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 2 would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 60 to 65 percent livestock forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas, respectively. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would support the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives and likely below the desired habitat objectives. A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 9th) would increase the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season or affect residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season if a one week extension occurred at the end of the grazing season (October 22nd).

62

A three pasture deferred rotation is conducted under current management and is proposed under all action alternatives for this rotation. Mud Lake East and Mud Lake West Pastures would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat is the same as current conditions and the same for Alternatives 3 and 4 because all use a deferred rotation system. In this rotation, one of two pastures are free from livestock disturbance during the nesting season and ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near their potential during the nesting season because it is ungrazed by livestock prior to July 1st. The effect on the pasture grazed by livestock during the nesting season is more concentrated livestock use in the nesting habitat, reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potential impacts associated with nest trampling and nest abandonment. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. Sixty percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture would likely not meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would have livestock use until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) with 60 percent forage utilization which would likely not meet the 4-inch grass height objective because there would not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence. Therefore, one pasture each year would lack sufficient residual grass height desired for the following nesting season.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

This rotation contains 8,024 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for summer habitat with the exception of residual herbaceous height at a riparian/meadow area in the Mud Lake East pasture. Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease and would likely not meet the objectives because the forage utilization level (60-65%) is considered heavy grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 2 would provide the lowest amount of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forbs of all alternatives. Herbaceous stubble height would likely be less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas. Preferred forb availability would be lowest under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (<40%) to moderate (40-60%) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would have negative impacts to sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, the riparian condition of the segment of Crow Creek located in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture would decline and continue to not meet the objective because livestock would continue to heavily graze the riparian vegetation. In addition, Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (65% utilization) would likely result in both Raspberry Creek and Strawberry Creek not meeting the riparian function and

63

stream bank stability objectives (Robertson 2015). The segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork that does not meet the riparian function objective would continue to be functioning at risk because livestock use would increase, compounding the negative effects of the large number of elk that feed at the Upper Green River elk feedground during the winter. The Fish Creek focus area is located outside the designated sage grouse habitat.

All fencing for the Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 2. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely not be met under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. The Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation would not provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse because of high livestock forage utilization (60-65%). Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

Mosquito Lake Rotation This rotation contains 3,206 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the respective objectives with the exception of grass height in the Mosquito SW pasture during the nesting season and residual grass height in the Mosquito SE pasture post grazing. Mosquito SW pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season.

Under Alternative 2, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (60-65% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 2 would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 60 to 65 percent livestock forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas, respectively, in the nesting habitat of the pasture grazed during the nesting season. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would support the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives and likely below the desired habitat objectives. A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 9th) would increase the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season or affect residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season if a one week extension occurred at the end of the grazing season (October 22nd).

Rest rotation is proposed under Alternative 2 for the Mosquito Lake rotation. The effect of rest rotation on nesting habitat is the same as current conditions and the same for Alternatives 3 and 4 (deferred rotation) because three of the four pastures are free from livestock disturbance during

64

the nesting season and these three pastures provide herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near their potential during the nesting season because they are ungrazed by livestock prior to July 1st. The effect on the pasture grazed by livestock during the nesting season is more concentrated livestock use in the nesting habitat, reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and increases potential impacts associated with nest trampling and nest abandonment. However, these impacts are limited to 1 out of 4 pastures in the rotation. Sixty percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture would likely not meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the rested pasture and the 1st and 2nd pastures grazed (prior to approximately September 5th) because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would have livestock use until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) with 60 percent forage utilization which would likely not meet the 4-inch grass height objective because there would not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence. Therefore, one pasture out of four would lack sufficient residual grass height desired for the following nesting season.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and similar to slightly greater rate than Alternatives 3 and 4 because season of use are the same and livestock numbers are only slightly reduced (a 270 head of cattle reduction in Alternatives 3 and 4). Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1- No Livestock Grazing.

This rotation contains 5,645 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for summer habitat except for the residual grass height in the Mosquito SE pasture post grazing. Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease and would likely not meet the objectives because the forage utilization level (60% in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadows) is considered heavy grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 2 would provide the lowest amount of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forbs of all alternatives. Herbaceous stubble height would likely be less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas. Preferred forb availability would be lowest under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (<40%) to moderate (40-60%) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004) and this is consistent with the guidelines in the Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Plan Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service 2015). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would have negative impacts to sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, the riparian condition of Wagon Creek in Mosquito NW Pasture likely would not meeting the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives because 65 percent forage utilization would increase alternation on the stream banks and vegetative cover would be reduced from existing conditions. The Wagon Creek focus area would result in decreased willow, sedges and grasses along the Wagon Creek banks, and

65

increased erosion at the livestock stream crossing because the electric fence excluding livestock would not be erected and a 65 percent forage utilization would be implemented. The focus area would not meet the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives. (Robertson 2015)

All fencing for the Mosquito Lake rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 2. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1 and slightly less than Alternatives 3 and 4 which would maintain an electric fence along the Wagon Creek focus area.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely not be met under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. The Mosquito Lake rotation would not provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse because of high livestock forage utilization (60-65%). Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation This rotation contains 2,130 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season was unmeasured and the existing condition of nesting habitat is unknown. Under Alternative 2, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (60-65% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 60 to 65 percent livestock forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas, respectively. Alternative 2 would support the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives and likely below the desired habitat objectives. A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 9th) would increase the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season or affect residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season if a one week extension occurred at the end of the grazing season (October 22nd).

A three pasture deferred rotation is conducted under current management and proposed in Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, Lower Tepee Creek and Tosi Creek Pastures would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock which would occur during the nesting season. In this rotation, one of two pastures are free from livestock disturbance during the nesting season and the ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential during the nesting season because it is ungrazed by livestock prior to July 1st. The effect on the pasture grazed by livestock during the nesting season is more concentrated livestock use in the nesting habitat, reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest

66

concealment and potential impacts associated with nest trampling and nest abandonment. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. Sixty percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture would likely not meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would have livestock use until October 15th (typically) or the 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) with 60 percent forage utilization which would likely not meet the 4-inch grass height objective because there would not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence. Therefore, one pasture each year would lack sufficient residual grass height desired for the following nesting season.

One difference in Alternative 2 compared to Alternatives 3 and 4, however, is that the South Kinky Creek Pasture would be added to the rotation in Alternatives 3 and 4. This would potentially reduce the livestock density or the time livestock spend in the sage grouse nesting habitat of the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture and slightly reduce the negative effects of livestock grazing on the nesting habitat.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing conditions and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same with a potential slight decrease in the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture under Alternatives 3 and 4. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

This rotation contains 95 acres of summer habitat. The existing condition for herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability in the summer habitat met the respective objectives in the uplands. Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease and would likely not meet the objectives because the forage utilization level (60-65%) is considered heavy grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 2 would provide the lowest amount of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forbs of all alternatives. Herbaceous stubble height would likely be less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas. Preferred forb availability would be lowest under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (<40%) to moderate (40-60%) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4 inches residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. Alternative 2 would have negative impacts to sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, the riparian condition of creeks across the rotation would not meet the riparian function and/or stream bank stability objectives (Robertson 2015). A 65 percent forage utilization of key forage species of Tosi Creek and Tepee Creek would lead to higher amounts of stream bank alteration, decreased vegetative cover along the stream banks, and decreased stream bank stability. Kinky Creek is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat and therefore, its condition would not affect sage grouse brood rearing habitat. Tepee Creek focus area would likely result in greater alteration and lower vegetative cover on the

67

stream banks and would not meet the stream bank stability and the riparian function objectives when grazed to 65 percent forage utilization.

All fencing for the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 2. Maintenance of fencing in this rotation would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1 and slightly lower than for Alternatives 3 and 4 which proposes additional fencing in the Tepee Creek focus area.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely not be met under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted. The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation would not provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse because of high livestock forage utilization (60-65%). Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed and slightly lower than for Alternatives 3 and 4.

Gypsum Creek Rotation This rotation contains 1,346 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) primarily located in the Upper Gypsum Pasture (97%). The existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met all habitat objectives. The Upper Gypsum Pasture was ungrazed during the nesting season in 2015. Under Alternative 2, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted (60-65% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 2 would likely not meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 60 to 65 percent livestock forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas, respectively. Alternative 2 would support the lowest level of nesting success of all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the least of all alternatives and likely below the desired habitat objectives. A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 9th) would increase the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season or affect residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season if a one week extension occurred at the end of the grazing season (October 22nd).

This rotation would continue to be managed as is a two pasture deferred rotation under all action alternatives. Upper and Lower Gypsum Pastures would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The Upper Gypsum Pasture which contains 1300 acres (97%) of the sagebrush (nesting) habitat in the rotation would be ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season every other year. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat is the same as current conditions and the same for Alternatives 3 and 4 because all use a deferred rotation system. Rather, the effects on nesting habitat differ among action alternatives primarily due to differences in forage utilization level.

68

A 60 percent forage utilization in the Upper Gypsum Pasture would likely not meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives in years that it is grazed during the nesting season. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the Upper Gypsum Pasture when it is the first pasture livestock enter in the rotation because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. When Upper Gypsum Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation livestock use would occur until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) with 60 percent forage utilization which would likely not meet the 4-inch grass height objective because there would not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence. Therefore, this pasture would lack sufficient residual grass height every other year desired for the following nesting season.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

This rotation contains 4,318 acres of summer habitat. The existing condition of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the summer season met the habitat objectives with the exception of the number of preferred forbs at a shrubby cinquefoil site was limited to 1 species. Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease and would likely not meet the objectives because the forage utilization level (60-65%) is considered heavy grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 2 would provide the lowest amount of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forbs of all alternatives. Herbaceous stubble height would likely be less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas. Preferred forb availability would be lowest under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Sage grouse in riparian brood-rearing habitats prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (<40%) to moderate (40-60%) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 4-inch residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavier levels of utilization decrease herbaceous cover, and may promote invasion by undesirable species. Alternative 2 would have negative impacts to sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted (65% forage utilization), the riparian condition of Gypsum and South Gypsum Creeks would not meet the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives because of increased alteration on the stream banks and decreased vegetative cover.

All fencing for the Gypsum Rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 2. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

69

River Bottom Pasture/ Livestock Driveway The River Bottom Pasture contains 1,117 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The existing condition of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met all habitat objectives. Under all action alternatives, livestock would congregate at the southern Forest boundary and cow/calf pairs would be allowed to pair up before being actively trailed along the livestock driveway to the allotments. This limited area of livestock congregation would not provide suitable nesting habitat for sage grouse because of reduced herbaceous vegetation and increased trampling effects. Livestock use of sage grouse nesting habitat in the River Bottom Pasture/ livestock driveway during the nesting season would also be limited in duration (approximately 2 weeks). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the livestock driveway would be similar to the existing conditions and the action alternatives. Under Alternative 2, a livestock allowable use level that maintains greater or equal to 60 percent ground cover in the livestock driveway would not be sufficient to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives for sage grouse. However, the livestock driveway is a limited area generally considered to extend 200 feet on either side of the road and not considered suitable sage grouse nesting habitat because of the proximity to the well travel road. The River Bottom Pasture contains the majority of the nesting habitat which would be relatively ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season and therefore would have no effect on nesting habitat.

Under Alternative 2, the livestock season of use would be June 12th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 5th) would not change the number of days that the livestock would trail to the allotments and graze the nesting habitat. Therefore the extension would have little additional effect on the nesting habitat.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

The River Bottom pasture contains 4,014 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions (20% forage utilization), the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for summer habitat.

Alternative 2-Grazing as Currently Permitted would have negative impacts to sage grouse summer habitat, assuming maximum forage utilization was attained. Herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease and would likely not meet the objectives for these indicators because the forage utilization level (60-65%) is considered heavy grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 2 would provide the lowest amount of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forbs of all alternatives. Herbaceous stubble height would likely be less than 4 inches and would not meet the grass height objective to provide sage grouse hiding cover in riparian/meadow areas. Preferred forb availability would be lowest under Alternative 2 than all other alternatives because heavy grazing at 65 percent forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas would likely result in livestock consumption of preferred forbs and grass and sedge height below the 4-inch objective. Riparian function of the Upper Green River would decline because livestock use of the willow bottoms would increase alteration and vegetative cover would decrease (Robertson 2015).

70

All fencing for the River Bottom Pasture and livestock driveway would be maintained under Alternative 2. There would be slight reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and similar for all alternatives because the length of fenceline would be similar. The slight difference among alternatives is a minimal reduction in the fenceline under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives because the boundary fence between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed under Alternative 1.

In summary, the River Bottom Pasture would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting habitat for sage grouse because livestock use of the pasture during the nesting season would be focused at the southern Forest boundary. Livestock use would be concentrated in the livestock driveway where cattle are actively herded over two weeks and impacts limited to 200 feet from the road. Herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely not be met in summer habitat under Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted because of high livestock forage utilization (60-65%) would remove herbaceous vegetation. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be slightly greater than Alternative 1 in which the fence along the boundary between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be similar for all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects See discussion of Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives under Alternative 1

Determination for Alternative 2 Implementing Alternative 2 - Grazing as Currently Permitted “Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action Will Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.” Under Alternative 2 – Current Management, the Forest Service is currently in the process of amending Annual Operating Instructions for permittees to include livestock management direction in compliance with the 2015 Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment. Implementing Alternative 2 – Current Management “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”

Rationale: Alternative 2 - Grazing as Currently Permitted would negatively impact sage grouse nesting and summer habitats on the Upper Green River project area and would have the potential to contribute to a loss of viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area is important because it provides sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat, and is extensive in size, comprising more than 14 percent (46,881 acres) of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. Poor habitat quality in the project area would negatively affect nesting success and recruitment.

In addition, the Upper Green River area provides connectivity habitat to Gros Ventre and Jackson sage grouse populations (Jackson Hole population) which inhabit another 56 percent of the Forest (185,779 acres). A reduction in quality of connectivity habitat would decrease the effectiveness of this potential dispersal route. Connectivity corridors are important for maintaining the transmission of genetic material between populations (State of Wyoming, Executive Order 2015-4, Crist et al. 2015). Schulwitz et al. (2014) suggested that isolated populations may result in negative fitness consequences that could result in local extirpation and/or loss of unique genetic

71

diversity. Although they did not demonstrate genetic connectivity between the Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population and the Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations, the connectivity habitat provides an opportunity for demographic and genetic exchange. At the Bridger-Teton National Forest scale, inadequate amounts of suitable habitat would be available to sage grouse on the Forest under Alternative 2 because the alternative would negatively impact 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat Forest-wide and could negatively influence sage grouse occupying up to 70 percent of the Forest. Therefore, Alternative 2 would cause a loss of viability of the sage grouse population inhabiting the Forest.

Under current management (30-50% forage utilization), sage grouse habitat in the project area is meeting herbaceous canopy cover and preferred forb availability objectives in summer habitats. Existing conditions generally meet the riparian function/ stream bank stability objectives and the grass height at the end of the grazing season (>4 inch) objective, with some exceptions such as in the Noble Pastures Allotment and Mud Lake East Pasture. However, Alternative 2 would cause overall declines in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function because livestock forage utilization would be allowed to increase to a maximum permitted use levels of 60 percent in the uplands and 65 percent in the riparian and meadow areas. Scientists found shorter and sparse grass and forb cover at unsuccessful sage grouse nests than successful nests (Connelly et al. 2000, Greg et al. 1994, Holloran et al 2005, Doherty 2014) and heavy livestock grazing (>60% forage utilization, Crawford et al 2004) in riparian and meadow areas provided less favorable brood rearing and foraging habitat (Hagen et al. 2007, Crawford et al. 2004). Thus, declines in the quality of sage grouse habitat would result in reduced nesting success and brood survival which would translate into a reduction in sage grouse productivity in the Upper Green River project area. In addition, sage grouse reportedly collide with wire fences due to poor visibility which can result in injury and/or mortality (Christiansen 2009). Under Alternative 2, 76 miles of existing fenceline would be maintained which results in no changes to the potential for sage grouse to collide with fences from current conditions. Livestock would trample sage grouse nests and cause nest abandonment to a minor degree (Crawford et al. 2004).

Negative impacts described for Alternative 2, in light of the negative impacts associated with other activities such as climate change, oil and gas development, and residential development occurring throughout the State, would contribute only negligibly to a trend towards federal listing because the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area and the Forest are a minor proportion of the habitat in Wyoming. Although, the Upper Green River habitat is currently considered periphery habitat in Wyoming, it is relatively high elevation and receives high precipitation for sagebrush communities and may become more important in light of climate changes.

Alternative 3- Modified Grazing Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Utilization data can be a valuable tool for helping to interpret the influence of livestock herbivory on vegetation trend (Sanders 1998 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Clary and Webster (1989) concluded that the level of utilization occurring on a site is the most important consideration in grazing management. They recommended that a minimum herbage stubble height be present on all streamside areas at the end of the growing season, or at the end of the grazing season if grazing occurs after frost in the fall. The residual stubble or regrowth should be at least 4 to 6 inches in height to provide sufficient herbaceous forage biomass to meet the requirements of plant vigor maintenance, bank protection, and sediment entrapment. Clary and Webster (1989) recommended that fall use of streamside vegetation should not exceed about 30 percent

72

utilization, and the herbaceous stubble remaining at the end of the grazing period should meet the 4 to 6- inch criterion.

The allowable livestock use proposed under Alternative 3 is expected to decrease herbaceous canopy cover and grass height from existing conditions (30% - 50% forage utilization), but would still meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives. Herbaceous height retained at the end of the season may not be sufficient to meet the 4 inch herbaceous stubble height objective in meadows under 50 percent forage utilization and 4 inch stubble height on the greenline across sage grouse summer habitat in the Upper Green project area (based on site specific 2014/2015 data and Clary and Webster 1989). This alternative allows a moderate amount of forage offtake and therefore, the grass and forbs available to sage grouse would be a moderate amount compared with all other alternatives. Less forage would be consumed by livestock under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2 (50-65%), but more than under Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing) and Alternative 4 (35% - 50% in riparian areas and 50% in uplands). Therefore, the grasses and forbs available to sage grouse under Alternative 3 would be greater than that under Alternative 2 and less than that under Alternative 1 and 4.

Alternative 3 would provide a moderate amount of herbaceous canopy cover and would likely meet the greater than or equal to 25 and 15 percent herbaceous canopy cover objectives in nesting and summer habitats, respectively, based on monitoring data. Likewise, taller grass height would be available under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, similar grass height to Alternative 4 in the uplands, and lower grass height than Alternative 1 assuming maximum utilization levels are achieved. Alternative 3 would likely meet the 7-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat because the majority of pastures are ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season, a one week shift prior to the livestock season of use would not apply to pastures with nesting habitat (Wagon Creek Allotment and the Mud Lake/Fish Creek, Mosquito Lake, and the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek/Kinky Creek rotations of the Upper Green River Allotment) and grazed pastures would likely not reach the maximum utilization allowed (50%) during the nesting season (through June 30th) based on existing condition monitoring under current management. However, the forage utilization level during the nesting season would be greater under Alternative 3 with maximum permitted number of livestock than under current management in which livestock numbers average 68 percent of permitted livestock numbers across the project area.

Alternative 3 would likely not meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective after the grazing season in the summer habitat with a moderate degree of uncertainty, because 50 percent maximum forage utilization under average to drought conditions and full livestock numbers may yield less than a 4-inch stubble height objective in brood rearing habitat. Noble Pasture Allotment would be grazed two to three times over at 50 percent utilization and may not meet the 4-inch residual herbaceous stubble height objective. However, under Alternative 3, administrative action would be implemented, if necessary, to insure that the 4-inch stubble height objective in sage grouse brood rearing habitat would be met as directed by the sage grouse livestock grazing guideline (U.S. Forest Service 2015).

