49 usc 303 - Wyoming Department of Transportation

FHWA··WY -EA-11-02

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Wyoming 70

Baggs ·· Encampment

Dry Sandstone Slide

Carbon County

APPROVED:

Wyoming Department of Transportation and

US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Submitted Pursuant to

42 USC 4332(2) (c), 23 USC 128(a),

49 usc

303

Timothy L. Stark , P .

E.

Environmental Services Engineer

Wyoming Department of

Transportation

..,/}'1__j oseph Dailey r

Division Administrator

Wyoming Division


:Z-13 IZ

Date Date

Comments on this Environmental Assessment are due by March 15, 2012 and should be sent to Timothy L. Stark at the address on the Summary Sheet.

SUMMARY SHEET

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

1. TYPE OF ACTION

Administrative - Environmental Assessment

2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Timothy L. Stark, P.E.

Environmental Services

Engineer

Wyoming Department of Transportation

5300 Bishop Blvd.

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009-

3340

Telephone: (307) 777-4379

FAX: (307) 777-4193

Randy Strang, P.E.

Environmental Program Engineer


2617 East Lincolnway Suite D

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001-5662

Telephone: (307) 772-2949

FAX: (307) 772-2011

E-mail: randy.strang@dot.gov

E-mail: timothy.stark@wyo.gov

3. DESCRIPTION

This Environmental Assessment examines the associated environmental impacts for the remediation of approximately 0.9 miles of Wyoming 70, reference marker 30.5, due to a landslide that destroyed a section of the road. Geologic investigation determined the area is still prone to landslides. Therefore, the proposal involves providing a new alignment including: grading, draining, placing subgrade and surfacing, obliterating old roadway and reclamation.

4. EFFECTS

A. Relocation of roadway to a stable geology.

B. Minimal impact to traffic.

C. Noise levels would increase during construction.

E. Impacts would occur to approximately 35 acres (16 hectares) of forest.

F. Grazing allotment special use permittees would be temporarily affected.

Mitigation measures for these impacts have been summarized in Table 3.1, Section

3.18, page 16.

Wyo 70 Environmental Assessment 2

Forest Plan Direction___________________________________

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine Bow National Forest

(Forest Plan 2003) provides guidance for all resource management activities on the Forest. In addition to establishing forest-wide goals and objects for management activities, the Forest Plan also provides management direction at three different geographic scales. The broadest scale, which outlines the most general and basic direction, is applicable to the entire forest (forest-wide standards and guidelines). From there, the direction becomes more focused and applies to

Geographic Areas and Management Areas, respectively. Any proposal to implement the Forest

Plan, including the Proposed Action, must consider the direction provided at each scale. The following information identifies direction applicable to the proposal at the geographic scales.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines____________________



Limit roads and other disturbed sites to a minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operation, local topography, and climate.

(Soil Standard 1, p. 1-28)



Activities will be managed to avoid disturbance to sensitive species and species of local concern, which would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential for disturbance, topography, location of important habitat components and other pertinent factors.

Special attention will be given during breeding, young rearing, and other times which are critical to survival of both flora and fauna.

(TES Species Standard 15, p. 1-44)

Transportation

The Forest Plan contains the following direction that is pertinent to the transportation system for this analysis:

Goal 2a: Provide winter and summer non-motorized and motorized opportunities for a wide variety of uses and experiences consistent with other resource objectives.

Road reconstruction will provide access to forest lands for a variety of outdoor activities.

Goal 4a: Improve the safety and economy of Forest Service roads and trails, and provide greater security for the public and employees.

Road reconstruction will provide for safer travel and a reliable corridor for access to forest lands.

National Goals – Recreation – FSM 2302 #3: To provide public transportation and/or access to

National Forest recreation opportunities.

Road reconstruction will improve accessibility and reliable travel to recreation opportunities.

Geographic Area (GA) Objectives and Strategies

Geographic Areas are watersheds or aggregations of watersheds, 125,000 acres or smaller, in which management is directed toward achieving a specific desired condition. Analyses at the

GA level provide a framework for short and long-term projects, for monitoring the effectiveness of forest-wide and management area standards and guidelines, and for achieving forest-wide


goals and objectives. The Proposed Action analysis contains portions of the South Savery

Geographic Area. ). This GA does not include any Forest Plan standards and guidelines that would prohibit or otherwise restrict road reconstruction activities.



Geographic Area Desired Condition includes – Scenic quality will be maintained along the Battle mountain Highway

Management Area (MA) Standards and Guidelines

The road reconstruction activities proposed for Highway 70 is located entirely in Management

Area 4.2 – Scenery. This MA does not contain any standards or guidelines that restrict or otherwise preclude road reconstruction activities.



Theme – Areas are managed for scenic values and recreation uses of designated scenic byways and other heavily used scenic travel corridors

The Proposed Action alternative has been designed with and include recommended best management practices, which if effectively implemented, would be consistent with the recreation resource Forest Plan standards and guidelines.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................ 6

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 6

1.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................ 6

1.3 NEED ................................................................................................................... 6

2 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 7

2.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................. 7

2.3 ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION ........................... 7

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND

MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................. 11

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................. 11

3.3 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 11

3.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION ................................... 12

3.6 RECREATION .................................................................................................... 12

3.8 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 13

3.9 RIGHT-OF-WAY / RELOCATION ....................................................................... 13

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC ............................................................................................ 13

3.11 UTILITIES ........................................................................................................... 14

3.12 VEGETATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 14

3.13 WATERS OF THE U.S./WETLANDS ................................................................. 15

3.15 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................... 15

3.16 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................ 17

3.17 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................ 18

4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 19

Appendix A Agency Correspondence ............................................................................ 20

Appendix B Public Comment ......................................................................................... 21

Appendix C Geology Memorandum .............................................................................. 29

Appendix D Biological Evaluation .................................................................................. 30


1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) is proposing to remediate a portion of WYO Highway 70 between Baggs, population 400, and Encampment, population 500, at reference marker (RM) 30.5. The project is located in Carbon County within the Medicine

Bow/Routt National Forest, 30.5 miles east of Baggs, 27 miles west of Encampment. The project is approximately 0.9 miles in length. The highway was reconstructed in the late

1980’s, and is comprised of 2 twelve-foot travel lanes and three-foot shoulders. This highway is classified as a rural major collector. The year 2010 average daily traffic count was 143 vehicles per day with 7% trucks. There have been no crashes reported within one mile either side of this location.

Figure 1

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the project is to provide a safe roadway that accommodates two-way traffic in a geologically stable environment.

1.3 NEED

In the spring of 2011 a portion of Wyoming Highway 70 between Baggs and Encampment was damaged by a substantial landslide just west of the Bear Peak Overlook, around reference marker (RM) 31, which resulted in a loss of a section of the road. WYDOT constructed a temporary one lane roadway with a crushed base surface within the landslide area. The WYDOT Geology Program December 19, 2011 Memorandum recommends abandoning this area due to the high cost of remediation and risk of future landslides (see

Appendix C). Because of the load restriction on the detour, stock and some commercial trucks cannot use this road.


2 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERATIVE

This alternative would leave the site as it currently exists: one 12-foot wide road, approximately 1000 feet long with a crushed base surface in the active landslide area. This alternative would not address the geologic instability which would increase risk to the travelling public due to the threat of more landslides during the operation of the road.

2.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative consists of realigning the roadway to the north approximately one half mile to avoid the landslide area completely. The roadway section would have the same width as the existing alignment. The realignment would be approximately 0.9 miles long and have a 9.8% grade for approximately 2000 feet. The project would take two construction seasons to complete. The majority of construction would be off the existing highway, so only limited traffic delays would occur. The proposed project features are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

The construction of the preferred alternative would also include:



Removing timber on approximately 35 acres of forest for the realignment,



A new approach to the Overlook Parking area (preserved and maintained by

WYDOT),



Because of the steep grade, a twelve-foot deceleration lane would be built for the east bound lane to provide safe turning movements into the approach to the overlook,



Other informal approaches would be built to access existing facilities,



Using the Quartzite Pit will likely involve blasting, crushing, stockpiling and hauling aggregate, as well as using a hot plant at the site.



Acquiring water from the Belvedere ditch for material compaction and dust control



Associated obliteration and reclamation of the existing road in the landslide area; and landscaping and revegetation of the disturbed areas adjacent to the new road and pit.



Requiring construction equipment to be clean prior to entering the Forest.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Reconstruct the road on the existing alignment. This alternative was dismissed due to the Geologic Memorandum, Attachment C, explaining the landslide to be quite large and active and the relatively high cost to remediate the instability. There is a high risk the landslide will remain active resulting in further maintenance or reconstruction of the roadway.



Figure 1


Figure 2

2.4 MATERIALS SOURCE AND PLANT SITE

The material source and plant site for the proposed realignment alternative is the

Quartzite Pit; an existing gravel pit adjacent to the highway just due east of the Lost

Creek Camp Ground, reference marker (RM) 39. The site is approximately 5 acres

(Figure 3) and would be used to mine, crush and chip aggregate, in addition to the hot plant. Blasting may be necessary. The project will need less than 10,000 cubic yards of material and should be able to stay within the disturbed area.


Figure 3

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1 AIR

Impacts to air quality from the No-Action Alternative would include localized increases in pollution due to future anticipated maintenance or reconstruction needs from ongoing landslide activities.

The Preferred Alternative would result in short-term increases in air pollution from construction related traffic and increases in particulate emissions from ground disturbance.

Particulate or dust emissions would be minimized during construction by implementation of best management practices to control dust, such as regular watering of construction related disturbed areas.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11,

1994, directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and/or adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low income populations to the greatest extent practicable or permitted by law.

The project corridor has no known minority or low income groups or neighborhoods located within the project study area. The preferred alternative would not have an adverse effect on any population.

3.3 GEOLOGY

There is a large shallow surface failure (approximate 20 foot depth) within the existing road running for approximately 500 feet longitudinally. The major contributing factor to the instability is an abundance of snow storage (high saturation potential) and steep terrain above the existing road slope. The no-action alternative would not address this area, resulting in continual maintenance to clean up slumping soils or to repair the roadway due to failures.

The proposed re-alignment alternative would shift the roadway to the north and out of the unstable area.

3.4 HAZARDOUS

No known contaminated or hazardous waste sites will be disturbed by this project. If hazardous waste is encountered during construction, the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be consulted and appropriate action taken.


3.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION

A class III cultural resource inventory encompassing all alternatives, potential construction permit areas, and the Quartzite Pit has been completed. Four isolated historic aspen carvings occur - none of which will be impacted by the preferred alternative. In consultation with the USFS, these have been recorded as Isolated Resources and will be recommended as not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Temporary fencing will be placed to ensure that no aspen carvings are affected. The final report has been submitted to

SHPO with a determination of no historic properties adversely affected and with the standard stipulation noted below.

If any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area will halt immediately, the federal agency and SHPO staff be contacted, and the materials evaluated by an archeologist or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional

Qualification Standards (48 FR 22716, Sept. 1983).

3.6 RECREATION

The project corridor is within the Medicine Bow National Forest. Recreation includes year round use, including sightseeing and camping; hunting (primarily in the fall); all terrain vehicle use in the summer and snowmobile use in the winter.

The no action alternative will delay traffic due to the single lane road. Also, given the high risk of future landslides closing the road, recreation activities could be impacted.

The preferred alternative will provide safer access for recreationists.

Winter and summer recreation would not be negatively impacted by the preferred alternative since it would be built off alignment while still providing access.

The Lost Creek Campground is approximately one quarter mile from the Quartzite Pit.

Operations at the pit will temporary and short term in nature. Therefore, no 4(f) impacts are anticipated.

Land use at the project site includes permitted livestock grazing. The project area is within a sheep grazing allotment. There would be continued land use impacts from the No-Action

Alternative, given the load restriction on the detour for commercial trucks.

The preferred alternative will provide safer access for a variety of land uses.

The construction corridor would encompass approximately 66 acres for the realignment, old road rehabilitation, and construction of approaches, including to the overlook parking.


Within the construction corridor, approximately 35 acres of timber will need to be removed for the new alignment. Merchantable timber will be hauled off site. Non merchantable timber and slash will be disposed of as approved by the USFS.

The construction of this alternative would start in summer 2012 and complete fall 2013. The old roadway would be reclaimed at the end of that time. To provide the most successful revegetation of the disturbed areas, grazing would need to be precluded from summer

2012 through fall 2015.

The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 0.9 miles of new roadway; obliteration and reclamation of approximately 0.6 miles of old roadway; preservation of old highway to access the Bear Peak Overlook at the east and Forest Service access to the west. This will result in about 1.5 acres (0.66 Ha) of additional permanent loss of land used for grazing and recreation.

Construction impacts are of short duration and will be mitigated by reclaiming and revegetating the cut and fill slopes and the obliterated portion of the old road as soon as possible.

3.8 NOISE

The proposed project has no noise receptors.

3.9 RIGHT-OF-WAY / RELOCATION

Right-way is not needed for the no-action alternative.

The preferred alternative will require new right-of-way for the realigned section of road.

