Daniel Jct to Hoback Jct EA

Transcription

FHWA-WY-EA-02-03
Environmental Assessment
U.S. Highway 189/191 -Daniel Junction to Hoback Junction
Sublette County
Wyoming Department of Transportation Projects 013-02(076) & 013-02(064)
January 2004
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
State ofWyoming
Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Cheyenne, Wyoming
FHWA-WY-EA-02-03
U.S. Highway 189/191
Daniel Junction to Hoback Junction
Sublette County, Wyoming
Wyoming Department of Transportation Projects
013-02(076) & 013-02(064)
Prepared for:
and
Wyoming Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
FHWA-WY-EA 02-03
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. HIGHWAY 189/191
DANIEL JUNCTION - HOBACK JUNCTION
(DELL CREEK AND PFISTERER SECTIONS)
PROJECT NOs. 013-02(076) & 013-02(064)
SUBLETTE COUNTY, WY
Submitted pursuant to 42 US. C. 4332 (2) (c)
&
J-2.2.-04
Date of Approval
Date of Approval
Timot L. Stark, P.E.
Environmental Services Engineer
14&M~fb-A ky
Division Administrator, Wyoming Division
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Kevin Powell
Wyoming Department ofTransportation
P.O. Box 1708
Cheyenne, WY 82003-1708
(307) 777-3997
Lee Potter, P.E.
2617 E. Lincolnway, SuiteD
(307) 772-2004
Comments on this EA are due by _ _ _ _ and should be sent to Timothy L. Stark at the
above address.
ACRONYMS
AADT
AASHTO
ACOE
AIRS
BMP
BTNF
CFR
DEQ
EA
EPA
FEMA
FHWA
GAP
GIS
GYE
LRMP
MIS
MP
MPH
NEPA
NFIP
NFS
NRCS
NRHP
NWR
OWSA
PM
ROW
SHPO
US DOT
USFS
USFWS
VQO
WGFD
wos
WYDOT
WYNDD
YNP
Annual Average Daily Traffic
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officicals
Army Corps of Engineers
Aerometric Information Retrieval Information System
Best Management Practices
Bridger-Teton National Forest
Code of Federal Regulations
Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Gap Analysis Project
Geographic Information System
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Land and Resource Management Plan
Management Indicator Species
Milepost
Miles per Hour
National Environmental Policy Act
National Flood Insurance Program
National Forest System Lands
Natural Resource Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
National Wildlife Refuge
Office of Wyoming State Archaeologist
Particulate Matter
Right-of-Way
State Historic Preservation Officer
United States Department of Transportation
United States Forest Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Visual Quality Objective
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Wildlife Observation System
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
Yellowstone National Park
TABLE OF CONTENTS
100 PURPOSE AND NEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-1
101 Introduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-1
102 Project Location 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-1
103 Purpose of and Need for the Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-4
10301 Roadway Deficiencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-4
10302 Highway Safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-5
10303 Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-7
200 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-1
201 No Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-1
202 Proposed Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-2
20201 Project Description 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-2
2020101 Roadway Deficiencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-2
2020102 Highway Safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-2
2020103 Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-4
20201.4 Other Project Features 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-4
20202 Material Pits/Plant Sites/Construction Staging Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-5
300 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-1
301 Land Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-1
30101 Land Ownership and Land Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-1
30102 Section 4(f) Lands and Other Recreational Uses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-3
30103 Livestock and Grazing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-7
301.4 Farmland (Including Prime and Unique) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-8
30105 Joint Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-9
302 Social 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-10
303 Environmental Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-11
304 Economic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-11
305 Right-of-Way Acquisition and Relocation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-12
306 Transportation (Including Pedestrians and Bicycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-13
30601 Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-13
30602 Pedestrians and Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-14
307 Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-15
308 Noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-16
309 Geology and Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-18
301 0 Water Resources and Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 • 0 0 •• 0 0 • 3-19
3.11 Floodplains 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 • 0 0 0 3-22
3.12 Wetlands 0 •••• 0 •••• 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 ••• 0 0 •••• 0 0 • 3-25
3013 Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 •• 0 • 3-28
3014 Wildlife and Fish Resources ... 0 0 •• 0 • 0 •• 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-33
3015 Threatened and Endangered Species . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ••• 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-41
January 2004
U.S. Highway 1891191
3.16 Historic and Archaeological Preservation .......................
3.17 Hazardous Waste Sites .....................................
3.18 Visual Quality .............................................
3.19 Energy ..................................................
3.20 Permits ..................................................
3.21 Temporary Construction Impacts ..............................
3.22 Cumulative Impacts ........................................
3-48
3-49
3-50
3-55
3-55
3-56
3-57
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 4-1
4.1 Public and Agency Coordination ................................ 4-1
4.2 Hearing and Decision Process .................................. 4-3
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................... 5-1
5.1 Literature Cited ............................................. 5-1
5.2 Personal Communications ..................................... 5-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1-1.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
Table 3-5.
Table 3-6.
Table 3-7.
Table 3-8.
Table 3-9.
Table 3-10.
Table 3-11.
Table 3-12.
Table 3-13.
Crash Severity and Crash Rates for the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Grazing Allotments Adjacent to U.S. 189/191 on the BTNF ......... 3-8
Population Data .......................................... 3-1 0
Current and Projected Distribution of Labor Force- Sublette County . 3-12
Air Quality in Nearby Jackson Compared to National and State
Standards .............................................. 3-15
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ............................ 3-17
Existing Noise Levels ..................................... 3-17
Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in Project Area ...... 3-31
Seasonal Ranges for Big Game Populations as Defined by WGFD .. 3-33
Sensitive Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest .......... 3-39
Endangered and Threatened, Species Identified by the USFWS as
Potentially Occurring in the Project Area ....................... 3-42
Cultural Resource Sites In and Near the Project Area ............ 3-49
Permits and Approvals Required for the Proposed Action ......... 3-55
Anticipated Future Projects in the Project Area Vicinity ........... 3-57
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1-1.
1-2.
1-3.
2-1.
2-2.
Regional Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crashes in the Project Area by Mile Post Marker 1992 - 2001 .......
Existing and Proposed Typical Sections ........................
Proposed Project Features ..................................
January 2004
11
1-2
1-3
1-6
2-3
2-6
US. Highway /89/191
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-6.
Land Ownership .......................................... 3-2
Vegetation Types ........................................ 3-29
Location of Elk Seasonal Ranges Designated by WGFD in Project
Area ................................................... 3-35
Location of Moose Seasonal Ranges Designated by WGFD in
Project Area ............................................ 3-35
Location of Vehicle-Big Game Collisions Reported by WYDOT and
WGFD in Project Area, 1990-2001 ........................... 3-37
USFS Management Prescription Areas ....................... 3-52
APPENDIX A
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONCURRENCE LETTER
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST CONCURRENCE LETTER
APPENDIX B
SCOPING SUMMARY
January 2004
lll
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) is proposing to reconstruct two adjacent
sections ofU.S. Highway 1891191 between Daniel Junction and Hoback Junction near the town of
Bondurant in Sublette County. The two sections total approximately 11.3 miles in length. Funding
for the project is provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), thus the project
constitutes a federal action. Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 requires that federal agencies prepare environmental documents for any federal action
potentially affecting the quality of the human environment. This Environmental Assessment (EA)
meets these requirements. This EA assesses potential impacts resulting from the proposed action
and alternatives, and evaluates the significance of the impacts. Further, the EA documents
coordination with relevant federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the public, in accordance with
NEPA. This EA was prepared following FHWA's Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(/) Documents (USDOT FHWA 1987).
1.2 Project Location
The project is approximately 11.3 miles in length, between milepost (MP) 147.7 in the
NW1/4NW114 of Section 24, Township 38 North, Range 114 West and extending southeasterly to
MP 136.4 in the SW1/4SE114 of Section 20, Township 37 North, Range 112 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian (Figs. 1-1, 1-2). The project is located within the boundaries of the BridgerTeton National Forest (BTNF), however, much of the land immediately adjacent to the highway is
privately owned.
The two sections of highway that make up the project are the Dell Creek section and the Pfisterer
section, and are described as follows:
•
The Dell Creek Section (Project Number 013-02 (064)) begins at MP 147. 7 near the entrance
to Hoback Canyon and extends southeasterly along the existing corridor for approximately
4.9 miles, ending at MP 142.8 in the town of Bondurant. Included within this section is the
bridge over the Hoback River at MP 145.3.
•
The Pfisterer Section (Project Number 013-02 (076)) begins at MP 142.8 in the town of
Bondurant and extends southeasterly along the existing corridor for approximately 6.4 miles
to MP 136.4. Included within this section is the bridge over the Hoback River at MP 139.0
and the crossing of Muddy Creek at MP 138.6.
January 2004
1-1
Figure 1-1. Regional
Vicinity Map.
-
National Parks
l.;;y,J National Forests
N
-+·
0
30 Miles
~---
us 189/191
January 2004
1-2
U.S Highway 189/191
•
I ,:/:-:' , _I
, A
,;
1
·
0
.- .
,1-:J
__ __,+-- ~-t;.-"J'"--.
.-Lh~u.;,_w:.+ ~=--- --:;;~;-<;- - r-"'~,;_J_
~- Jtf'' ' / - ·,- ~j r·
··'(
/
'
'
/
~-;-tt-t ,.r
\
1
0
•
)
'
1 /,i,": _r""'Vr
,-1
T~ \/
1
J lJ
I
N
/
I
'J rf t .
•.
/,-,
,.
.t:/•
;
(...
1~j11. ·· ; ·-,,'l.
'
¥~-k. "-.P ~1~~-J=-:e~;~:---< v,_j?-d:;~
. . . (r_,-;::i'-;·i'·~~~·)i,;~Ar0<
r 7' ~
-:
,..'
\:
_.,. r
--
' "· ~ ,...,.< l '
l
)'+-
"- -.