Riparian areas that currently meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would continue to meet the objectives at 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, or adaptive management (option for reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30% and/or increase in stubble height to 6-inches) would be implemented to ensure existing conditions move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. Focus areas and areas of concern that are currently not meeting riparian function and/or stream

73

bank stability objectives (identified in Table 1 of the Final EIS for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland project) would trend towards desired conditions because site specific design features would be implemented. Overall, riparian areas that are currently showing impacts from grazing would improve in the long term under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2, but would not improve as much – or as quickly – as under Alternative 1 or 4 due to the greater livestock allowable use and associated grazing impacts (Riparian Area section). Alternative 3 would be more likely to meet the desired conditions for sage grouse and would provide suitable nesting and summer habitats than Alternative 2, but less likely than Alternatives 1 and 4. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being met, administrative actions would be implemented, as necessary, to modify livestock grazing management in order that the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives for sage grouse would be met with emphasis on meeting the grazing guidelines (7 and 4-inch requirements in the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment 2015).

Nesting Habitat (May 15-June 30)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height Under Alternative 3, livestock grazing would occur on the six allotments at 50 percent maximum forage utilization in the uplands and riparian areas (considered moderate grazing; Crawford et al. 2004). Livestock grazing would overlap in time and space with the sage grouse nesting season and nesting habitat in the Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments. In these allotments, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 compared with existing conditions (30-50% forage utilization under current management) as potentially more grass would be consumed as forage. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height under Alternative 3 would provide moderate amounts of overhead and lateral concealment of sage grouse nests, incubating hens, and chicks, providing more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternative 1. Sage grouse select nest sites with greater grass height (Hagen et al. 2007) and successful sage grouse nests had greater canopy cover of tall grasses (>7 in.) surrounding the sagebrush nest site than unsuccessful nests (Gregg et al. 1994). Doherty et al. (2014) reported that greater average grass height had positive effects on nest survival. Therefore, Alternative 3 would likely support a moderate level of nesting success in the project area because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternatives 1 and 4.

Although maximum forage utilization in the uplands is the same under Alternative 3 and 4 (50%), actual forage utilization and resulting grass height in the uplands may differ by alternative. Alternative 3 may result in slightly lower grass height in the uplands than Alternative 4, because actual livestock forage utilization of the uplands would be influenced by the amount of time livestock spend in the pasture which would be limited by forage utilization limits allowed in the riparian/meadow areas. Under Alternative 3, forage utilization in riparian/meadow areas is 50 percent compared to 35 percent under Alternative 4. This would result in livestock spending more time in a pasture under Alternative 3 than Alternative 4 and, therefore, likely more grass would be consumed in the uplands under Alternative 3 than 4. On the flip-side, cattle are likely to spend more time in the uplands in late spring and early summer when range conditions are relatively moist and forbs succulent and riparian areas are saturated. In this case, forage utilization in the uplands may reach 50 percent at a similar rate in both Alternatives 3 and 4.

Grass height in nesting areas would be reduced in the first pasture grazed by livestock for each rotation in the Upper Green River Allotment and Roaring Fork Allotment. Grass height would attain maximum height during the nesting season in remaining pastures. These pastures would be grazed post nesting season and would likely meet the 4-inch stubble height objective in the

74

uplands based on 2014 and 2015 monitoring data. Alternative 3 would provide moderate lateral concealment of nests, hens and chicks.

Deferred and rest rotation systems reduces the overlap in time and space between livestock grazing and sage grouse nesting by limiting livestock to one pasture of the allotment during nesting season (ending June 30th). The grazed pasture would have reduced herbaceous cover and grass height, but the ungrazed pastures would provide herbaceous cover and grass height near its potential which would benefit nesting success. Pastures grazed during the nesting season would change annually. Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommended that managers consider delaying grazing of known nesting areas until after the nesting season. Rotational grazing systems are one way to provide areas (i.e., pastures) free from livestock disturbance during nesting. This benefit may be offset if heavy use occurs in the grazed pastures (Holechek et al. 1982), especially since sage grouse can display high site fidelity (Fischer et al. 1993 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Heavy livestock use was not evident under existing conditions; therefore, deferred and rest rotations would be beneficial to nesting sage grouse in the project area.

Livestock grazing is delayed until after the nesting season in the Beaver-Twin and Wagon Creek Allotments and therefore, grass height would attain maximum height during the nesting season and provide suitable nesting habitat in these allotments. Livestock would not trample nests or cause nest abandonment in Beaver-Twin and Wagon Creek Allotments, but livestock may trample nests or cause nest abandonment in the first pasture grazed in the Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments. The last pasture grazed in these allotments may not meet the 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season because there would be insufficient time to allow for regrowth of grasses in the uplands when the season of use end date is October 15th or October 22nd if a one week shift in season of use was granted.

In summary, Alternative 3 would provide less herbaceous canopy cover and grass height than existing conditions but is more likely to meet the herbaceous canopy cover objective (>25%), the grass height objective during the nesting season (>7 in.), and the residual grass height post nesting season in nesting habitat than Alternative 2, and less likely to meet these objectives than Alternative 4 and 1. Alternative 3 would likely meet desired conditions for herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the sage grouse nesting habitat across the project area (meets the extent objective, Table 1), because the season of livestock use and deferred rotation limits the pastures grazed by livestock during the nesting season, a one week extension prior to the livestock season of use would not be granted, and maximum utilization would likely not be reached during the nesting season. However, the 4-inch residual herbaceous stubble height post nesting season in the nesting habitat would be more difficult to maintain at 50 percent forage utilization in the upland and riparian/meadow areas. If monitoring were to indicate that the 4-inch residual grass height objective was not met, livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions toward sage grouse habitat objectives.

Summer Habitat (July 1-November 15)

Herbaceous canopy cover and herbaceous height The pattern of habitat use during the brood-rearing period is related to changes in food availability and hens with broods are typically found where forb abundance is greatest (Klebenow 1969, Drut et al. 1994a as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Hagen et al. (2007) found that brood areas had significantly taller grasses and greater forb and grass cover than at random locations. Under existing conditions (30-50% utilization), herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and residual grass height in uplands and riparian areas meet or nearly meet the

75

objectives (>15%, common with >5 present, and >4 inches, respectively) the sage grouse brood rearing habitat.

Under Alternative 3, forage utilization permitted would be a maximum of 50 percent in uplands, riparian and meadow areas and a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline with lower utilization and stricter allowable use levels to address some areas of concern. Herbaceous canopy cover and height would generally be less than under existing conditions because of the increased livestock forage utilization level. Herbaceous canopy cover would meet the 15 percent objective because the values recorded under existing conditions ranged from 26 – 62% under current management (30-50% forage utilization). However, herbaceous height may not meet the 4 inch stubble height objective because livestock would consume more herbaceous forage based on the values obtained under existing conditions which ranged from 1.8 - 13.9 inches under current management (30-50% forage utilization). Monitoring would be necessary to validate that the grazing guideline was met at 50 percent forage utilization in riparian and meadow areas across the allotments and 4 inch retained along the greenline or administrative action would be taken to ensure compliance with this guideline.

A utilization level of 50 percent of key forage species under Alternative 3 would provide a median amount of herbaceous canopy cover and herbaceous height available in sage grouse summer habitat (upland and riparian) of all the action alternatives.

Preferred forb availability Crawford et al. (2004) reported that brood-rearing habitat may be enhanced by well-managed grazing practices that favor upland forb production (e.g., fall grazing) and prescribed light (< 40%) to moderate (40-60%) spring grazing which can remove standing herbage and make forbs more accessible (Smith et al. 1979, Fulgham et al. 1982 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004 ). Alternative 3 would allow spring and summer grazing in riparian areas at moderate grazing levels (50%) which would likely maintain forb abundance and species diversity at objective for sage grouse forb availability. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Therefore, under Alternative 3, preferred forbs are accessible and would continue to meet the objective.

Riparian function/ Stream bank stability Under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline), riparian areas that are currently at desired condition would continue to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015). If monitoring indicated that conditions were declining below the objectives, adaptive management would be implemented with an option to retain a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or reduce utilization levels in 10 percent increments to a minimum of 30 percent forage utilization of key forage species. Implementation of adaptive management would ensure that riparian function and stream bank stability in sage grouse habitat would meet the objectives and desired conditions for these two indicators. Implementation of site specific prescriptions at areas of concern including structural improvements, 6-inch stubble height minimum, and 20 percent bank alteration limits would improve riparian conditions at these sites (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015) moving them towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives and desired conditions.

76

Additional Effects - Structural Improvements Approximately 76 miles of existing fence across the project area would be maintained for livestock management. Reconstructed fences would conform to the Fencing Riparian Area Guideline and the Structural Improvement Standard which would benefit sage grouse by increasing visibility of riparian fences. In Sublette County, Wyoming, Christiansen (2009) reported sage grouse mortality associated with fences and found that fence markers reduced grouse mortality by 61 percent. Reconstruction of fences within 4 miles of occupied sage grouse leks would be designed to minimize the risk of sage grouse collision with fences including marking fences, using laydown fences, and considerations regarding location of fences. Sage grouse injury and mortality associated with existing fences in the project area would be similar to slightly less than the injury and mortality occurring under existing conditions.

Approximately 2.3 miles of permanent fence and 1.2 miles of electric fence are proposed in sage grouse habitat (>26,000 acres). The effect of these proposed fences on sage grouse injury and mortality would be minimized by fence design. Fences would be either laydown electric fences, fences marked with reflective markers or riparian fences with a wooden top rail. These wildlife-friendly fence design features would reduce collision of sage grouse with newly constructed fences proposed in Alternative 3. There is a potential that sage grouse nests, chicks and adults could be crushed or injured by vehicles when used to construct new and maintain existing structural improvements, although the effect is expected to be negligible.

Four water developments and associated water troughs would remain under Alternative 3. Capturing water from springs using pipelines and troughs may adversely affect wet meadows used by grouse for foraging (Connelly et al. 2000). Connelly et al. (2000) recommended in order to protect summer habitat, avoid developing springs for livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or trough, design the project to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring. No additional water developments are proposed under Alternative 3; therefore effects of water developments and water trough under Alternative 3 is the same as under existing conditions. The potential to develop a spring near Crow Creek will be analyzed in a future NEPA analysis. Until then, this spring may be heavily impacted by livestock (reduced riparian/wetland vegetation) when Crow Creek is moved from Mud Lake East Pasture to Mud Lake West via a fenceline adjustment. Riparian function on Crow Creek would improve but the nearby spring would likely not meet desired conditions.

Table 8 (p. 120) compares the effects of livestock management actions on sage grouse and their habitats among the alternatives.

In summary, Alternative 3 would provide less herbaceous canopy cover and grass height than existing conditions but is more likely to meet the herbaceous canopy cover objective (>25%), the grass height objective during the nesting season (>7 inches), and the residual grass height post nesting season in nesting habitat than Alternative 2, and less likely to meet these objectives than Alternatives 4 and 1. Alternative 3 would likely meet desired conditions for herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the sage-grouse nesting habitat across the project area, because the season of livestock use and deferred rotation limits the pastures grazed by livestock during the nesting season, a one week shift prior to the livestock season of use would not be granted, and maximum utilization would likely not be reached during the nesting season. However, the 4-inch residual/herbaceous grass height post nesting season in the nesting habitat would be more difficult to maintain at 50 percent forage utilization in the upland and riparian/meadow areas. The herbaceous height retained in meadows at the end of the season may not be sufficient to meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective (average) under a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-

77

inch stubble height on the greenline allowable use (based on 2014/2015 data, Clary and Webster 1989, Kinney and Clary 1994, BLM 1999). This alternative allows a moderate amount of forage offtake and therefore, the grass and forbs available to sage-grouse would be a moderate amount compared with all other alternatives. Less forage would be consumed by livestock under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2 (50-65%), but more than under Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing) and Alternative 4 (35% - 50% in riparian areas and 50% in uplands). Therefore, the grasses and forbs available to sage-grouse under Alternative 3 would be greater than that under Alternative 2 and less than that under Alternative 1 and 4.

If monitoring were to indicate that the 4-inch residual grass stubble height objective was not met, livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions toward sage-grouse habitat objectives.

Effects by Allotment/Rotation

Badger Allotment This allotment contains an insufficient amount of nesting habitat (8 acres) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because sage grouse use of this small area would be minimal and any effect would be negligible.

Badger Allotment contains 166 acres of summer habitat which would be managed as a one pasture under a deferred grazing system. The delayed livestock entry date (July 15th) in 1 of 4 years would allow for grass seed set and benefit potentially herbaceous canopy cover and grass height by maintaining grass and forb abundance in the allotment.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization of key forage species, 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards the objectives. Alternative 2 (50% in upland and 55% forage utilization of key forage species in riparian areas) and Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization with 4 inch stubble height on the greenline) would provide similar brood rearing habitat in the short-term because utilization levels are similar, but the long-term trend would be increasing under Alternative 3 because deferred rotation grazing would offer areas ungrazed by livestock. Alternative 3 would continue to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability for summer habitat in the Badger Allotment with moderate uncertainty.

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (< 40% utilization) to moderate (40-60% utilization) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Badger Allotment would be moderately grazed (50% utilization, 4-inch stubble height) and would meet the preferred forb availability and 4-inch residual grass stubble height objectives with moderate uncertainty. Under Alternative 3, streams could see an increased amount of use by livestock, but are expected to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives in the allotment. If streams fell below the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives, adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization incrementally to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would ensure positive trends towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives.

78

The boundary fence located between the Badger and Beaver-Twin Allotments would be maintained under Alternative 3, but this fence is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in Badger Allotment and similar among alternatives.

In summary under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, residual grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would likely be met. The Badger Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse with a moderate degree of uncertainty. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the minimal and similar among the action alternatives.

Beaver-Twin Allotment Beaver-Twin Allotment contains 320 acres of nesting habitat in the North Beaver Pasture (southern pasture); however, livestock grazing in this habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th. The livestock season of use for the allotment is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). North Beaver Pasture is typically the last pasture to be grazed; livestock use this pasture from about September 15th to October 30th. Grass height and herbaceous canopy cover would be near the potential during the nesting season because livestock would not graze the nesting habitat at that time. Livestock would not cause nest trampling or nest abandonment because they would be absent during the nesting season. Grass height following the grazing season is also an important indicator that measures residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat subsequent to the livestock grazing season would likely be met in the uplands under Alternative 3 because livestock prefer riparian and wetland areas late in the summer and use in the uplands would likely be less than 50 percent. Therefore, the nesting habitat would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability and would provide suitable forage and cover for sage grouse.

This allotment contains an insufficient amount of summer habitat (1 acre) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible. Waterdog Lake focus area is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat and therefore, its management does not impact sage grouse habitat.

The existing fences would be maintained and proposed fences would be constructed to effectively divide the Beaver-Twin Allotment under Alternative 3, but these fences would have little to no effect on sage grouse because they are located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in the Beaver-Twin Allotment and is similar among alternatives. Proposed fences would generally contribute to riparian areas meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives (Robertson 2015).

In summary under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met. The Beaver-Twin Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the negligible and similar among the action alternatives.

79

Noble Pastures Allotment This allotment contains approximately 50 acres of sagebrush which is an insufficient amount of habitat to consider effects on nesting habitat indicators because sage grouse use of this small area would be minimal and any effect would be negligible. Effects of the alternative on early brood rearing habitat during the nesting season are similar to the effects described for the summer habitat which includes late brood rearing habitat.

Noble Pastures Allotment contains 688 acres of summer habitat which would continue to be flood irrigated and be grazed 2 to 3 times over by livestock at 50 percent forage utilization of key forage species in Pastures 2, 3 and 4 and 40 percent utilization in Pasture 1. Alternative 3 would increase the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height compared with existing conditions because of slight decreases in forage utilization levels and more restrictive allowable use of riparian areas in the Tosi Creek and Klondike focus areas. This would have positive impacts to sage grouse summer habitat. Sage grouse would continue to be attracted to the forbs available in the irrigated pastures as the conditions dry in other areas.

Alternative 3 would continue to meet the sage grouse herbaceous canopy cover and preferred forb availability objectives. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would not be met in Pastures 2, 3 and portions of Pasture 4. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would be met in Pasture 1 because a 40 percent forage utilization level and 6-inch stubble height along Tosi Creek would be implemented. An option to erect an electric fence north of Tosi Creek would further increase the grass/sedge height along Tosi Creek and in the southern portion of the pasture if implemented. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would also be met along Klondike Creek in Pasture 3 within the proposed fenced exclosure because cattle use would be minimal (0.5 animal unit month per acre per year).

The soil compaction and hummocking in Pasture 3 would be reduced and would move towards the soil quality objective under Alternative 3 because livestock would enter and exit the allotment through Pastures 1 and 4 and not through Pasture 3 and a culvert would be installed to reduce erosion at a livestock water crossing (Winthers 2015). The construction and use of a small livestock holding pen (< 1 acre) would likely have compacted soils and the area may not meet sage grouse herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives. However, this pen is less than one acre and negative effects are minor.

The livestock season of use is June 14th through September 20th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The possible one week shift in the season of use would not affect the sage grouse summer habitat substantially because the shift is in response to precipitation and plant phenology primarily in other allotments (resulting in early or late range readiness), but plant phenology is held more constant in Noble Pastures through the use of flood irrigation. The same number of days would be grazed by livestock, resulting in similar amount of herbaceous material consumed with or without a one week extension.

Under Alternative 3, Tosi Creek and Klondike Creek focus areas would meet or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives because more conservative focus area prescriptions would be implemented (Robertson 2015). A combination of measures, including less than or equal to 40 percent forage utilization levels, 20 percent alternation limits, 6-inch stubble height minimum, fencing, hardened crossings, and willow plantings, would be implemented. This would result in improved riparian conditions and sage grouse summer habitat meeting or moving towards the riparian function objective.

80

All existing fences located in the Noble Pastures Allotment would be maintained under Alternative 3. In addition, fences would be constructed to enclose a livestock holding pen (< 1 acre) south of Pasture 4, along Klondike Creek focus area, and an optional fence along the north side of Tosi Creek focus area. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Under Alternative 3, sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be more than under Alternative 1 (proposes fence removal), slightly greater than existing conditions and Alternative 2, and similar to Alternative 4. Proposed permanent fences would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible avian collisions. If the electric fence is erected along Tosi Creek, electric tape would be used to enhance visibility and reduce possible avian collisions.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would be met in the Noble Pastures Allotment under Alternative 3 and the herbaceous stubble height objective would not be met except in Pasture 1 and within the Klondike exclosure. The allotment would generally provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse with grass/sedge height being low in some areas. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than existing conditions, because new fence construction is proposed under Alternative 3 but would be mitigated with techniques to increase visibility and reduce avian collisions with fences. Overall, Alternative 3 would meet or move towards the sage grouse summer habitat objectives, with a moderate degree of uncertainty, at a slower rate than Alternative 1- No Livestock Grazing, faster rate than Alternative 2, and a similar rate to Alternative 4.

Roaring Fork Allotment Roaring Fork Allotment contains approximately 148 acres of sagebrush nesting habitat. Livestock grazing in this habitat would occur during the nesting season which ends June 30th and would reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height. The livestock season of use is June 16th through October 15th. A possible one week shift prior the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years) would extend the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season. A possible one week shift following the season of use on an infrequent basis would reduce residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season in the Roaring Fork West Pasture. Livestock would reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season yearly in the Roaring Fork South Pasture and infrequently in the Roaring Fork West Pasture when grazed by livestock prior to July 1st. This would occur when the Roaring Fork West Pasture is the second pasture to be grazed and a one week extension prior to the season of use is granted.

The existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability was unmeasured during the nesting season of 2014 and 2015. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30%) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 3 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

Alternative 3 would likely support a greater level of nesting success than Alternative 2 and lower level of nesting success than Alternative 1, and similar level to Alternative 4 because the amount

81

of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height rank in a similar fashion. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and similar rate to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same.

The allotment contains approximately 3,075 acres of summer habitat. Herbaceous canopy cover and herbaceous stubble height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization of key forage species, 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage across the allotment. The herbaceous canopy cover and height are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards the objectives.

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (40-60% utilization, Crawford et al. 2004). These effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function; however, this is not expected in Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and riparian function are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators at 50 percent forage utilization in riparian areas and a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, although the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective may not be met. This would result in a moderate amount of sage grouse hiding cover and moderate survival rate.

Under Alternative 3, streams could see an increased amount of use by livestock, but are expected to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives in the allotment (Robertson 2015). If streams fell below these objectives, adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would ensure positive trends towards the objectives (Robertson 2015).

All fences in the Roaring Fork Allotment and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would remain under Alternative 3. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would remain the same as existing conditions and Alternatives 2 and 4 because these alternatives do not propose any new fencing and all action alternatives would maintain the existing fenceline. Alternative 3 would maintain fencing in Roaring Fork Allotment which would result in potentially more injury and mortality of sage grouse colliding with fences than Alternative 1 which proposes to remove fences in the allotment.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would be met under Alternative 3. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective may not be met unless administrative action is taken. The Roaring Fork Allotment would provide a moderate amount of suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 3 would remain similar to existing conditions and Alternatives 2 and 4, and would be greater than Alternative 1.

Wagon Creek Allotment This allotment contains about 114 acres of nesting habitat, primarily mountain big sagebrush. The livestock season of use is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior (July

82

8th) or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. Livestock grazing in sage grouse nesting habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th and therefore would have no direct effect on nesting habitat during the nesting season. The existing condition of perennial grass canopy cover and height (9.9% and 6.1 inches, respectively) were below the objectives (15% and 7 inches). Perennial forb canopy cover (52%) and late-season, residual grass height (6.2 inches) met the objective (15% and 4 inches, respectively). Livestock grazing would have no effect on herbaceous indicators during the nesting season under Alternative 3 because livestock would not graze the allotment at that time. It is undetermined if existing conditions are below the objective due to site potential or livestock management post nesting.

Although the grass would not be grazed by livestock during the nesting season, the grass height post grazing season is an important indicator for residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. Residual grass height post nesting was 6.2 inches which met the greater than 4- inch objective and was similar to the grass height during the nesting season (6.1 inches). Residual grass provides cover for sage grouse nests and influences nesting success (Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005). The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat subsequent to the livestock grazing season would likely be met in the uplands under Alternative 3 because 50 percent maximum forage utilization in the uplands would maintain adequate grass height as evident by existing conditions. Alternative 3 would likely provide a median amount of lateral nest concealment and moderate nesting success of all alternatives because the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season would be near its potential and residual stubble grass height at the end of the season would meet the 4-inch objective.

The entire Wagon Creek Allotment (186 acres) provides sage grouse summer habitat. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the same as that expressed under existing conditions because forage utilization would be maintained at 50 percent. Canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability would likely meet these habitat objectives because these objectives are currently being met under existing conditions, with moderate uncertainty associated with small sample size of data collected to date. . Livestock would consume less herbaceous material under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline for a maximum of 45 days) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas for a maximum of 90 days), and similar to Alternative 4 (50% utilization, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and a maximum of 45 days) and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

Under Alternative 3, the riparian function and stream bank stability of Wagon Creek would continue to be maintained at objective because rocks and boulders armor Wagon Creek in this allotment, preventing alteration or trampling of the banks by livestock (Robertson 2015). If future monitoring were to indicate declines in riparian function or stream bank stability, adaptive management would be implemented and conditions would improve.

The boundary fence along Wagon Allotment would be maintained under Alternative 3 and no new fencing would be proposed. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is the similar for all alternatives and to the existing conditions because the length of fence is the same.

In summary, the livestock management has little to no effect on nesting habitat in the Wagon Allotment because livestock use of this habitat occurs post nesting season. The herbaceous

83

canopy cover, herbaceous stubble height, and preferred forb availability would meet the summer habitat objectives, with moderate uncertainty, because of moderate livestock forage utilization (50%) would be implemented and livestock use of the allotment would be limited to 45 days. The Wagon Allotment would continue to provide unsuitable nesting habitat and suitable forage and cover in summer habitat. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all alternatives, because even in the Alternative 1 (No Action), the Wagon Allotment fences would be maintained as they border private grazing land.

Upper Green River Allotment

Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation The Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation contains 4,539 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season were measured in 2015 and they met the habitat objectives with the exception of grass canopy cover and height in the Mud Lake West pasture. Livestock did not graze this pasture during the nesting season in 2015 and therefore, livestock did not directly reduce grass height and canopy cover during the nesting season, but grazing post nesting may be an influential factor.

Under Alternative 3, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. Alternative 3 would likely continue to not meet the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height objectives in the Mud Lake West pasture at 50 percent livestock forage utilization, but would likely meet these objectives in the Mud Lake East pasture. Alternative 3 would support a median amount of nest concealment among all alternatives and moderate level of nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2, less than Alternative 1, and less than or equal to Alternative 4.

A three pasture deferred rotation is proposed under all action alternatives for this rotation. Mud Lake East and Mud Lake West Pastures would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat are the same as current conditions and all action alternatives. In this rotation, one of two pastures would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. The ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The ungrazed pasture would likely meet or nearly meet the herbaceous canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is concentrated livestock use which increases nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 3. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that one pasture with nesting habitat would not be grazed

84

during the nesting season, resulting high herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season.

The greater than or equal to 4-inch residual grass stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would permit 50 percent forage utilization until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) and would likely meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season and would have minimal effect on herbaceous vegetation in the uplands.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

Alternative 3 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives, if livestock were determined to be a causal factor in not attaining the objective.

The Mud Lake/ Fish Creek rotation contains 8,024 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for summer habitat with the exception of the residual herbaceous height at the end of the grazing season in a riparian/ meadow area of the Mud Lake East pasture. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and herbaceous stubble height would decrease, but may meet the objectives with moderate uncertainty because a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height are considered moderate grazing (Crawford et al. 2004), but on site data provides some evidence that the herbaceous stubble height objective may not be met. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges across the meadow (Crawford et al. 2004). However, existing conditions demonstrate that the residual grass height objective (>4-inches) at the end of the grazing season may not be met in riparian/meadow areas as the case in one out of two pastures with sage grouse summer habitat.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), and more than Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) and Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

Under Alternative 3, the riparian condition of the segment of Crow Creek located in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture would improve and move towards the riparian function objective because the fence dividing Mud Lake East and West Pastures would be moved uphill to incorporate Crow Creek into the West Pasture. Cattle typically move to the southwest corner of these two pastures in anticipation of trailing home. Moving the Crow Creek segment to the southeast corner of the Mud Lake West Pasture would likely reduce livestock use of the creek because of the cattle’s inclination to move southwest. This would result in an increase in riparian vegetation and improve the riparian function of this segment of Crow Creek (Robertson 2015).

85

Under Alternative 3, riparian conditions would meet or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. Livestock would be trailed along alternative routes to reduce impacts along Raspberry Creeks. A 50 percent forage utilization level would be implemented for riparian areas, and a 6-inch stubble height would be retained for Strawberry Creek and a 4-inch stubble height would be retained for Raspberry Creek. Implementing stubble height requirements under this alternative would retain vegetation on the stream banks and promote stream bank stability (Robertson 2015). Alternative herding practices would result in resources meeting prescribed vegetation and stream channel conditions. A segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork does not meet the riparian function objective. This river segment would continue to be functioning at risk because it would continue to be impacted by a large number of elk that feed at the Upper Green River elk feedground during the winter. The Fish Creek focus area is located outside the designated sage grouse habitat and therefore, its improved condition would not likely benefit sage grouse.

All existing fencing for the Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 3 with the exception of the fence segment along the lower segment of Crow Creek which would be relocated. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose the removal and relocation of the existing Crow Creek fence section. Fence removal and reconstruction would have a slight potential for vehicles to crush sage grouse nests, chicks, and/or adults. Shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline would be crushed by vehicles and coiled fencing material. This would have a short term negative effect. All action alternatives would maintain similar length of fencing in Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The proposed fence near Crow Creek would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible sage grouse collisions. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

No additional water developments are proposed under Alternative 3; therefore effects of water developments and water trough under Alternative 3 is the same as under existing conditions. The potential to develop a spring near Crow Creek will be analyzed in a future NEPA analysis. Until then, the spring in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture may be heavily impacted by livestock (reduced riparian/wetland vegetation) when Crow Creek is moved from Mud Lake East Pasture to Mud Lake West via a fenceline adjustment. Riparian function on Crow Creek would improve but the nearby spring would likely not meet desired conditions for sage grouse.

In summary, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 3. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in nesting habitat and the herbaceous stubble height post nesting in riparian/ meadow areas may not meet the objective in portions of the two pastures with sage grouse habitat unless administrative action is taken. The Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation would provide moderately suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse compared with all alternatives. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

86

Mosquito Lake Rotation The Mosquito Lake rotation contains 3,206 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the respective objectives with the exception of grass height in the Mosquito SW pasture during the nesting season and residual grass height in the Mosquito SE pasture post grazing. Mosquito SW pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season.

Under Alternative 3, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in Mosquito SW and NW Pastures would be similar under Alternative 3 (average 30% forage utilization over 5 year period with a maximum of 50 percent utilization in any given year along with 4-inch stubble height on the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease in Mosquito SE and NE Pastures under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization with 4-inch stubble height on the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, Mosquito NE pasture would be expected to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, residual grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives at 50 percent forage utilization, because residual grass height is potentially the limiting factor of these objectives and this pasture is not the last pasture to be grazed. Therefore this pasture has sufficient time for grasses to regrow. Mosquito SE pasture would likely continue to not meet the 4-inch residual grass height objective. Alternative 3 would support a median amount of nest concealment among all alternatives and moderate level of nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2, less than Alternatives 1, and slightly less than or equal to Alternative 4.

A four pasture deferred rotation with an option to implement a rest rotation is proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 for this rotation. Mosquito SE and SW Pastures alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. In this rotation, three of four pastures would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. The ungrazed pastures provide herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is concentrated livestock use which increases nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of four pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat.

An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 3. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that three pastures with nesting habitat would not be grazed during the nesting season, resulting high herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season. Alternative 3 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability

87

objectives in 80 percent of the nesting habitat in the project area or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

A 30 to 50 percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture would likely meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives in nesting habitat. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st three pastures grazed during the season because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. When Mosquito SW Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, a 30 percent forage utilization level would meet the > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season. When Mosquito SE Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, it would be grazed at 50 percent forage utilization approximately from September 15th to October 15th (typically) or until 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved). This pasture may meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season. If livestock forage in the uplands at 50 percent utilization level, there would likely not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence in the last pasture. In this case, one pasture out of four would lack sufficient residual grass height every other year.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to Alternative 4 and slightly lower rate than Alternative 2, because the season of use are the same and livestock numbers are only slightly reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4 (a 270 head of cattle reduction). Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

The Mosquito Lake rotation contains 5,645 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the objectives for these indicators in the summer habitat. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height in riparian/meadow areas would decrease, but would likely continue to meet the objectives, with moderate uncertainty, because a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height on the greenline are considered moderate grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). The uncertainty exists because 50 percent forage utilization in meadows with a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline may not equate to 4 inch average of herbaceous stubble height across sage grouse meadow habitats.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 3 (30-50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), a similar amount to Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 3 would likely provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 3, the riparian condition of Wagon Creek in Mosquito NW Pasture would increase in vegetative cover and stream bank stability and would meet the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives as a result of implementing an average of 30 percent forage utilization and a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline.

Under Alternative 3- Modified Grazing Management, the permittees would maintain an existing electric fence exclosure when the cattle are using the pasture and implement a 6-inch stubble height outside of the exclosure within the focus area boundary. A hardened crossing would be

88

installed to reduce erosion and a gate would be installed at the head of the closed road to prohibit unauthorized motorized access, in addition to livestock being fenced out of Wagon Creek. This would lead to a long-term increase in channel stability in the vicinity of the developed crossing. The stricter utilization limits in Wagon Creek focus area would allow for an increase in vegetative cover which would decrease the amount of instream sedimentation and help protect water quality (Robertson 2015). Alternative 3 would result in Wagon Creek meeting the riparian function objective at a faster rate than Alternative 2, similar rate to Alternative 1 and 4.

All fencing for the Mosquito Lake rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 3, including the electric let-down fence in the Wagon Creek focus area. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1, and similar to Alternatives 4 and 2-Current Management which would maintain an electric fence along the Wagon Creek focus area.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 3 with the possibility that one in four pastures would not meet the grass height or residual grass height objective for the uplands. The Mosquito Lake rotation would provide adequate amounts of suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse, with low likelihood that administrative action would be necessary. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation contains 2,130 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season was unmeasured and the existing condition of nesting habitat is unknown. Sage grouse use of this rotation for nesting may be limited because of trees intersperse which likely reduces grouse use of the sagebrush communities. The residual grass height measured post nesting season met the 4-inch objective. Under Alternative 3, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, Alternative 3 would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 50 percent livestock forage utilization. Alternative 3 would support a median amount of nest concealment among all alternatives and moderate level of

89

nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternatives 1 and 4.

Under Alternative 3, a four pasture deferred rotation would be implemented. South Kinky Creek Pasture would be added to the rotation and used by livestock concurrently with the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture. Although the South Kinky Creek Pasture is located outside of the designated sage grouse area, the effect of adding this pasture to the rotation is to increase the area livestock graze when in the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture and reduce the livestock grazing impacts to the nesting habitat during the nesting season. The Lower Tepee Creek/South Kindy Creek Pastures and the Tosi Creek Pasture would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat are similar as current conditions and all action alternatives. In this rotation, one of two pastures with nesting habitat would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. The ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The ungrazed pasture would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 3. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that one pasture with nesting habitat would not be grazed during the nesting season, resulting in high herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season.

A 50 percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture would likely meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives in nesting habitat. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would permit 50 percent forage utilization until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) and would likely meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season. If livestock forage in the uplands at 50 percent utilization level, there would likely not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence in the last pasture. In this case, one pasture out of two would lack sufficient residual grass height.

Alternative 3 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation contains 95 acres of summer habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the summer season met the objectives. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and herbaceous stubble height would decrease, but would likely continue to meet the objectives, with moderate uncertainty, because a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height are

90

considered moderate grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). The uncertainty exists because 50 percent forage utilization in meadows with a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline may not equate to 4 inch average of herbaceous stubble height across sage grouse meadow habitats.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), and more than Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) and Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

Under Alternative 3 (50% utilization of key forage species in riparian areas and 4-inch stubble height), the riparian condition of Tosi Creek and Tepee Creek would receive an increase in current year alteration and a decrease in stream bank stability compared to the existing condition (Robertson 2015). These creeks are expected to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives or adaptive management (option for reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30% and/or increase in stubble height to 6-inches) would be implemented to ensure existing conditions met or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. Management actions (including a permanent fenced exclosure with water gaps and removal of log structures) would be implemented to move the Tepee Creek focus area towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives which would benefit sage grouse summer habitat.

All existing fencing for the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 3. The long-term effect of maintaining fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose the construction of fences to add the South Kinky Creek Pasture to the rotation and to exclude livestock from the Tepee Creek focus area. The fences associated with the South Kinky Creek Pasture are located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat and would therefore have little to no effect on sage grouse. The fence construction associated with Tepee Creek focus area would have a slight potential for vehicles to crush sage grouse nests, chicks, and/or adults. Shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline would be crushed by vehicles and fencing material. This would be a short term negative effect.

Under Alternative 3, sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would occur more frequently than under Alternative 1 (proposes fence removal), slightly more frequently than under existing conditions and Alternative 2 (no new fences proposed), and similar rate of occurrence to Alternative 4 (new fences proposed). Proposed permanent fences would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible avian collisions.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 3. The herbaceous stubble height in riparian/ meadow areas may not meet the 4-inch objective unless administrative action is taken. The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation would provide suitable forage and cover for sage grouse in nesting and summer habitat with administrative action potentially necessary. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision

91

with fences would be slightly greater under Alternative 3 than under the existing condition because of the construction of permanent exclosure along the Tepee Creek focus area.

Gypsum Creek Rotation The Gypsum Creek rotation contains 1,346 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) primarily located in the Upper Gypsum Pasture (97%). However, sage grouse use of this rotation for nesting may be limited because of topography and forest habitats which likely restrict grouse access to the sagebrush communities. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the objectives for nesting habitat in the Upper Gypsum pasture and this pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season. Under Alternative 3, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift prior to the season of use would extend the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 3 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, Alternative 3 would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment at 50 percent livestock forage utilization. Alternative 3 would support a median amount of nest concealment among all alternatives and moderate level of nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternatives 1 and 4.

Under Alternative 3, a two pasture deferred rotation would be implemented. Livestock grazing would occur in nesting habitat during the nesting season every other year when the Upper Gypsum Pasture is the first pasture to be grazed. In years the Upper Gypsum Pasture is ungrazed prior to July 1st, the nesting habitat would provide herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. In years the Upper Gypsum Pasture is grazed, the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would meet the greater than or equal to 25 percent canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives or administrative action may be taken to adjust livestock management if sage grouse were determined to be nesting or raising broods in this pasture. The effect by livestock on the Upper Gypsum Pasture during the nesting season is nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. These impacts are limited to every other year when livestock grazing occurs in nesting habitat during the nesting season.

When the Upper Gypsum Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, livestock would be permit to graze at 50 percent forage utilization with a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline of streams until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved). The 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands would likely be met because livestock use would be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season and a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline would be the early trigger to move livestock off the allotment.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

92

Alternative 3 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat in the project area or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

The Gypsum Creek rotation contains 4,318 acres of summer habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, and residual grass height during the summer season met the objectives with the exception of the preferred forb availability in the Upper Gypsum pasture. Under Alternative 3, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease compared to existing conditions, but would likely meet the objectives with moderate uncertainty because a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height are considered moderate grazing (Crawford et al. 2004), but project data provides some evidence that the herbaceous stubble height objective may not be met. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges across the meadow (Crawford et al. 2004).

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), and more than Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) and Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

Under Alternative 3 (50% utilization of key forage species in riparian areas and 4-inch stubble height), Gypsum Creek would experience an increase in livestock use compared to current management, leading to an increase in current year alteration and a decrease in stream bank stability. South Gypsum Creek would be managed with 50 percent forage utilization and a 6-inch stubble height along the greenline which would move the creek towards the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives. If monitoring were to indicate that these streams were not moving towards or meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objective, then the adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would ensure positive trends towards these objectives.

All fencing for the Gypsum Rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 3. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 1, because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 3 with the possibility of reduced preferred forb availability. The Gypsum Creek rotation would provide moderately suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitats for sage grouse compared with all alternatives. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 3 would be similar to the existing condition and Alternatives 2 and 4.

93

River Bottom Pasture/ Livestock Driveway The River Bottom Pasture contains 1,117 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The existing condition of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met habitat objectives.