Right-of-way will be abandoned on the portion of the existing highway that will be obliterated. The existing overlook will remain as right-of-way as well as the portion of existing highway that will be used to access it in the future.

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC

Under the no-action alternative traffic would be relegated to the single travel lane and be in jeopardy of road closures due to subsequent landslides. These closures would affect commercial truck traffic due to load restrictions.

For the preferred alternative the highway will be constructed on a new alignment so activities will not affect travel routes. Traffic will be maintained through the existing alignment during construction so access will not be affected - other than a short interval when the realigned road section to the existing road. Because traffic flow will be maintained, there will not be negative socioeconomic impacts.

The preferred alternative will reestablish commercial traffic.


3.11 UTILITIES

The only utility in the project area is a water line approximately 200 feet south of the existing roadway. The waterline will not be impacted.

Access to the waterline will be maintained. No relocation of the waterline is necessary.

3.12 VEGETATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES

The project traverses rural landscape. The primary vegetation type in the project corridor is coniferous forest with stands of aspen and small, primarily grass, meadows. The Quartzite

Pit is a previously disturbed area surrounded by coniferous forest and has been used as an aggregate and borrow site in the past.

Rare Plants

Pre-field review identified 11 USFS Region 2 sensitive plant species and 5 USFS species of local concern with potential for habitat within the project area (WYNDD 2011, K. Haynes pers. comm. 2011). Field surveys were conducted by the Forest Service in July 2011 and no sensitive or local concern species were discovered. Suitable but unoccupied habitat was found for one Sensitive species, slender moonwort ( Botrychium lineare ). Analysis of effects to rare plant species and habitats is available in Appendix D, Biological Evaluation.

Vegetation Resources

The loss of plant communities and disturbance through the project area will be reduced in size by the successful reclamation of the new highway cut and fill slopes, and old alignment obliteration and reclamation following construction activities. The mitigation objective is to reclaim disturbed areas within the reconstruction corridor to blend with the natural appearance and ecological functions of the surrounding environment. To assure this

WYDOT will incorporate reclamation features into the design plans in consultation and coordination with the Forest Service. Yearly monitoring, by both WYDOT and USFS personnel, of revegetation will occur until both parties agree to success. Success will be based on desirable vegetation reaching an agreed upon percent cover of background.

The spread of undesirable and noxious weeds will be minimized by WYDOT requiring the road contractor to have thoroughly clean equipment on site. Post construction monitoring will occur in coordination with the Forest Service.

Visual impacts of the preferred alternative beyond those of the no action alternative include new cut and fill slopes in a previously undisturbed area. The plants that will be lost through the corridor due to the preferred alternative are common trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses.

Visual impacts will be mitigated by rounding cut slopes to blend in to the background, feathering tree lines to look more natural, as well as possible vegetative planting and boulder placement to screen certain features. Furthermore, the old alignment will be obliterated and reclaimed to the extent that it will not cause more geologic instabilities.

Some vegetation may be planted at the ends of the old road to aid in screening the site.

3.13 WATERS OF THE U.S./WETLANDS


The no-action and the preferred alternative are not adjacent to any waters of the U.S., except for a very small isolated wetland adjacent to the existing road, which will not be affected. The project is not in a designated floodway or floodplain. There are drainages that could possibly convey construction related sediment laden water. To prevent this from occurring, during construction of the new alignment, old roadway obliteration and reclamation, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented by WYDOT for the project in conformance with Wyoming Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (WYPDES). Best Management Practices (BMPs) employed under the

SWPPP may include silt fences, ditch checks, contour ditches, slope drains and erosion control blankets. The Highway contractor will be required to prepare a spill contingency plan for any petroleum products, solvents or other hazardous materials in use or in storage at the work site. Those actions taken to preserve the water quality will also serve to protect the quality of the fisheries.

3.14 FISHERIES

There are no bodies of water within the Highway 70 project area. However, the Belvedere ditch is adjacent and does contain fish. The ditch will be needed to obtain water for dust control and compaction purposes. Use of ditch is conditional on maintaining adequate water flow for the fishery, not impacting the prioritized downstream user, and obtaining the

State Engineer permit with relevant Colorado River depletion allowance.

3.15 WILDLIFE

The Biological Evaluation has been completed by WYDOT (see Appendix B). The US

Forest Service (USFS) prepares Biological Evaluations (BE) which include analyses for threatened or endangered species and those species considered sensitive by the USFS.

The proposed project area contains habitat for the potential occurrence of USFS sensitive species.

Raptor Nesting Habitat

No raptor nests were observed within the project area or borrow pit. Potential raptor nest substrates (e.g., trees) were observed within the project area or immediate surrounding vicinity. WYNDD provided observation information in the project township (T13N R87W) for the following raptor species: golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ), flammulated owl ( Otus flammeolus ), sharp-eared owl ( Asio flammeus ), and northern goshawk ( Accipiter gentilis ).

Big Game

According to the WGFD, the road construction project area occurs within spring/summer/fall range for mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and elk ( Cervus canadensis ). The project area is also classified as winter/year-long habitat for elk. The borrow site occurs within sections that have bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ), elk, and mule deer spring/summer/fall habitat. There is no designated crucial habitat for big game within the project area.

USFS Sensitive Species

The following USFS sensitive species were reported by WYNDD (2011) as occurring within


the project area township (T13N R87W): northern goshawk, greater sage-grouse

( Centrocercus urophasianus ), flammulated owl, American three-toed woodpecker ( Picoides dorsalis ), Brewer’s sparrow ( Spizella breweri ), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

( Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus ), boreal toad ( Anaxyrus boreas boreas ), northern leopard frog ( Lithobates pipiens ), Colorado river cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus ), and Wyoming pocket gopher ( Thomomys clusius ).

The following USFS sensitive species were reported by WYNDD (2011) as occurring within the project area township (T14N R86W): northern goshawk, short-eared owl, American three-toed woodpecker, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, and Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Habitat for some of these species is present within the project area and therefore these species have the potential to occur within appropriate habitat in the project area. Due to the lack of water within the site, there are no fisheries present and amphibian species are not likely to utilize the project area. Similarly, due to the dense forest cover present within the project area, species such as sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, and

Wyoming pocket gopher are not likely to utilize the project area.

No USFS sensitive species were observed during the site visit.

Species of Local Concern

The USFS identified three species of local concern along Hwy 70: brown creeper ( Certhia americana ), brown-capped rosy finch ( Leucosticte australis ), and pika ( Ochotona princeps figginsi ).

Brown creeper . Preferred habitat includes forest, woodlands, forested floodplains, and swamps. Scrub and parks are also used in winter and during migration. Most often found in coniferous and mixed forests. A component of dead trees is essential for nesting, so brown creepers tend to be associated with older forests (NatureServe). Suitable habitat for the species does occur in the project area; however, no old growth coniferous forests were observed.

Brown-capped rosy-finch . Preferred habitat includes barren, rocky or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or beyond timberline. Nests usually located in rock crevices or holes in cliffs (NatureServe 2011). The project area is located within heavy timber away from talus slopes or cliffs. The species is unlikely to occur within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Pika . Restricted to rocky talus slopes, primarily the talus-meadow interface. The species can be found at lower elevations in rocky areas within forests or near lakes (NatureServe

2011). While the project area is located within a forested area, no “rocky” areas were observed. The species is unlikely to occur within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Other Wildlife

Other wildlife species documented within the road construction project area township (T13N


R87W) by WYNDD (2011) include: golden eagle, American dipper ( Cinclus mexicanus ),

Hammond’s flycatcher ( Empidonax hammondii ), sandhill crane ( Grus canadensis ), whitewinged crossbill ( Loxia leucoptera ), golden-crowned kinglet ( Regulus satrapa ), Williamson’s sapsucker ( Sphyrapicus thyroideus ), calliope hummingbird ( Stellula calliope ), and creeping ancylid ( Ferrissia rivularis ).

Other wildlife species documented within the borrow site project area township (T14N

R86W) by WYNDD (2011) include: golden eagle, American dipper, sandhill crane, goldencrowned kinglet, pymgy nuthatch ( Sitta pygmaea ), and Williamson’s sapsucker

( Sphyrapicus thyroideus ).

The proposed project area(s) contains the following biological resources of concern: potential habitat for threatened and endangered species and potential occurrence of USFS sensitive species.

Several USFS sensitive species have been documented in the project area townships

(T13N R87W and T14N R86W), with species such as northern goshawk, flammulated owl, short-eared owl, brown creeper, and American three-toed woodpecker having some potential to occur within the project area. Other USFS sensitive species, such as those preferring open habitats (e.g., greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, and sharp-tailed grouse), aquatic systems (e.g., trout and amphibians), or rocky habitats (e.g., pika and brown-capped rosy-finch) have more limited potential for occurrence within the immediate project area, but may occur in nearby habitats.

Construction activities would cause temporary impacts such as animals avoiding the area.

However, animals would readily move back in after construction.

The aggregate source/plant site has been used previously and was not reclaimed.

The proposed road alignment will impact potential habitat; however, suitable habitat exists in the immediate surrounding area.

3.16 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

There are no threatened and endangered species identified in the project corridor or the aggregate source/plant site. Additional information for the Threatened and Endangered

Species is found in Appendix D.

Canada lynx.

Generally occurs in boreal and montane regions dominated by coniferous or mixed forest with thick undergrowth, but also sometimes enters open forest, rocky areas, and tundra to forage for abundant prey (NatureServe 2011). Within these general forest types, lynx are most likely to persist in areas that receive deep snow and have high-density populations of snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ), the principal prey of lynx (USFWS website – Species Profile). The project area is composed of coniferous forest habitat with stands of aspen and small meadows. Potential habitat for the lynx may occur in the project area and WYNDD data includes observations of Canada lynx within the project area townships (T13N R87W and T14N R86W). However, based on the Inter-agency Southern

Rockies Lynx Project Decision Screen, completed by the USFS for this project, a no effect determination was concluded.


Gray Wolf. The gray wolf is not on the Medicine Bow National Forest or Carbon County

Threatened and Endangered list, so it will not be discussed for this project.

3.17 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION/COORDINATION MEASURES

Category

Air Quality

Historic/

Archaeological

Hazardous

Waste

Socioeconomic

/Construction

Water Quality

Table 3.1

Mitigation or Coordination Measure

Particulate or dust emissions will be minimized during construction by implementation of techniques to control dust, such as regular watering of construction disturbed areas.

Temporary fence will be used to protect isolated resources.

If unanticipated cultural materials are discovered during construction, all work in the vicinity of the discoveries will cease, and WYDOT will consult with SHPO to develop evaluation and treatment plans appropriate to the discovery.

If hazardous waste is encountered during construction, DEQ will be consulted and appropriate action taken. The highway contractor will be required to prepare a spill contingency plan for any petroleum products, solvents or other hazardous materials in use or in storage at the work site.

Traffic and access will be maintained through the project during construction.

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented. The highway contractor will be required to prepare a spill contingency plan for any petroleum products, solvents or other hazardous materials in use or in storage at the work site.

Fisheries

Wildlife

Maintain Belvedere ditch flow for fishery and downstream user.

WYDOT will coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish

Department and the USFS on appropriate measures to reduce disturbance to nesting raptors. The highway right-of-way will be planted with a seed mix, approved by the USFS, that contains species that are not highly palatable to big game.

Visuals /

Vegetation

Provide reclamation and revegetation to blend the disturbed area into the natural environment. Coordinate with the USFS on choice of plant materials for revegetation. Minimize noxious weed introduction by requiring cleaning of equipment prior to entering the National Forest. Monitor for and treat any noxious weeds that become established for 3 years post construction. Restrict grazing during establishment period.

4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION


4.1 PUBLIC

A public notice was sent out November 29, 2011 to the mailing list in Attachment B.

The town of Dixon mailed in comments in support of the project. See Appendix B.

4.2 AGENCY

The Brush Creek Hayden District of the Medicine Bow National Forest has been involved throughout the document development and design process. The mailing list includes federal, state and local agencies, as well as private individuals, expected to have interest in the highway project. Agency correspondence is contained in Appendix

A. Comments from the WY Game and Fish are addressed in section 3.15 and 3.16.

4.3 REMAINING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This environmental assessment will be made available for public comment. All comments received during the comment period will be reviewed by WYDOT and the

FHWA prior to issuance of a decision document.


Agency Correspondence


Public Comment


Wyo 70 Mail and email list for Scoping

MR. SCOTT TALBOT, DIRECTOR

WYOMING GAME & FISH

DEPARTMENT

5400 BISHOP BLVD.

CHEYENNE, WY 82006

SHPO

MARY HOPKINS

BARRETT BLDG., THIRD FLOOR

CHEYENNE, WY 82002

MR. JOHN CORRA

DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

HERSCHLER BLDG., 4 - WEST

CHEYENNE, WY 82002

THE HONORABLE MATT MEAD

GOVERNOR OF WYOMING

CAPITOL BUILDING

CHEYENNE, WY 82002-0010

MR. JOE DAILEY, DIVISION

ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION

2617 EAST LINCOLNWAY -SUITE D

CHEYENNE, WY 82001-5671

NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE

LINWOOD TALLBULL

P.O. BOX 128

LAME DEER, MT 59043

UTE INDIAN TRIBE

P.O. BOX 190

FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

MARK SATTELBERG, FIELD

SUPERVISOR

5353 YELLOWSTONE RD

SUITE 308A

CHEYENNE, WY 82009


U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

MATT BILDODEAU, PROGRAM

MANAGER

2232 DELL RANGE BLVD., STE, 210

CHEYENNE, WY 82009

US EPA REGION VIII

JAMES MARTIN, REGIONAL ADMIN.