\'
. /
v:..J ·
·:
; / .-;' ·<:;_"~· 'o:f1
)
r·
,.· ;·-~.,-,
·:;:::::), · ,. .. <::>V<!..l --<~~
·c~\,
·- - --/· ~--- · ._. - _;-:.\!\ ·:;t\ .) t:(j'
1I
.
~-""·
.-~
1'
l
.
~
~
~
/l
)
,..
·'r,..
:'"' 1 ,.,l,
.f? ..
'i'
)
'
'l j ,
J~
I
I \ ')f.J
~
_._v-;.,
.
1',_--- -
~ )
·! ·)·•
·J.)l
,
·.:.;:.~
'
i_\
~-)
\ "f:
.. ~.
''J
l,.: ____
1.. /
"'j
!..=,...
\ {
I.
O
r"",. - \
. \I . \
·t--"' 1·..;::.......
I)
,
, \J
j
-~ ~
I. '
!)' ~;:!
1,
;,+-:~ ~
,....
< "'1'"~-
/
1
!
•
I
.
-< ~N:'~ rr:, ··~,t•:t ,. . 1 1- - ~E~ _ ·
j......1
:/~'\._
- r'
;-. .
' -
'-t'1u....-.
. 6
1
I
·.''( ,:.
.-\ - / i
-. Y.
C,t¥_~t
~·- f . ..-' f
t'
I
/.? -- ~...
.!r
1
\f I ·l·•i; {
·
·I
o.''~'r
' ,,r1 1
'
'
•
,b,.,f
.,
-·
; '
. -'
I
_ , ..~-'.
,~,.~...
:r·
(· r
L '
1
1
/
;
'.
. .J
I
I
I
I
~-:
'
\
~i
.L ;
U•· I
!:; ld
'
1
\
\
-I• '
,·
I
·y- ..-· ~ !:'"
1
·- · , : ._
,) .
> .\
/ ....- ; /
\I..
~ ...
'\
•
/ J
f
-. . _ ·:
..--r ~
s hl!v-;.-(. .,
'
( \,
-
•
-
""-...
~':rl36
·~'ti
r~-
,.1":;-t ./ (_
·•. _-
> ·f__.....-";_, ,
'
~
{ ,{
~"
_'
~.J
N
,
f·
· '''•' ····o • ' '
,{1/t'
~~1';/
, .....
'
•\
-
{
'
')
.
t:: -
~t'c-t
,
•
.-
z~~""'~
\\
:'\
T
'
....
o)
-...;;:...
I
, ...
)J
,I' '\.. ..
' \._
~-. . :::-~-- ......~.\· •. ::..,../'·t
·,f
January 2004
1-3
'
._..
L'
, .,.
1./\
·, /
1,.-,
{I ~ -
0
-
- - ...,_
" -'
L )
1
•
\ .,-
,,u
(f
~ ~ ---
('(,
,.._:.;;r-
.. ...
·\'r
·,_'~;
.. _. \ / ('\
_.-'_...
~.._...,..._;• f-~ .. J~·.J-/~,
•' • ~
2 Miles
. . . , \ I'Qc;.
't' ~' ·'
~\ ~-J :ir
'
~
' 1 "\: ..
')... ~, t'
';!;:;;
;
'>
C-_:.lti "
,
. •
<u'.' ..~··-·,.; '· c·- <":'
2,. ,
·
1
'
- ~ t.__
'
.,<f'
0
~ ..:_..~1
-,-, - -4 ,y· J:- ' <- ..'~- ?
.
•
: ' " ·"
_.<
\\..~/:'~:
~
+·-; !'.r.l ~~¥, . . ~~~
f;~_:,!£v ~ • ..; ;IV < ./
.'i\-1.
l \ \~;._~;,
/ \:: l.-1~;.
,_t'""\ ~ '
~I
... ' •• )~\ '-.
1(
'
'-....._ ~ -
•
1
) f
. . .-p'"
•
\..- . '
• J·
-~ . . ~
- -' f -----/ '-'. // 'f : '
{....
HU
- ~ -\'-:-,
~
..., -
J
(
...
11U.C · · '
.
I
, ,
.;'.-- -. . _,~
·""·-~ 35 ~·-~~;':.... ~·~,~!- )_~'
; 1;;
_,/
!
'
ProjactEndMP136.4 I
J
r~·
1J
' ..6'0
_.
, ' ••
~., '
:)1
-·) (
; i -~ 17
'
,/ ./ /
~s1)1
~y,:_;
"- , / ; /.-,· >-'i:''.'." '-' ·/
~
,r-·---.. ~--- :- t--:-.,,-
< !..\ t:l "-
" '
1
..
~~~ --
4-!. fl
-~~l q~"'-"';;....--~"1- '7•
r-:~ ~·'
~
..
)
!
I
-.}_/ y
1
.)'J
---~·- '
,...J
·'
' · / (\
..,o-
~~
· r· ,
/ , .,\o,., ;;o<
. . . . / /7
:Jb...-w. - · , ,, .. /.
(
Rvltt-
~--.
Mile Post Markers
r~ ~.; -; · · '-···-~·Y~'!:v-' ~-:~·-=::-~~;/(
·- .;.,., ,- ~~ ~ . 1,<·1. ·-.. :.
0
f- , •·.
~~
c.... . ·-
·- \ '\
.
1
._..,
•
I
I
.,
~
\ I ll'
xr
/
;
1~··,
''~'-=- ..
··l- - -- -.;
r /
" - ·
__,:i·-..--~1
,/
1
,_ - •.• J; :.
;_,.- - -·.~ ..
.:·"--1~-.o >~
\)'-,tti~? : = -
•
r
'"--:=;;- -
;, ·
~- ~ ~
I
'L.,
.
"' ,~VJ• (\.
. , ~ Fortr~ .-""~,
)
I
1 - "..
H~ \.,---...-':-~ 1 ~e; ,J /,J 1 .1
·~i·
1 •cr
<>...
I
--, ~ ,. .- -~·" f ' /
r_.~...r_,.u. ~~
t .:./
__._.__ ., -.
,_
--; r:.. . .__;J;1·
;c-,~-..,~··- J-
~
...~;
I
../ ) 0 '•\
,:C ·Nvnl~ • /!~·,
• . ;~.; ......_ , ~ r-:-
. . I:,·
'.,_'
~~ - r-~-.- ·~ . > ptf>
'1n "'"' ...I! O!J!.,..... __ .J_
1
-;f'"""r--rr<i:~ ''"'
y" , -
~~
3B
(
4
~--'-.,
,.<. --- · ~
-: - -<""
cr~tt
-,/~~--
, ~ ~ - .. -
'
,.I1\'
--
I . , •< e.. , -• :·
j '
'
, ,·
·::
( //·~ ~~rj--· -!'-.;~-::J.,_;~ . . . . ~ - , :
l fr
-t-=-- .:.. ' ;7.4- . ·] ·pep
I
1
_J
rr
r.
.:.~ _....._
'
', .( . '· ·' . A •"'
. :;; -~
_. ~ [
l '~
!.;::-.... ·::74..... r.'l\. / f .,·.~·.
1
·-.<\' \ ''.:};;.~...~) (!
1
~
\
1 f
)
'~ )''""{=
~-
I ·'·
rr~)
,
'·~C..,L
1I .·-"".,
·........-· .r1: ~G···,r.o'· -~·
.·
••
~
_;~ "~.10
j\1 ' ) ,
,c.-.__~--......F~
.~-- -- -- ~.
' ~-~.-~~·~, · ~,....--..--.~
.. ~ . [
.
. r
·_ r·: I '
1 I.
'
"J
l
"'""
(~
C) l
1
'- '· ··1--·:r i , / ·"·r-i'-·:7·' · -~ ·
·
J 1• ":#" -'}.. '-~ "' ;. ...::_;:;;;.,i ; l/~~· --. ,
,_ ,,, ,:' ~(1{) /
.
·-f-~'1 '-J •t?r-1111~
' '"f~
/j>""
1
Y, 'l ' L ,.....
- ~ - -- . . ........
\ l ,r'l I....-·,; .• ;
;-r
\
/'"I
· -r-~ - L----;-'--'-'· · -\: · ' ,
- (~
,·· -..(:"r ;J
1 · -C
--.
1
-
:1 ~- 1
-~ q
~· .
j
.
!'··· - !ff . ,.~:r
~.
./
J'39;o
s~ref"SectiO~~~?
J~ i
:1 - ~
')I l
: ' , '( '
-
I ·;____·;,,
' " .....
1 -~-~.,, ' ' 1tr i ) \
v 'iT-----;
;·~ .( · ~U -Gr~lt;e:ecljo!~\/~
1::
..(1,, 1
:
Cr*'e~._.:
J ,u ck
1
-·I
3" ' \
"\
' '-j ~
.
· •
,_,r<''"<>·. ' '~ .-~ )~ •; ·".;J ~~t' r.:-:_:::-:-;
! ~__.r~,...f ;<-~<-.·;
('.-~~~ ::__,,c
,-\:_·.'Vf .. r -·" '' -. 1
• • ..::;
Figure 1-2. Project Location.
1
· , " , -; ·~ / ; · · .
\'r .•;.·r
•'
\L
;...:~·-. :'--~ ~
.
,,
... -
vc-:::: .Jf:Y r ' '~ J, j?' /I ·\ . _,,IEj j\ ·l~iI / -- ;·' •<\c
)
'\i I' ~
'
__,. , _. _ __,.r •·-·,r:;J !
]\."~ ' -.!!."6<>v.·-~~ .$ """]'.', j6
~~'
'\\51.,
\\• ,.. , v :. ~...._ .:..,--:-•
~ ·r·· _ t...
_ \ . , f!.~-fl" J 1_,_.-1 .. ~::·'. -1 • .::. ~ ,._~ · 1' 1{2 ~ ·. z., ··.:r ~
)}~/\l .,: l.:-i . '·,·
··-
r.: ~
-·~ ·-"t··,,•
·t,. '"· , ; !
I I
I
l·.rr;--
· ·
, , .:j_ , . ,
,............__
\_
--.
. !,/
us 189/191
.. / J
"'!'