Under Alternative 3, the livestock season of use would be June 12th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 5th) would not change the number of days that the livestock would trail to the allotments and graze the nesting habitat. Therefore the extension would have little additional effect on the nesting habitat. Livestock would congregate at the southern Forest boundary and cow/calf pairs would be allowed to pair up before being actively trailed along the livestock driveway to the allotments during the sage grouse nesting season (approximately 2 weeks). Pairing up of cow with calves would have localized negative effects on nesting habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the livestock driveway would be similar to the existing conditions and the action alternatives. Under Alternative 3, a livestock allowable use level that maintains greater or equal to 60 percent ground cover in the livestock driveway would not be sufficient to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives for sage grouse. However, the livestock driveway is a limited area generally considered to extend 200 feet on either side of the road and is not considered suitable sage grouse nesting habitat because of the proximity to the road and use by livestock. The River Bottom Pasture contains the majority of the nesting habitat which would be relatively ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season and therefore would have no effect on nesting habitat.

Livestock trampling of nest and induced nest abandonment would be expected to be low because livestock use is in close proximity to the road and livestock repeated use the same area in the livestock driveway. Sage grouse tend to exhibit high nest site fidelity (Fischer et al. 1993 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) and likely avoid the livestock driveway because of the yearly livestock disturbance. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment in the livestock driveway at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

The River Bottom pasture contains 4,014 acres of summer habitat. In the fall, livestock would graze the River Bottom Pasture to the Forest southern boundary during the summer season. Under existing conditions (20% forage utilization), the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for these indicators. Under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline), herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease compared to existing conditions, but would likely continue to meet the objectives because a 50 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height are considered moderate grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004).

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), and more than Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) and Alternative 1 (no livestock

94

grazing). Alternative 3 would provide moderately suitable sage grouse summer habitat compared with all action alternatives.

The Upper Green River would likely continue to meet the riparian function objective under Alternative 3. At 50 percent forage utilization along the Green River, increased livestock use of the willow bottoms, decreased vegetative cover, and increased trailing would be expected (Robertson 2015) compared to the existing condition (20% forage utilization). If monitoring were to indicate that the river was not moving towards or meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives, then adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would result in positive trends towards these objectives.

All fencing for the River Bottom Pasture and livestock driveway would be maintained under Alternative 3. There would be slight reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fencelines when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and similar for all alternatives because the length of fenceline would be similar. The slight difference among alternatives is a slight reduction in the fenceline under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives because the boundary fence between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely be met under Alternative 3 within the River Bottom pasture with possible reductions below the habitat objectives in the livestock driveway. The River Bottom Pasture would provide moderately suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse with all alternatives. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be slightly greater under Alternative 3 than Alternative 1 because the boundary fence along the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed under Alternative 1. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be similar for action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects See discussion of Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives under Alternative 1

Determination for Alternative 3 Implementing Alternative 3 “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

Rationale: This determination was made because sage grouse habitat would meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives across the nesting habitat and summer habitat in the Upper Green River project area. If Alternative 3 is insufficient in meeting the sage grouse standards and guidelines (i.e., project objectives), administrative action would be taken as directed by the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment and 2015 Record of Decision (U.S. Forest Service 2015) to ensure that the sage grouse standards and guidelines are met. Alternative 3 and any additional administrative actions necessary to meet the livestock grazing guidelines is expected to provide suitable and adequate amounts of sage grouse habitat that meets desired conditions for nesting and brood rearing. This determination is contingent upon habitat

95

monitoring being conducted under Alternative 3 in order to validate that sage grouse nesting and summer habitats are meeting desired conditions. If monitoring were to indicate habitat conditions are not suitable and the causative factors were associated with livestock management, administrative action would be implemented to improve sage grouse habitat to meet or move towards habitat objectives and desired conditions.

Alternative 3 would provide adequate amounts of suitable habitat for sage grouse with moderate uncertainty, and minor negative impacts associated with fences and trampling. The net effect would contribute to the viability of sage grouse inhabiting the Forest. Individual sage grouse would be negatively impacted if they collide with fences (Christiansen 2009), although new fences would be designed to increase visibility and reduce collisions. Likewise, as existing fences are rebuilt, they would be designed to increase visibility of the fence by sage grouse in designated sage grouse habitat. Livestock would trample nests or cause nest abandonment to a minor degree (Crawford et al. 2004). Neither impacts from fences or livestock trampling would offset benefits of this alternative associated with habitat quality. Alternative 3 would provide sage grouse habitat that is less favorable than that provided by Alternative 4, because Alternative 4 would permit a lower maximum forage utilization in the riparian/meadow areas (35%) than Alternative 3 (50%) on four of six allotments, which would provide greater herbaceous stubble height in meadows, enhance riparian function of streams and may result in slightly greater grass height in upland nesting habitat. Scientists found that tall, dense grass and forb cover at nest sites enhanced nesting success (Connelly et al. 2000, Greg et al. 1994, Holloran et al 2005, Doherty 2014). Alternative 3 would generally provide more favorable sage grouse habitat than Alternative 2 (which would not meet habitat objectives) across a sufficient proportion of the project area and less favorable habitat than Alternative 1 and 4 (which would meet habitat objectives).

The sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River is important to maintain the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, because it comprises more than 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. Under Alternative 3, this sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat would meet desired habitat conditions to support sage grouse. In addition, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River area provides a potential dispersal route or connectivity between the larger Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population to the relatively isolated Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations. Connectivity corridors are important for maintaining the transmission of genetic material between populations (State of Wyoming, Executive Order 2015-4). Schulwitz et al. (2014) suggested that isolated populations may result in negative fitness consequences that could lead to local extirpation and/or loss of unique genetic diversity. Although they did not demonstrate genetic connectivity between the Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population and the Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River provides a connectivity corridor and the potential for demographic and genetic exchange. The Gros Ventre and Jackson populations inhabit an additional 185,779 area of core, connectivity, and general sage grouse habitats or 56 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. As a result, the Upper Green River corridor is important to the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Alternative 3 would provide suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat in 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat Forest-wide and positively influence sage grouse occupying up to 70 percent of the Forest. Therefore, Alternative 3 would contribute to the viability of the sage grouse population inhabiting the Forest.

At a larger scale, Alternative 3 would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing because the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area would meet habitat objectives, negative effects would be minor, and habitat in the Forest is a small proportion of the sage grouse habitat in Wyoming and is a net positive effect in light of the magnitude of negative impacts associated

96

with other activities such as climate change, oil and gas development, and residential development occurring throughout the State. Although, the Upper Green River sage grouse habitat is currently considered peripheral habitat, it is relatively high elevation and receives high precipitation for sagebrush communities and may become more important in light of climate changes.

Alternative 4- Modified Grazing Management with Riparian Emphasis

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 is more likely to meet the herbaceous canopy cover objective (>25%) and the grass height objective (>7 in.) for nesting habitat than Alternative 2 and 3, and less likely to meet these objectives than Alternative1. Alternative 4 would likely meet desired conditions for herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in 80 percent or more of the sage grouse nesting habitat across the project area. If monitoring were to indicate that this was not the case, livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions toward sage grouse habitat objectives. Alternative 4 would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives across 40 percent or more of the sage grouse summer habitat in the project area. Alternative 4 would best meet or move conditions towards desired conditions for sage grouse summer habitat when comparing all action alternatives. Alternative 4 would provide suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover for sage grouse.

Utilization data can be a valuable tool for helping to interpret the influence of livestock herbivory on vegetation trend (Sanders 1998 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Clary and Webster (1989) stated that the level of utilization occurring on a site is the most important consideration in grazing management. Forage utilization levels differ by alternative and were used to evaluate impacts on sage grouse habitat indicators because utilization level was the most influential activity on the habitat. Under Alternative 4- Modified Grazing Management with Riparian Emphasis, maximum forage utilization would be 50 percent in the uplands and 35 percent in riparian and meadow areas with a 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline of streams. This level of utilization would apply in areas meeting desired range and riparian conditions. The exceptions to this general livestock prescription are 50 percent maximum forage utilization in riparian and meadow areas for the Noble Pasture and Wagon Creek Allotments and more restrictive prescriptions in areas of concern.

Alternative 4 is expected to maintain herbaceous canopy cover and grass height similar to existing conditions (30-50% forage utilization under current management), and would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives for sage grouse. Less forage would be consumed by livestock under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 (50-65% utilization) and Alternative 3 (50% utilization), but more than under Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Therefore, the grasses and forbs available to sage grouse under Alternative 4 would be greater than that under Alternative 2, slightly greater than Alternative 3, and less than that under Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of herbaceous canopy cover of all action alternatives and would meet the greater than or equal to 25 and 15 percent herbaceous canopy cover objectives in nesting and summer habitats, respectively. Likewise, taller grass height would be available under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 and 3, but less than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would be the most likely action alternative to meet or move towards the 7-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat because the majority of pastures are ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season, a one week extension prior to the livestock season of use would not apply to pastures with nesting habitat (Wagon Creek Allotment and the Mud Lake/Fish Creek, Mosquito Lake, and the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek/Kinky Creek

97

rotations of the Upper Green River Allotment) and grazed pastures would likely not reach the maximum utilization allowed (50%) during the nesting season (through June 30th) based on current management. However, the forage utilization level during the nesting season would be greater under Alternative 4 with maximum permitted number of livestock than under current management in which livestock numbers average 68 percent of permitted livestock numbers. Alternative 4 would meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective after the grazing season in the summer/brood rearing habitat because a 35 percent maximum forage utilization in the riparian and meadow areas would be implemented and is expected to provide suitable sage grouse habitat. The exception to 35 percent utilization is in Noble Pastures and Wagon allotments in which 40 to 50 percent forage utilization would be allowed and these two allotments may not meet the 4 inch herbaceous stubble height objective at 50 percent utilization. However, if any allotment does not meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective, administrative action would be taken to insure the sage grouse livestock grazing guidelines (U.S. Forest Service 2015) are met.

Alternative 4 would generally promote healthy riparian and wetland conditions and improve existing conditions at areas of concern. Riparian areas that currently meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would continue to meet the objectives and improve conditions at 35 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, or adaptive management (option for reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30% and/or increase in stubble height to 6-inches) would be implemented to ensure existing conditions move towards the objectives. Focus areas and areas of concern that are currently not meeting riparian function and/or stream bank stability objectives (identified in Table 1 of the Final EIS for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland project) would trend towards desired conditions because site specific design features would be implemented. Table 8 (p. 120) compares the effects of livestock management actions on sage grouse and their habitats among the alternatives.

Overall, Alternative 4 would have the greatest likelihood to meet the desired conditions for sage grouse and would provide a greater amount of suitable nesting and summer habitats than the other action alternatives. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being met, administrative actions would be implemented, as necessary, to modify livestock grazing management in order that the herbaceous canopy cover, grass/herbaceous stubble height and preferred forb availability objectives for sage grouse would be.

Nesting Habitat (May 15-June 30)

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height Under Alternative 4, livestock grazing would occur on the six allotments at 35 to 50 percent maximum forage utilization of key forage species in riparian and meadow areas (considered light to moderate grazing; Crawford et al. 2004) and 50 percent in the uplands. Livestock grazing would overlap in time and space with the sage grouse nesting season and nesting habitat in the Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments. In these allotments, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height may decrease slightly in the uplands compared with existing conditions (30-50% forage utilization under current management) as potentially more grass would be consumed as forage in the uplands. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height under Alternative 4 would provide moderate amounts of overhead and lateral concealment of sage grouse nests, incubating hens, and chicks, providing more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternative 1. Sage grouse select nest sites with greater grass height (Hagen et al. 2007). Successful sage grouse nests had greater canopy cover of tall grasses (>7 in.) and medium height shrubs (15.7 – 31 inches) surrounding the sagebrush nest site than unsuccessful nests (Gregg et al. 1994). Doherty et al.

98

(2014) reported that greater average grass height had positive effects on nest survival. Therefore, Alternative 4 would likely support a moderate level of nesting success in the project area because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2 and less than Alternatives 1. Alternative 4 would provide taller grass height in nesting habitat than Alternative 2, similar to slightly taller than Alternative 3, and lower than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 best meets grass height objectives of the action (grazing) alternatives because livestock forage utilization is the lowest and the greatest amount of grass height and cover would be retained for nesting.

Although maximum forage utilization in the uplands is the same under Alternative 3 and 4 (50%), actual forage utilization and resulting grass height in the uplands may differ by alternative. Alternative 3 may result in slightly lower grass height in the uplands than Alternative 4, because actual livestock forage utilization of the uplands would be influenced by the amount of time livestock spend in the pasture which would be limited by forage utilization limits allowed in the riparian/meadow areas. Under Alternative 3, a 50 percent forage utilization level in riparian areas allows for more time spent in the pasture compared to Alternative 4 which permits 35 percent forage utilization in the riparian areas in most pastures. More conservative allowable use levels in the riparian areas proposed under Alternative 4 would likely be the early trigger to move cattle from the pasture and likely equate to lower utilization levels in the uplands. On the flip-side, cattle may spend more time in the uplands in late spring and early summer when range conditions are relatively moist, forbs succulent and riparian areas are saturated. In this case, forage utilization in the uplands may reach 50 percent at a similar rate in both Alternatives 3 and 4.

Grass height in nesting areas would be reduced in the first pasture grazed by livestock for each rotation in the Upper Green River Allotment and Roaring Fork Allotment. Grass height would attain maximum height during the nesting season in the remaining pastures. These pastures would be grazed post nesting season and would likely meet the 4-inch stubble height objective post grazing season in the uplands based on 2014 and 2015 monitoring data. Alternative 4 would provide moderate lateral concealment of nests, hens and chicks.

Deferred and rest rotation systems reduces the overlap in time and space between livestock grazing and sage grouse nesting by limiting livestock to one pasture of the allotment during nesting season (ending June 30th). The grazed pasture would have reduced herbaceous cover and grass height, but the ungrazed pastures would provide herbaceous cover and grass height near its potential which would benefit nesting success. Pastures grazed during the nesting season would change annually. Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommended that managers consider delaying grazing of known nesting areas until after the nesting season. Rotational grazing systems are one way to provide areas (i.e., pastures) free from livestock disturbance during nesting. This benefit may be offset if heavy livestock use occurs in the grazed pastures (Holechek et al. 1982), especially since sage grouse can display high site fidelity (Fischer et al. 1993 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Heavy livestock use was not evident under existing conditions; therefore, deferred and rest rotations would be beneficial to nesting sage grouse in the project area.

Livestock grazing is delayed until after the nesting season in the Beaver-Twin and Wagon Creek Allotments and therefore, grass height would attain maximum height during the nesting season and provide suitable nesting habitat in these allotments. Livestock would not trample nests or cause nest abandonment in Beaver-Twin and Wagon Creek Allotments, but livestock may trample nests or cause nest abandonment in the first pasture grazed in the Roaring Fork and Upper Green River Allotments. The last pasture grazed in these allotments would likely meet the 4-inch

99

herbaceous stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season becausethe 35 percent forage utilization in meadows would be the early trigger to move livestock.

In summary, Alternative 4 is more likely to meet the herbaceous canopy cover objective (>25%) and the grass height objective (>7 in.) for nesting habitat than Alternative 2 and 3, and less likely to meet these objectives than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would meet desired conditions for herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the sage grouse nesting habitat across the project area (meets the extent objective, Table 1), because the season of livestock use and deferred rotation limits the pastures grazed by livestock during the nesting season, a one week shift prior to the livestock season of use would not be granted, and maximum utilization would likely not be reached during the nesting season. Under Alternative 4, the 4-inch residual grass height post nesting season in the nesting habitat would be met because the 35 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow areas would be the early trigger to move livestock out of the pasture. If monitoring were to indicate that sufficient and adequate amounts of sage grouse habitat were not provided, livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions toward sage grouse habitat objectives.

Summer Habitat (July 1-November 15)

Herbaceous canopy cover and herbaceous stubble height The pattern of habitat use during the brood-rearing period is related to changes in food availability and hens with broods are typically found where forb abundance is greatest (Klebenow 1969, Drut et al. 1994a as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). Hagen et al. (2007) found that brood areas had significantly taller grasses and greater forb and grass cover than at random locations. Under existing conditions (30-50% utilization), herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and residual grass height in uplands and riparian areas meet or nearly meet the objectives (>15%, common with >5 present, and >4 inches, respectively) across the sage grouse brood rearing habitat.

Under Alternative 4, forage utilization of key forage species permitted would be a maximum of 50 percent in uplands and 35 percent in riparian and meadow areas and a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline with stricter allowable use levels to address some areas of concern. Herbaceous canopy cover and height would be similar to that expressed under existing conditions and expected to meet or nearly meet the objectives because the values under existing conditions (26 - 62% canopy cover and 1.8 - 13.9 inches) primarily exceeded the 15 percent and 4-inch objectives. Alternative 4 may not meet the 4-inch grass height objective in Noble Pastures Allotment because it would be grazed at 50 percent forage utilization with 2-3 times over grazing. All other allotments would likely meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective. Administrative action would be taken if monitoring indicated that the livestock grazing guideline (Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment 2015) was not being met. Adequate amounts of suitable sage grouse brood rearing habitat would be available for sage grouse.

This utilization levels proposed under Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height available in sage grouse summer habitat (upland and riparian) of all the action alternatives and likely would result in these indicators meeting the objective.

Preferred forb availability Crawford et al. (2004) reported that brood-rearing habitat may be enhanced by well-managed grazing practices that favor upland forb production (e.g., fall grazing) and prescribed light (<

100

40%) to moderate (40-60%) spring grazing which can remove standing herbage and make forbs more accessible (Smith et al. 1979, Fulgham et al. 1982 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004 ). Alternative 4 would allow spring and summer grazing in riparian areas at light grazing levels (35%) which would likely maintain forb abundance and species diversity at objective for sage grouse forb availability (Call 1979 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges across the meadow (Crawford et al. 2004). Therefore, under Alternative 4, preferred forbs are accessible and continue to meet the objective.

Riparian function/ Stream bank stability Riparian areas that are currently in desired condition remain so with high certainty due to implementation of light livestock grazing (35% maximum forage utilization of key forage species) and a 4-inch minimum prescription for stubble height on the greenline of streams. The 4-inch stubble height along greenline provides for stream bank stability. Fall browsing on willows is not expected because cattle would prefer to graze on the herbaceous vegetation instead. Implementation of site specific prescriptions at areas of concern including structural improvements, 6-inch stubble height minimum, and 20 percent bank alteration maximum improves riparian conditions towards desired conditions. Implementation of adaptive management (option to retain a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or reduce utilization levels to a minimum of 30 percent forage utilization) would be limited because a 35 percent utilization level would already be implemented across 4 out of 6 allotments (Badger, Beaver-Twin, Roaring Fork, and Upper Green River Allotments). When adaptive management is necessary, it would move conditions towards riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. The riparian function would improve specifically at three focus areas (Tosi Creek focus area, Klondike Creek focus area, and Wagon Creek focus area), a segment of Crow Creek, and Wagon Creek in the Mosquito NW Pasture. These areas of concern are located in sage grouse summer habitat. A segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork in the Mud Lake East Pasture would likely not improve because the effects are related to congregating elk rather than livestock effects. Alternative 4 best meets the desired condition for riparian function and stream bank stability of all action alternatives and would meet the desired conditions for sage grouse summer habitat. Alternative 4 meets or moves towards desired condition for riparian function and stream bank stability as described in the Riparian and Fisheries sections (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015).

Additional Effects - Structural Improvements Approximately 76 miles of existing fence would be maintained for livestock management in the project area. Reconstructed fences would conform to the Fencing Riparian Area Guideline and the Structural Improvement Standard which would benefit sage grouse by increasing visibility of riparian fences. In Sublette County, Wyoming, Christiansen (2009) reported sage grouse mortality associated with fences and found that fence markers reduced grouse mortality by 61 percent. Reconstruction of fences within 4 miles of occupied sage grouse leks would be designed to minimize the risk of sage grouse collision with fences including marking fences, using laydown fences, and considerations regarding location of fences. Sage grouse injury and mortality associated with existing fences in the project area would be similar to slightly less than the injury and mortality occurring under existing conditions.