1595 WYNKOOP ST

DENVER, CO 80202-1129

JOHN DOOLEY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER

2423 DOVER DRIVE

LARAMIE, WY 82072

TERRY WEICKUM

COUNTY COMMISSIONER

111 E. DALEY STREET

RAWLINS, WY 82301

JERRY PAXTON

COUNTY COMMISSIONER

P.O. BOX 692

ENCAMPMENT, WY 82325

LEO CHAPMAN

COUNTY COMMISSIONER

1640 PARK DRIVE

RAWLINS, WY 82301

SID FOX

CARBON COUNTY PLANNING

215 W. BUFFALO SUITE336

RAWLINS, WY 82301

REPRESENTATIVE JEB STEWARD

PO BOX 21


REPRESENTATIVE DOANLD E.

BURKHART

PO BOX 852

RAWLINS, WY 82301

JOHN ZEIGER, MAYOR

TOWN OF SARATOGA

P.O. BOX 486

SARATOGA, WY 82331

GREG SALISBURY, MAYOR

P.O. BOX 336


MATT FELDMANN, MAYOR

PO BOX 38

DIXON, WY 82323

STEPHEN BEST, DISTRICT RANGER

BRUSH CREEK/HAYDEN RANGER

DISTRICT

P.O. BOX 249

SARATOGA, WY 82331

KATHERINE STAMAN, MAYOR

P.O. BOX 300

BAGGS, WY 82321

JACK BERGER

PO BOX 245

SARATOGA, WY 82331

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

ALLIANCE

DUANE SHORT

PO BOX 1512

LARAMIE, WY 82073

BOCKMAN TIMBER AND POLE

GARY BOCKMAN

PO BOX 352


ADAM MEHLBERG

4562 S. CR 29

LOVELAND, CO 80537

CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES

LYNNETTE GREY

ACTING THPO


100 RED MOON CIRCLE

BOX 38

CONCHO, OK 73022

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL

ALLIANCE

1200 ARAPAHOE ST

GOLDEN, CO 80401

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL

SOCIETY

JAMES WOLF

3704 N. CHARLES ST

#601

BALTIMORE, MD 21218

HEGGIE LOGGING AND EQUIP. CO.,

INC

JERRY HEGGIE

2441 FORT SANDERS ROAD

LARAMIE, WY 82070-6873

LITTLE SNAKE RIVER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

LARRY HICKS

PO BOX 355

BAGGS, WY 82321

SARATOGA, ENCAMPMENT, RAWLINS

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

ARLA STRASSER

DISTRICT MANAGER

PO BOX 1528

SARATOGA, WY 82331

WYOMING STOCK GROWERS

ASSOCIATION

JIM MAGAGNA

PO BOX 206

CHEYENNE, WY 82003

NEIL BENSKIN

PO BOX 1044

MILLS, WY 82644

RONALD and LISA FAMIGLIETTI

PO BOX 776367

STEAMBOAT SPRGS, CO 80477

CYNTHIA PATTERSON

3122 ENFIELD PT.

MARIETTA, GA 30068

JEAN PUBLIC

8 WINTERBERRY COURT

WHITEHOUSE STATION, NJ 08889

ANDY SHIPMAN

PO BOX 1046

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902

THOMAS THOMPSON

616 West Buffalo Street

PO BOX 999

RAWLINS, WY 82301

CARLOS GONZALES

PO BOX 175

LANDER, WY 82520

JOHN ROWLAND bumprowland@msn.com

Peter Schaeffer schaefferp15@yahoo.com

Katherine Hall kahall2001@yahoo.com


Matthew H. Mead

Governor

John F. Cox

Director

SCOPING NOTICE

Baggs - Encampment

WYO HIGHWAY 70

Dry Sandstone Slide Section

November 29, 2011

!!!!!!! WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS!!!!!!!

The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) is proposing to realign a portion of

WYO Highway 70 between Baggs and Encampment, at reference marker (RM) 30. The project is located in Carbon County within the Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest, 30 miles east of

Baggs, 27 miles west of Encampment. The project is approximately 0.8 miles in length.

BACKGROUND

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that federally funded projects include consideration of reasonable alternatives and the associated potential environmental impacts.

The proposed project involves federal funding and is on public land; therefore WYDOT will perform the environmental study. The Federal Highway Administration is acting as the lead agency for the project.

This is the initial stage of the NEPA process. WYDOT starts the process with Public Scoping. This

Scoping Notice serves to provide the public with a brief explanation of the proposal and the process to be followed so the public can determine their involvement. The comments received from this

Scoping Notice will be used to aid WYDOT in the preparation of the environmental study and will help in the decision-making process. Public participation is encouraged to help identify issues and the scope of the environmental study. The public will also be invited to comment on the environmental study upon its completion.

This initial Scoping will also help us determine if public meetings are needed.

NEED FOR THE PROJECT

In the spring of 2011 a portion of road between Baggs and Encampment experienced a substantial landslide just west of the Bear Peak Overlook. This is a known landslide area. Geologic investigation revealed future landslides are likely.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

The proposed project involves realigning the roadway to the north approximately one half mile to remove this section from the landslide area. The proposed realignment will be approximately 0.8 miles long and have about the same average grade as the existing alignment. The Overlook parking area will be preserved.


RESOURCES OF CONCERN

The NEPA process requires thorough analysis of possible impacts due to the proposed project and potential alternatives. The environmental study includes both the natural environment (such as wildlife) and the man-made environment (such as socioeconomic). The environmental study will include, but not be limited to, subjects such as:

1.

Geology & Soils

2.

Wetlands & Water resources

3.

Socioeconomic

4.

Cultural & Historical Resources

5.

Recreation

6.

Wildlife, Fisheries and Threatened & Endangered Species

Issues raised by the public during the Scoping process will be addressed in the environmental study.

PUBLIC & AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The public, government agencies, and interested parties are given the opportunity to participate in the environmental study of the project. This Scoping Notice is being sent prior to preparation of the environmental study to provide an opportunity for the public to express concerns over the proposal.

Oral and written comments are encouraged. Written comments can be submitted to:

Timothy L. Stark

Environmental Services Engineer

Wyoming Department of Transportation

5300 Bishop Blvd

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009-3340

OR timothy.stark@wyo.gov

Comments will be most useful if submitted by December 30, 2011.



Appendix C

Geological Memorandum


Matthew H. Mead

Governor

Department of Transportation

State of Wyoming

December 19, 2011

John F. Cox

Director

TO: Pat Persson, P.E

.

, District Engineer, Laramie

FROM: Dave Vanderveen, P.G

.

, Engineering Geologist

SUBJECT: Dry Sandstone Landslide, M .

P. 31 Wyoming State Highway 70

PROJECT: DR12295 , Dry Sandstone Landslide, Encampment-Baggs, Carbon County

INTRODUCTION

The Dry Sandstone Landslide is located at M.P. 31 on Wyoming State Highway 70 (Figure 1 ), on a section of the highway that is closed during the winter. It is a large complex block-flow slide that dropped 600 feet of the highway up to 20 feet, extends 1 ,000 feet below the highway, and is nestled within an ancient landslide complex. Movement of the Dry Sandstone Landslide was first reported in late May, when the highway was still closed for the season, by snowmobilers concerned that the vertical drop was a safety hazard. Four slope inclinometers and five groundwater monitoring wells were installed to monitor slope movements. To date, no definitive shear surface has been identified by the slope inclinometers. Due to the length of the affected highway and likely depth to the shear surface, mitigation to stay on the existing alignment is not economical, and an alternate alignment to the north is being pursued. A temporary one lane detour was constructed in July and will carry traffic until the new alignment is constructed. Table 1 shows the major developments for the Dry Sandstone Landslide.

Date Comments

May 30,2011 John Gallenbeck, Maintenance Foreman Baggs, i s informed that a slide is presenting a danger to snowmobilers on Wyoming State Highway 70

May 31, 2011 Merna Carver, Baggs Maintenance provided an initial description and pictures of the landslide. The slide measured 300 feet wide and the h i ghway had dropped 12 to 15 feet.

June 3, 2011 First site visit by WYDOT Geology. Baggs Maintenance Crews plowed the highway for access. The s lid e is now 600 feet wide and the highway has dropped up to 20 feet. It was decided to wait three weeks before starting a drill inv estigation to allow the site to dry out.

June 27Drill inve stigation. Nine test holes were drilled within and outside the s lid e mass . Four

Ju ly 14, 2011 slope inclin ometers and five monitoring wells were installed to monitor the l andslide.

June 28 , 2011 Meeting on site with USFS , WYDOT, and elected officials. Short and long term options were discussed. A detour in the ditch was the s hort term option chosen, while for the

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 2

July 11 , 2011 long term , it was decided to pursue a realignment of the highway t o the n orth .

Work begins on one lane detour in the back slope ditch. Barrier placed at edge of head scarp.

Table 1 : Time line of major developments at the Dry Sandstone Landslide.

GEOLOGY

Landslide description: The Dry Sandstone Landslide is located at M .

P. 31 on Wyoming State

Highway 70, and is interpreted as a reactivated portion of a larger ancient landslide complex that is approximately 2,000 feet wide and extends 3,000 feet below the highway (Figure 2).

The ancient landslides features are subdued and difficult to see due to thick tree cover and undergrowth. The head appears to be near the highway and hummocky terrain is present below the highway . The term ancient refers to a landslide that originated under different geomorphic and climatic conditions hundreds to thousands of years ago, but their deposits are still existent. The likely cause of the recent movement is high groundwater pressures that resulted from a higher than average snowpack and rapid runoff this spring .

The Dry Sandstone Landslide is a complex block slide that transitions into a flow slide . It is approximately 600 feet wide at the highway and consists of two lobes (east and west slump blocks) that coalesce below the highway . The west slump block is 350 feet wide with a vertical head scarp that dropped both lanes of the highway 18 to 24 feet. A backscarp defines a graben that is up to 7 4 feet wide immediately below the head scarp . Standing water was present in the tension crack immediately after the failure and during the drill investigation in July 2011. The east block is approximately 250 feet wide with an 8 foot vertical headscarp. A 48 foot wide graben is directly below the east slump block head scarp.

The west lateral margin can be traced 300 feet down slope as a vertical scarp, with slickenlines that rake 45 degrees south , where the displacement transitions into a dispersed toe. Below the poorly defined toe are numerous springs and flow slides that extend up to 1 ,000 feet below the highway. The east margin is less well defined and is quickly lost in the thick aspen and undergrowth which also likely conceals other slide features. There is a spring west of the slide and the Forest Service has a 2-inch buried pipeline that carries the spring water across the slide to the Dry Sandstone Work Station which is approximately half a mile east of the landslide . Figure 2 is a map view of the Dry Sandstone Landslide showing the features mentioned above while Figure 3 is an interpreted geologic cross section through the landslide.

Drill Investigation : Nine test holes were drilled to characterize the Dry Sandstone Landslide between June 27 and July 14 , 2011, using WYDOT drill rig 4001 . The test holes were drilled with 8-inch hollow stem augers, air rotary, and wireline coring. Testing and sampling consisted of drive points, standard penetration tests, Shelby and Continuous tube samples, and wireline cores . All samples were submitted to the Geology Foundation Laboratory for classification and analysis. Four slope inclinometers and five ground water monitoring wells were installed for long term monitoring of the landslide. One monitoring well was subsequently destroyed when a detour was built above the head scarp.

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 3

Material within the slide mass (south of the highway centerline) consists of 7.0 feet of soft moist to wet clay, overlying 50 feet of a slightly stiff to stiff silty clay, with occasional rock. The silty clay is stiffer and had higher moisture contents 33.0 feet below the surface. Interbedded conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and silty claystone belonging to the Oligocene Browns

Park Formation was encountered 55.0 to 60.0 feet below the surface. North of the highway centerline, in the backslope ditch and above, the colluvium consists of 15 feet of slightly stiff silty clay with occasional rock overlying 15 feet of very dense to hard silt to fine grained sand.

Bedrock of the Browns Park Formation was at an average depth of 30 feet below the surface.

Shear Surface and Groundwater Conditions: To date the slope inclinometers do not show a definitive shear zone (Figure 4). This is most likely due to the slope inclinometers getting installed when movement was slowing down for the season. We may have to wait until late spring for the slope inclinometers to record any movement. Monitoring of the slope inclinometers, to ensure the safety of the detour, will continue until the realignment is complete. Surficial slide features such as the grabens below the headscarp may indicate that the shear surface is 45 to 50 feet deep at the east slump block and over 70 feet deep at the west slump block.

Groundwater was measured in the five monitoring wells and is listed in Table 2 below. Artesian conditions were encountered when drilling test hole 11 8 with the static head measured 2.0 feet above the surface immediately after drilling.