'--------------------
US. Highway 1891191
U.S. 189/191 , classified as a rural minor arterial, is an important regional route in northwest
Wyoming used for local and visitor access to area towns, the BTNF, and Grand Teton and
Yellowstone National Parks. At its northern terminus, the highway connects with U.S . Highways
191 and 26/89 at Hoback Junction. From Hoback Junction, U.S. 191 heads north to Jackson and
U.S. 26/89 heads southwest through Snake River Canyon to Alpine. At its southern terminus,
Daniel Junction, the highway splits. U.S. 189 heads south to Marbleton and Big Piney and
eventually connects to Interstate-80, and U.S . 191 continues south to Pinedale and also connects to
Interstate-80. In addition, the highway in the project area collects traffic from county roads and rural
private roads and provides access to local private agricultural land, homes, businesses, community
facilities, and Forest Service facilities .
1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Project
The primary purpose of the project is to upgrade the Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections of U.S .
189/191 to current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
standards for design and safety of rural arterial highways. Upgrading these sections to cmTent
standards is needed for the following reasons:
•
•
•
Correct existing roadway deficiencies
Improve highway safety
Reduce maintenance requirements
1.3.1 Roadway Deficiencies
U.S . 189/191 in the project area has a number of deficiencies that can affect safety, including the
following:
•
•
•
Shoulder Width. The existing roadway typically has a 24-foot top width, consisting oftwo
12-foot travel lanes with shoulder widths ranging from no shoulders to eight feet wide; for
much of the corridor there are no paved shoulders. Depending on highway design traffic
volume, paved roadway shoulder widths should be from 6 to 8 feet for safe vehicle
operations and emergency stopping (AASHTO 2001 ). The existing shoulders, or lack of
shoulders, in much of the project area are a safety hazard for vehicles traveling the highway
and for vehicles stopped or disabled that are not able to move off the travel lanes.
Clear Zone. Clear zones are open areas adjacent to the edge of the travel way, including the
shoulder, surfacing taper, and adjacent unobstructed surface that does not exceed a slope of
1:4. The clear zone is an important factor for highway safety, providing an unobstructed
safety recovery zone for vehicles that have left the roadway. Most of the existing highway
in the project area lacks a clear zone that meets current design and safety standards.
Pavement Conditions. The existing pavement condition in the project area was rated as
"fair" in 1999. This rating refers to the ride quality and a "fair" rating means the riding
qualities of the pavement are noticeably inferior to those of new pavement and may be barely
tolerable for high speed traffic. Surface defects include rutting, map cracking, and extensive
patching. The rating for rutting in the project area was 0.22; a rating greater then 0.25
indicates a safety concern for ponding and hydroplaning. The rating for cracking was 91; a
January 2004
1-4
U.S Highway 1891191
•
•
rating of 90 or less indicates that cracking is a concern and maintenance is required to
prevent further deterioration. These ratings approach levels that indicate safety and
maintenance concerns and suggest a need for corrective measures. In addition, several frost
heaves occur in both sections of the project area.
Local Access Geometry. The existing alignment of the Dell Creek County Road 23-114
as it intersects the existing alignment ofU.S. 189/191 is undesirable due to the angle of the
intersection.
Traffic Volumes and Characteristics. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in 2000
for the project area was estimated at 1,900 vehicles. The estimated AADT for the year 2021
is 2,855 vehicles. The AADT is expected to increase by approximately 50 percent between
2000 and 2021 in the project area. The projected traffic volume for a twenty year period is
used in design criteria for highways. Commercial trucks currently make up 9 percent of total
vehicles, and this percentage is expected to remain the same over the next twenty years.
Increasing traffic volumes on a substandard highway can compound existing roadway
deficiencies and affect safety.
1.3.2 Highway Safety
Due to existing design and safety deficiencies, highway safety is considered inadequate. During the
10-year period from 1992 to 2001, a total of 102 crashes occurred in the project area (Table 1-1).
The number of crashes shows a general increase during the 10-year period with a low of 3 crashes
in 1993 and a high of 19 crashes in both 1999 and 2000. The annual crash rate has shown a similar
trend. The annual crash rate in the project area was higher than the state-wide rural primary crash
rate in five out of the ten years, including the three most recent years 1999,2000, and 2001. Property
damage crashes were the most common type of crash, followed by injury crashes. Two fatal crashes
occurred in the project area during the ten year period. The distribution of crashes was fairly even
throughout the project area, with the highest peaks near MPs 139 and 146 (Figure 1-3).
In the project area, animals were the first harmful event involved in 38 out of the 102 crashes,
including 30 crashes involving big game (deer, elk, and moose) and 8 crashes involving livestock
(cows and horses). There were 24 overturns and 12 motor vehicle - motor vehicle collisions in the
project area. Fixed objects such as fences, delineator posts, signs, and bridge rails were the first
harmful event in 17 of the 102 crashes; other factors included berms/ditches (5 crashes), snow banks
(1 crash), cut slopes (1 crash), and other non-collision/fire (2 crashes). Nine of the 102 crashes
occurred at driveways or intersections; the remainder were not at a roadway junction. Approximately
one-third of the crashes (33) occurred during icy, snowy, wet, or slushy conditions, the remainder
occurred on a dry roadway. Human factors that were cited as contributing to these accidents
included inattentiveness, unsafe speeds, alcohol, inexperience, following too closely, fatigue/falling
asleep, failure to grant right-of-way (ROW), improper lane use, illegal drugs, and illness.
January 2004
1-5
Table 1-1. Crash Severity and Crash Rates for the Project Area
Year
Number
Persons
Injured
Number
Persons
Killed
Property
Damage Only
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Crash
Rate
State-wide
Rural Primary
Crash Rate
1992
4
0
3
2
0
5
0.76
1.21
1993
0
0
3
0
0
3
0.46
1.30
1994
4
0
4
0
5
1.75
1.24
1995
10
0
3
4
0
7
1.03
1.22
1996
5
0
7
4
0
11
1.60
1.55
1997
5
0
5
4
0
9
1.31
1.55
1998
4
0
7
3
0
10
1.39
1.54
1999
6
14
4
19
2.59
1.42
19
2.60
1.47
1.98
1.34
2000
17
2001
4
0
II
43
71
Total
2
Source: WYDOT Highway Safety Program.
3
0
14
29
2
102
r - -- -- - - -- ---- ---- -- -- ----- --- --- - -- -- - -
Figure 1-3. Crashes in the Project Area by Mile Post Marker - 1992 - 2001.
7
li
N
~4
143
142
141
Mile Post Marker
South End of Project
(MP 136.4)
North End of Project
(MP 147.7)
January 2004
1-6
US Highway 189/191
1.3.3 Maintenance
The project area has required considerable expense for maintenance in recent years due to the poor
condition of the existing pavement (see Section 1.3 .1 ), as well as other maintenance issues such as
the upkeep of fencing throughout the project area. If the project is not constructed, substantial
maintenance will be required and future costs will increase due to increased wear of the riding
surface, accelerated roadway deterioration, and continued issues with frost heaves.
January 2004
1-7
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes the alternatives that are evaluated in this EA. Two alternatives are being
considered, the "No Action"alternative and the "Proposed Action"alternative.
2.1 No Action
Under this alternative the proposed project will not be constructed and the Dell Creek and Pfisterer
sections of U.S. 189/191 will remain as they currently exist. Routine maintenance activities will
continue. The No Action alternative does not resolve the previously described deficiencies with the
existing highway. The Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections ofU.S. 189/191 will continue to be below
current design and safety standards with substandard shoulders, no safety recovery zones, poor sight
distances, and hazards related to poor pavement conditions and road geometry. The trend in
increased crashes in the project area will likely continue. In addition, the No Action alternative will
not address issues and concerns related to increases in traffic volumes. Traffic volumes in the
project area are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent during the next 20 years, which
will in turn continue to elevate maintenance costs and accident rates.
The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the project, as described in
Section 1.3. Under the No Action alternative the Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections ofU.S. 189/191
would not be brought up to current AASHTO standards for design and safety of rural arterial
highways. In addition, the following needs for the project would not be met:
•
Roadway Deficiencies. Under the No Action alternative, several existing roadway
deficiencies will not be corrected including the lack of or substandard shoulders, the
lack of an unobstructed clear zone throughout the project area, substandard pavement
conditions, and undesirable local access geometry. These deficiencies are likely to
be compounded by an increase in future projected traffic volumes of approximately
50 percent by 2021.
•
Highway Safety. Crash data for the 10-year period from 1992 to 2001 has shown
a trend toward an increase in the number of crashes the project area. In addition, the
crash data show a trend toward a higher annual crash rate in the project area as
compared to the state-wide rural primary crash rate. The No Action alternative will
not improve highway safety in the project area.
•
Maintenance. Under the No Action alternative, substantial maintenance will be
required and future costs will increase due to increased wear of the riding surface,
accelerated roadway deterioration, and continued issues with frost heaves.
January 2004
2-1
2.2 Proposed Action
2.2.1 Project Description
The Proposed Action has been designed to meet the purposes of and need for the project as described
in Chapter 1.0, including correction of roadway deficiencies, address highway safety issues, and
address maintenance concerns. In general, the Proposed Action will consist of reconstruction of an
11.3 mile section ofU.S. 1891191 and will follow the existing roadway with some minor deviations
in several locations to bring the horizontal and vertical alignments to standard. The reconstruction
will take place as two separate construction projects. The Pfisterer section (MP 142.8- MP 136.4)
is scheduled to be constructed first, followed by the Dell Creek section (MP 147.7- MP 142.8).
2.2.1.1 Roadway Deficiencies
The proposed reconstruction of the Pfisterer and Dell Creek sections of U.S. 1891191 will meet
current AA~HTO standards for a rural minor arterial. By bringing the highway up to AASHTO
standards, the current roadway deficiencies will be corrected, including shoulder widths, clear zones,
pavement conditions, and local access geometry. Currently the roadway consists of two 12-foot
paved travel lanes with shoulder widths ranging from zero to eight feet. Under the Proposed Action,
the paved roadway width will be forty feet, consisting of two 12-foot lanes and two 8-foot shoulders
(Figure 2-1 ). The clear zone will be 30 feet, meeting current design and safety standards (Figure 2-1 ).