Approximately 2.3 miles of permanent fence and 1.2 miles of electric fence are proposed in sage grouse habitat (>26,000 acres). The effect of these proposed fences on sage grouse injury and

101

mortality would be minimized by fence design. Fences would be either laydown electric fences, fences marked with reflective markers or riparian fences with a wooden top rail. These wildlife-friendly fence design features would reduce collision of sage grouse with newly constructed fences proposed in Alternative 4 (Christiansen 2009). There is a potential that sage grouse nests, chicks and adults could be crushed or injured by vehicles used to construct new and maintain existing structural improvements, although the effect is expected to be slight.

Four water developments and associated water troughs would remain under Alternative 4. Capturing water from springs using pipelines and troughs may adversely affect wet meadows used by grouse for foraging (Connelly et al. 2000). Connelly et al. (2000) recommended in order to protect summer habitat, avoid developing springs for livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or trough, design the project to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring. No additional water developments are proposed under Alternative 4; therefore effects of water developments and water trough under Alternative 4 is the same as under existing conditions. The potential to develop a spring near Crow Creek will be analyzed in a future NEPA analysis. Until then, this spring may be heavily impacted by livestock (reduced riparian/wetland vegetation) when Crow Creek is moved from Mud Lake East Pasture to Mud Lake West via a fenceline adjustment. Riparian function on Crow Creek would improve but the nearby spring would likely not meet desired conditions.

Table 8 (p. 120) compares the effects of livestock management actions on sage grouse and their habitats among the alternatives.

In summary, Alternative 4 would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives across the sage grouse summer habitat in the project area (meets the extent objective, Table 1). Alternative 4 would best meet or move conditions towards desired conditions for sage grouse summer habitat when comparing all action alternatives. Alternative 4 would provide suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover for sage grouse.

Effects by Allotment/Rotation

Badger Allotment This allotment contains an insufficient amount of nesting habitat (8 acres) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because sage grouse use of this small area would be minimal and any effect would be negligible.

Badger Allotment contains 166 acres of summer habitat which would be managed as a one pasture under a deferred grazing system. The delayed livestock entry date (July 15th) in 1 of 4 years would allow for grass seed set and potentially benefit herbaceous canopy cover and grass height by maintaining grass and forb abundance in the allotment.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization in uplands, 35% in riparian/meadow, 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage by livestock across the allotment. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards the objectives.

102

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light (< 40% utilization) to moderate (40-60% utilization) livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Badger Allotment would be lightly grazed (35% utilization, 4-inch stubble height) and would meet the preferred forb availability and 4-inch residual grass stubble height objectives which provide adequate food and cover for sage grouse. Under Alternative 4, streams would experience similar use to existing use by livestock, and are expected to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives in the allotment. If streams fell below these objectives, adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would ensure positive trends towards the objectives.

The boundary fence located between the Badger and Beaver-Twin Allotments would be maintained under Alternative 4, but this fence is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in Badger Allotment and similar among alternatives.

In summary under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, residual grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met. The Badger Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the minimal and similar among the action alternatives.

Beaver-Twin Allotment Beaver-Twin Allotment contains 320 acres of nesting habitat in the North Beaver Pasture (southern pasture). Livestock grazing in this nesting habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th. The livestock season of use for the allotment is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). North Beaver Pasture is typically the last pasture to be grazed; livestock use this pasture from about September 15th to October 30th. Grass height and herbaceous canopy cover would be near the potential during the nesting season because livestock would not graze the nesting habitat at that time. Livestock would not cause nest trampling or nest abandonment because they would be absent during the nesting season. Grass height following the grazing season is also an important indicator that measures residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat subsequent to the livestock grazing season would likely be met in the uplands under Alternative 4 because livestock prefer riparian and wetland areas late in the summer and use in the uplands would likely be less than 50 percent. Therefore, the nesting habitat would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability and would provide suitable forage and cover for sage grouse.

This allotment contains an insufficient amount of summer habitat (1 acre) to consider effects of the alternative on habitat indicators because any effect would be negligible. Waterdog Lake focus area is located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat and therefore, its management does not impact sage grouse habitat.

The existing fences would be maintained and proposed fences would be constructed to effectively divide the Beaver-Twin Allotment under Alternative 4, but these fences would have little to no effect on sage grouse because they are located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing, resulting in injury and mortality, would be minimal to none in the Beaver-Twin Allotment and is similar among alternatives. Proposed fences

103

would generally contribute to riparian areas meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives (Robertson 2015).

In summary under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives would be met. The Beaver-Twin Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the negligible and similar among the action alternatives.

Noble Pastures Allotment Noble Pastures Allotment contains approximately 50 acres of sagebrush which is an insufficient amount of habitat to consider effects on nesting habitat indicators because sage grouse use of this small area would be minimal and any effect would be negligible. Effects of the alternative on early brood rearing habitat during the nesting season are similar to the effects described for the summer habitat which includes late brood rearing habitat.

Noble Pastures Allotment contains 688 acres of summer habitat which would continue to be flood irrigated and be grazed 2 to 3 times over by livestock at 50 percent forage utilization of key forage species in Pastures 2, 3 and 4 and 40 percent utilization in Pasture 1. Alternative 4 would increase the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height compared with existing conditions because of slight decreases in forage utilization levels and more restrictive allowable use of riparian areas in the Tosi Creek and Klondike focus areas. This would have positive impacts to sage grouse summer habitat. Sage grouse would continue to be attracted to the forbs available in the irrigated pastures as the conditions dry in other areas.

Alternative 4 would continue to meet the sage grouse herbaceous canopy cover and preferred forb availability objectives. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would not be met in Pastures 2, 3 and portions of Pasture 4. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would be met in Pasture 1 because a 40 percent forage utilization level and 6-inch stubble height along Tosi Creek would be implemented. An option to erect an electric fence north of Tosi Creek would further increase the grass/sedge height along Tosi Creek and in the southern portion of the pasture if implemented. The 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would also be met along Klondike Creek in Pasture 3 within the proposed fenced exclosure because cattle use would be minimal (0.5 animal unit month per acre per year).

The soil compaction and hummocking in Pasture 3 would be reduced and would move towards the soil quality objective under Alternative 4 because livestock would enter and exit the allotment through Pastures 1 and 4 and not through Pasture 3 and a culvert would be installed to reduce erosion at a livestock water crossing (Winthers 2015). The construction and use of a small livestock holding pen (< 1 acre) would likely have compacted soils and the area may not meet sage grouse herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives. However, this pen is less than one acre and negative effects are minor.

The livestock season of use would be June 14th through September 20th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The possible one week shift in the season of use would not affect the sage grouse summer habitat substantially because the shift is in response to precipitation and plant phenology primarily associated with other allotments (resulting in early or late range readiness), but plant phenology is held more constant in Noble Pastures through the use of flood irrigation. The same number of days would be

104

grazed by livestock, resulting in similar amount of herbaceous material consumed with or without a one week extension.

Under Alternative 4, Tosi Creek and Klondike Creek focus areas would meet or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives because more conservative focus area prescriptions would be implemented (Robertson 2015). A combination of measures, including less than or equal to 40 percent forage utilization levels, 20 percent alternation limits, 6-inch stubble height minimum, fencing, hardened crossings, and willow plantings, would be implemented. This would result in improved riparian conditions and sage grouse summer habitat meeting or moving towards the riparian function objective.

All existing fences located in the Noble Pastures Allotment would be maintained under Alternative 4. In addition, fences would be constructed to enclose a livestock holding pen (< 1 acre) south of Pasture 4, along Klondike Creek focus area, and an optional fence along the north side of Tosi Creek focus area. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Under Alternative 4, sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would be more than under Alternative 1 (proposes fence removal), slightly greater than existing conditions and Alternative 2, and similar to Alternative 3. Proposed permanent fences would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible avian collisions. If the electric fence is erected along Tosi Creek, electric tape would be used to enhance visibility and reduce possible avian collisions.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would be met in the Noble Pastures Allotment under Alternative 4 and the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective would not be met except in Pasture 1 and within the Klondike exclosure. The allotment would generally provide suitable forage and cover in summer habitat for sage grouse with grass/sedge height being low in some areas. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 4 would slightly greater than existing conditions, because new fence construction is proposed under Alternative 4, but the effect would be mitigated with techniques to increase visibility and reduce avian collisions with fences. Overall, Alternative 4 would meet or move towards the sage grouse summer habitat objectives, with a moderate degree of uncertainty, at a slower rate than Alternative 1- No Livestock Grazing, faster rate than Alternative 2, and a similar rate to Alternative 3.

Roaring Fork Allotment Roaring Fork Allotment contains approximately 148 acres of sagebrush nesting habitat. Livestock grazing in this habitat would occur during the nesting season which ends June 30th and would reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height. The livestock season of use is June 16th through October 15th. A possible one week shift prior the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years) would extend the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season. A possible one week shift following the season of use on an infrequent basis would reduce residual grass height carried into the subsequent year nesting season in the Roaring Fork West Pasture. Livestock would reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season yearly in the Roaring Fork South Pasture and infrequently in the Roaring Fork West Pasture when this pasture is grazed by livestock prior to July 1st. This would occur when the Roaring Fork West Pasture is the second pasture to be grazed and a one week extension prior to the season of use is granted.

105

The existing condition of the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability was unmeasured during the nesting season of 2014 and 2015. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the uplands may decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30%) because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat assuming the permitted maximum forage utilization was realized. Alternative 4 would meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

Alternative 4 would likely support a greater level of nesting success than Alternative 2 and lower level of nesting success than Alternative 1, and similar level to Alternative 3 because the amount of herbaceous canopy cover and grass height rank in a similar fashion. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and similar rate to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same.

The allotment contains approximately 3,075 acres of summer habitat. Herbaceous canopy cover and height would decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization in uplands, 35% in riparian/meadow, 4-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management) because more grass would be consumed as forage by livestock across the allotment. The herbaceous canopy cover and height are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards the objectives.

In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (40-60% utilization, Crawford et al. 2004). These effects could be reversed in late summer if livestock grazing in riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent plant species or causes declines in riparian function; however, this is not expected in Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function are expected to meet the objectives for these indicators and improve riparian conditions at 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas and a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline. Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of sage grouse hiding cover and brood survival of all action alternatives.

Allowable use of riparian and meadow areas would be similar under Alternative 4 (35% with 4-inch stubble height on the greenline) and existing conditions (30% utilization). Roaring Fork would continue to meet the riparian and streambank stability objectives under Alternative 4 (Robertson 2015). If streams fell below these objectives, adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would ensure positive trends towards the objectives (Robertson 2015).

All fences in the Roaring Fork Allotment and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would remain under Alternative 4. The long-term effect of maintaining boundary fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would remain the same as existing conditions and Alternatives 2 and 3 because these alternatives do not propose any new fencing and all action alternatives would maintain the existing fenceline. Alternative 4 would maintain fencing in Roaring Fork Allotment which would result in potentially more injury and mortality of sage grouse colliding with fences than Alternative 1 which proposes to remove fences in the allotment.

106

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives would be met under Alternative 4. The Roaring Fork Allotment would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 4 would remain similar to existing conditions and Alternatives 2 and 3, and would be greater than Alternative 1.

Wagon Creek Allotment Wagon Creek Allotment contains about 114 acres of nesting habitat, primarily mountain big sagebrush. The livestock season of use is July 15th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior (July 8th) or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the effect of the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days resulting in similar amounts of herbaceous forage being removed and both would not allow livestock grazing during the nesting season. Livestock grazing in sage grouse nesting habitat would occur subsequent to the nesting season which ends June 30th and therefore would have no direct effect on nesting habitat during the nesting season. The existing condition of perennial grass canopy cover and height (9.9% and 6.1 inches, respectively) were below the objectives (15% and 7 inches). Perennial forb canopy cover (52%) and late-season, residual grass height (6.2 inches) met the objective (15% and 4 inches, respectively). Livestock grazing would have no effect on herbaceous indicators during the nesting season under Alternative 4 because livestock would not graze the allotment during that time. It is undetermined if existing conditions are below the objective due to site potential or livestock management post nesting.

Although the grass would not be grazed by livestock during the nesting season, the grass height post grazing season is an important indicator for residual grass carried over into the subsequent nesting season. Residual grass height post nesting was 6.2 inches which met the greater than 4- inch objective and was similar to the grass height during the nesting season (6.1 inches). Residual grass provides cover for sage grouse nests and influences nesting success (Doherty et al. 2014, Holloran et al. 2005). The 4-inch grass height objective in nesting habitat (uplands) subsequent to the livestock grazing season would likely be met in the uplands under Alternative 4 because 50 percent maximum forage utilization in the uplands would maintain adequate grass height as evident by existing conditions. Alternative 4 would likely provide a median amount of lateral nest concealment and moderate nesting success of all alternatives because the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season would be near its potential and residual stubble grass height at the end of the season would meet the 4-inch objective.

The entire Wagon Creek Allotment (186 acres) provides sage grouse summer habitat. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be the same as that expressed under existing conditions because forage utilization would be maintained at 50 percent. Canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability would likely meet these habitat objectives because these objectives are currently being met under existing conditions, with moderate uncertainty associated with small sample size of data collected to date.. Livestock would consume less herbaceous material under Alternative 4 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline for a maximum of 45 days) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas for a maximum of 90 days), and similar to Alternative 3 (50% utilization, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and a maximum of 45 days) and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing).

107

Under Alternative 4, the riparian function and stream bank stability of Wagon Creek would continue to be maintained at objective because rocks and boulders armor Wagon Creek in this allotment, preventing alteration or trampling of the banks by livestock (Robertson 2015). If future monitoring were to indicate declines in riparian function or stream bank stability, adaptive management would be implemented and conditions would improve.

The boundary fence along Wagon Allotment would be maintained under Alternative 4 and no new fencing would be proposed. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is the similar for all alternatives and to the existing conditions because the length of fence is the same.

In summary, the livestock management has little to no effect on nesting habitat in the Wagon Allotment because livestock use of this habitat occurs post nesting season. The herbaceous canopy cover, herbaceous stubble height, and preferred forb availability would meet the summer habitat objectives, with moderate uncertainty, because of moderate livestock forage utilization (50%) would be implemented and livestock use of the allotment would be limited to 45 days. The Wagon Allotment would continue to provide unsuitable nesting habitat and suitable forage and cover in the summer habitat. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all alternatives.

Upper Green River Allotment

Mud Lake/Fish Creek Rotation The Mud Lake/ Fish Creek rotation contains 4,539 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season unwire measured in 2015 and they met the habitat objectives with the exception of grass canopy cover and height in the Mud Lake West pasture. Livestock did not graze this pasture during the nesting season in 2015 and therefore, livestock did not directly reduce grass height and canopy cover during the nesting season, but grazing post nesting may be an influential factor.

Under Alternative 4, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization in the uplands) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, Alternative 4 would likely continue to not meet the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height objectives in the Mud Lake West pasture, however a 35 percent forage utilization level in the riparian and meadow areas would likely result in less than 50 percent forage utilization in the uplands. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height objectives would likely meet these objectives in the Mud Lake East pasture. Alternative 4 would support the greatest amount of nest concealment among all action alternatives and moderate level of nesting success among all alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternative 2, more than or equal to Alternative 3, and less than Alternative 1.

108

A three pasture deferred rotation is proposed under all action alternatives for this rotation. Mud Lake East and Mud Lake West Pastures would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat are the same as current conditions and all action alternatives. In this rotation, one of two pastures would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. The ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The ungrazed pasture would likely meet or nearly meet the herbaceous canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is concentrated livestock use which increases nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 4. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that one pasture with nesting habitat would not be grazed during the nesting season, resulting high herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season.

The greater than or equal to 4-inch residual grass stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would permit 50 percent forage utilization in the uplands until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) and would likely meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season and would have minimal effect on herbaceous vegetation in the uplands.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

Alternative 4 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives, if livestock were determined to be a causal factor in not attaining the objective.

The Mud Lake/ Fish Creek rotation contains 8,024 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for summer habitat with the exception of the residual herbaceous height at the end of the grazing season in a riparian/ meadow area of the Mud Lake East pasture. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass/herbaceous height would decrease in the uplands and remain the same in riparian/meadow areas compared to the existing condition (30% forage utilization). Alternative 4 would likely continue to meet the objectives because 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height is considered light grazing (Crawford et al. 2004) and on site data provides some evidence that the herbaceous stubble height objective would be met. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges across the meadow (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 4

109

would provide the greatest amount of sage grouse hiding cover and brood survival of all action alternatives.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas) and Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline), and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 4 would provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 4, the riparian condition of the segment of Crow Creek located in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture would improve and move towards the riparian function objective because the fence dividing Mud Lake East and West Pastures would be moved uphill to incorporate Crow Creek into the West Pasture. Cattle typically move to the southwest corner of these two pastures in anticipation of trailing home. Moving the Crow Creek segment to the southeast corner of the Mud Lake West Pasture would likely reduce livestock use of the creek because of the cattle’s inclination to move southwest. In addition, a 35 percent forage utilization limit would be implemented along Crow Creek. This would result in an increase in riparian vegetation, stream bank stability and improve the riparian function of this segment of Crow Creek (Robertson 2015).

Under Alternative 4, riparian conditions would meet or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. Livestock would be trailed along alternative routes to reduce impacts along Raspberry Creeks. A 35 percent forage utilization level would be implemented for riparian areas, and a 6-inch stubble height would be retained for Strawberry Creek and a 4-inch stubble height would be retained for Raspberry Creek. Implementing low utilization levels and stubble height requirements under this alternative would retain vegetation on the stream banks and promote stream bank stability (Robertson 2015). Alternative herding practices would result in resources meeting prescribed vegetation and stream channel conditions. A segment of the Upper Green River at the confluence of Roaring Fork does not meet the riparian function objective. This river segment would continue to be functioning at risk because it would continue to be impacted by a large number of elk that feed at the Upper Green River elk feedground during the winter. The Fish Creek focus area is located outside the designated sage grouse habitat and therefore, its improved condition would likely not benefit sage grouse.

All existing fencing for the Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 4 with the exception of the fence segment along the lower segment of Crow Creek which would be relocated. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose the removal and relocation of the existing Crow Creek fence section. Fence removal and reconstruction would have a slight potential for vehicles to crush sage grouse nests, chicks, and/or adults. Shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline would be crushed by vehicles and coiled fencing material. This would have a short term negative effect. All action alternatives would maintain similar length of fencing in Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The proposed fence near Crow Creek would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible sage grouse collisions. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 4 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

110

No additional water developments are proposed under Alternative 4; therefore effects of water developments and water trough under Alternative 4 is the same as under existing conditions. The potential to develop a spring near Crow Creek will be analyzed in a future NEPA analysis. Until then, the spring in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture may be heavily impacted by livestock (reduced riparian/wetland vegetation) when Crow Creek is moved from Mud Lake East Pasture to Mud Lake West via a fenceline adjustment. Riparian function on Crow Creek would improve but the nearby spring would likely not meet desired conditions for sage grouse.

In summary, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 4. The herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in nesting habitat may not meet the objective in portions of the two pastures with sage grouse habitat, but the residual grass height in the riparian/ meadow areas would be expected to meet the 4-inch herbaceous height objective. The Mud Lake/Fish Creek rotation would provide the most suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse compared with all action alternatives. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

Mosquito Lake Rotation The Mosquito Lake rotation contains 3,206 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the respective objectives with the exception of grass height in the Mosquito SW pasture during the nesting season and residual grass height in the Mosquito SE pasture post grazing. Mosquito SW pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season.