Test Hole

#

11-1

11-6

11-7

11 8

11-9

Total

Depth {ft)

39.5

48.0

73.0

43.0

38.0

Bottom

Depth

Sand Pack

(ft)

Top Depth

(ft)

39.5

48.0

29.5

38.0

40 .

0

43.0

38.0

30

33

.

.

0

0

28.0

High

Water Levels (feet below su rf ace)

Date Low Date

25.6

37.7

32.6

2.0

8.2

6/30 / 2011

7/14 / 2011

7/14 / 2011

7/13 / 2011

7/14 / 2011

Dest r oyed

40.5 11 / 9 / 2011

38 .

3

18 .

6

20.1

11

11

11

/

/

/

9

9

9

/

/

/

2011

2011

2011

Table 2: Dates and depths of groundwater at the Dry Sandstone Landslide.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the estimated depth to the shear zone ( 45 to 70 feet) and the size of the landslide, the early estimated cost to stabilize 600 feet of Highway 70 impacted by this landslide is at least

$6.0 million dollars. A combination of mitigation measures would likely be required and could include; ground anchors, micropiles, EPS Foam, horizontal drains, and shear piles. Staying on the existing alignment would also require drilling additional test holes, additional monitoring of the slope inclinometers and groundwater wells, and substantial design time. Therefore, it was decided in the meeting on June 28, 2011, to avoid the entire landslide by realigning the highway to the north. An alternate alignment was staked by survey crews and drilled between

October 19 and November 4, 2011. A report addressing the alternate alignment is forth coming.

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page4

Approved By :

Attachment(s): Location Map

Site Map

Geologic Section

Slope Inclinometer Plots (4) cc: Rick Harvey, P.E., State Materials Engineer, Cheyenne

Sandy Pecenka, P.E., Project Development Engineer, Cheyenne

Jake Lonn, P .

E., Resident Engineer, Rawlins

Tim Stark, P .

E., Environmental Services Engineer, Cheyenne

Tim McGary, P.E., District Maintenance Engineer, Laramie

Tom Dehoff, P.E., District Engineer, Laramie

Geology (3)

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 5

Figur e 1: Location map for the Dry Sandstone Landslide. The landslide is located at M .

P . 31 on Wyoming State Highway 70.

STAlE

Of'

WVOMJNG

PR0J NO

EXPLANATION

a

TH11-5

V8,341.7

'

Test Hole and Elevation

Prefix Indicates year drilled

<)

Sl11·2

8 , 398.1

'

~ MW11-7

32 .

6 ~ 8,333 .

5 '

Slope Inclinometer with approximate shear depth

Water Tube with water depth below surface (high)

I .

I .

- - - - Approximate 2011 Landslide Boundaries

IHatches Indicate scarp, number Is vertical offset (ft)

'--~ ----Slickenlines on scarp with vertical offset (ft) and rake angle

~ ---r----: Standing .

~ --1 / --.Spring water

,.. " \ _ _ - - - - .Slide toe

\...__

--

·

-·-

Approximate Ancient Landslide Limit

Geologic Sect/on

400 0 200 600 Feet

Figure 2: Dry Sandstone Landslide

M.P. 31 Wyoming State Highway

70

Baggs-Encampment

DR12295 Carbon County

1 21 1 51 20 11 1li1JIT AM

ST A TE

Of'

WYOMING

PAOJ .

NO . SHEET TOTAL

NO . SHEETS

8,400.0

8,380 .

0

8,360 .

0

8 , 340 .

0

8 , 320 .

0

8 , 300 .

0

8 ,2 80.0

8,240.0

8 ,220.

0

8,200 .

0

A

MW • Groundw1ter Monitoring W ell

Sl • Slope lnclln~tet

TeJt hole ptefl'x Indicates ye1r drilled

We

----

---

-

Weak to moderately strong conglomerate with ma!riK of tan to white stny to clayey sand

---

...... -

-......

--... ...............

..........

"", ? Very dense lo hard , tan to gre .,......._

• ..., stn to tine-g rai ned sand

......

'-...

;~~ · " ig~ibioiid::ifi~;~~i:::/~htf'imolst_

.....

...

' ...

' ...

::::--_~'

- - - - - - -

; pooYiyrcnnodetiJtetylnduratedl!layey

· ""·

.

IJR~IQCI.fl

_ to~l .ttJ

toCI.IIJ:YIJhmiiJ..Ofrotcllc_

Wea", poor., .o mo"'era e

Indurated tan to reddish y

_ _ ____ _ _ .

_ ?

••

• ' ; : ; • •• ,,

..

Graben

~ .

1\

.. ..

~

~

~

'-... .....

..

...

'-.......

.......... ····· ...

'-......

··············...

- - - -

..-..

-

Estimated Groundline prior to failure

..

.

.

... ,

_ ............ ...

- - _

• • .... - - - - __ -

1 r t d

_ nerpree

Groundwater Surface

Ute"r ot vet1Jcar extent of unit - unknown -

-1---=1.=.

?

..

.. ....

Depth of helf movement from Inclinometer re~d/ngs

( Not det e r mined al fh iJ Ume)

.. \7

. . _.,..

.. .... l n l etpteted

~

T1ble 2 gtoundwater •urlace for r el dep t hs and dings) date s

_ otEncountered

······

?

"", •••••• •

"" ? ······•

. ........ ···· · ·· · ~

·-.. .. --.:_ .... , ~·;.::

/

..

_ _ .

...

.

.

..... ' .'.'.'.'.' .

' ::::::::::u ..... ,.,,;;;;;, ·,·.

·

?.

Shale????

- - -

......

:" _ with occasional gravel , .. .. .. ..

-llJ.gh

!l

y mo ist ot moist

--....;;...--

• ... .. ..

~~

\ / .. :?

.

'.i.:._

: W4_· .

' . ..J.Ia4• ....

•• ••••••• ..

:. .. ~..

...

..

........

., ...

. ..,.,. ..

·.

·

:::

"

.

:::· ..

~· . · ·" ,

Stl~~~hf

............ ·- -

.......... ? · · ····~ ..

- - -

0 moist to saturated

. a~:l)R"'1.....,, .

.

\ rv.CKCONTAc''...,r

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

.

··-::j-

?

.

"::L_ ... ......

--J.

1 --............

~

/

.

_

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

- -

-..!!!!...-....::..--------

--..

-------.. -.. -;;:-;. ..

----

· -._. .... _. ....

.

.....""''"'?~

--.. - -

- -

'\'" Sott , browntoblack.clay,mo is t

-"r

~ -

.........

• • ~ -

-- --.. --

...

-.:::__

- - ':"---- -

- - -

· ~-

,~:'!~·~:.~~~~-~ ::: .

:·· • ......

? ...

...

......... ············· ·:· · ····: ·:· ,, .....

..

..... : ....

.

:·:~::~~.~~··~

?

~-:· · ~~.

Potential Basal

Shear Zones Medium str ong, well i nduratef!

, yellow t?rown fine grain ed sa nd s tone , s l1ghtly mo1st and friable

....

............. ? ........... .

..

.. .

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

.. ?

~ ....

___

\ __

·:·.:.:;""""""'

... • ...... , ...

... • ......

?

_

-

.... __

8 , 180 .

0

8 , 160.0

A'

8 , 140 .

0 , 140 .

0

Notes: 1. The last slope inclinometer and groundwater readings were collected on 11/22 / 2011.

At that time no clear shear surface was determined by the inclinometers (see figure 4).

The range of basal shear zone shown above is based on surface mapping of the slide features.

2. The groundwater surface shown is the interpreted level when the failure occurred. Table 2 list the groundwater levels below the surface and the date of the reading .

0

HORIZONTAL SCALE

60 120

NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

Figure 3: Dry Sandstone Landslide

Geologic Section A-A'

Encampment-Baggs

DR12295 Carbon County

12 :5 0 :29 PM

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 8

A Axis o ~---------~ ----------~

10

.

..

.

4

S-Axis o ~-----------.------~--__,

10

20 20

I

!)

30

0

1 c: :c

40 i5.

Q)

50

30 a;

.!! c: :c

40 i5.

Q)

0

50

~

60 60

70

....,._ 8/8/2011

80 ~----~-----+

-+11/9/2011

~

0.2 0 .

1 0 .

0 0.1 0 .

2

Cumula tiv e Displacement (in) from 7/14/2011

70

,_ . 8/8/2011

...,_ 11/9/2011

80 ~----~----~------~~~~

0 .

2 -0 .

1 0.0 0 .

1 0 .

2

Cumulative Displacement (in) from 7/14/201 1

WYO 70, M .

P . 31

DS-3, TH 11 28

November 22 , 20 11

Dry Sand s tone Slide

Above Roadway in Trees

AO 220, Stickup 26 Inches

WYDOT GEOLOGY PROGRAM

Figure 4: Slope Inclinometer plot for test hole 11-2. See Figure 2 for location.

Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 9

0

10

B-Axis

0

10

A-Axis r v

....... ..

20 20

30

Q)

.l!!

.s r. a.

Q)

0

40

50

60

30 ·

Q)

.l!!

.S r. a.

Q)

0

40

50

60

70

: I

~

...... 7/14/2011 y

-o· 8/8/2011

11/9/2011

-o-

80

0.2 0.1 0 .

0 0 .

1 0.2

Cumulative Displacement (in) from 7/7/2011

70

.......

. 7/14/2011

-o: 8/8/2011

......: 11/9/2011

80

0 .

2 0.1 0 .

0 0.1 0 .2

Cumulative Displacement (in) from 7/7/2011

WY070, MP 31

DS-1, TH 11 -3

November 22, 2011

Dry Sands tone Slide

Below Roadway Baggs End

AO 175 , St i ckup 1 2inches



Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 10

A-Axis o ~-----------.----------__,

' 9 9

~

10

20

8-Axis o ~----~---.---------~

10

20

-a;

.l!!

.5

.c a.

(!)

0

30

40

50

60

...y

7/14/20 11

~ . 8/8/2011

70 ~----~ ----

-o:

1119/2011

~ ~

0.2 0 .

1 0.0 0.1 0 .

2


-a;

.l!!

.5

.c a.

(!)

0

30

40

50

~

I \

'

60

-7/14/2011

~ · 8/8/2011

70~ ----~----~ --

-o11/9/2011

-0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0 .

2


WYO 70, MP 3 1

DS-2, TH 11 4

November 22 , 2011

Dry Sandsto ne Slide

Below Roadway Encampment End

AO 168 , Stickup 18 inch es



Pat Persson

DR12295

Page 11

A Axis B-A x is

10 10 ....

..

.

0

20 20

30

Q)

.S!

.

£

40

~

Q)

0

5 0

..

30

Q)

.S!

.£

.r; a

Q)

0

40

50

60

60

70 70

........ 11/9/2011

80 ~ --~-~ --~~~~-~ ~~

1.0 0.0 1 .

0 2 .

0

C umul a tiv e Di sp l acemen t (in) from 81812011

........ 11/9/2011

80 ~--~ -~--~~~~--~--~

1 .

0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Cumu l a tiv e Displacement ( in) f rom 81812 011

WYO 7 0, M .P

.

31

DS 4, TH 11 8

November 22, 2 011

Dry Sandstone Slide

B elo w Ro ad w a y A l ong W a t er Un e Trail

AO 172, S tickup 25 inch es

WYDOT GEOLOGY PRO GR AM

Figure 4 : Slope Inclinometer plot for test hole 11-8. See Figure 2 for location .

Appendix D


Wyoming State Highway 70

DRY SANDSTONE SLIDE

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest

January 27, 2012

Prepared by :

Luke Martinson

WEST Inc.

Biologist

Reviewed by :

Bob Bonds 01/31/12

NAME

Title Environmental Coordinator,

WYDOT

Date

Submitted to:

Steve Loose_________________________

NAME

Title District wildlife biologist; U.S. Forest

Service

Biological Evaluation

WYO Hwy 70 – Dry Sandstone Slide

Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest

Introduction

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed, threatened or endangered species, including the permitting of construction projects by Federal Agencies. According to Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, Biological Assessments must be prepared for projects within areas where threatened or endangered species may occur. The purpose of the Biological Assessment is to determine if the proposed action will affect any threatened or endangered species or designated Critical Habitat. The National Forest Management Act also includes provisions for the protection of threatened and endangered species, as evidenced in the Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Forest (1985 Forest Plan).

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) prepares Biological Evaluations (BE) which include analysis for threatened or endangered species and those species considered sensitive by the USFS. Forest

Service policy regarding BE is stated in FSM 2672.4 as follows: "Review all FS planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species. The Biological Evaluation is the means of conducting the review and documenting the finding." Forest Service sensitive species are selected by the

Regional Forester and are species for which viability is of concern.

Description of the Proposed Action and Area

Proposed Action

The proposed action is for the USFS Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF) to approve a title

23 land transfer: the partial abandonment of the existing alignment and the acquisition of the easement deed of the new alignment. Specifically, the Wyoming Department of Transportation

(WYDOT) has requested approval to construct a new section of roadway along State Highway

70 between Encampment and Baggs, WY. The project site is located entirely on USFS land. The proposed section of road is located in the SE ¼ of Section 9, Township 13N, Range 87W.