New roadway base and new pavement will be added throughout the project corridor, which will
correct current surface defects such as rutting, cracking, and extensive patching. Intersections with
county roads will be realigned or extended as necessary to position the intersections as close to a
right angle as possible.
Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent between 2000 and 2021 in the
project area. The projected traffic volume for the year 2021 (2,855 AADT) in the project area was
used in the design of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will correct existing roadway
deficiencies and bring the highway up to current AASHTO standards and therefore more safely
accommodate the anticipated future traffic volumes.
2.2.1.2 Highway Safety
Several features of the Proposed Action address current highway safety issues. The addition of 8foot shoulders and a 30-foot clear zone throughout the project area will improve highway safety by
providing an unobstructed recovery zone for vehicles that have left the roadway and providing a
place for vehicles stopped or disabled to move off of the travel lanes. Some types of crashes, such
as overturns, are expected to decrease as a result of wider shoulders and clear zones. Proposed
straightening ofhorizontal and vertical alignments will improve sight-stopping distance, which will
decrease object collisions.
The Proposed Action was developed with a project corridor design speed of 70 miles p<!r hour
(mph). However, topographical, environmental, and cost constraints result in deviations from this
design speed to a lower design speed in three areas; the curve at the entrance to Hoback Canyon (MP
147.5) and two curves near MP 137.5. These curves can not be straightened due to close proximity
January 2004
2-2
Figure 2-1.
Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
12ft.
Travelway
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION
Clear Zone
Clear Zone
30ft.
30ft.
----~
~1
8ft
.
Shoulder
~~
l
I
.. •--
~'
Variable
Fl Slope
Variable
Fill Slope
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
Sta. 10+00- Sta. 277+00
January 2004
2-3
to the Hoback River and steep or unstable hillside slopes. The minimum design speed for the
Hoback Canyon curve will be 50 mph, while the other two curves will be 55 mph. The proposed
vertical alignment will generally follow the existing with some flattening to meet or exceed a 65 mph
minimum site distance and comply with current AASHTO standards.
Design speed is defined by AASHTO as the "maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a
specified section ofhighway when conditions are so favorable that the design features ofthe highway
govern". The features that are generally considered when setting the design speed are horizontal and
vertical curves. Ideally the design speed of a road should be consistent with the travel desires and
habits of most motorists. To a large extent, the driver's expectations are influenced by the functional
classification of the roadway and the length of the trip. In contrast to design speed, the posted speed
limit is a tool to make roads safer by promoting consistent speeds. If most vehicles travel close to
the same speed and speed limit, overall traffic safety is enhanced. While there is a corrdation
between design and posted speed limit, they are not necessarily the same.
2.2.1.3 Maintenance
With the new roadway base and new pavement, maintenance costs will be considerably reduced.
The current poor condition of the pavement has resulted in high maintenance costs and reduced the
ride quality of the roadway due to extensive patching. Other maintenance costs, such as the upkeep
of fencing and brush removal, will also be reduced. All existing fence will be replaced with new
fence during construction. In the majority of the project area, barbed wire fencing with four strands
and wooden posts and stays has been proposed. Areas currently fenced with high tensile fencing will
be replaced with barbed wire, however, metals posts will be used, instead of wooden posts. There
may be limited areas that require different types offence to accommodate the land owner. Irrigation
ditches will be buried or relocated outside the ROW, where feasible. Burying or relocating irrigation
ditches will address current maintenance issues by reducing overgrowth of brush and reducing the
difficulty of maintaining the roadside.
All maintenance of the completed project will be the responsibility of WYDOT with some minor
maintenance provided by private landowners of special fences requested. The existing "Section
Break" for WYDOT' s maintenance forces, is located near the north end of the Dell Creek section.
The existing turnout is irregular and reconstruction is needed to reduce turning movement conflicts
with snowplows. A new snowplow turnout will also be constructed in the Pfisterer Section to aid
in the removal of heavy snow in the Bondurant area. The new turnout will extend 20 feet from the
new pavement edges and be approximately 300 feet long.
2.2.1.4 Other Project Features
Other project features include:
•
At a minimum, some bridge rail/guardrail work on the bridges is anticipated to bring them
up to current design standards. Rehabilitation items may consist of, but are not limilted to,
rail modification, deck overlay, and approach slab replacement. The clear roadway width
of the existing bridges will match the proposed roadway width, so no widening is anticipated.
Some minor channel work may also be required around these structures, such as rip rap.
January 2004
2-4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minor adjustments to the alignment were designed to minimize resource impacts, including
a cut slope near MP 144.0 to minimize impacts to wetlands and a retaining wall near MP
147.5 to minimize encroachment on the Hoback River (Figure 2-2).
Culverts will be replaced or extended as needed.
Any diversion structures and headgates that are disturbed will be replaced.
Residential approaches will be constructed to current standards and will be wide enough to
accommodate snow removal in the winter months. Field approaches with little traffic will
use the shoulder of the roadway for the approach if the slope of the new embankment will
allow.
Cattleguards that need to be replaced on private residential approaches will be located five
feet off the ROW line and will be paved to the ROW. Cattleguards located on major and/or
county roads will be located on the ROW line and will be paved 15-20 feet beyond the
cattle guard.
On lands within the Bridger Teton national Forest (BTNF), top rail fencing will be used in
all riparian areas. Top rail fencing will consist of three barbed wires with a top rail fitted and
spiked to post tops.
Existing signs will be replaced with new signs, with the exception of Adopt-A-Highway
signs, which could be removed and reset.
Topsoil will be stored for use in reclamation.
2.2.2 Material Pits/Plant Sites/Construction Staging Areas
The McKee Pit (NE1/4SE1/4, Section 19, Township 38N, Range 113W) will be the source for
surfacing materials on the Dell Creek section (Figure 2-2). The McKee Pit is a quarter section within
an older source, the Crenshaw Pit, used in the 1960's. WYDOT will obtain a Conditional Use Permit
from Sublette County, if required. The McKee Pit will also serve as the plant site for the Dell Creek
section. Typical facilities at a plant site include a crusher, stockpiles, equipment staging, and hot
mix plant.
The Fisherman Creek Pit (SE114NW114 and NE114SW114 of Section 21 , Township 37N, Range
112W) will be the source for crushed base and plant mix materials for the Pfisterer section (Figure
2-2). The pit is located on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) property, and has been used on previous
WYDOT projects as a material source. The Fisherman Creek Pit will also serve as the plant site for
the Pfisterer section.
The McKee and Fisherman Creek Pits will also be used as staging areas for the respective sections,
however, additional areas may be required for equipment storage and fueling.
lfneeded, a second material pit, the Pfisterer Pit (SE114SE114, Section 19, Township 37N, Range
112W), will provide additional source for borrow material for the Pfisterer section. WYDOT is in
the process of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit from Sublette County for this source. A Materials
Agreement with the landowner will also be obtained. This source contains the main access road to
the Pfisterer Ranch and WYDOT will ensure that the road is useable at all times while obtaining
material from this source. In addition, the haul road to this source crosses a main irrigation canal
with an existing timber bridge.
January 2004
2-5
U.S Highway 1891191
Excess amounts ofexcavated material (''waste") that cannot be balanced within the project may oc(:ur
and the material will have to be wasted. The McKee, Pfisterer, and Fisherman Creek Pits will be the
primary locations for wasted material.
January 2004
2-6
U. S. Highway 189/191
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
This chapter describes the existing condition of human and natural resources in the project area that
could be impacted by the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. The resources evaluated
include those listed in the FHWA Guidance Document for Preparing and Processing Environmental
and Section 4(f) Documents (FHWA 1987), as well as those identified during the public scoping
process (see Appendix A). Potential impacts ofboth the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives
are identified and mitigation measures are listed where applicable. The "project area" generally
refers to the highway ROW from the north end of the proposed project at MP 147.7 to the south end
at MP 136.4 and the pits, plant sites, and staging areas described in Section 2.2.2. The project area
evaluated in this chapter, however, varies by resource. For example, visual quality considers broad
landscapes in the general vicinity of the project and wildlife resources considers some animal species
that may use the project area only seasonally.
3.1 Land Use
This section addresses land ownership and general land uses in the project area, Section 4(f) lands
and other recreational uses, agricultural uses including livestock and farmland, and joint
development opportunities.
3.1.1 Land Ownership and Land Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Although the project area is within the boundary of the BTNF, the majority ofland adjacent to the
highway is privately owned (Figure 3-1 ).
Land use in the immediate project area consists of the existing highway, which serves as a regional
transportation corridor. The existing ROW width varies from 100 to 200 feet, with the majority
being 100 feet. Since the area is rural, primary land uses adjacent to the highway corridor are
agricultural, such as irrigated hay meadows, livestock grazing, and scattered residential ranches with
various developments such as houses, barns, ranch buildings, private roads, fencing, and other
structures. Scattered tourist-oriented businesses are located along the highway, such as a gas station,
restaurant, and cabins. The town of Bondurant, population approximately 100, consists of
residences, commercial businesses, and public buildings including an elementary school, library,
church, post office, and a fire department. Buried telephone, power, and fiber optics cable also occur
in the project area, along with an overhead power line and several private irrigation ditches.
Portions of the project area are bordered by National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the
BTNF (Figure 3-1). No other federal- or state-owned lands are present within the project area.
These lands are primarily used for grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. According to the
BTNF' s Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1989 and as amended), NFS lands adjacent
January 2004
3-1
U.S Highway 1891191
to the highway fall within the management prescription areas 2B, 12, 10, and 9A, which are described
as follows:
•
•
•
•
2B - motorized recreation
12 - back country big game hunting, dispersed recreation, and wildlife security areas
10 - simultaneous development of resources, opportunities for human experiences,
and support for big game and a wide variety of wildlife species
9 A - developed and administrative sites
In addition, five grazing allotments are permitted on the BTNF on lands adjacent to the highway (see
Section 3.1.3). The local church building in Bondurant, the Church of St. Hubert the Hunter (Photo
1), and the adjacent library, which was built in 1943, are located on a one-acre parcel ofland that is
part of the BTNF. These uses are permitted by the BTNF via a Special Use Permit issued in 1940.