Under Alternative 4, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in Mosquito SW and NW Pastures would be similar under Alternative 4 (average 30% forage utilization over 5 year period with a maximum of 50 percent utilization in any given year along with 4-inch stubble height on the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), and would meet or move towards the habitat objectives. Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would decrease in Mosquito SE and NE Pastures under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization in the uplands and 35% in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height on the greenline) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, the Mosquito NE pasture would be expected to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives at 30 to 50 percent forage utilization, because residual grass height is potentially the limiting factor of these objectives and this pasture is not the last pasture to be grazed. Therefore this pasture has sufficient time for grasses to regrow. Mosquito SE pasture would continue to not meet the 4-inch residual grass height objective. Alternative 4 would potentially support the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success among the action alternatives because herbaceous canopy cover

111

and grass height would be more than Alternatives 2 and slightly more than or equal to Alternative 3, but less than Alternative 1.

A four pasture deferred rotation with an option to implement a rest rotation is proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 for this rotation. Mosquito SE and SW Pastures alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. In this rotation, three of four pastures would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. All pastures contain nesting habitat. The ungrazed pastures provide herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is concentrated livestock use that results in nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height. This in turn reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of four pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat.

An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 4. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that three pastures with nesting habitat would not be grazed during the nesting season, resulting in high herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season.

A 30 to 50 percent forage utilization in the grazed pasture with nesting habitat would likely meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st three pastures grazed during the season because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. When Mosquito SW Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, a 30 percent forage utilization level would meet the > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season. When Mosquito SE Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, it would be grazed at 50 percent forage utilization approximately from September 15th to October 15th (typically) or until 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved). This pasture may meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season. If livestock forage in the uplands at 50 percent utilization level, there would likely not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence in the last pasture. In this case, one pasture out of four would lack sufficient residual grass height every other year.

Under Alternative 4, livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to Alternative 3 and slightly lower rate than Alternative 2, because the season of use would be the same for these alternatives but the livestock numbers would be slightly reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4 (a 270 head of cattle reduction) compared to Alternative 2. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

Alternative 4 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

The Mosquito Lake rotation contains 5,645 acres of summer habitat. Under existing conditions, the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the objectives for these indicators in the summer habitat. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height in riparian/meadow areas would remain the same as existing conditions (30% forage utilization) in all riparian/meadow areas (35% forage utilization for Alt.

112

4) and upland areas in the SW and NW Pastures (average 30% forage utilization for Alt. 4). Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the uplands may decrease in the Mosquito SE and NE Pastures (50%) compared to existing conditions (30%). Alternative 4 would likely continue to meet the objectives because 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height is considered light grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 4 would provide a suitable amount of sage grouse hiding cover and preferred forbs.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas), a similar amount to Alternative 3 (30-50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline), and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 4 would provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 4, the riparian condition of Wagon Creek in Mosquito NW Pasture would increase in vegetative cover and stream bank stability and would meet the stream bank stability and riparian function objectives as a result of implementing an average of 30 percent forage utilization and a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline.

Under Alternative 4, the permittees would maintain an existing electric fence exclosure when the cattle are using the pasture and implement a 6-inch stubble height outside of the exclosure within the focus area boundary. A hardened crossing would be installed to reduce erosion and a gate would be installed at the head of the closed road to prohibit unauthorized motorized access, in addition to livestock being fenced out of Wagon Creek. This would lead to a long-term increase in channel stability in the vicinity of the developed crossing. The stricter utilization limits in Wagon Creek focus area would allow for an increase in vegetative cover which would decrease the amount of instream sedimentation and help protect water quality (Robertson 2015). Alternative 4 would result in Wagon Creek meeting the riparian function objective at a faster rate than Alternative 2, similar rate to Alternative 1 and 3.

All fencing for the Mosquito Lake rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 4, including the electric let-down fence in the Wagon Creek focus area. An electric ribbon would be used for the let-down fence to increase visibility of the fence by birds. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 4 than for Alternative 1 because fences would be removed in Alternative 1, and similar to Alternatives 3 and 2-Current Management which would maintain an electric fence along the Wagon Creek focus area.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass/herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 4 with the possibility that the Mosquito SE pasture would not meet the residual grass height objective for the uplands in years that it is the last pasture grazed by livestock. The Mosquito Lake rotation would provide adequate amounts of

113

suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be the same for all action alternatives and greater than Alternative 1 in which fences would be removed.

Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek Rotation Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation contains 2,130 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season was unmeasured and the existing condition of nesting habitat is unknown. Sage grouse use of this rotation for nesting may be limited because of trees intersperse which likely reduces grouse use of the sagebrush communities. Under Alternative 4, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift following the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift would be similar to the standard season of use because both would allow grazing to occur for the equal number of days and the effect on removal of herbaceous forage would be similar. A one week extension prior to the season of use would not be allowed which benefits sage grouse nesting habitat because no additional reduction in herbaceous canopy cover or grass height would occur during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the uplands would decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, utilization levels would likely be lower than 50 percent in the uplands under Alternative 4 because the 35 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow area would likely be reached first, triggering livestock to move to the next pasture or off the allotment prior to reaching the maximum utilization (50%) in the uplands. Alternative 4 would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment. Alternative 4 would support greatest amount of nest concealment among the action alternatives and moderate level of nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would be more than Alternatives 2 and 3 but less than Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 4, a four pasture deferred rotation would be implemented. South Kinky Creek Pasture would be added to the rotation and used by livestock concurrently with the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture. Although the South Kinky Creek Pasture is located outside of the designated sage grouse area, the effect of adding this pasture to the rotation is to increase the area livestock graze when in the Lower Tepee Creek Pasture and reduce the livestock grazing impacts to the nesting habitat during the nesting season. The Lower Tepee Creek/South Kindy Creek Pastures and the Tosi Creek Pasture would alternate yearly as the first pasture to be grazed by livestock. The effects of deferred rotation on nesting habitat are the similar as current conditions and all action alternatives. In this rotation, one of two pastures with nesting habitat would be free from livestock grazing and disturbance during the nesting season. The ungrazed pasture provides herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. The ungrazed pasture would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives. The effect by livestock on the pasture grazed during the nesting season is nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. However, these impacts are limited to one of two pastures in the rotation with nesting habitat. An option for implementing a rest rotation is available under Alternative 3. The effect of a rest rotation would be similar to the deferred rotation in that one pasture with nesting habitat would not be grazed during the nesting season, resulting in high

114

herbaceous canopy cover and grass height, and one pasture would be grazed during the nesting season.

A 50 percent forage utilization in the uplands of the grazed pasture would likely meet the >25 percent herbaceous canopy cover and > 7-inch grass height objectives in nesting habitat. The > 4-inch stubble height objective at the end of the grazing season would be met in the 1st pasture grazed because there would likely be sufficient time and moisture to allow for regrowth prior to plant senescence. The last pasture to be grazed in the rotation would permit 50 percent forage utilization until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved) and would likely meet the 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands because livestock use would likely be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season and a 35 percent utilization with a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline would be the early trigger to move livestock off the allotment likely before 50 percent utilization in the uplands is reached. If livestock forage in the uplands at 50 percent utilization level, there would likely not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence in the last pasture. In this scenario, one pasture out of two would lack sufficient residual grass height.

Alternative 4 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation contains 95 acres of summer habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the summer season met the objectives. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease in the uplands and remain the same in riparian/meadow areas compared to the existing condition (30% forage utilization). Alternative 4 would likely continue to meet the objectives for these indicators because 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height is considered light grazing (Crawford et al. 2004) and would meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of sage grouse hiding cover and brood survival of all action alternatives.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas) and Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline), and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 4 would provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 4 (35% utilization of key forage species in riparian areas and 4-inch stubble height), the riparian condition of Tosi Creek and Tepee Creek would improve. These creeks are expected to meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives or adaptive management (option for reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30% and/or increase in stubble height to 6-inches) would be implemented to ensure existing conditions met or move

115

towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives. Management actions (including a permanent fenced exclosure with water gaps and removal of log structures) would be implemented to move the Tepee Creek focus area towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives which would benefit sage grouse summer habitat.

All existing fencing for the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 4. The long-term effect of maintaining fences would be continued periodic crushing and reduction of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability by vehicles along the fenceline when maintaining fences. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose the construction of fences to add the South Kinky Creek Pasture to the rotation and to exclude livestock from the Tepee Creek focus area. The fences associated with the South Kinky Creek Pasture are located outside of the designated sage grouse habitat and would therefore have little to no effect on sage grouse. The fence construction associated with Tepee Creek focus area would have a slight potential for vehicles to crush sage grouse nests, chicks, and/or adults. Shrubs and herbaceous plants along the fenceline would be crushed by vehicles and fencing material. This would be a short term negative effect.

Under Alternative 4, sage grouse collisions with fencing resulting in injury and mortality would occur more frequently than under Alternative 1 (proposes fence removal), slightly more frequently than under existing conditions and Alternative 2 (no new fences proposed), and similar rate of occurrence to Alternative 3 (new fences proposed). Proposed permanent fences would be constructed with a top pole or marking technique to increase visibility and reduce possible avian collisions.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 4. The Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitats for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be slightly greater under Alternative 4 than under the existing condition because of the construction of permanent exclosure along the Tepee Creek focus area.

Gypsum Creek Rotation The Gypsum Creek rotation contains 1,346 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush) primarily located in the Upper Gypsum Pasture (97%). However, sage grouse use of this rotation for nesting may be limited because of topography and forest habitats which likely restrict grouse access to the sagebrush communities. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met the objectives for nesting habitat in the Upper Gypsum pasture and this pasture was ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season. Under Alternative 4, the livestock season of use would be June 16th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use granted on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). The effect of a one week shift prior to the season of use would extend the overlap with the nesting season from 15 days to 22 days and further reduce herbaceous canopy cover and grass height during the nesting season.

Herbaceous canopy cover and grass height in the uplands would decrease under Alternative 4 (50% forage utilization) compared with existing conditions (30% under current management), because more grass would be consumed as forage in the nesting habitat during the nesting season. However, utilization levels would likely be lower than 50 percent in the uplands under Alternative 4 because the 35 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow area would likely be reached

116

first, triggering livestock to move to the next pasture or off the allotment prior to reaching the maximum utilization (50%) in the uplands. Alternative 4 would meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the allotment. Alternative 4 would support greatest amount of nest concealment among the action alternatives and moderate level of nesting success because herbaceous canopy cover and grass height remaining would be more than Alternatives 2 and 3, but less than Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 4, a two pasture deferred rotation would be implemented. Livestock grazing would occur in nesting habitat during the nesting season every other year when the Upper Gypsum Pasture is the first pasture to be grazed. In years the Upper Gypsum Pasture is ungrazed prior to July 1st, the nesting habitat would provide herbaceous canopy cover and grass height near its potential with the greatest amount of nest concealment and nesting success possible with respect to livestock management. In years the Upper Gypsum Pasture is grazed, the herbaceous canopy cover and grass height would meet the greater than or equal to 25 percent canopy cover and 7-inch grass height objectives or administrative action may be taken to adjust livestock management if sage grouse were determined to be nesting or raising broods in this pasture. The effect by livestock on the Upper Gypsum Pasture during the nesting season is nest trampling and nest abandonment and reduced herbaceous canopy cover and grass height which reduces nest concealment and potentially nesting success. These impacts are limited to every other year when livestock grazing occurs in nesting habitat during the nesting season.

When the Upper Gypsum Pasture is the last pasture to be grazed in the rotation, livestock would be permit to graze at 50 percent forage utilization in the uplands and 35 percent in the riparian/ meadow areas with a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline of streams until October 15th (typically) or 22nd (in years a one week extension was approved). The 4-inch grass height objective in the uplands would likely be met because livestock use would be concentrated in the riparian and meadow areas late in the season and a 35 percent utilization with a 4-inch stubble height on the greenline would be the early trigger to move livestock off the allotment likely before 50 percent utilization in the uplands is reached. If livestock forage in the uplands at 50 percent utilization level, there would likely not be sufficient time or moisture for plant regrowth prior to plant senescence in the pasture. In this unlikely scenario, Upper Gypsum Pasture would lack sufficient residual grass height.

Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1-No livestock grazing.

Alternative 4 would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability objectives in the nesting habitat in the project area or livestock management would be modified through administrative action to move conditions towards these objectives.

The Gypsum Creek rotation contains 4,318 acres of summer habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, and residual herbaceous stubble height during the summer season met the objectives with the exception of the preferred forb availability in the Upper Gypsum pasture. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease in the uplands and remain the same in riparian/meadow areas compared to the existing condition (30% forage utilization). Alternative 4 would likely continue to meet the objectives for these indicators because 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height is considered light grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the

117

lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of sage grouse hiding cover and brood survival of all action alternatives.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas) and Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 4 would provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

Under Alternative 4 (35% utilization of key forage species in riparian areas and 4-inch stubble height on Gypsum Creek and 6- inch stubble height on South Gypsum Creek), the riparian conditions of Gypsum Creek and South Gypsum Creek would improve. These creeks would meet the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives or adaptive management (option for reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30% and/or increase in stubble height to 6-inches) would be implemented to ensure existing conditions met or move towards the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives.

All fencing for the Gypsum Rotation and located within the sage grouse summer habitat would be maintained under Alternative 4. All action alternatives would maintain similar fencing in this rotation which would result in limited reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fenceline when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and for action alternatives because the length of fence is the same. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality associated with fence collisions is greater for Alternative 4 than for Alternative 1, because fences would be removed in Alternative 1.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability would meet or move towards the objectives for these indicators under Alternative 4. The Gypsum Creek rotation would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitats for sage grouse. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences under Alternative 4 would be similar to the existing condition and Alternatives 2 and 3.

River Bottom Pasture/ Livestock Driveway The River Bottom Pasture contains 1,117 acres of nesting habitat (mountain big sagebrush). The existing condition of herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and preferred forb availability during the nesting season met habitat objectives.

Under Alternative 4, the livestock season of use would be June 12th through October 15th with a possible one week shift prior or post the season of use on an infrequent basis (2 out of 10 years). A one week extension prior to the season of use (June 5th) would not change the number of days that the livestock would trail to the allotments and graze the nesting habitat. Therefore the extension would have little additional effect on the nesting habitat. Livestock would congregate at the southern Forest boundary and cow/calf pairs would be allowed to pair up before being actively trailed along the livestock driveway to the allotments during the sage grouse nesting season (approximately 2 weeks). Pairing up of cow with calves would have localized negative

118

effects on nesting habitat. Pairing up of cow with calves would have localized negative effects on nesting habitat. The herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability in the livestock driveway would be similar to the existing conditions and the action alternatives. Under Alternative 4, a livestock allowable use level that maintains greater or equal to 60 percent ground cover in the livestock driveway may not be sufficient to meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability objectives for sage grouse. However, the livestock driveway is a limited area generally considered to extend 200 feet on either side of the road and is designated for livestock use. The livestock driveway is not considered suitable sage grouse nesting habitat because of the proximity to the road and use by livestock. The River Bottom Pasture contains the majority of the nesting habitat which would be relatively ungrazed by livestock during the nesting season and therefore would have no effect on nesting habitat.

Livestock trampling of nest and induced nest abandonment would be expected to be low because livestock use is in close proximity to the road and repeated livestock use of the area would deter sage grouse from nesting there. Sage grouse tend to exhibit high nest site fidelity (Fischer et al. 1993 as cited by Crawford et al. 2004) and would likely avoid the livestock driveway because of the yearly livestock disturbance. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest abandonment in the livestock driveway at a similar rate to the existing condition and to all action alternatives because livestock numbers and season of use are the same. Livestock would trample nests and cause nest disturbance at a greater rate under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1 because livestock would not graze the allotments under Alternative 1.

The River Bottom pasture contains 4,014 acres of summer habitat. In the fall, livestock would graze the River Bottom Pasture to the Forest southern boundary during the summer season. Under existing conditions (20% forage utilization), the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability met the habitat objectives for these indicators. Under Alternative 4, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability, and grass height would decrease in the uplands and remain the same in riparian/meadow areas compared to the existing condition. Alternative 4 would likely continue to meet the objectives for these indicators because 35 percent forage utilization in riparian areas with 4-inch stubble height is considered light grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage grouse prefer the lower vegetation and succulent forb growth stimulated by light to moderate livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm (3.9 inches) residual stubble height across the meadow for most grasses and sedges (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative 4 would provide the greatest amount of sage grouse hiding cover and brood survival of all action alternatives.

Livestock would consume less herbaceous forage under Alternative 4 (35% utilization in riparian/meadow areas, 4-inch stubble height along the greenline, and 50% in uplands) than Alternative 2 (60% utilization in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas) and Alternative 3 (50% utilization and 4-inch stubble height along the greenline) and more than Alternative 1 (no livestock grazing). Alternative 4 would provide suitable sage grouse summer habitat.

The Upper Green River would likely continue to meet the riparian function objective under Alternative 4. At 35 percent forage utilization and 4-inch stubble height retained along the Green River, conditions would be similar to the existing condition (20% forage utilization). If monitoring were to indicate that the river was not moving towards or meeting the riparian function and stream bank stability objectives, then the adaptive management (option to increase to a 6-inch stubble height minimum along the greenline and/or decrease forage utilization to 30% minimum) would be implemented and would result in positive trends towards these objectives.

119

All fencing for the River Bottom Pasture and livestock driveway would be maintained under Alternative 4. There would be slight reduction in herbaceous canopy cover, grass height and preferred forb availability along the fencelines when vehicles are used for fence maintenance purposes. The potential for sage grouse to collide with fencing and the associated potential for sage grouse injury or mortality is similar to the existing condition and similar for all alternatives because the length of fenceline would be similar. The slight difference among alternatives is a slight reduction in the fenceline under Alternative 1 compared to the action alternatives because the boundary fence between the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed.

In summary, herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability, riparian function and stream bank stability objectives would likely be met under Alternative 4 within the River Bottom pasture with possible reductions below the habitat objectives in the livestock driveway. The River Bottom Pasture would provide suitable forage and cover in nesting and summer habitat for sage grouse. The potential for sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be slightly greater under Alternative 4 than Alternative 1 because the boundary fence along the Tosi Creek/Tepee Creek rotation and the River Bottom Pasture would be removed under Alternative 1. Sage grouse injury or mortality caused by collision with fences would be similar for action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects See discussion of Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives under Alternative 1

Determination for Alternative 4 Implementing Alternative 4 “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

Rationale: This determination was made because sage grouse habitat would likely meet or move towards the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous stubble height, preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives across the nesting and summer habitats in the Upper Green River project area. Alternative 4 is expected to provide suitable and adequate amounts of sage grouse habitat that meets desired conditions for nesting and brood rearing. In the low likelihood that Alternative 4 is insufficient in meeting the sage grouse livestock grazing guidelines, administrative action would be taken as directed by the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment and 2015 Record of Decision (U.S. Forest Service 2015) to ensure that the sage grouse guidelines are met. This determination is contingent upon habitat monitoring being conducted under Alternative 4 in order to validate that sage grouse nesting and summer habitats are meeting desired conditions. If monitoring were to indicate habitat conditions are not suitable and the causative factors were associated with livestock management, administrative action would be necessary to improve sage grouse habitat to meet or move towards habitat objectives and desired conditions.

Alternative 4 would provide adequate amounts of suitable habitat for sage grouse and minor negative impacts associated with fences and trampling. The net effect would positively contribute to the viability of sage grouse inhabiting the Forest. Individual sage grouse would be negatively impacted if they collide with fences (Christiansen 2009), although new fences would be designed to increase visibility and reduce collisions. Likewise, as existing fences are rebuilt in sage grouse habitat, they would be designed to increase visibility of the fence by birds. Livestock would trample nests or cause nest abandonment to a minor degree (Crawford et al. 2004). Neither impacts from fences or livestock trampling would offset benefits of this alternative associated

120

with habitat quality. Alternative 4 best provides suitable sage grouse nesting and summer habitats of all action (grazing) alternatives, because 35 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow areas would enhance riparian function of streams, provide hiding cover and preferred forbs and may result in slightly greater grass height in nesting habitat than Alternative 3 and considerably more grass height in nesting habitat than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would provide more favorable brood rearing habitat in meadows and less favorable nesting habitat than Alternative 1. Scientists found that tall, dense grass and forb cover at nest sites enhanced nesting success (Connelly et al. 2000, Greg et al. 1994, Holloran et al 2005, Doherty 2014).

The sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River is important to maintain the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, because it comprises more than 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. Under Alternative 4, this sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat would meet desired habitat conditions to support sage grouse. In addition, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River area provides a potential dispersal route or connectivity between the larger Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population to the relatively isolated Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations. Connectivity corridors are important for maintaining the transmission of genetic material between populations (State of Wyoming, Executive Order 2015-4, Crist et al. 2015). Schulwitz et al. (2014) suggested that isolated populations may result in negative fitness consequences that could lead to local extirpation and/or loss of unique genetic diversity. Although they did not demonstrate genetic connectivity between the Pinedale (central-west) sage grouse population and the Gros Ventre and Jackson Hole populations, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River provides a connectivity corridor and the potential for demographic and genetic exchange. The Gros Ventre and Jackson populations inhabit an additional 185,779 area of core, connectivity, and general sage grouse habitats or 56 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest. As a result, the Upper Green River corridor is important to the viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Alternative 4 would provide suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat in 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat Forest-wide and positively influence sage grouse occupying up to 70 percent of the Forest. Therefore, Alternative 4 would contribute to the viability of the sage grouse population inhabiting the Forest.

At a larger scale, Alternative 4 would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing because the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area would meet habitat objectives; negative effects associated with fencing and trampling would be minor; habitat in the Forest is a small proportion of the sage grouse habitat in Wyoming and are a net positive in light of the magnitude of negative impacts associated with other activities such as climate change, oil and gas development, and residential development occurring throughout the State. Although, the Upper Green River sage grouse habitat is currently considered peripheral habitat, it is relatively high elevation and receives high precipitation for sagebrush communities and may become more important in light of climate changes.

Effects by Management Actions for All Alternatives Table 8 compares the effects of livestock management actions on sage grouse and their habitats among the alternatives.

Table 8 Effects of management actions on sage grouse habitat by allotment and alternative for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project.

121

Management Actions Allotment(s) Effect on sage grouse habitat Relevant alternative 1 2 3 4

Design features Variance in livestock entry

for range readiness All allotments & rotations;

various conditions.

Improves or maintains riparian and/or upland health relative to existing conditions.

x x x

Extension to season of use (max. 1 week) applies to

all allotments

All allotments & rotations

Reduces grass height in sage grouse nesting habitat during the nesting season prior to the

livestock grazing season of use. Reduces grass height in sage grouse summer habitat.

x

Extension to season of use (max. 1 week) applies with exceptions for sage grouse

nesting habitat.

Extension prior to the

permitted season of use

allowed in Badger,

Beaver-Twin, Noble

Pastures and Roaring Fork Allotments.

Extension post the permitted season of use allowed in all

six allotments.

Maintains grass height in sage grouse nesting habitat during the nesting season

prior to the livestock grazing season of use. Reduces grass height in sage grouse

summer habitat.

x x

Salt placement ¼ mile from streams

All allotments. Improves or maintains riparian function relative to existing conditions.

x x x

Herding and restriction on salt placement

Roaring Fork focus area and

Green River elk feedground

Improves or maintains upland or riparian health relative to existing conditions.

Improves condition of sage grouse summer habitat.

x x x

Restriction on grazing at sites with < 60% ground

cover

All allotments. Improves or maintains rangeland health in general and helps insure adequate cover and the cover-related components of sage grouse

habitat.

x x x

Use of certified weed-free hay

All allotments Maintains native plant composition and reduces the presence of invasive weeds

which benefits sage grouse habitat.

x x x

Management system Season-long grazing Badger Creek;

Beaver-Twin; Noble Pasture

4; Roaring Fork; Wagon

Creek Allotments.

This management system provides for repeated grazing on plants that reduces

forage plant vigor, and thus is less supportive of riparian and upland health. Reduces grass height, herbaceous canopy cover, preferred forb availability and riparian function. Sage grouse nesting and summer habitats would not meet desired conditions. Upper Green

River Allotment has deferred rotation or rest-rotation (see effects below)

x

Deferred, deferred rotation or rest-rotation

All allotments & rotations

Deferred and rest rotation grazing systems reduce repetitive grazing on forage plants

and provide for seed set and/or complete rest from grazing during the course of a rotation,

x x

122

Management Actions Allotment(s) Effect on sage grouse habitat Relevant alternative 1 2 3 4

and thus better supports upland and riparian health than season-long grazing. Provides

suitable sage grouse nesting habitat ungrazed by livestock. Ungrazed areas have increased grass height, herbaceous canopy

cover. Sage grouse nesting and summer habitats would meet desired conditions.

Livestock allowable use for areas meeting resource objectives (forage utilization of key forage species, stubble height)

No livestock grazing All allotments Would increase herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, and riparian function from

existing conditions. May decrease preferred forb availability. Sage grouse habitat would meet the objectives for these indicators and

meet desired conditions.

x

55-65% utilization in riparian and meadow

areas, 50-60% utilization in uplands, and

administrative action

All allotments 55-65% utilization would decrease herbaceous canopy cover, grass height,

preferred forb availability and riparian function from existing conditions. Sage

grouse habitat would not meet the objectives for these indicators nor meet desired

conditions. 50% utilization in uplands would likely meet

objectives for these indicators. Administrative actions would be implemented if necessary to meet the livestock grazing guidelines in the

Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (US Forest Service 2015).

x

50% utilization in riparian, meadow and upland areas, 4-inch stubble

height on the greenline, adaptive management,

and administrative action

All allotments 50% utilization would decrease herbaceous canopy cover and grass height

from existing condition, but would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height,

preferred forb availability and riparian function objectives. May not meet the 4 in. stubble height objective in meadows unless

administrative action taken. Adaptive management would be implemented if necessary to ensure improved riparian function and streambank stability objectives when necessary. Administrative actions would be implemented if necessary to meet the sage grouse livestock grazing guidelines.

x

35% utilization in riparian and meadow areas, 50% utilization in uplands, 4-

inch stubble height on the greenline, adaptive management and

administrative action

All allotments All habitat objectives would be met in the sage grouse nesting and summer habitats. At

35% use, riparian/ meadow areas would maintain/improve herbaceous canopy cover, herbaceous height, preferred forb availability and riparian function in sage grouse brood

rearing habitats. Adaptive management would be implemented if necessary to ensure

improved riparian function and streambank stability objectives.

x

123

Management Actions Allotment(s) Effect on sage grouse habitat Relevant alternative 1 2 3 4

50% utilization in uplands would decrease herbaceous canopy cover and grass height

from existing condition, but would likely meet the herbaceous canopy cover, grass height,

and preferred forb availability objectives. Utilization is expected to be less than 50%

because the 35% in riparian areas would be the early trigger to move livestock. Desired

conditions in the sage grouse nesting habitat are expected to be met.

Administrative actions would be implemented

if necessary to meet the sage grouse livestock grazing guidelines

Prescriptions for focus areas Limits on grazing use —

20% for cattle, no outfitter stock use.

Waterdog Lake Focus

Area

Outside designated sage grouse habitat x x x x

Limits on livestock streamside presence and grazing use—20% bank

alteration and 6” minimum stubble height. Optional

electric fence.

Tosi Creek Focus Area

Locally improves riparian function and enhances sage grouse brood-rearing habitat.

x x

Limits on livestock presence in riparian

habitat, range improvements, and

vegetation enhancement—construct grazing enclosure, willow

plantings, hardened crossings, and maximum ≤ 0.5 AUMs per acre cattle

density.

Klondike Creek Focus

Area

Locally improves riparian function and enhances sage grouse brood-rearing habitat.

x x

Limits on livestock streamside presence and grazing use—20% bank

alteration and 6” minimum stubble height.

Fish Creek Focus Area

Locally improves riparian function, but located outside sage grouse habitat

x x

Limits on livestock streamside presence and grazing use— electric fence exclosure with hardened water crossing and 6” minimum stubble height outside exclosure

Wagon Creek Focus Area

Locally improves riparian function and enhances sage grouse brood-rearing habitat.

x x x

Excludes livestock grazing from streamside- construct fence exclosure, remove

cabled logs.

Tepee Creek Focus Area

Locally improves riparian function and enhances sage grouse brood-rearing habitat.

x x

Limits on livestock presence—active cattle

herding out of the

Upper Green River

feedground

Locally improves riparian and nearby upland health.

x x

124

Management Actions Allotment(s) Effect on sage grouse habitat Relevant alternative 1 2 3 4

feedground area; salting prohibited.

Range improvements Selective removal of 62 miles of fence, 4 water developments, 4 rider cabins/facilities, and 9

water crossings (culverts and bridges). Maintenance

of 14 miles of fence.

All

allotments

Reduced injury and mortality of sage grouse with the potential of colliding with only

approximately 14 miles of fencing compared with 76 miles of existing fence under action

alternatives. Removal of water developments may enhance meadow by increasing water

availability and prolong preferred forb availability.

x

Maintains approximately 76 miles of existing fence,

cattle guards and water developments

All allotments Sage grouse injury and mortality occurs in sage grouse habitat where visibility of fences

is poor and some fences are not wildlife-friendly design.

x x x

Construct about 1.2 miles of electric fence and 6.0

miles of permanent fence

All allotments Improves upland condition and sage grouse habitat by reducing duration and intensity of

livestock grazing. Improves riparian conditions by excluding livestock or reducing

duration and intensity of livestock grazing. Fences are designed to minimize the risk of

sage grouse collision with fences thus mitigating effect of fence.

x x

Occasional motorized road-based or overland

travel to remove, maintain, or install fences and other

improvements.

All allotments Occasional (minor) disturbance or crushing mortality for sage grouse or nests. Effects of

vehicle tires on riparian and upland soils, sedimentation.

x x x x

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Italicized text below identifies the Forest Service direction for sage grouse.

Forest Service Interim Direction on greater sage grouse: Chief’s letters to Regional Foresters (U.S. Forest Service 2010 and 2012); and the Interim Conservation Recommendations for Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (U.S. Forest Service 2012). The intent of these interim recommendations is to promote conservation of sustainable sage grouse populations and their habitats while not limiting future options before the Forest Plan amendment process can be completed. Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 comply with this interim direction. Alternative 1 best meets the desired conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats followed by Alternatives 4 and 3, in descending order. Alternatives 3 and 4 would implement livestock management prescriptions especially designed to move areas of concern towards desired conditions. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely not meet the desired conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats, especially the >7-inch nesting and 4-inch summer grass height, preferred forb availability, and riparian function objectives. Alternative 2 does not adequately address areas of concern regarding degraded riparian habitat conditions and may cause the degradation of areas currently meeting desired conditions. Alternative 2 would likely not be in compliance with this interim direction.

125

Forest Plan Goal 3.3 - Prevent sensitive species from becoming a federally listed species in Wyoming.

• 3.3(a) Protect National Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive plant and animal species and provide suitable and adequate amounts of habitat to ensure that activities do not cause: (1) long-term or further decline in population numbers or habitats supporting these populations; and, (2) trend towards federal listing. (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 118)

Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 comply with and contribute towards Goal 3.3 because desired habitat conditions would be met or administrative action taken. Alternative 1 would best provide suitable and adequate amounts of sage grouse nesting and summer habitats followed by Alternatives 4 and 3, in descending order. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely result in declines in habitat conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats and therefore would not contribute to Goal 3.3.

Forest Plan Goal 4.7 – Avoid unacceptable effects from livestock use: Grazing use sustains or improves overall range, soils, water, wildlife and recreation values or experiences. (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 120)

• Objective 4.7(b) – Retain or enhance riparian vegetation, stream-channel stability, sensitive soils, and water quality where livestock are present.

• Objective 4.7(d) – Require that suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover be retained for wildlife and fish.

Alternatives 4 and 3 comply with Goal 4.7 because riparian function, stream bank stability, and grass height, herbaceous canopy cover, and preferred forb availability would be met or improving conditions towards these objectives while allowing livestock use. Alternative 4 would best provide suitable and adequate amounts of forage and cover for sage grouse followed by Alternatives 3 because Alternative 4 allows a lower forage utilization level. Acceptable effects of grazing livestock have been identified and include soil compaction along fencelines, limited sage grouse injury and mortality associated with collision with fences and nest trampling. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely result in declines in habitat conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats at an unacceptable level and therefore would not comply with Goal 4.7. Alternative 1 does not authorize livestock grazing so unacceptable effects from livestock use are avoided.

Forest-wide Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription - Provide habitat adequate to meet the needs of dependent fish and wildlife populations, including those of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species. (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 123). Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 comply with and contribute towards this prescription because desired habitat conditions would be met. Alternative 2- Grazing as Currently Permitted would likely result in declines in habitat conditions for sage grouse nesting and summer habitats and therefore would not comply with this prescription.

Fencing Riparian Area Guideline – New or rebuilt fences across riparian areas or upland areas adjacent to riparian areas should be built using a wooden top pole or other state-of-the-art marking technique to increase visibility of the fence and reduce possible collision of cranes and waterfowl (P. 125). All alternatives would comply with this guideline.

126

Sensitive Species Management Standard: Quantifiable objectives will be developed to identify and improve the status of Sensitive species and eliminate the need for listing. (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 126). Quantifiable objectives were developed to describe desired conditions for this project based on the Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015, tables 1 and 2). Descriptions of effects by alternative were based on these quantifiable objectives.

Streambank Stability Guideline -- At least 90 percent of the natural bank stability of streams that support a fishery, particularly Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species, and all trout species, should be maintained. Streambank vegetation should be maintained to 80 percent of its potential natural condition or an HCI rating of 85 or greater. Streambank stability vegetation and fish numbers and biomass should be managed by stream type (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 126). Existing conditions would move towards or meet the stream bank stability objectives under Alternatives 1, 4 and 3. Alternative 2 - Grazing as Currently Permitted would not comply with this guideline because no specific livestock management prescription would address areas of concern and riparian utilization levels up to 65 percent may cause downward trend in stream bank stability. See Riparian and Fisheries sections in Chapter 3 and in specialist reports (Robertson 2015, Anderson 2015) for additional discussion of compliance with this guideline.

Range Vegetation Prescription (Forest-wide) — Forage is provided on a sustained-yield basis that protects rangeland values, wildlife habitat, and meets other resource needs (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 127). Alternatives 4 best meets this prescription because livestock forage is provided on a sustained-yield basis and sage grouse habitat is most likely to meet habitat objectives and desired conditions of all the action alternatives. Alternative 3 also complies with this prescription providing livestock forage and suitable sage grouse habitat although potentially of slightly lower habitat quality than Alternative 4 and greater quality than Alternative 2. Alternative 2 does not comply with this prescription because sage grouse habitat would likely decline from existing conditions and would not meet habitat objectives and desired conditions for sage grouse. Alternative 1 does not provide forage to livestock and therefore, this prescription is not applicable.

Fish; Wildlife; and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Standard -- Range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife habitat needs, especially on key habitat areas such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage grouse leks, and nesting sites. Special emphasis will be placed on helping to meet the needs of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 129). Alternatives 3 and 4 comply with this standard because 1) range improvements would meet the needs of sage grouse for example by increasing visibility of fences within 4 miles of leks to reduce collisions and improve upland and riparian conditions for nesting and summer habitats, 2) allowable use levels would improve or maintain habitat condition at desired conditions, or administrative action would be taken, and 3) spring trailing in the livestock driveway would be confined to Forest Service Roads 650, 600 and 660 and area within 200 feet of these roads during the nesting season. This area is likely too close to high visitor use roads to offer suitable sage grouse nesting habitat. Alternative 2 would partially comply with this standard because allowable use levels would not improve or maintain habitat condition at desired conditions, but no new range improvements would be implemented and spring trailing in the livestock driveway would primarily be confined to Forest Service Roads 650, 600 and 660 and area within 200 feet of these roads during the nesting season. This standard is not applicable to Alternative 1 because livestock grazing would be discontinued.

127

Structural Improvement Standard -- Structural improvements will be designed to allow big-game movement and avoid or reduce hazards to other wildlife species (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 129). New structural improvements proposed under Alternative 3 and 4 would comply with this standard because proposed construction and reconstruction of fences within 4 miles of occupied sage grouse leks would be designed to minimize the risk of sage grouse collision with fences. Design features would include wooden top rail, marking fences, laydown fences, and considerations regarding location of fences. Alternative 2 would comply when fence replacement occurs within riparian area. A fence wooden top pole or other state-of–the-art marking technique would be implemented to increase visibility of the fence and reduce possible collision of sage grouse, swans, cranes, and waterfowl. Alternative 1 would remove about 62 miles of fence line which would have the greatest effect on reducing hazards to sage grouse caused by collisions with fences.

Desired Future Condition 10 - Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big-Game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species. Management Emphasis -- Management emphasis is to provide long-term and short term habitat to meet the needs of wildlife managed in balance with timber harvest, grazing, and minerals development. All surface-disturbing activities are designed to have no affect or beneficial effects on wildlife (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 235). Alternative 3 and 4 both comply with this management emphasis because they both balance and provide suitable sage grouse habitat and livestock grazing, but each favor a slightly different balance between providing sage grouse habitat and livestock grazing opportunities. Alternative 4 best provides the most suitable sage grouse habitat while simultaneously providing for less livestock grazing opportunities (permits 35% forage utilization in riparian areas and 50% in uplands). Alternative 3 provides more livestock grazing opportunities (permits 50% forage utilization in riparian and upland areas) while simultaneously providing slightly less suitable sage grouse habitat. Alternative 1 provides the most suitable sage grouse habitat of all alternatives but does not provide livestock grazing opportunities. Alternative 2 provides the most livestock grazing opportunities (permits 50 - 65% forage utilization in upland and riparian areas) but does not provide suitable sage grouse habitat. Alternatives 1 and 2 does not sufficiently balance sage grouse habitat with livestock grazing opportunities.

It is important to note that when livestock grazing is provided in balance with providing suitable sage grouse habitat, acceptable negative effects of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat is expected and acceptable because it is limited in extent and magnitude. The management emphasis statement that “All surface-disturbing activities [e.g. livestock grazing] are designed to have no affect or beneficial effects on wildlife” is un-implementable and contradicts the management emphasis to balance providing wildlife habitat with livestock grazing. Surface-disturbing activities, including even wildlife enhancement projects such as prescribed burns, will benefit some species like aspen-dependent wildlife species or early-succession-dependent species, and negatively impact other species, such as snowshoe hares and lynx or late-succession-dependent species. Therefore, it is unrealistic to solely have “no affect or beneficial effects on wildlife” when providing livestock grazing opportunities. This is a contradiction in the Forest Plan not to allow for some potential acceptable negative effects that are limited in area and magnitude.

Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription -- Groups of species are emphasized, such as early- or late-succession-dependent species, in order to increase species richness or diversity. Habitat is managed to achieve the game and fish populations, harvest levels, success, and recreation-day objectives identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and agreed to by the Forest Service (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 235). The alternatives are analyzed in this

128

report for their effect on sage grouse. See also the other wildlife species discussions in the various wildlife reports (Murphy 2015, Roberts 2015 and D. DeLong 2015)

Vegetation: Range Prescription for DFC 10 and 12 -- Range is managed to maintain and enhance range and watershed condition while providing forage for livestock and wildlife (DFC 10, Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 236), particularly big-game (DFC 12, Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 244). Alternatives 3 and 4 would comply with this prescription because range objectives (ground cover, species composition, and invasive plant objectives) and riparian objectives (riparian function, stream temperature, and stream bank stability) would be met or conditions would improve towards the objectives. Alternative 2 would not comply with this prescription because range objectives and riparian objectives would not be met. Alternative 1 would not comply with this prescription because livestock forage would not be provided. See the Range Vegetation section and Riparian section as-well-as specialist reports (Booth and Hayward 2015, Robertson 2015).