In the spring of 2011, a slide occurred in the Sierra Madre Mountains, resulting in the degradation of a section of Highway 70 near reference marker (RM) 30. Sections of the road collapsed below the existing road grade, rendering the road impassable (Appendix B).

Emergency earthwork was completed to construct a temporary one-lane road. Due to the alignment of the existing road section and regional geology, WYDOT Geology Program anticipates that slides will continue to be a problem in the future. Slides are a serious safety concern; therefore, WYDOT has proposed to realign the road in an effort to reduce potential impacts from geological events.

The existing road is aligned across a hillslope. The proposed alignment will route the road over the hill for approximately 0.9 miles (Appendix A). A ROW width ranging from 200 – 250 ft is proposed, which will result in approximately 33 acres of impact (Appendix A). The proposed

ROW will diverge from the existing road prior to traversing the hillslope and reconnect to the existing road on the alternate side of the hillslope. The proposed road alignment is not an existing ROW. Standard road construction procedures are proposed and include clearing

2



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest vegetation, grading, culvert installation, laying asphalt, and posting road signage/reflector poles.

Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during all phases of construction.

Restoration to all disturbed areas (excluding the paved road section) will occur post-construction, and will be primarily grass, forbs, and shrubs from seeding, along with some plantings coordinated with USFS.

The existing section of roadway will be demolished as part of the proposed project. A scenic turnout that currently exists will be left in place. The right-of-way (ROW) along the demolished section of roadway will be restored (via revegetation and standard BMPs) to help minimize erosion. Approximately 25 ac of the existing road will be reclaimed.

Construction materials will be obtained from an existing gravel pit (Appendix A). The gravel pit is located in the NW ¼ of Section 34, Township 14N, Range 86W. Materials will be borrowed as needed to complete the proposed construction. The gravel pit is approximately 6 ac.

The construction season will be approximately June through October, and the project is anticipated to be completed in one season. Construction activities will occur primarily during the day with limited but occasional nighttime activity also occurring. Standard earth moving equipment will be used, such as track-mounted dozers, loaders, compactors, dump trucks, and pickup trucks. The project will implement temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs to preserve water quality.

Area Description

Two WEST Inc. biologists completed meandering pedestrian transect surveys along the proposed ROW on August 17, 2011. USFS representatives have also visited the site.

The project area (proposed road, existing road, and gravel pit) is located along State Highway 70 within the MBNF (Sierra Madre Mountains). The project site is located at elevations ranging from 8,200 to 8,400 ft. Vegetation in the project area (specifically the proposed ROW) is dominated by conifers such as lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ), Engelmann spruce ( Picea engelmannii ), and subalpine fir ( Abies lasiocarpa ). The forest is a fairly dense cover of spruce and fir, with minimal scrub understory. Scattered stands of quaking aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) and small meadows are minimal within the proposed ROW, but do occur in the surrounding vicinity. Photographs of the project area are provided in Appendix B.

The proposed material source and hot plant site is the existing gravel pit adjacent to the highway, due east of the Lost Creek Camp Ground, at reference marker (RM) 39. The site is approximately 5 ac (2.0 Ha) within the disturbed limits and will likely be used for the hot plant, as well as to mine, crush and chip aggregate. The gravel pit has been previously cleared of all trees and is currently dominated by upland grass and forb species with notable amounts of exposed bare ground (Appendix B).

State Highway 70 is closed annually during the winter season. The closure date(s) varies based on seasonal conditions. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) reported by WYDOT for this section of Hwy 70 (MP 16 – MP 50) is 143. The use of Hwy 70 is not anticipated to change as a result of the proposed project.

3




Sensitive Species Included in the Analysis

USFS Region 2 sensitive species, USFWS T&E species - Carbon County, and Management

Indicator Species (MIS) were considered for inclusion in this analysis (Table 1). Only those species that may be affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by proposed actions were selected for further analysis. Those species not analyzed were excluded because: 1) suitable habitat, elevation, or range/distribution does not exist for the species in the project area, including those identified in the USDA (2011) report or 2) the type or intensity of the activity in the proposed action is expected to have no impact on the species or its habitat.

The project site is void of riparian, water body, and wetland habitat; therefore, species which require this specific habitat were not included for further analysis (e.g., fish). Plant survey/analysis was previously completed by USFS biologists (K. Haynes personal communication 2012); and therefore, only species requested for analysis are included in this BE.

There are several endangered fish species which reside within the Colorado River system;

Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus lucius ), humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), bonytail chub ( Gila elegans ), and razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ). None of the four Colorado River listed species are known or believed to occur in Wyoming (USFWS 2012); therefore, there should be no direct effect on any of the four species. Indirect effects to the species could occur through water depletions and/or increases in sedimentation. Currently, the USFWS has a programmatic agreement in place for determining potential impacts and conservation measures required for projects which result in water depletions within the Colorado River system. The WYDOT programmatic agreement allows 100 acre/feet/year. Approximately 12.3 acre/feet will be required to complete this project. Although depletions to the Colorado River system will occur due to pumping of water during construction, these effects will be of limited duration (temporary during construction) and limited quantities and should have no measurable effect on the four listed species. Additionally, due to the distance of the proposed action from occupied stream reaches and the implementation of BMPs during construction, sedimentation should have minimal effect on any of the four listed species. Therefore, potential project related impacts to these four Colorado River species may adversely affect, but would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of

these species. These species are not considered further in this BE.

Some existing condition and limiting factors information for each sensitive species were extracted from the FEIS Biological Evaluation (Appendix I) for the revision of the Medicine

Bow Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2003). This BE is identified as USDA

(2003) throughout this analysis. Most other existing condition and limiting factors information was gathered from the Species Conservation Assessments (2003-2010).

4




Table 1. Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species (R2SS), USFWS T&E Carbon County (USFWS), and Management

Indicator Species (MIS).

R2SS/MIS/USFWS Habitat* Selected Common Name

BIRDS

American bittern

Botaurus lentiginosus

Trumpeter swan

Cygnus buccinator

Harlequin duck

Histrionicus histrionicus

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

Marshes. Does not exist on Forest (USDA

2011).

Marshes, lakes, rivers. Does not exist on

Forest (USDA 2011).

Rivers, lakes in mountainous areas. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

Lakes, Rivers.

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-2, habitat not affected by proposed activity. No proposed action sites overlooking lakes or rivers.

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentiles

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

Tympanuches phasianellus columbianus

Greater prairie-chicken

Tympanuchus cupido

Lesser prairie-chicken

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus

(Candidate)

Gunnison sage-grouse

Centrocercus minimus

(Candidate)

Greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

White-tailed ptarmigan

Lagopus leucurus

R2SS/MIS SF,AS,LPP,RIP

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS/USFWS -

Candidate

R2SS

MS,FM,SS, 4500 – 7500 ft elevation

(Nicholoff 2003)

RO 50-200ft high, SS near RO, 4500-9000 ft elevation (Nicholoff 2003)

(MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996)

MS west of Continental Divide (Hoffman and

Thomas 2007)

Grasslands. Does not exist on Forest (USDA

2011).

Dry grasslands. Does not exist on Forest

(USDA 2011).

SS. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

SS

Alpine willow, grasses, krummholtz.

Currently considered extirpated on the

Yes

No-1, beyond elevation range

No-2, habitat not affected by proposed activity

No-1

Yes

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

5






Common Name R2SS/MIS/USFWS Selected

Mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

Black tern

Chlidonias niger

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

(Candidate)

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

Boreal Owl

Aegolius funereus

Flammulated owl

Otus flammeolus

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

Black swift

Cypseloides niger

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus

American three-toed woodpecker

Picoides tridactylus dorsalis

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus borealis

Purple martin

Progne subis

Loggerhead shrike

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS/ USFWS -

Candidate

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

AS, PP stands in southern portion of Sierra

Madres

SS, grasslands, marshes. Might occur only on the Laramie Peak unit.

Wet cliff faces. Does not occur on Forest

(Wiggins 2004)

PP. Occurs on the Laramie Peak unit

R2SS/MIS SF,LPP,AS

R2SS SF,LP,WET,FM

R2SS

R2SS

Habitat*

Medicine Bow (USDA 2003, Hoffman 2006 p. 15).


2011).


2011).

WET. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

Cottonwood riparian. Does not exist on

Forest (USDA 2011).


2011).

SF,PP and recently burned conifer forest

AS in specific area on west side of

Continental Divide. Known population in

MBNF. (Wiggins 2005)

Grassland w/shrubs <8000 ft. (Wiggins 2005)

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

Yes

Yes

No-1

No-1

No-1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No-2, habitat not affected by

6






Common Name

Lanius ludovicianus

Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella breweri

Cassin’s sparrow

Aimophila cassini

Grasshopper sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum

Sage sparrow

Amphispiza bellii

McCown’s longspur

Calcarius mccownii

Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius ornatus

Golden-crowned kinglet

Regulus satrapa

Wilson’s warbler

Wilsonia pusilla

Lincoln’s sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii

MAMMALS

Grizzly bear

Ursus arctos horribilis

Rocky Mountain Bighorn

Sheep

Ovis Canadensis canadensis

Desert bighorn sheep

Ovis canadensis nelsoni

Preble’s Meadow Jumping

Mouse

Zapus hudsonius preblei

New Mexico Meadow

Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius luteus

R2SS/MIS/USFWS

R2SS SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS


2011).


2011).

SS below 6500 ft. (Nicholoff 2003)

R2SS

R2SS


2011).


2011).

MIS SF

MIS

MIS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

Habitat*

RIP, WET, willows and forest edge (Johnson and Anderson 2003)

RIP, WET, willows and forest edge (Stephens and Anderson 2003)

Various habitats in Greater Yellowstone Area

Shrublands, Rock outcrops, Alpine. Three herds on Forest.

Shrublands, Rock outcrops, Alpine. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011)

Riparian habitat with tall/dense cover

Upland and wetland habitats

Selected proposed activity

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

Yes

No-2. Habitat not affected by proposed action.


No-1


No-1

No-1

No-1

7






Common Name

Pygmy shrew

Sorex hoyi

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

R2SS/MIS/USFWS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

Habitat*

Wetland edges in SF above 9000 ft.

Roosts in RO, Mines, Caves, snags at 1200-

2100 m; up to 2850m in spruce-fir in New

Mex. (Keinath 2004). Forages in PP, oak, shrublands, pinyon/juniper (Keinath 2004).

Juniper shrub, desert sagebrush grasslands.

Does not exist on Forest.

Caves, mines, buildings, bridges in close proximity to summer foraging habitat (over live canopy, shrublands) (Gruver and Keinath

2006)

Selected

No-1

No-2. Habitat not affected by proposed action

No-1

No-2. Habitat not affected by proposed action

Hoary Bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Black-tailed prairie dog

Cynomys ludovicianus

White-tailed prairie dog

Cynomys leucurus

Gunnison’s prairie dog

Cynomys gunnisoni

Wyoming pocket gopher

Thomomys clusius

Water vole

Microtus richardsoni

Swift fox

Vulpes velox

Kit fox

Vulpes macrotis

River otter

Lontra canadensis

American marten

Martes americana

Wolverine

Gulo gulo

R2SS

R2SS


2011).

Colony at Six-Mile/Platte River.

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

Dry grasslands at high altitudes. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

SS, Grassland. Does not exist on Forest

(Keinath and Beauvais 2006).

Alpine, subalpine, and foothills riparian. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).


2011).

R2SS Grasslands. Does not exist on Forest (USDA

2011).

R2SS Rivers

R2SS/MIS SF,LPP

R2SS SF,AL,LPP,RO

Yes

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

Yes

No-1, Aubry et al. (2007). www.fws.gov\wyominges\pages

8






Selected Common Name

Common hognosed skunk

Conepatus leuconotus

Snowshoe hare

Lepus americanus

Black-footed ferret

Mustela nigripes

R2SS/MIS/USFWS

R2SS

MIS

Habitat*

Sparsely timbered or brushy areas. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

Forests with dense understory receiving high snow accumulation (Ellsworth and Reynolds

2006)

Prairie dog towns; Shirley Basin USFWS –

Endangered/Experimental

Non-essential

USFWS – Threatened Montane forests

No-1

Yes

No-1

Yes

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis

REPTILES

Massassauga rattlesnake

Sistrurus catenatus

(Candidate)

Black Hills redbelly snake

Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapae

MOLLUSCS

Rocky Mountain capshell snail

Acroloxus coloradensis

Pygmy mountain snail

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS


2011). No-1

FM in Black Hills. Does not exist on Forest

(USDA 2011).

Littoral zones of rocky oligotrophic to mesotrophic lakes <9400 ft. Known only from

CO, MT (Anderson 2005)

Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

No-1

No-1

No-1

Oreohelix pygmaea

Cooper’s mountain snail

Oreohelix strigosa cooperi

INSECTS

R2SS Known only to Black Hills National Forest

(Anderson 2005a)

No-1

R2SS WET. Does not exist on Forest (USDA 2011).

Susan’s purse making caddisfly

Ochrotrichia susanae

Ottoe skipper

Hesperia ottoe

Hudsonian emerald

Somatochlora hudsonica

(USDA 2011).