January 2004
3-2
US. Highway 1891191
The project is located within Sublette County, which does not have any zoning restrictions on the
proposed project. The County may require Conditional Use Permits for facilities such as the
proposed materials pits.
Photo 1. Church of St. Hubert the Hunter
IMPACTS
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, the existing highway will continue to serve as a
transportation corridor with no effect on land ownership and minimal effect on adjacent land uses,
except for occasional maintenance activities such a upkeep of fencing and roadway repairs. Such
activities should not affect adjacent lands uses.
Proposed Action.
Under the Proposed Action, some existing land uses will change to a
transportation use due to the need for additional ROW. The total amount ofadditional ROW needed
is approximately 45.8 acres. Affected landowners include private land owners (18.6 acres) and the
BTNF (27.1 acres). This change in land use is not considered significant due to the relatively minor
amount of additional ROW needed relative to the size and scope of the project and adjacent lands.
3.1.2 Section 4(f) Lands and Other Recreational Uses
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Section 4(f) lands are publicly owned lands of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl
refuges, or land of a historical site. Generally, public lands that are managed for multiple uses or
dispersed recreation activities do not qualifY as Section 4(f) lands. Section 4(f) lands within the
project area include the site of the Church of St. Hubert the Hunter in Bondurant, which was enrolled
on the National Register ofHistoric Places on January 24, 2002, and the V Bar V Ranch located at
the north end of the project area, which has been recommended as eligible for the National Register
ofHistoric Places.
Other public and private lands within and adjacent to the project area likely receive occasional
recreational use, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, and
bicycling. Regional recreational opportunities ofnational importance (Grand Teton and Yellowstone
January 2004
3-3
National Parks) are located within approximately 50 miles ofthe proposed project and U.S. 189/ 191
provides a primary access route to these parks.
IMPACTS
No Action. The No Action alternative will have no effect on Section 4(f) lands or other recreational
uses .
Proposed Action. Construction of the proposed project will temporarily affect access to the Church
of St. Hubert the Hunter and result in reduced speeds in traffic zones, congestion, noise, and air
pollution. Since these impacts will be temporary, they are not considered significant. Over the longterm, access to this site will be improved due to improvements to the highway. No permanent
impacts will occur at this site.
New fill slopes will slightly encroach on property associated with the V Bar V Ranch site. The
minor encroachment can not be avoided because the V Bar V Ranch is located at the entrance to
Hoback Canyon where the ROW becomes constricted between the Hoback River to the south and
a steep slope to the north. The encroachment from fill slopes will have no direct effect to buildings
and no changes in the setting. The proposed action will have no adverse effect on this site.
This project is covered under a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation prepared for projects that
improve existing highways and use minor amounts of land from historic sties that are adjacent to
existing highways. This project meets the seven criteria listed under the programmatic evaluation
(see the following Programmatic 4(f) evaluation). Alternatives that avoid this Section 4(f) property
are not feasible and prudent, including the No Action alternative, which does not meet the purpose
and need for the project.
PROGRAMMATIC
4(f) EVALUATION
In order for a project to be covered under the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation and approval for
federally-aided highway projects with minor involvements with historic sites, the project must meet
applicability and other requirements. This evaluation documents the applicability of the proposed
action for inclusion under the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for federally-aided highway
projects with minor involvements with historic sites. This evaluation addresses the V Bar V site;
the Church of St. Hubert the Hunter will not be impacted by the project and is therefore not included
in this evaluation.
Applicability
Criteria 1: The proposed project must be designed to improve the operational characteristics, safety,
and/or physical condition of existing highway facilities on essentially the same alignment.
The proposed project meets this criteria because, as described in Section 1.3, the purpose of the
project is to upgrade the Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections of U.S. 1891191 to current AASHTO
standards for design and safety of rural arterial highways. By bringing the highway up to current
January 2004
3-4
US. Highway 189/191
standards, the resultant design improves the operational characteristics, safety, and physical
condition of the existing highway. The upgraded highway will follow essentially the same
alignment, with minor deviations in several locations to bring the horizontal and vertical alignments
to standard. One area of deviation includes the section of highway adjacent to the V Bar V property.
This minor deviation is necessary to allow for a wider roadway section and a minimum 50 mph
design speed between the Hoback River to the south and a slide area to the north.
Criteria 2: The historic site is located adjacent to the existing highway.
The proposed project meets this criteria because the V Bar V property is located immediately
adjacent to the existing highway U.S 189/191.
Criteria 3: The project does not require the removal or alteration of historic buildings, structures
or objects on the historic site.
The proposed project meets this criteria because the only impact to the property is the encroachment
of new fill slopes onto the property due to a minor shift in the alignment to allow for a wider
roadway section and a minimum 50 mph design speed between the Hoback River to the south and
a slide area to the north. The encroachment will have no direct effect to buildings and or other
structures or objects on the property.
Criteria 4: The project does not require the disturbance or removal of archaeological resources that
are important to preserve in place rather than to recover for archaeological research.
As stated above for the Criteria 3 response, the only impact to the property is the encroachment of
new fill slopes onto the property due to a minor shift in the alignment. No archaeological resources
will be impacted. An archaeological surveys was conducted for the project (Clayton 2002) and no
archaeological resources requiring preservation in place were identified on the V Bar V property.
Therefore, the proposed project meets Criteria 4.
Criteria 5: The impact on the Section 4(f) site resulting from the use of the land must be considered
minor. The word minor is narrowly defined as having either a "no effect" or "no adverse effect"
(when applying the requirements of Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act and 36
CFR Part 800) on the qualities which qualified the site for listing or eligibility on the National
Register ofHistoric Places. The ACHP must not object to the determination of"no adverse effect".
Because the impact to the V Bar V property will not affect any of the buildings, structures, objects,
or other archaeological resources on the property, the impact due to the proposed project is not
considered to adversely affect the site. The Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has
agreed with this assessment by stating "Although there will be a slight 'introduction of visual,
atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic
features' (36 CFR 800.5 [a] [2] [v]), we believe it is not enough to constitute an adverse effect." The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has raised no objections to this determination.
The proposed project meets Criteria 5.
January 2004
3-5
Criteria 6: The SHPO must agree, in writing, with the assessment of the impacts of the proposed
project on and the proposed mitigation for the historic sites.
As stated above for the Criteria 5 response, the SHPO is agreement with the "no adverse effect"
determination for the V Bar V property. The SHPO agreement is stated in writing in a letter dated
January 17,2003, signed by Nancy Hanks, Ph.D., Architectural Historian (Appendix A). The: SHPO
file number is 1202SES019. The proposed project meets Criteria 6.
Criteria 7: The programmatic evaluation does not apply to projects for which an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is prepared.
An EIS is not required for the proposed project, therefore the project meets Criteria 7.
Based on the above discussion of the applicability criteria for inclusion in the programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation for federally-aided highway projects with minor involvements with historic sites, the
proposed project meets all the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the programmatic evaluation.
Alternatives
The programmatic 4(f) evaluation does not apply unless the following three alternatives are fully
evaluated:
•
•
•
Do nothing
Improve the highway without using the adjacent historic site
Build an improved facility on a new location without using the historic site
Do Nothing: The "Do nothing" alternative is not feasible and prudent because it would not correct
existing safety hazards and it would not correct existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance
·
problems.
Crash data for the 10-year period from 1992 to 2001 has shown a trend toward an increast! in the
number of crashes the project area. In addition, the crash data show a trend toward a higher annual
crash rate in the project area as compared to the state-wide rural primary crash rate. The "Do
nothing" alternative will not improve highway safety in the project area or correct safety hazards.
The existing roadway has several deficiencies that will not be corrected under a "Do nothing"
alternative. These deficiencies include the lack of or substandard shoulders, the lack of an
unobstructed clear zone throughout the project area, substandard pavement conditions, and
undesirable local access geometry. These deficiencies are likely to be compounded by an increase
in future projected traffic volumes of approximately 50 percent by 2021.
Improvement without Using the Adjacent Section 4(/) Lands: It is not feasible and prudent to
avoid Section 4(f) lands by roadway design or transportation system management techniques because
it would not meet the identified transportation needs and such measures would result in unique
January 2004
3-6
engineering, traffic, maintenance, or safety problems. A voidance of the V Bar V property is not
possible in order to bring the Dell Creek section ofU.S. 189/191 up to AASHTO standards. Impact
is necessary to allow for a wider roadway section and a minimum 50 mph design speed between the
Hoback River to the south and the slide area to the north. The location of the property between the
river and the slide area presents unique engineering problems.
Alternatives on New Location:
It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) lands by
construction on new alignment because any new location would substantially increase costs and
engineering difficulties and such difficulties would be truly unique and unusual and of extraordinary
magnitude when compared with the proposed use of Section 4(f) lands. A new alignment is not
feasible and prudent due to the unique situation near the V Bar V property. The location is at the
entrance to Hoback Canyon with the Hoback River to the south and a slide area to the north. No
other alignment is possible without extraordinary measures as compared to the minor encroachment
onto the V ~ar V property.
Measures to Minimize Harm
The proposed action includes all possible planning and engineering measures to minimize harm to
the V Bar V property. Specifically, the maximum allowable fill slopes have been used to minimize
impacts to the V Bar V property inthe area where it was not possible to avoid the property. Where
is was possible to avoid the V Bar V property (i.e. east of the entrance to Hoback Canyon where
topographical constraints of the river and slide area are not present) the alignment has been shifted
to the north away from the property to avoid impact.
Coordination
Appropriate coordination has been conducted by FHWA and WYDOT regarding the proposed
project and impacts to the V Bar V property. Coordination letters with the Wyoming SHPO and the
BTNF are included in Appendix A.