Desired Future Condition 12 – Backcountry Big-Game Hunting, Dispersed Recreation, and Wildlife Security Areas. Management emphasis is on providing such important habitat for big-game as winter ranges, feedgrounds, calving areas, and security areas. Management provides for habitat capability and escape cover, and maintained Semi-primitive Non-motorized opportunities that emphasize big-game hunting activities (Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service 1990, p. 242). See the elk, mule deer, moose and pronghorn section for discussion of compliance with DFC 12.

Forest Service Manual 2670.22 – Sensitive Species

1. Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 comply with this direction. Alternative 1 best meets this direction followed by Alternatives 4, and 3, in descending order of compliance. Alternative 2 does not comply with this direction because sage grouse nesting and summer habitats would decline in quality and would not meet habitat objectives and desired conditions for sage grouse. Alternative 2 would contribute toward a loss of viability of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Alternative 2 would contribute negligibly to a trend towards federal listing because the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area is a negligible proportion of the habitat in Wyoming.

2. Maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. Alternative 1 best meets this direction followed by Alternatives 4, 3, and 2, in descending order of compliance. In maintaining viable populations of sage grouse on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the sage grouse habitat in the Upper Green River project area represents more than 14 percent of the sage grouse habitat on the Forest and is therefore important to the viability of sage grouse on Forest because of the number of birds likely found there, the newly located lek in the area, and the amount of area that serves as nesting and summer habitats for sage grouse that winter to the south on Bureau of Land Management lands.

3. Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of sensitive species. Habitat objectives for sage grouse were developed for this project and were used to describe desired conditions for seasonal habitats (p. 12). Alternatives are evaluated in this report on the expected ability to meet the sage grouse habitat objectives.

129

Greater Sage Grouse Wyoming Plan Amendment (U.S. Forest Service 2015)

Livestock Grazing

GRSG-LG-DC-036-Desired Condition – In priority and general habitat management areas, sagebrush focal areas, and within lek buffers, livestock grazing is managed to maintain or move towards desired habitat conditions (in the Sage Grouse Amendment table 1). Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 would manage livestock to maintain or move existing conditions towards desired habitat conditions, in decreasing order of habitat quality. Alternative 2 would not meet desired habitat conditions.

GRSG-LG-GL-037-Guideline – Grazing guidelines in Sage Grouse Amendment Table 2 should be applied in each of the seasonal habitats. If values in table 2 cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using Ecological Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site potential analysis, or other similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move towards desired habitat conditions in table 1 consistent with the ecological site potential. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values. Grazing guidelines in table 2 would not apply to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat.

Sage Grouse Amendment Table 2. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat.

Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines Areas managed for breeding and nesting1 within 5.3 miles of occupied leks

Perennial grass height:2 When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (from March 15 to June 30) manage for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches.3,5,6 Measure average droop height, assuming current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. Heights will be measured at the end of the nesting period (Connelly et al. 2000). When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from July 1 to November 30) manage for 4 inches5,9 of upland perennial grass height

Areas managed for brood rearing and summer habitat1

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from July 1 to November 30) retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian/mesic meadow vegetation in all7 greater sage-grouse habitat. 8,10

Winter <35% utilization of sagebrush 1 For descriptions of seasonal habitat and seasonal periods of greater sage-grouse see table 1. 2 Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with >10% sagebrush cover to support nesting. 3 Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. 5 Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50. 6Due to variability of annual precipitation and forage production 7”stubble height may not be possible every year, even in the absence of livestock grazing. 7 All GRSG habitat with greater than 10% sagebrush cover irrespective of lek buffers and designated habitat management areas. 8 In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower vegetation (5–15 cm vs. 30–50 cm; Oakleaf 1971, Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing in spring and early summer (Neel 1980, Evans 1986); moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges and 5-cm for Kentucky bluegrass (Mosley et al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000) (Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and Management of sage-grouse grouse habitat). 9 Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season.

130

10 Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by the greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric greenline). These meadows typically have sagebrush within 328 feet of the meadow.

If necessary, administrative action would be implemented under all action alternatives to bring sage grouse habitat in compliance with this livestock grazing guideline as directed by the Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision (U.S. Forest Service 2015). The following assessment is based solely upon the alternatives as described in Chapter 2 without implementation of undisclosed administrative action.

When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season, Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 would comply with the 7-inch perennial grass height from March 15 to June 30 in areas managed for nesting. This assessment was made based on site specific monitoring and because only the first pasture would be grazed by livestock and the maximum utilization would likely not be reached by June 30th. When grazing occurs post nesting season (from July 1 to November 30), Alternatives 1, 4 and 3 (in decreasing order of compliance) would comply with the 4 inches of upland perennial grass height in the nesting habitat. This assessment was based on monitoring and because livestock grazing is often concentrated in riparian/meadow areas at the end of the grazing season and maximum utilization would likely not be reached. Alternative 2 would not comply with this guideline if maximum utilization were reached because 60 percent forage utilization in the uplands would likely leave less than 4-inch stubble height remaining across the nesting habitat. However, Alterative 2 may comply with the 4-inch stubble height retention because livestock grazing is often concentrated in riparian/meadow areas at the end of the grazing season and maximum utilization would likely not be reached.

Alternatives 1, and 4 (in decreasing order of herbaceous height) would comply with this guideline to retain an average stubble height of 4 inches of herbaceous vegetation in meadows managed for sage grouse brood rearing. Alternatives 3 may not initially comply with this guideline, with moderate uncertainty, until additional administrative action is taken because 50 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow areas with a 4-inch stubble height along the greenline may be insufficient to meet a 4-inch stubble height across the meadow brood rearing habitat. Alternative 2 is least likely to comply with this guideline unless additional administrative action is taken because 55 to 65 percent forage utilization in the riparian/meadow areas would likely leave less than a 4-inch stubble height average across the brood rearing meadow habitat based on monitoring and scientific literature (Crawford et al. 2004, Clary and Webster 1989; Kinney and Clary 1994, BLM 1999; and 2014/2015 data).

GRSG-LG-GL-GL-041-Guideline – From March 15 through June 30, trailing livestock should be limited to existing trails. Specific routes and timeframes should be identified; existing trails should be used; and stopovers on occupied leks should be avoided. New trailing activities should be assessed to determine a route that will minimize impacts to the greater sage-grouse and its habitats. Where credible data based upon field analysis support different timeframes for the seasonal restriction, dates may be shifted by either 14 days before or subsequent to the above dates, but not both. All action alternatives (Alternative 2-4) comply with this guideline because cattle are actively herded to the allotments in the spring using the livestock driveway which includes portions the Forest Service Road 650, 600 and 660 and generally extends 200 feet on either side of the road. The livestock driveway was enrolled on the National Register of Historic Places in 2013 and has been used for more than one hundred years. This guideline would not pertain to Alternative 1 because livestock would not be permitted to graze the six allotments.

131

GRSG-LG-GL-042-Guideline – Collision risk associated with existing fences within 1.2 miles of leks should be minimized through removal or modification (e.g. marking, laydown fences, or other design features). All alternatives would comply with this guideline over time as existing fences within 1.2 miles of leks with risk of collision would be marked to increase visibility. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, new fences within 1.2 miles of leks would be modified (e.g. marked) to minimize collisions.

GRSG-LG-GL-043-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new permanent livestock facilities, except fences, should not be constructed within 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks. In general habitat management areas, new permanent livestock facilities should not be constructed within 0.25 miles of occupied leks. All alternatives comply with this guideline because no new permanent livestock facility would be constructed within 0.6 miles of occupied leks or potential leks.

Predators

GRSG-PR-GL-102-Guideline – Efforts by other agencies to minimize impacts from predators on the greater sage-grouse should be supported and encouraged where needs have been documented. Predator control efforts conducted by Wildlife Services would continue under all action alternatives and therefore, these alternatives would comply with this guideline. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), predator control efforts would likely not continue in the project area.

Summary of Findings Relative to Forest Plan Direction Table 9 illustrates, in comparative terms, how each alternative would address the main provisions of the Forest Plan with respect to wildlife (how each alternative relates to the others). The extent to which Forest Plan direction and other directives would be met under each alternative is summarized in each of the main headings, above.

Table 9 Relative rankings of how each alternative addresses Forest Plan direction related to wildlife, grazing, and resource protection (1 = highest rank, 4 = lowest rank)

Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, Prescriptions, Guidelines, and DFCs

Alt. 1 –

No Livestock Grazing

Alt. 2 – Grazing as Currently Permitted

Alt. 3 – Modified Grazing Management

Alt. 4 – Modified Grazing Management with Riparian Emphasis

Interim Direction on greater sage grouse 1 4 3 2

Forest Plan Goal 3.3 - Prevent sensitive species from becoming a federally listed species

1 4 3 2

Forest Plan Goal 4.7 – Avoid unacceptable effects from livestock use. Objective 4.7(b) and 4.7(d)

N/A 3 2 1

132

Forest-wide Fisheries and Wildlife Prescription - provide habitat adequate to meet the needs of dependent fish and wildlife populations

1 4 3 2

Fencing Riparian Area Guideline – New or rebuilt fences across riparian areas or upland areas adjacent to riparian areas should be built using a state-of-the-art marking technique

1 1 1 1

Sensitive Species Management Standard: Quantifiable objectives will be developed to identify and improve the status of Sensitive species and eliminate the need for listing. Consistency with desired conditions identified.

Quantifiable objectives were developed to describe desired conditions for sage grouse in this project.

1 4 3 2

Streambank Stability Guideline 1 4 3 2

Fish; Wildlife; and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Standard -- Range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife habitat needs, especially on key habitat areas such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage grouse leks, and nesting sites.

N/A 4 3 2

Range Vegetation Prescription (Forest-wide) — Forage is provided on a sustained-yield basis that protects rangeland values, wildlife habitat, and meets other resource needs.

N/A forage is not provided for livestock

3 2 1

Structural Improvement Standard -- Structural improvements will be designed to allow big-game movement and avoid or reduce hazards to other wildlife species

1 1 1 1

Desired Future Condition 10 - Simultaneous Development of Resources, Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big-Game and a Wide Variety of Wildlife Species.

4 3 1 1

Vegetation: Range Prescription for DFC 10 and 12 -- Range is managed to maintain and enhance range and watershed condition while providing forage for livestock and wildlife

3 3 2 1

FSM 2672.1 policy requirement: consider the extent to which each alternative may contribute

1 (least contribute

4 (most contribute

3 2

133

to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of R4 Sensitive Species

s to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of R4 Sensitive Species)

s to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability)

GRSG-LG-DC-036-Desired Condition 1 4 3 2

GRSG-LG-GL-037-Guideline grass height in Table 2

1 4 3 2

GRSG-LG-GL-GL-041-Guideline: From March 15 through June 30, trailing livestock should be limited to existing trails.

- 3 2 1

GRSG-LG-GL-042-Guideline: Collision risk associated with existing fences within 1.2 miles of leks should be minimized through removal or modification

1 4 3 2

GRSG-LG-GL-043-Guideline: New permanent livestock facilities, except fences, should not be constructed within 0.6 or 0.25 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks.

1 1 1 1

GRSG-PR-GL-102-Guideline – Efforts by other agencies to minimize impacts from predators on the greater sage-grouse should be supported and encouraged where needed.

2 1 1 1

Monitoring Recommendations: Monitor nesting and summer habitats in order to maintain an adequate amount of suitable nesting and brood rearing habitat within the allotments as defined in Table 1 and Table 2. Use the protocol outlined in the Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2015) or comparable method to conduct habitat monitoring. If habitat monitoring indicates that existing conditions for herbaceous canopy cover, grass height, herbaceous height in riparian/mesic meadow vegetation, preferred forb availability and riparian function does not meet desired conditions, then administrative actions would be implemented, as necessary, to modify livestock grazing management in order to meet or move towards desired conditions. Recommendation: I recommend that the adaptive management as outlined in Alternatives 3 and 4 in the FEIS for this

134

project (U.S. Forest Service 2015) be applied to sage grouse habitat objectives. The adaptive management is generally an option for incremental reduction in forage utilization to minimum of 30 percent and/or increase in stubble height along the greenline of streams to 6-inches. These management actions would effectively move existing conditions towards desired sage grouse habitat conditions, when livestock use is determined to be a limiting factor.

135

Literature Cited Anderson, M. 2015. Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project: Fisheries report. Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Pinedale, Wyoming.

Aldridge, C. L., and R. M. Brigham. 2002. Sage-grouse nesting and brood habitat use in southern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:433–444.

Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:993–1002.

Bohne, J. 2015. Technical review and analysis of scientific information for the conservation of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on the Bridger Teton National Forest. Sundance Consulting and U.S. Forest Service. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, WY. 123 p.

Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for maintenance of sage-grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:99-106.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proc. of the West. Assoc. of St. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 78:139-156.

Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Crowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155pp.

Call, M.W. 1979. Habitat requirements and management recommendations for sage grouse. USDI-BLM Denver Serv. Center Tech. Note 330.

Christiansen, 2009 Fence marking to reduce greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) collisions and mortality near Farson, Wyoming- Summary of interim results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 3 pp.

Christiansen, T. 2011. Status of Sage-grouse Population Trends and Conservation Efforts in Wyoming as of July 1, 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Report. Cheyenne , WY.6pp.

Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. Nest predation of greater sage grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. J. Wildlife Management 74(2)240-248.

Connelly, J. W., H. W. Browers, and R. J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:116–122.

Connelly, J. W., and O. D. Markham. 1983. Movements and radionuclide concentrations of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:169–177.

Connelly, J.W., M. A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society bulletin 28: 967-985.

Crawford, J.A, R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Synthesis Paper: Ecology and management of sage grouse and sage grouse habitat. J. Range Manage. 57:2-19.

136

Crist, M.R., S.T. Knick, and S.E. Hanser. 2015. Range-wide network of priority areas for greater sage grouse – A design for conserving connected distributions or isolating individual zoos? Open-File Report 2015-1158. Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR 97330. 34 p.

DeLong, A. K., J. A. Crawford, and D. C. DeLong, JR. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88–92.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, B.L. Walker, J.M. Graham and J.L. Beck. 2014. Linking conservation actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage grouse nest survival.

Drut, M. S., J. A. Crawford, and M. A. Gregg. 1994. Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54: 170–176.

Evans, C. 1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of meadow habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nev., Reno, Nevada.

Fischer, R.A., W.L. Wakkinen, K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Nesting-area fidelity of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Condor 95:1038–1041.

Fulgham, K.O., M.A. Smith, and J.C. Malechek. 1982. A compatible grazing relationship can exist between domestic sheep and mule deer, p. 458–478. In: J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke (eds.) Proc. of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symp. Idaho For., Wildl. and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, Ida.

Garton, E.O, A.G. Wells. J.A. Baumgardt, and J.W. Connelly. 2015. Greater sage grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Final Report to Pew Charitable Trusts. 18 March 2015.

Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W. & Schroeder, M.A. 2007: A meta-analysis of greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. - Wildl. Biol. 13 (Suppl. 1): 42-50.

Holechek, J.L., R. Valdez, S.D. Schemnitz, R.D. Pieper, and C.A. Davis. 1982. Manipulation of grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat. Wild. Soc. Bull. 10:204–210.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage grouse nests in relatively continuous sagebrush habitats. Condor: 107:742-752.

Holloran, M.J., B. J. Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Greater sage grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Management 69(2):638–649

Homer, C.G., G.Z. Xian, C.L. Aldridge, D.K. Meyer, T.R. Loveland, and M.S. O’Donnell. 2015. Forecasting sagebrush ecosystem components and greater sage grouse habitat for 2050: learning from past climate patterns and Landsat imagery to predict the future. Ecological Indicators 55(2015)131-145.

Klebenow, D. A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:649–662.

137

Klebenow, D. A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse, p. 113–123. In: J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke (eds.) Proc. of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium. Idaho For., Wildl., and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Martin, N. S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife Management 34: 313–320.

Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage grouse response to grazing management in Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada. Reno, Nev.

Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. Relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada. Reno, Nev.

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Denver, Colorado. USA.

Popham, G. P., and R. J. Gutie´rrez. 2003. Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting success and habitat use in northeastern California. Wildlife Biology 9:327–334.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, C. Noble, J Staats. 2003. Riparian area management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic areas. Bureau of Land Managaement, National Applied Research Science Center, Technical Reference 1737-16, Denver, Colorado.

Pyle, W. H., and J. A. Crawford. 1996. Availability of foods of sage grouse chicks following prescribed fire in sagebrush–bitterbrush. Journal of Range Management 49:320–324.

Rasmussen, D.I. and L.A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management studies of the sage grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting and feeding habits. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Conf. 3:852–864.

Robertson, T. 2015. Upper Green Allotment EIS: Hydrology Specialist Report. Greys River Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Afton, Wyoming.

Savage, D. E. 1969. Relation of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Nevada Fish and Game Commission, Job Completion Report, Project W-39-R-9, Job 12, Reno, Nevada, USA.

Schulwitz, S., B. Bedrosian, J.A. Johnson. 2014. Low neutral genetic diversity in isolated greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in northwest Wyoming. The Condor 116: 560-573.

Smith, M.A., J.C. Malechek and K.O. Fulgham. 1979. Forage selection by mule deer on winter range grazed by sheep in spring. J. Range Manage. 32:40–45.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage grouse comprehensive strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. 135 p.

Tart, D.L. 1996. Big sagebrush plant associations of the Pinedale Ranger District. Bridger-East Ecological Unit Inventory, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Pinedale, Wyoming. 104p.

138

Upper Green River Basin Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2007. Upper Green River Basin Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. 97 p.

Upper Snake River Basin Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2008. Upper Snake River Basin Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. 2015. Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 55, March 23, 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage- Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.

U.S. Forest Service 1997. Bridger-Teton National Forest PFC [Properly Functioning Condition] Assessment. 40pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Deputy Chief Holtrop memo to Regional Foresters, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-6 dated on July 1, 2010. Subject: Sage grouse and sagebrush conservation. 2 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Interim conservation recommendations for greater sage grouse and greater sage grouse habitat: U.S. Forest Service Regions 1, 2, and 4. 11 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Deputy Chief Weldon memo to Regional Foresters, R-1, R-2, and R-4, dated on October 2, 2012. Subject: Conservation and protection of greater sage grouse and its habitat. 2 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2015. Greater sage-grouse record of decision for Northwest Colorado and Wyoming and land management plan amendments for the Routt National Forest, Thunder Basin National Grassland, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest. September 2015. Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah and Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado. 182 p.

U.S. Forest Service 2015. Upper Green River Area rangeland project, final environmental impact statement. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Pinedale Ranger District, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009. Wildlife Observation System. Jackson Field Office. Accessed through non-game biologist S. Patla on 8/31/2009. Jackson, Wyoming

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. Final Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. June 24, 2003. Cheyenne, WY USA.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2011. University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY USA. October 2011 update.

Credentials for Anita K. DeLong Career Experience:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Assistant Refuge Manager and Wildlife Biologist (10 years)

139

• U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Coordinator (4 years)

Education: • Bachelor’s of Science – Zoology Major, Colorado State University (1985) • Master’s of Science – Wildlife Science Major, Oregon State University (1993)

Publications: DeLong, A. K., J. A. Crawford, and D. C. DeLong, JR. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88–92.

Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Grau, and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of wedge-tailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15: 453-463.

Certification: Certified Wildlife Biologist with the Wildlife Society –1998