No-1

No-1

No-1

9






R2SS/MIS/USFWS Habitat* Selected Common Name

Regal fritillary

Speyeria idalia

Nokomis fritillary butterfly

Speyeria nokomis nokomis

Amphibians

Boreal toad

Anaxyrus boreas boreas

Northern leopard frog

Lithobates pipiens

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

(USDA 2011).

WET. Known range south and west of

Wyoming

WET, RIP, FM

WET, RIP, FM (Smith and Keinath 2007)

No-1

No-1

No-2, Habitat not affected by proposed action

No-2, Habitat not affected by proposed action

Wood frog

Lithobates sylvatica

R2SS In the western Canadian provinces and the

Rocky Mountains, they are more commonly associated with sedge wetlands with adjoining grassy meadows, willow bogs, coniferous forests, and aspen groves (Muths et al 2005)

No-1

Platte River Species

Least Tern (Interior population)

Sterna antillarum

Pallid Sturgeon

Scaphirhynchus albus

Piping plover

Charadrius melodus

Western Prairie Fringed

Orchid

Platanthera praeclara

Whooping Crane

Grus americana

Platte River Species Critical

Habitat

PLANTS

USFWS - Endangered

Riverine habitat downstream of Wyoming in the Platte River system

USFWS - Endangered Riverine habitat downstream of Wyoming in the Platte River system

USFWS - Threatened Riverine habitat downstream of Wyoming in the Platte River system

USFWS - Threatened

Riverine habitat downstream of Wyoming in the Platte River system

USFWS - Endangered Riverine habitat downstream of Wyoming in the Platte River system

Designated for whooping crane in Nebraska in riverine habitat of the Platte River system

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

Blowout Penstemon

Penstemon haydenii

USFWS - Endangered Occurs on sparsely vegetated, active sand dunes and blowouts from 6680-7440 feet.

Known from Carbon county in central WY and western Nebraska (Fertig 2000a, USFWS

No-1

10






Common Name Selected

Ute’s Ladies Tresses

Spiranthes diluvialis

Western Prairie Fringed

Orchid

Platanthera praeclara

Park milkvetch

Astragalus leptaleus

Slender moonwort

Botrychium lineare

Lesser panicled sedge

Carex diandra

Livid sedge

Carex livida

Boreal spike rush

Eleocharis elliptica

Rabbit Ears gilia

Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi

R2SS/MIS/USFWS Habitat*

2011a) .

USFWS - Threatened Occurs on seasonally moist soil or wet meadows below 7,000 feet in elevation, often in agricultural or urban settings. Known from

Laramie, Goshen, Converse, and Niobrara counties in WY (Fertig 2000b, NatureServe

2010, USFWS 2011c).

USFWS - Threatened Occurs on unplowed, calcareous prairies and

R2SS

R2SS sedge meadows often associated with the

Platte River. Known from tall grass prairie areas in Nebraska and east, may be affected by water depletions of the Platte River in WY and CO (NatureServe 2010, USFWS 2011d).

Occurs in hummocky willow cars, sedge dominated wetlands. Known from the Snowy

Range, suspected in the Sierra Madre; 8,800 ft.

Occurs on stream sides, upland grassy habitats

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS and forest edges, generalist. Suspected to occur across the Snowy Range and Sierra

Madre; elevational extent unknown.

Occurs in riparian areas, pond edges and fens.

Known from wetlands on the Snowy Range;

6,100-8,600 ft.

Occurs on floating mats in bogs and fens.

Known from wetlands in the Snowy Range;

9,000-10,000 ft.

Occurs in thermal seeps, springs and along stock ponds. Known from the Snowy Range and Laramie Peak, suspected on the Sierra

Madre; 6,200-7250 ft.

Occurs in openings in conifer forests, ridges, sagebrush and other shrub communities.

Occurs across the Snowy Range and Sierra

No-1

No-1

No-1

Yes

No-1

No-1

No-1

No-1

11






Common Name

Colorado tansyaster

Machaeranthera coloradoensis

Dwarf raspberry

Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis

Silver willow

Salix candida

R2SS/MIS/USFWS

R2SS

R2SS

R2SS

Habitat*

Madre; 7,200-8,300 ft.

Occurs in sparse, gravelly mountain parks and on dry alpine tundra. Known from the Snowy

Range and Sierra Madre; 8,400- 12,500.

Occurs under moderately dense canopies of spruce/fir and lodgepole pine, occasionally on the edges of riparian areas and other willow dominated wetlands. Known from the Snowy

Range and suspected on the Sierra Madre;

7,000-10,000 ft.

Occurs in fens and seeps in cool, boreal forests. Known from the Snowy Range and suspected on the Sierra Madre; 6,600-10,600 ft.

Selected

No-2

No-2

No-1

Large flower Tritelia

Tritelia grandiflora

Selkirk’s violet

Viola selkirkii

R2SS

R2SS

Occurs in grassy areas in sagebrush, along forests edges and on wooded slopes. Known from the Snowy Range; suspected on the

Sierra Madre, Pole Mountain, and Laramie

Peak; 4,600-8,000 ft.

Occurs in shaded ravines and cool forest habitats. Needs moist to wet conditions within alder stands. Suspected to occur in the Snowy

Range and Sierra Madre but habitat requirements very strict; 8,500 -9,100 ft.

No-1

No-1

*AL-alpine, AS-aspen, FM-forest meadow, LPP-lodgepole pine, SS-sagebrush shrub, MS-mountain shrub, PP-ponderosa pine, RIP-riparian, RO-rock/cliff/cave, SFspruce-fir, WET-wetland

12




Sensitive Species Information

American Marten ( Martes americana )

The marten is primarily an inhabitant of upper montane to boreal spruce-fir forests in the western

U.S.

The species is closely associated with late-successional coniferous forest, especially those with complex physical ground structure (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994). Marten prefer mesic forest conditions. Forest stands with xeric conditions, or those that lack structure near the ground, are seldom used. They appear to have an affinity for overhead cover and avoid extensive use of open areas, particularly in winter (Bennett 1984). In the central and southern Rockies they are most often associated with spruce-fir or lodgepole pine and are generally absent in stands of ponderosa or pinyon pine.

The most important prey of marten in the West are red-backed voles, pine squirrels, and various species of Microtus. Changes in small mammal prey can affect the carrying capacity of marten habitat (Strickland et al. 1982).

Habitat is perhaps the most important limiting and controlling factor for marten populations, particularly loss of habitat components as it effects foraging, resting, breeding, and dispersal. Other limiting factors include fragmentation and geographic isolation, prey availability, low population density, low reproductive potential, predation, competing predators, trapping, weather, parasites and disease. The American marten has been documented on the MBNF and forested habitat within the project area provides suitable habitat for the species.

Hoary Bat ( Lasiurus cinereus )

The hoary bat is one of the most widespread bats species occurring throughout the U.S. and

North America. The bat is a forest dwelling species often associated with coniferous and deciduous forests (Hester and Grenier 2005). A mixed forest habitat containing small open areas where edge effects occur are ideal for this species (Hart et al 1993). Suitable foraging habitat includes forest edges and riparian habitat near streams and ponds. Hoary bats roost in foliage near the forest edge at heights ranging from 10 – 40 ft (Hester and Grenier 2005).

Potential threats include degradation, fragmentation, and loss of forest habitats. Recent concern has been raised for migrating bats from human-caused mortality resulting from wind turbines and communication towers (Gruver 2002). Hoary bats migrate from Wyoming starting in August and return starting in April (Clark and Stromberg 1987; Luce 1998). The hoary bat has been documented in the MBNF and the project area may provide suitable habitat for roosting and forage.

Snowshoe Hare ( Lepus americanus )

Snowshoe hares primarily occupy dense, thick woodlands in environments with relatively deep winter snow accumulation . A dense understory provides hares with protection from predators, thermal protection, and winter food sources. In the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming and Colorado, they are most abundant in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and lodgepole pine forests. In the

Southern Rocky Mountains, hares have been found to be more abundant in mid- to late-seral stages of spruce-fir forests than in lodgepole pine forests (Zahratka 2004, Miller 2005). It is unclear, however, to what degree this is due to habitat preference, or to the fact that much

13



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest lodgepole pine in the Southern Rocky Mountains is in a mature state and, as such, is poor habitat for snowshoe hares (Ellsworth and Reynolds 2006).

Threats to snowshoe hare include reduction of available suitable habitat (mature spruce/fir and young lodgepole pine forests) through climate change, fire suppression, timber harvest, and various development activities. Changes to preferred habitats can result in reduced hare survival, abundance, and distribution. The snowshoe hare has been documented on the MBNF and portions of the conifer forest in the project area provide suitable habitat.

Canada Lynx ( Lynx canadensis )

In the Rocky Mountain region, the Canada lynx is associated with conifer forests which receive substantial snow accumulation. Common elevations range from 1,500 – 2,000 m (4,920 – 6,560 ft; McKelvey et al. 2000) with forest species including lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and

Engelmann spruce (Aubry et al. 2000). Forests primarily made up of ponderosa pine and climax lodgepole pine are not considered lynx habitat. Lynx ranges are often defined by snowshoe hares, their primary food base.

The Canada lynx has been documented in the MBNF. In an effort to help track lynx and lynx habitat, Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) have been created, and LAUs are established in the MBNF.

The proposed ROW is not within a LAU; however, the gravel pit is within the Battle Creek and

Upper Sierra Madre LAUs. Due to the open conditions present in the gravel pit, it is unclear to what extent the lynx would utilize this site.

Northern Goshawk ( Accipiter gentilis )

The northern goshawk is associated with boreal and temperate forest habitat throughout the

Holarctic and is the largest and heaviest bodied of the three accipiter species that occur in North

America.

It nests in mature forest habitat and preys on a variety of forest species including snowshoe hare, red squirrel, forest grouse, and woodpeckers. Although it uses a variety of tree species for nesting, characteristics that distinguish nesting areas include forest areas with high canopy cover and stands of mature trees with high basal area and fairly open understories away from human development.

It is a year-round resident in Wyoming and is found in mountain ranges across most of the state where larger patches of conifer forest habitat occur (WGFD

2010).

Primary limiting factors include loss and fragmentation of mature coniferous forest habitat due to beetle kill, extensive logging in past decades, large-scale fires, and climate change. The species is sensitive to human disturbance during nesting and nest success is limited by prey availability and early spring weather (March-May; WGFD 2010). The northern goshawk has been documented in the MBNF and may use the forested habitat in the project area for foraging, as nesting is unlikely with the high stem densities and smaller tree diameters (3 to 12 inches diameter at breast height [DBH]). There is the potential for nesting in mature aspen stands. The nearest known nest site is approximately one mile north of the project area.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse ( Tympanuches phasianellus columbianus )

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may use a variety of habitat types to meet seasonal needs, but are most commonly found in the transition zone between arid sagebrush rangelands and the start

14



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest of the aspen-conifer forests (Huffman and Thomas 2007). Typical habitat use during the spring, summer, and fall includes grasslands and low-shrub communities, while winter habitat is identified as tall shrub communities. Winter habitat is further identified as riparian areas, mountain shrub, or aspen stands. Species composition in suitable habitats is less restrictive than vegetation coverage. Shrub cover up to 40% and the presence of bunch grass are the preferred conditions (Hoffman and Thomas 2007). Sharp-tailed grouse breeding habitat (i.e., leks) is most commonly open elevated sites within shrub communities.

The sharp-tailed grouse has been documented in the MBNF, with more than one sighting occurring near the project area (S. Loose personal communication 2012). These sightings may not be indicative of the potential use of the project area by the species, given the habitat present in the project area (i.e., coniferous forest with minimal shrub cover). Use of the project area by the species would likely be limited to aspen stands and upland meadows during the winter.

Boreal Owl ( Aegolius funereus )

The boreal owl inhabits mature, high elevation forests of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine; interspersed mature aspen stands are also important as they usually provide more nesting cavities than spruce-fir. The boreal owl requires large areas of forest habitat, as home ranges are usually over 2500 ac (1000 ha). It prefers a forest structure that is typical of mature and old-growth forests, including large downed logs, a high overstory canopy, large snags, small openings, and an open stand structure for foraging. It requires large woodpecker or natural cavities in trees for nesting (WGFD 2010).

The primary limiting factors are forest fragmentation and removal of mature forest habitats on a regional scale, which result in reductions of prey populations, nesting cavities, and foraging habitat. Boreal owls have been documented on the MBNF and they may use the forested habitat in the project area.

Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

The flammulated owl is found within montane forest habitats. Ponderosa and Jeffery pine forests are two commonly associated habitat types (McCallum 1994). Older growth pine forests are the preferred breeding habitat. Aspen stands may also be selected for nest cavities. Flammulated owls may avoid dense forest stands commonly associated with second-growth forests.

Fire suppression is a likely contributor to the reduction of flammulated owl habitat. The lack of fire can cause over-growth of forests resulting in a lack of open understory among old-growth trees. The owls rely on the larger trees for nesting, while mature forests also provide more open conditions for better foraging opportunities (Reynolds et al. 1989). Flammulated owls have been documented on the MBNF; however, known populations are often patchy. They may use the forested habitat (specifically aspen stands) in the project area.