3.1.3 Livestock and Grazing
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Agriculture is the primary land use adjacent to the highway on both public and private lands.
Agricultural uses include irrigated hay fields and livestock grazing. Information is not available on
livestock use on private lands, however five grazing allotments for cattle and horses occur on the
BTNF adjacent to the highway (Table 3-1). The grazing season on the five allotments is
approximately mid-June through mid- October.
IMPACTS
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, the existing highway will continue to serve as a
transportation corridor with little or no effect on livestock or grazing.
Proposed Action.
The Proposed Action will have a minor impact to grazing allotments.
Approximately 27.1 acres of grazing allotments on public lands will be affected. The impact to
grazing allotments is not considered significant because the amount ofland converted from grazing
allotment to ROW is relatively small (less than 11100 of a percent of the total allotments adjacent
January 2004
3-7
Table 3-1. Grazing Allotments Adjacent to U.S. 189/191 on the BTNF
Allotment Name
Allotment
Size
(acres)
Approximate AUM's in Allotment
on Public Lands
Hoback
118,275
13,524
Jack Creek
32,209
3,820
Fisherman Creek
48,349
6,154
Fortress Hill
209
59
Graveyard Hill
797
389
Source: Bridger-Teton National Forest
to the highway). Other impacts to livestock operations include replacement of fencing and cattle
guards during project construction.
MITIGATION
The following mitigation measure will be implemented during project construction to minimize
impacts to livestock:
•
•
•
•
All construction permit areas and pit locations will be temporarily fenced to exclude
livestock.
Cattleguards replaced on private residential approaches will be located five feet off the ROW
line on the landowner property and be a minimum of an 18-foot, medium duty cattleguard.
These approaches will be paved to the ROW. Cattleguards located on major and/or county
roads will be located on the ROW line and be a minimum of a 30-foot, heavy duty
cattleguard. Major approaches with cattleguards will be paved 15-20 feet beyond the
cattle guard.
WYDOT will coordinate with landowners and livestock grazers so that livestock are
contained during replacement of fencing.
WYDOT will coordinate with permittees and the BTNF to allow for fences around disturbed
areas on BTNF cattle allotments to remain in place until the area is revegatated and cattle can
graze again (probably 2 to 3 years).
3.1.4 Farmland (Including Prime and Unique)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Irrigated hay meadows are a common land use adjacent to the highway. Flood irrigation is the
primary irrigation method used through a series of ditches and canals. Fourteen irrigation ditches
or culverts are located within, near, or cross the highway ROW that will be affected by the project,
six in the Dell Creek section and eight in the Pfisterer section. There are no formal ditch companies
that oversee the ditches, ditches are maintained by private landowners.
January 2004
3-8
No lands within or around the project area have been defined as prime or unique farmland by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (D. Bennett,
District Conservationist, pers. comm.). For those areas that are part of the BTNF, once land is
declared as part of the National Forest, it can no longer be identified as prime or unique farmland.
IMPACTS
No Action. No impacts will occur to farmlands adjacent to U.S. 189/191 under the No Action
alternative.
Proposed Action. Some irrigated hay fields will be affected by the Proposed Action due to the need
for additional ROW. Approximately 18.6 acres of private land will be acquired for ROW and an
estimated 75 percent of the private land is irrigated hay fields, therefore an estimated 14 acres of
irrigated hay field will be impacted. This impact is considered minor because the loss of hay fields
is relatively small compared to overall amount of hayfield adjacent to the highway.
The project will also affect 14 irrigation facilities that provide water for the hay fields. WYDOT' s
recommendations for each of the affected facilities range from avoidance to moving the ditch outside
the ROW to combining ditches into one pipe crossing. In general, irrigation culverts will be installed
from ROW to ROW. Culverts will likely be replaced with new metal pipe culverts with water tight
joints and flared ends. Any diversion structures and headgates disturbed, will be replaced.
Relocation of irrigation ditches will only be done when highway construction makes it necessary.
Any ditches rerouted will be moved beyond the clear zone or toe of adjacent fill slopes and
preferably outside the ROW. If it is not possible to move the ditch, it will be placed in a drainage
pipe with clean-outs. Owners of affected ditches will be contacted for approval prior to disturbance
and necessary permission will be obtained from the BTNF if ditches located on National Forest
System lands are moved.
Due to WYDOT' s commitment to meet affected ditch owners needs, and to avoid ditches if possible,
impacts are considered minor.
3.1.5 Joint Development
During development and design of the project, WYDOT considered several joint development
measures with the unincorporated town of Bondurant. These measures included landscaping,
installation of curb and gutter, roadway lighting, and school bus turnouts. None ofthese measures
were brought forward due to a lack of need or adequate existing facilities. Bondurant does not have
established businesses that require curb and gutter, and access control of existing approaches can be
facilitated with new fencing and approach construction. Lighting around existing buildings was
determined adequate with no need for additional lighting. The local school district indicated that
school bus turnouts will not be necessary.
January 2004
3-9
3.2 Social
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The entire project area is located within Sublette County. Sublette County has experienced
substantial growth over the last ten years. Between 1990 and 2000, it was the second fastest growing
county in Wyoming with a 22.2% increase (Wyoming Department ofEmployment) . Average growth
for Wyoming between 1990 and 2000 was 8.9% (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Population Data
Area
Sublette County
Wyoming
1980
4,548
469,557
1990
4,843
453,588
2000
5,920
493,782
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Most of the population of Sublette County is located within Pinedale; Bondurant is sparsely
populated. Community facilities located within Bondurant include the Bondurant Library, a post
office, and a fire department. Bondurant has an elementary school for kindergarten through fifth
grades. Beyond that students are bussed 43 miles to the Pinedale Middle and High Schools.
Emergency services are provided by the Sublette County Sheriffs Department. Neighboring medical
facilities include the Big Piney Clinic and the Pinedale Medical Clinic.
Sublette County is bordered by three mountain ranges, the Wind Rivers, the Wyoming Range, and
the Gros Ventre, making it a great destination for hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, and other
outdoor recreational activities. Also, Jackson Hole, Grand Teton National Park, and Yellowstone
National Park are regional destinations. Neighboring Teton County is the fastest-growing county
in Wyoming, indicating populations and subsequent traffic throughout the project area will continue
to increase.
Much of the anticipated population growth in the area can be attributed to the fact that the project
area is close to many regional destinations. Additionally, there is an availability of affordable
housing in the area for workers willing to commute to Jackson from locations in Sublette County.
IMPACTS
No Action. The No Action alternative will represent nearly the same social conditions as currently
exist within the project area. Local residents and those using the highway will continue to
experience the same safety issues. Existing local access to community facilities and surrounding
regions will be preserved.
Proposed Action. The proposed improvements associated with the Proposed Action will not
substantially alter the area population growth or other demographic characteristics. No impacts to
neighborhoods, communities, churches, schools, police, fire protection, or community facilities are
anticipated.
January 2004
3-10
U.S. Highway 189//91
The Proposed Action will result in positive accessibility benefits and improved mobility for
motorists using the highway. Additionally, emergency response time will improve.
3.3 Environmental Justice
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations on February 11, 1994. This Executive Order
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 and/or environment
of minority and/or low income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Sublette County has a low representation of minorities with 97.5% of the current 2002 population
white, 0.2% black or African American population, and 0.5% American Indian and Alaska Native
persons, 0.2% Asian persons, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other/Pacific Islander, and 1.5% other.
According to the 1997 U.S. Census Bureau population information, the percentage of people living
below poverty in Sublette County is 8.6% and in Wyoming is 12%.
Based on visits to the project corridor and contact with the county planner, there are no known
minority or low-income groups or neighborhoods located within the project area, therefore, no
environmental justice impacts will occur.
3.4 Economic
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sublette County has a stable economy with much of its economic base derived from area tourism.
Originally cattle ranching was the main industry, now oil and gas drilling as well as the seasonal
tourism are very important factors in the area economy. Because of the seasonal tourism, the two
top employment sectors are retail trade and accommodation and food services (U.S. Census Bureau
1997). According to a tourism impact report completed in the year 2000, hotel, motel, and resort
spending account for nearly 48% of the travel money spent in Wyoming. Forty-five percent of
visitors come to the state between July and September. Travel- generated employment accounted
for 9.7% of the state's total employment in 2000. According to the same report, many of the most
popular attractions are not far from Sublette County including: Jackson, Teton Mountain Range,
Snake River, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, and Snake River Canyon.
The 2001 civilian labor force for the county was 3,347, with an unemployment rate of2.1%. The
current and projected distribution of labor force in Sublette County is shown in Table 3-3.
Wyoming has no state or local personal income tax, corporate income tax, or inventory tax. Besides
allowing local businesses to earn more income, the lack of individual income tax contributes to a
lower cost oflabor in the state. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 1997 median household
income for Sublette County was $38,194.00, compared to the median household income for the state
of$33,197.00.
January 2004
3-11
Table 3-3. Current and Projected Distribution of Labor Force in Sublette County
Emoloyment by Industry
Agriculture, Foresty/Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail trade
Finance, Insurance/Real Estate
Service
Public Admin.
1990
427
205
264
107
96
99
50
4I3
62
557
65
2001
533
248
368
148
135
128
70
571
85
838
88
2006
510
227
375
160
150
II5
73
607
93
926
92
2011
527
222
406
175
158
Il5
78
659
I 08
I 089
I 06
IMPACTS
No Action. The No Action alternative will have little immediate affect on existing economic
conditions in Sublette County. As traffic volumes are expected to increase in the future, however,
safety will continue to be an issue due to the constraints of the existing roadway. Over time, this
could have a negative affect on existing economic conditions in the adjacent communities.
Proposed Action. No businesses will be acquired or relocated as part of the Proposed Action.
Short-term changes could be anticipated during construction. Overall changes in local employment,
sales and revenues will be anticipated to be minor during project construction. There is a possibility
that regional employment and sales will increase in the short-term due to the presence of the
construction work force, but the overall economic atmosphere will not change.
Long-term effects of the Proposed Action that will be expected are:
•
•
Positive economic effects due to enhanced accessibility and improved safety
Positive economic effects due to improved access to surrounding land uses and recreation
destinations.
3.5 Right-of-Way Acquisition and Relocation
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing ROW width varies from 100 to 200 feet, with the majority being 100 feet. A total of
151.7 acres is currently used for highway ROW in the project area (82.4 acres in the Dell Creek
section and 69.3 acres in the Pfisterer section). The lands adjacent to the highway ROW consist of
a mix of private and public lands; the public lands are administered by the BTNF (see Figure 3-1 ).
Several utilities and private irrigation facilities are located within or cross the existing ROW
including telephone and fiber optics lines belonging to Qwest and buried and overhead power lines
belonging to Lower Valley Power and Light.
January 2004
3-12
U.S. Highwa)' /891191
IMPACTS
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no ROW acquisition will be necessary and no business,
residences, or other facilities will be relocated.
Proposed Action. ROW acquisition will be necessary within both the Dell Creek and Pfisterer
sections due to minor realignments ofU.S. 189/191, however, no business or residential relocations
will be necessary. Approximately 41.2 acres of additional land will be used for highway ROW over
the existing conditions, 12.7 acres will be acquired from private land owners and 28.5 acres from
the BTNF. In addition to ROW acquisition, some minor shifts in approaches, fencing, or other
features may be necessary. These impacts are not considered significant since no businesses or
residential relocations will be necessary. Implementation of mitigation measures described below
will minimize impacts.
Potential impacts to utilities within or crossing the ROW are expected to be insignificant due to
WYDOT' s plans to avoid or move affected utilities. Conflicts with utilities will be minimized where
possible throughout the project. It is anticipated that many locations ofburied cables will be in areas
of fill (embankment) and no work will be required. In some areas where excavation is required,
buried cables will need to be relocated. All overhead cable encroachments and crossings will be left
undisturbed if possible. Temporary relocation of utilities is not anticipated. Depths and locations
of the buried lines will be verified during construction prior to any excavation and will be the
responsibility of the contractor. Impacts to irrigation facilities affected by the Proposed Action are
addressed in Section 3.1.4.
MITIGATION
ROW acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended ( 1989) and any applicable state statues. WYDOT will
negotiate agreements with landowners to handle temporary construction impacts and other minor
project impacts.
3.6 Transportation (Including Pedestrians and Bicycles)
3.6.1 Access
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are a number of private and public accesses that intersect with U.S. 189/191 in the project
area, including several county roads: Dell Creek Road, Jack Creek Road, and Upper Hoback Road
(Figure 2-2) .
January 2004
3-13
U.S Highway 189/191
IMPACTS
No Action. No changes in the current local access will occur with the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action. Access into and out of the local roads will be improved from a geometric and
safety perspective with the Proposed Action. The following access improvements are antieipated
for the Proposed Action:
•
•
•
•
•
The existing intersection with Dell Creek County Road conflicts with the guardrail at Hoback
River bridge. This intersection will be realigned to decrease conflicts and position the
intersection at a safer, more favorable angle.
Jack Creek Road will be extended.
Upper Hoback County Road will be re-aligned as close to a right angle as possible.
New accesses will be constructed to accommodate snow removal in the winter months.
Field approaches without cattle guards will be constructed to standard specifications. The
approaches with little or no traffic could use the shoulder of the roadway for their approach
where the new roadway can accommodate it.
3.6.2 Pedestrians and Bicyclists
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no formally designated bike and/or pedestrian pathways along the project area. The project
area is not identified as a designated bicycle route or a high bicycle use area in the Wyoming Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (WYDOT Systems Planning, April2003). Due to the restricted
shoulder width and poor roadway geometry along the corridor, the project area is not safe for
pedestrians and bicyclists. However, this area of the corridor experiences frequent use by area
bicyclists and local pedestrians. During the tourist season it is a popular recreational route for
bicyclists from the Pinedale/Jackson area to ride to Hoback Rim and back. The route is also used
frequently for organized bicycle tours, such as the Tour De Wyoming and Ride Around Wyoming.
IMPACTS
No Action. No changes to the current system will occur. Bicyclists and pedestrians will be expected
to continue to use the roadway even though current conditions are unsafe.
Proposed Action. The Proposed Action includes a wider pavement width for the project corridor
from a 24-foot top width to a proposed width of 40 feet with two 8-foot shoulders. This conforms
to AASHTO safety standards. The provision of wider shoulders on rural roadways provides dual use
and safer conditions for both bicycle and pedestrian use.
January 2004
3-14
3.7 Air Quality
EXISTING CONDITIONS
In general, air quality throughout Wyoming is good due to the rural nature of the state. Air quality
in the project area is considered good due to the lack of sources of significant air pollutants, however
site-specific data is unavailable. The nearest air monitoring station is located in Jackson,
approximately 30 miles northwest of the project area. Data from this station is available from the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Aerometric Information Retrieval Information System
(AIRS) database. This database contains measurements of "criteria air pollutant" concentrations in
each state. Criteria air pollutants are those regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act (Wyoming
Air Quality Standards and Regulations, WDEQ 2003); the EPA has set permissible levels (primary
standards) for these pollutants to protect human health. A geographic area that meets or does better
than the primary standard is called an attainment area. There are six criteria air pollutants, including
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), ozone (03 ), particulate matter
(at 10 and 2.5 micrometers), and lead (Pb); only two are tracked at the Jackson air monitoring
station, ozone and particulate matter (PM1 0).
The Jackson area is in attainment for those criteria pollutants that are tracked (Table 3-4), and since
Jackson is a much more heavily populated area than the project area, it is assumed the project area
is also in attainment with all criteria pollutants.
Table 3-4. Air Quality in Nearby Jackson Compared to National and State Standards
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Concentration
Measured in
Jackson
(2001)
National Standard
Wyoming Standard
Ozone (03)
0.076 ppm< 1>
0.12 ppm
( 1 hour standard)
0.08 ppm
(daily max. 8-hr. average)
0.12 ppm
(one hour standard)
Particulate Matter
(PM 10)
23.4 J.).g/m 3 <2>
50 J.).g/m 3
(annual average standard)
50 J.).g/m 3
(annual average standard)
Source: AIRS database
ppm "" parts of pollutant per million parts of air (by volume at 25 oq
~glm) = micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air
111
Value reported is the second highest "daily maximum value", i.e. if one takes the highest 1-hour value of each
day, and picks the second highest of those values. This value should not exceed the 1-hour standard in a year.
m Annual average concentration
IMPACTS
No Action. Air quality impacts are not expected as a result of the No Action alternative. Any
potential future impacts resulting from anticipated future increases in traffic are not expected to be
significant due to the rural nature of the project area and probable improvements in low-emission
automobile engines.
January 2004
3-15
Proposed Action. Air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action will
be primarily short-term, construction-related impacts. Such impacts are likely to include im:reased
particulate matter (fugitive dust) generated by wind blowing over exposed soil surfaces during
grading and scraping activities, and by the movement of equipment and support vehicles during
construction. Actual impacts will depend on soil type, soil moisture content, and total area of soil
disturbance. Other air quality impacts will result from an increase in pollutants from construction
vehicle exhaust and equipment at the materials pits and plant mix sites. Construction vehicles are
typically diesel-powered and exhaust from such vehicles typically produce larger quantities of
particulates and nitrogen oxides than gasoline engines. In addition, an increase in particulate matter
is likely from crushers and other equipment used at the plant mix sites. Impacts will not be
significant because they will be short-term in nature for the duration of the construction project.
Furthermore, impacts will be reduced by implementation of standard dust control measures during
construction.
No significant long-term air quality impacts are expected. Once construction is complete, air quality
is expected to return to pre-construction levels. Any future air quality impacts resulting from
increased traffic on the improved highway are expected to be insignificant and are very unlikely to
violate any air quality standards due to the rural nature of the project area and antidpated
improvements in low-emission automobile engines.
3.8 Noise
EXISTING CONDITIONS
For the purposes of this analysis, the FHWA's Procedures for Abatement ofHighway Traffic Noise
and Construction Noise (23 CFR Part 772) is the most applicable Federal noise guidance. The
FHWA has established national criteria by which to judge noise impacts on certain land uses (Table
3-5).
The criteria above are applied to first floor outdoor activity areas. By Wyoming policy, mitigation
for noise impacts is considered when the noise levels at a sensitive receptor approach or exceed the
National Noise Abatement Criteria (67 dBA for this project's condition). WYDOT has established
1 decibel as the approach level; therefore, mitigation is considered when a receiver reaches a noise
level of 66 dBA or higher.
Exterior ambient noise levels in the project area were monitored at three locations on June 21, 2000
(Table 3-6). These locations were chosen to be representative receptors along the project corridor.
All of the field measurements were below the FHWA noise abatement criteria for the respective
categories. Receptor #3 was located at approximately the same elevation as the paved roadway
surface, which may have registered more of the pavement noise. Receptor #3 is close to approaching
the criteria level.
January 2004
3-16
US. Highway 189/191
Table 3-5. FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
Activity
Cate~ory
Leq (IJ
57 dBA
67 dBA
c
D
72 dBA
Description of Activity Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and
serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities
is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such
areas could include amphitheaters, parks, open space, or historic districts.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks not
included in Category A, residences, motels, hotels, schools, public meeting
rooms, churches, libraries and hospitals.
Developed lands not included in Categories A or B above.
Undeveloped lands; no standards apply unless development planned,
designed, programmed and likely to be built, then the applicable A, B, or C
regulation applies.
Source: Procf:duresfor Abatement ofHighway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Federal-Aid Highway Program
Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3. FHWA
( 1) Leq describes the mean noise level heard during the peak traffic period.
(2) Parks in Categories A and B include all such lands (public or private) which are actually used as parks as well as
those public lands officially set aside or designated by a governmental agency as parks on the date of public
knowledge of the proposed highway project.