Olive-sided Flycatcher ( Contopus cooperi )

The olive-sided flycatcher is a neotropical migrant, with most of its breeding range in North

America and its wintering grounds in Central and South America. In the Southern Rockies, it primarily inhabits coniferous forest, including spruce-fir and ponderosa pine, where there is a

15



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest significant remaining component of pre-settlement trees or super-canopy snags.

Forest openings are considered highly important for foraging opportunities (Kotliar 2007). Due to their foraging strategy, which involves sallying for insects from high perches, they prefer the edges of open habitats (Kotliar 2007) that provide both abundant prey and high visibility for detecting prey

(Altman 1997). Their breeding habitat has two primary components, snags for singing and foraging perches, and conifers for nesting. Nesting occurs from May through August.

The causes for this species range-wide decline are not well known (Altman and Sallabanks

2000). Suppression of forest fires and expansion of dense second-growth forests are likely factors, but habitat loss along migratory routes and in wintering areas of Central and South

America could contribute significantly to population declines (NatureServe 2012). The extirpation and recovery of beaver populations throughout most of the western U.S. between the mid-19th through late-20th centuries likely had a significant effect on flycatchers due to their strong association with beaver pond habitats. Olive-sided flycatchers have been documented on the MBNF and could occur along forest edges and meadows in close proximity to the project area.

Purple Martin ( Progne subis )

The purple martin is a rare resident in Wyoming, with only one known colony in the MBNF

(Wiggins 2004). Preferred habitat for the purple martin is mature aspen stands with adjacent open meadow and open water (e.g., pond or stream). The martin utilizes cavities in live aspen for nesting. Martins generally utilize aspen which have a DBH of at least 14 in. An assessment completed by Reynolds et al. 2002 showed nest sites occurring within 300 m (984 ft) of a pond or stream. Based on this data, it is assumed that hydrology is a relatively important, though not critical, component to assess purple martin habitat suitability. Presence of open meadows within

175 ft has also been documented as a key habitat component for nest locations. Open meadows in forested systems are the preferred foraging habitat (Wiggins 2004).

The known population status of the purple martin in Wyoming is limited. Potential threats to martins are commonly associated with forest management techniques which alter wet habitat or allow the encroachment of coniferous species in aspen stands and open meadows (Wiggins

2004). Competition for nesting sites may also contribute to purple martin populations trends.

Purple martins have been documented in the MBNF and suitable habitat does exist in the project vicinity.

Black-backed Woodpecker ( Picoides arcticus )

This species is a rare resident in Wyoming and currently nests only in the northwest and northeast corners of the state (WFGD 2010). It inhabits mature and old-growth montane coniferous forests with decadent trees, snags, and fallen logs. It is closely associated with recently-burned forest habitats and depends heavily on the larvae of wood-boring beetles. It may require a dynamic mosaic of recent burns across a landscape to sustain populations.

Limiting factors for the species include habitat loss from fire suppression, removal of fire-killed or insect-infested trees, and the conversion of mature and old growth forests to young stands.

The black-backed woodpecker has not been documented on the MBNF, however, with the pine

16



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest beetle infestation occurring across the forest, foraging habitat is increasingly available. Forest conditions within the immediate project area are not suitable for nesting.

Three-toed Woodpecker ( Picoides dorsalis )

The three-toed woodpecker inhabits boreal and montane forests in the Southern Rockies. It is not abundant throughout its range, but tends to increase in numbers during bark beetle epidemics

(Koplin 1969). It tends to occur in a variety of habitats, depending on available food sources, but has a strong association with spruce forests in the Southern Rockies. It typically inhabits forest habitat at 8,000 feet elevation up to tree line during summer and slightly lower during winter.

The majority of their diet consists of insects, especially beetles and wood-boring larvae. Nesting habitat consists of cavities in snags or dying trees.

Limiting factors for the species include habitat fragmentation and availability of adequate food resources. The three-toed woodpecker has been documented on the MBNF and suitable foraging habitat is present in the project area and surrounding area. Minimal snags were present in the immediate project area; therefore, nesting opportunities may also be limited.

Golden-crowned Kinglet ( Regulus satrapa )

The golden-crowned kinglet inhabits conifer and mixed forests in the Southern Rockies. It is considered uncommon in Wyoming, occurring primarily in winter, except for the western part of the state. The species abundance is highly variable from year to year in Wyoming. It typically feeds in flocks of mixed species, eating insects and larvae. The species is expanding its range into northeastern North America (Vancouver Avian Research Center 2011). The species is known to nest along forest edges and/or near water.

The golden-crowned kinglet occurs on the MBNF and potential suitable habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area. Nesting habitat may be limited due to the lack of wet areas and minimal forest edges within the proposed ROW.

Slender moonwort ( Botrychium lineare)

Slender moonwort is believed to occur in a variety of habitat types (Wagner and Wagner 1994) in high elevation mountains. Specific habitat types include grassy meadows, shaded woods and woodlands, grassy cliff ledges, and upland sections of river valleys (Natureserve 2012). Multiple occurrences have also been documented in disturbed gravel sites adjacent roadways (Barton and

Crispis 2004; USFWS 2003).

The slender moonwort has not been documented in the project area; however, potential habitat does exist along existing roadways and upland meadows.

Species of local concern (SoLC)

USFS biologist Steve Loose identified three species of local concern along Hwy 70: brown creeper ( Certhia americana ), brown-capped rosy finch ( Leucosticte australis ), and pika

( Ochotona princeps figginsi ).

17




Brown creeper

The preferred habitats of brown creeper include forest, woodlands, forested floodplains, and swamps. Scrub and parks are also used in winter and during migration. It is most often found in coniferous and mixed forests. A component of dead trees is essential for nesting, so brown creepers tend to be associated with older forests (NatureServe 2012). Suitable habitat for the species does occur in the project area; however, no old-growth coniferous forests occur in the project area.

Brown-capped rosy-finch

The preferred habitats of brown-capped rosy finch includes barren, rocky or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or beyond timberline. Nests are usually located in rock crevices or holes in cliffs (NatureServe 2012). The project area is located within heavy timber away from talus slopes and cliffs. It is unlikely that the species would occur within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Pika

Pikas are restricted to rocky talus slopes, and occur primarily along the talus-meadow interface.

The species can be found at lower elevations in rocky areas within forests or near lakes

(NatureServe 2012). While the project area is located within a forested area, no “rocky” areas were observed. It is unlikely that the species would occur within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Personal communications with Katie Driver Haynes identified five plant species of local concern along Hwy 70 (Table 2). Surveys for plant species in the project area did not identify the presence of these species; therefore, no further analysis needs to be completed (K. Haynes personal communication 2012).

Table 2. Forest Service Species of Local Concern potentially occurring in the Project Area

Scientific Name

Common Name

Gymnocarpium dryopteris Oak

Pyrrocoma crocea var. crocea Western

Bahia dissecta Dissected

Draba spectabilis var. oxyloba

Showy whitlow-grass

Trillium ovatum var. ovatum Western

Potential Project Effects

Existing Conditions

The project area is considered the existing road, the new road alignment, and the gravel pit. The existing section of failed roadway will be demolished and restored to natural conditions. The new road alignment will be routed over a hill (existing road aligned is around the hill) to help minimize hazards from potential slide events in the future. The gravel pit will be used for borrow material and for siting of the hot plant (Appendix A).

18




The existing road is aligned across the slope of a hill and has a section that separated from the existing road and slid down the hill. A one-lane road with a crushed rock surface was constructed across the slide area and is currently used to allow vehicle passage.

The new road alignment will include approximately 0.9 miles of roadway. The proposed ROW will connect before and after the existing road curve and will traverse the top of the hill instead of contouring around the hill (Appendix A). The hill is dominated by dense conifer forest, with small stands of aspen and open meadows scattered within and adjacent to the proposed ROW.

The existing conifer forest is one of mid-seral stage. The aspen stands are mature trees, in some cases reaching in excess of 30 ft. Small areas of open meadow (upland grass/forbs) also exist within and adjacent to the proposed road alignment. Minimal dead and downed trees or snags were noted within the proposed ROW; however, these features were noted in the surrounding area. Extensive stands of beetle kill trees were not observed within the proposed ROW; however, beetle kill is increasingly present throughout the MBNF.

The gravel pit has been previously disturbed for road construction activities. The site is approximately 675 ft x 350 ft (~5 ac) and has been cleared of tree/shrub species. Herbaceous vegetation has become established on the flat and sloped areas. Vegetative species include upland grasses and forbs (Appendix B).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under NEPA, “direct effects” are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. “Indirect effects” are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable (50 CFR 1508.8).

American Marten

The American marten may occur in the forests surrounding and within the project area. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Project activities are not expected to affect the marten’s prey base. If marten occur during the proposed project activities, they may temporarily be displaced due to elevated noise from construction equipment and human presence. There are potential direct effects from the new roadway (i.e., traffic related fatalities); however, these effects are not expected to differ from those occurring along the previously existing roadway.

Snowshoe Hare

The snowshoe hare may use the forested habitat in the project area to forage and breed; however, preferred habitat (i.e., dense understory) is limited in the project area. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Hares using the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction, but abundant foraging habitat alternatives exist. There are potential direct effects from the new roadway (i.e., traffic related fatalities); however, these effects are not expected to differ from those occurring along the previously existing roadway.

19




Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx may use the forested habitat in the project area; however, the proposed ROW is not within a defined LAU. The proposed ROW does contain potentially suitable habitat (i.e., coniferous forest) and does receive notable snow accumulation. The prey base in the project area may be limited as dense understory is not present. However, some displacement may occur on a temporary basis during construction. There are potential direct effects from the new roadway

(i.e., traffic related fatalities); however, these effects are not expected to differ from those occurring along the previously existing roadway.

The gravel pit is within two LAUs (Battle Creek and Upper Sierra Madre). The gravel pit area is small and heavily disturbed (see appendix B photographs). Due to the conditions of the gravel pit, it is unlikely that the lynx would utilize the cleared area. Suitable habitat is presented adjacent to the gravel pit; however, use of the gravel pit is not likely to have an effect on the lynx.

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk may use the forested habitat in the project area for foraging. Nesting is less likely in coniferous areas, but may potentially occur in the mature aspen stands. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres), and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Goshawks using the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction, but abundant foraging and nesting habitat alternatives exist.

Protocol surveys will be completed in 2012 to further assess the use of the project area by northern goshawks and provide information for implementing construction buffers or other mitigation measures, if warranted.

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been documented near the project area. The project area does not provide suitable breeding or nesting habitat; therefore, direct impacts from the project construction are not anticipated. Shrub cover and riparian habitat do not exist along the proposed

ROW or within the gravel pit. Use of the project area would likely be limited to the winter season, after the species has moved out of its spring/summer/fall habitat. Use of the project area would likely be restricted to aspen stands and upland meadows. Minimal aspen stands and upland meadows communities exist along the proposed ROW.

Boreal Owl

The boreal owl may use the forested habitat in the project area primarily for dispersal based on structure and density. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is moderate

(approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). The project area does not contain old-growth forests preferred by the owl. Boreal owl use of the project vicinity is expected to be infrequent and minimal effects to boreal owls are anticipated.

Flammulated Owl

The flammulated owl may use the forested habitat, specifically aspen stands, in the project area for foraging or nesting; however, preferred habitat (i.e., ponderosa and Jeffery pine) is not

20



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest present. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Flammulated owls utilizing habitats in the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction, but alternative foraging and nesting habitat exists nearby.

Olive-sided Flycatcher

The olive-sided flycatcher has been documented on the MBNF and may occur near forest edges or meadows; however, no wetland habitat is present in the project area. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Given the amount of similar and suitable habitat located throughout the region, it is anticipated that impacts would be minimal.

Purple Martin

The purple martin has been documented on the MBNF and may utilize aspen stands or forest meadows. Small areas of mature aspen stands do occur along the proposed ROW and in the surrounding area. Similarly, open meadow, which may be used for foraging, are located in the surrounding area. The proximity of the project area to open water (ponds or rivers) may be a limiting factor. Displacement of martins may occur during construction; however, suitable habitat is abundant in the surrounding area.

Black-backed Woodpecker

Although undocumented on the MBNF, foraging habitat is increasingly available due to beetle kill. An abundance of beetle kill does not occur in the immediate project area, but is abundant throughout the MBNF. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is moderate

(approximately 33 acres), and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Black-backed woodpeckers foraging in the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction, but abundant foraging habitat alternatives exist nearby.

Three-toed Woodpecker

The three-toed woodpecker may be present in and around the project area; however, preferred habitat (i.e., beetle kill) is limited within the immediate project area. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Three-toed woodpeckers foraging in the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction; however, abundant suitable foraging habitat alternatives exist throughout the region.

Golden-crowned Kinglet

The kinglet may use the forested habitat in the project area, primarily for foraging in the winter.

Forested habitat removal associated with the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). Kinglets using the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction, but abundant foraging habitat alternatives exist nearby.

Slender moonwort

Slender moonwort has the potential to occur in the project area adjacent existing roadways, in the disturb gravel pit, or in open meadow and forest edges. Forested habitat removal associated with

21



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest the project is moderate (approximately 33 acres) and will be linear (i.e. ~4,750 ft x ~250 ft). The existing road will be reclaimed and the gravel pit will be disturbed in previously impacted areas.

Habitat in previously disturbed areas will not be altered; however, impacts to forest edges and meadows may result in loss of potential suitable habitat. Newly created forest edges and disturbed areas, resulting from construction activities, may create additional suitable habitat.

Species of Local Concern

Project impacts to the brown creeper may occur during construction activities; however, an abundance of similar habitat is available in surrounding region. Suitable habitat for the browncapped rosy-finch and pika does not occur in the project area; therefore, no impacts to these two species are anticipated.

Cumulative Effects

Under NEPA, “Cumulative impact” is defined as an impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (50 FCR

1508.7).

No reasonably foreseeable future impacts are anticipated within the project vicinity. Past actions occurring within the project vicinity appear limited to the previous road construction, silviculture activities, and livestock grazing. Given that the proposed action will include restoration of the failed section of roadway to natural conditions and there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity, the proposed action should contribute little to cumulative impacts on sensitive species and the local environment.

Determination of Effect and Rationale

American Marten

The project will have minimal impact to potentially suitable habitat, but may temporarily displace individuals during construction. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Proposed actions will follow Forest Plan (2003) standards and guidelines for water and aquatics, biological diversity, wildlife, and threatened, endangered and sensitive species (see

USDA 2003). These requirements should provide water, foraging habitat, roosting habitat, prey animals, and breeding/nesting habitat sufficient to support populations of MIS. Thus, these requirements will support the Forest Plan objective for MIS of “…maintain or improve habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS) across the forest in the long-term ”.

22




Snowshoe Hare

The snowshoe hare may use the forested habitat in the project area. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres). Hares using the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction.



Canada Lynx

The proposed roadway is not within a defined LAU. The gravel pit is within two LAUs (Battle

Creek and Upper Sierra Madre). An Inter-agency Southern Rockies Lynx Project Decision

Screen was completed by USFWS biologist Steve Loose for this project (Appendix C). Based on the screen, a no effect determination was concluded from this project.

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk may use the forest habitat in the project area for foraging. Outside of scattered aspen stands, nesting is not anticipated. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres). Goshawks using the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.



Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may use aspen stands and upland meadows near the project area. Use of the project area by the species is anticipated to be infrequent and most commonly occurring during the winter season (i.e., outside of the construction period). The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Boreal Owl

Potential for use of project area by the boreal owl is limited. Mature aspen stands are present in the project vicinity and may provide nesting habitat; however, spruce-fir forests are primarily dense secondary-growth, which is not ideal for foraging. Forest habitat removal associated with

23



Brush Creek Hayden District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres). The project may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide .

Flammulated Owl

Potential for use of project area by the flammulated owl is limited. Mature aspen stands are present in the project vicinity and may provide nesting habitat; however, ponderosa and Jeffery pine species are not present. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is minimal

(approximately 33 acres). The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability of the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Potential for use of the project area by the olive-sided flycatcher is limited as no riparian areas are present and upland meadows/forest edges are minimal. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres) and does not include suitable nesting habitat and only includes minimal suitable foraging habitat. The project may temporarily displace foraging individuals during construction. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Purple Martin

Potential for use of the project area by the purple martin may occur, but is likely limited due to the proximity to open water habitat. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 ac). Direct impacts to preferred habitat (i.e., aspen stands and open meadow) will be similarly limited. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Black-backed Woodpecker

Potential for use of the project area by the black-backed woodpecker is limited as minimal beetle kill is present in the immediate project area. Forest habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres). The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Three-toed Woodpecker

Potential for use of the project area by the three-toed woodpecker is limited as minimal beetle kill is present in the immediate project area. Forested habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres). The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.


24





Golden-crowned Kinglet

Forested habitat removal associated with the project is minimal (approximately 33 acres).

Kinglets foraging in the project vicinity may be temporarily displaced during construction. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.



Slender moonwort

Suitable habitat for the slender moonwort may be impacted during construction, specifically forest edges and upland meadows. Minimal impacts are anticipated in these areas. Other suitable habitat, gravel and disturbed areas, will continue as such, and additional disturbed areas will be created from project construction. The project may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Species of Local Concern

Project impacts to the brown creeper may occur during construction activities; however, an abundance of similar habitat is available in surrounding region. The project may adversely impact brown creeper individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide .

Suitable habitat for the brown-capped rosy-finch and pika does not occur in the project area; therefore, the project will have no effect on these species.

RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR

MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Project impacts to USFS Sensitive species, USFWS T&E – Carbon County, and MIS are expected to be minimal as habitat in the project area is abundant regionally. The following steps will be taken to minimize effects to sensitive species.

 The project will implement temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs to preserve water quality.

25










The project design will minimize disturbance outside the road footprint to the extent practicable.

Equipment will be washed prior to moving on site in order to reduce the introduction and/or spread of non-native invasive species.

Revegetation/reseeding will follow MBNF guidelines.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

This BE was prepared based on presently available information. If the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species that in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised BE will be required.

CONTACTS

Communication with USFS biologists Steve Loose and Katie Driver Haynes was completed.

Mr. Loose provided guidance on which wildlife species to include in the analysis and forming determinations. Mrs. Driver Haynes provided guidance on which plant species to include in the analysis and forming determination.

26




LITERATURE CITED

Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided flycatcher in western North America: status review. Unpublished report. U.S.D.I Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 59 pp.

Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi . In the birds of

North America, No. 502. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Philadelphia: The Academy of

Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Anderson, T. 2005. Rocky Mountain Capshell Snail ( Acroloxus coloradensis ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountaincapshellsnail.pdf.

Anderson, T. 2005a. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf.

Aubry, K. B., G. Koehler, and J. R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Pages 373-396 In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C.

J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. (Tech. Eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

Barton, D. and S. Crispin. 2004. Conservation Status of Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort) in Montana. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural Heritage

Program, Helena, MT. 16 pp. plus appendices.

Bennett, L.A. 1984. Marten ecology and habitat management in the Central Rocky Mountains:

Problem analysis. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State

University and Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggerio. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in L. F. Ruggiero, K.B.

Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the United

States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-RM-254.

Clark TW, Stromberg MR. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Lawrence: Univ Kansas. 314 p.

Ellsworth, E. and T.D. Reynolds. (2006, July 19). Snowshoe Hare ( Lepus americanus ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/snowshoehare.pdf

[Accessed Jan 2012].

Gruver J. 2002. Assessment of bat faunal composition and habitat preferences for the hoary bat

27




( Lasiurus cinereus ) near Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming [abstract]. In: Wyoming Chapter of the Wildlife Society annual meeting program; Douglas.

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [Jan 2012].

Hart JA, Kirkland GL, Grossman SC. 1993. Relative abundance and habitat use by tree bats,

Lasiurus spp., in southcentral Pennsylvania. Can Field-Nat 107(2):208-12.

Hester S.G., Grenier M.B. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, WY.

Hoffman, R.W. 2006. White-tailed ptarmigan ( Lagopus leucura ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/whitetailedptarmigan.pdf

Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. (2007, August 17). Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

( Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online].

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiansharptailedgrouse.pdf

[Accessed Jan 2012].

Johnson, A.S. and S.H. Anderson (2003, December 9). Wilson’s Warbler ( Wilsonia pusilla pileolata ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wilsonswarbler.pdf [Accessed Jan

2012].

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis ( Myotis thysanodes ): a technical conservation assessment.

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf

Keinath, D. and G. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical conservation assessment. USFS Rocky Mountain Region.

Koplin, J.R. 1969. The numerical response of woodpeckers to insect prey in a subalpine forest in

Colorado. Condor 71: 436-438.

Kotliar, N.B. (2007, February 20). Olive-sided Flycatcher ( Contopus cooperi ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf [Jan

2012].

28




Luce B. 1998. Wyoming’s bats: wings of the night. Wyo Wildl 62(8):17-32.

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owls. Pages 14-46 in G. D.

Hayward and J. Verner, editors. Flammulated, boreal and great gray owls in the United

States: a technical conservation assessment. USFS General Technical Report, GTR RM-

253, Fort Collins, CO

McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages 207-264 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk,

G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

MacWhirter, R. B., and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier ( Circus cyaneus ). In The Birds of North America, No. 210 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Miller, M.A. 2005. Snowshoe hare habitat relationships in successional stages of spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen cover types in northwest Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Colorado

State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Muths, E., S. Rittman, J. Irwin, D. Keinath, and R. Scherer. (2005, March 24). Wood Frog ( Rana sylvatica ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/woodfrog.pdf [Jan 2012].

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 2012).

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY.

Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula,

Montana, USA.

Reynolds, R. T., R. A. Ryder, and B. D. Linkhart. 1989. Small forest owls. Pages 131-143 in

National Wildlife Federation. Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and workshop. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series No.12.

Washington, D.C.

Reynolds, R.T., D.P. Kane, and D.M. Finch. 2002. Tree-nesting habitat of Purple Martins in

Colorado. Journal of the Colorado Field Ornithologists 36:6-13.

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney,

Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick

29




Wenger, and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land

Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, MT.

Samson, F. B. 2005 (amended March 6, 2006). A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, blacked-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. (2007, January 16). Northern Leopard Frog ( Rana pipiens ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf [Jan 2012].

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson (2003, May 8). Lincoln’s Sparrow ( Melospiza lincolnii ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lincolnssparrow.pdf

[Jan 2012].

Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas, M. Novak, and N.P. Hunziger. 1982. Marten Martes americana.Pages 599-612 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, ed. Wild mammals of

North America. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Index of Species Evaluated for Region 2 Sensitive Species List.

Rocky Mountain Region. http://fsweb.rs.fs.fed.us/rr/scp/spp_index.shtml.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Matrix of sensitive species by unit. Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/tes/tes_r2ss.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft candidate assessment and listing priority assignment form for Botrychium lineare. USFWS.

Vancouver Avian Research Centre. 2011. [online] Available: http://www.birdvancouver.com/index.html. Accessed on January 2012.

Wagner, W. H., Jr., and F. S. Wagner. 1994. Another widely disjunct, rare and local North

American moonwort (OPHIOGLOSSACEAE: BOTRYCHIUM subg. BOTRYCHIUM).

American Fern Journal 84(1):5-10.

Wiggins, D. 2004. Black Swift ( Cypseloides niger ): a technical conservation assessment.

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blackswift.pdf .

Wiggins, D. (2005, February 10). Loggerhead Shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf .

30




Wiggins, D. (2005, March 31). Purple Martin ( Progne subis ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/purplemartin.pdf [Jan 2012].

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan: Part VI;

Species Accounts.

Zahratka, J.L. 2004. The population and habitat ecology of snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ) in the southern Rocky Mountains. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

31




Appendix A

Figures




Existing and Proposed Road Alignment




Gravel Pit




Plan Sheets




Plan Sheets




Plan Sheets




Plan Sheets




Plan Sheets




Appendix B

Photographs




East End of Proposed ROW

Representative Forest Edge (Meadow to Aspen)




Representative Forest Edge (Meadow to Spruce/Fir)

West End of Proposed ROW




Slide Area

Gravel Pit




Gravel Pit




Appendix C

Canada Lynx Screen







49 usc 303 - Wyoming Department of Transportation

FHWA··WY -EA-11-02

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Wyoming 70

Baggs ·· Encampment

Dry Sandstone Slide

Carbon County

APPROVED:

Wyoming Department of Transportation and

US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Submitted Pursuant to

42 USC 4332(2) (c), 23 USC 128(a),

303

Forest Plan Direction___________________________________

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines____________________

Geographic Area (GA) Objectives and Strategies

Management Area (MA) Standards and Guidelines

4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

Agency Correspondence

Public Comment

SCOPING NOTICE

Baggs - Encampment

WYO HIGHWAY 70

Dry Sandstone Slide Section

Appendix C

Geological Memorandum

Department of Transportation

State of Wyoming

EXPLANATION

·

Figure 2: Dry Sandstone Landslide

M.P. 31 Wyoming State Highway

Baggs-Encampment

DR12295 Carbon County

;~~ · " ig~ibioiid::ifi~;~~i:::/~htf'imolst_

~

~

··············...

······

·

"

- -

- -

:·· • ......

:·:~::~~.~~··~

A'

Figure 3: Dry Sandstone Landslide

Geologic Section A-A'

Encampment-Baggs

DR12295 Carbon County

Appendix D

Wyoming State Highway 70

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Introduction

Description of the Proposed Action and Area

Sensitive Species Information

Species of local concern (SoLC)

Potential Project Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cumulative Effects

Determination of Effect and Rationale

CONTACTS

LITERATURE CITED

Appendix A

Figures

Existing and Proposed Road Alignment

Gravel Pit

Appendix B

Photographs

East End of Proposed ROW

Representative Forest Edge (Meadow to Aspen)

Representative Forest Edge (Meadow to Spruce/Fir)

West End of Proposed ROW

Slide Area

Gravel Pit

Gravel Pit

Appendix C

Canada Lynx Screen

Related documents

:·:~::.··~