Table 3-6. Existing Noise Levels
Location
Number
Description
#1(MP 143)
Bar/cafe in Hoback
Village
#2
Residence
(MP 130.43)
Log cabin
#3
(MP 141-142)
Distance to
highway (ft)
150
Existing Noise
(Leg)
62 dB(A)
FHWA
NAC
67
140
63 dB(A)
67
110
65 dB(A)
67
IMPACTS
No Action. An increase in noise levels will not occur as a result of the No Action alternative, since
no changes to the current alignment or roadway will be made. However, future noise levels may
increase as a result of future increase in traffic volumes in the area.
Proposed Action. The future design year (2021) Average Daily Traffic volumes are not expected
to double over the 2000 traffic counts, but are estimated to increase by approximately 50%. A
guideline to use in estimating approximate increases in noise is a 3-decibel increase for each
doubling of traffic volumes. Therefore, the increase in the decibel level in the project area is
projected to be 1 to 2 decibels over the next 20 years. This 1 to 2 decibel increase is not perceptible
to the human ear and residents will not notice a difference from their existing condition and future
sound level due to the proposed roadway improvements.
January 2004
3-17
The proposed horizontal alignment is mostly on the current alignment, however, there are a few areas
where the widening or realignment at curves will move the edge of pavement off-center and
potentially closer to the existing receivers. This could make the future noise levels slightly higher
due to the decrease in distance between the roadway and the receptors. The vertical profile will be
modified in some areas to increase the sight stopping distance. The current design speeds are
proposed to be maintained in the Proposed Action, except where safety modifications will bring the
current conditions consistent with the project standard.
The future noise levels for the representative receptors will be below the FHWA criteria in both the
existing and future condition, with the exception of Receptor #3 which is approaching the criteria
level. The 1 to 2 dB(A) projected increase between existing and future is below the 10 dB( A)
substantial increase limit and therefore, none of the locations are impacted by a substantial increase
in sound level. While the future noise level will approach the National Criteria level, mitigation is
not considered reasonable due to the rural nature and limited number of receptors that will benefit
from such mitigation.
The construction staging areas are expected to be used for the duration of construction. The noise
impacts related to the construction staging areas are expected to be intermittent and will likely
contribute to the background noise generated by the project. Operations at the construction staging
area will be noisy due to the crusher, large trucks, and heavy equipment, etc. However, ope:rations
at the staging area will be intermittent and cease with the completion of the project.
MITIGATION
For the Proposed Action, no locations will be impacted by a substantial increase in sound level;
therefore, mitigation is not proposed. Additionally, given the rural nature and the topography of the
project area, noise abatement will not be reasonable or feasible.
3.9 Geology and Soils
The project area is characterized by the Hoback River valley with gentle to steeply sloping ridges
on either side of the valley. At the south (or upper) end of the project area, the headwaters of the
Hoback River and its tributaries have cut down through the Eocene age Pass Creek formation and
equivalents (Lookout Mountain conglomerate of the Wasatch formation). As the river gradually
descends, it passes through the LaBarge and Chappo members ofthe Wasatch formation (red, gray,
and brown mudstones, conglomerates, and sandstones). The Paleocene Hoback formation
(interbedded sandstone and drab gray claystone) is exposed at the northern end of the projt::ct area
near the upper end of Hoback Canyon (Love and Christiansen 1985). Some slopes are somewhat
unstable and prone to landslides, however WYDOT geologists report no significant geologic hazards
occur in the project area and an old landslide area near MP 137.3 appears to be stable (Shulte, pers.
comm., 2003). Underdrain systems have been used in this area to help stabilize the slope. Frost
heaves are fairly common throughout the project area.
January 2004
3-18
WYDOT estimates that existing topsoil in the project area is extensive. An average depth of six
inches was used by WYDOT to estimate quantities of topsoil to be salvaged.
IMPACTS
No Action. No impacts are expected under the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, no significant impacts are anticipated to geologic
features or soils. Frost heaves will be addressed with excavation of the unsuitable soils and
placement of engineering stabilization fabric. Existing underdrain systems near MP 13 7.5 will be
avoided as much as possible, or replaced or extended as necessary. The underdrain systems help
stabilize the soils.
Topsoil will be stored for use in reclamation. Topsoil storage may be windrowed at the edge of the
new embankments, or stored outside the ROW if necessary.
3.10 Water Resources and Quality
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area lies within the Snake River drainage basin. The Hoback River is the main surface
water resource in the project area, and flows adjacent to U.S. Highway 1891191 along the north
portion of the Dell Creek section. The Hoback River enters Hoback Canyon at the north end of the
project area and flows for approximately 15 miles northwest through the canyon where it joins the
Snake River near Hoback Junction. Main tributaries to the Hoback River in the project area include
Dell Creek, Jack Creek, Muddy Creek, and Fisherman Creek. Dell Creek and Jack Creek join the
Hoback River just upstream of the northernmost Hoback River bridge, so neither of these creeks are
crossed by the highway. The highway crosses both Muddy Creek and Fisherman Creek in the
Pfisterer section of the project area. Several smaller intermittent drainages are also present. No
water bodies in or near the project area are designated wild and scenic rivers.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Quality Division, classifies
waterways into four classes. Class I waters are specifically designated waters for which the existing
water quality is protected regardless of the uses supported by the water. Other waters are classified
according to their designated uses. The Hoback River and its main tributaries in the project area
(Dell Creek, Jack Creek, Muddy Creek, and Fisherman Creek) are all classified as 2AB. This is the
highest classification below Class I, and this classification is based on the presence of game and nongame fish species according to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Other designated uses for
this class include drinking water, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry, and scenic value.
No waterways in the project area are on Wyoming's 2002 Section 303(d) lists of impaired
waterways, which including the following:
•
•
List A - Waters with Water Quality Impairments
List B- Waters with Waste Load Allocation Discharge Permits Expiring
January 2004
3-19
•
•
List C - Waters with Water Quality Threats
List D- Waters Delisted from 2000 303(d) List.
Waterways in the project area are considered to have good water quality based on the 2AB
classification and protection for all listed uses. Furthermore, there have been no known water quality
impairments or threats to waters in the project area that warrant listing under Section 303(d).
IMPACTS
No Action. No changes to water resources or current water quality are expected as a result of the
No Action alternative.
Proposed Action. The project will temporarily impact water resources in the project area due to
construction of the retaining wall, runoff, and withdrawals for dust control. The Hoback River and
Fisherman <;reek are the water bodies most likely to be impacted, with minimal to no impacts
expected to the other tributaries and intermittent drainages.
No impacts are expected to Dell Creek or Jack Creek since both of these creeks join with the Hoback
River before the highway crosses the Hoback River. Impacts to Muddy Creek are expected to be
minimal since the existing double barrel concrete box culvert at the single crossing location is
expected to be left in place. If work is needed on the structure, it will be repaired and/or extended,
along with some minor channel work such as rip rap. Impacts to other intermittent drainages in the
project area are expected to be minimal. Culverts are expected to be replaced at most drainage
crossings, so increased sedimentation could occur if water is flowing in a drainage during culvert
replacement. The construction season is generally the period when intermittent drainages are dry
and no sedimentation is expected.
In general, impacts to Fisherman Creek and the Hoback River will include channel modifications,
increased sedimentation, and potential for chemical contamination. Fisherman Creek, toward the
south end of the Pfisterer section, has previously been straightened and channelized. This stretch
will likely be impacted by reconstruction due to its proximity to the highway. Water quality impacts,
such as increased sedimentation, are likely to occur from general reconstruction activities. As the
highway is reconstructed, exposed soils and other materials could reach Fisherman Creek,
particularly during storm events. Impacts are expected to be temporary and last through
construction; however, increased sedimentation could occur until adjacent areas are revegetated.
Impacts are not expected to be significant because they are considered temporary until successful
reclamation of disturbed areas has occurred. Implementation of best management practices and
mitigation measures described below will minimize impacts.
Impacts to the Hoback River will result from in-stream work for construction of the retaining wall
at the north end of the project and possible minor channel work (rip rap) at the two bridges. The
retaining wall, approximately 900 feet in length, is not expected to alter river flows to a measurable
degree over existing conditions. A coffer dam or similar structure will likely be used for
construction of the retaining wall to divert the river away from the construction area. Typically, instream work results in increased sedimentation due to suspension of existing sediments in the
January 2004
3-20
channel bed and increased runoff with the removal of streamside vegetation. In-stream work also
has the potential to result in chemical contamination from equipment working in the stream or as a
result of a spill or accident. Due to the proximity of the Hoback River to the highway, particularly
at the north end of the Dell Creek section, increased sedimentation is also likely to result from runoff
over exposed soils at the construction area, especially in the event of intense storms during
construction. These impacts are not considered significant because the retaining wall will not
significantly alter river flows or river dynamics over existing conditions. Impacts associated with
increased sedimentation and potential chemical contamination are not considered significant because
they will be temporary and cease after successful reclamation of disturbed areas has occurred.
Implementation of best management practices and mitigation measures described below will
minimize impacts.
During construction, water will be needed for dust control, embankment compaction, and processing
of materials. WYDOT has identified withdrawal locations, including three on the Hoback River and
one on Fisherman Creek. Three of these locations have been used previously for WYDOT projects.
These withdrawals are not expected to impact either water source and will be in compliance with
state permits.
Long-term impacts to water resources or water quality as a result of the project are not expected to
be significant. The proposed project will result in an increase in impervious areas (the addition of
8-foot wide shoulders), thus potentially increasing the amount of runoff from the highway reaching
waterways in the project area, particularly the Hoback River and Fisherman Creek, both of which
parallel the highway for a portion of their length. Highway runoff could carry sediment,
sand/gravel/deicing salts, and petroleum products; the migration of these particles to the waterways
is subject to topography, vegetation, and intensity and duration of precipitation events. However,
no long-term water quality effects are expected because the reconstructed highway will generally be
similar to the existing highway (with the addition of wider shoulders, minor realignments and
upgrades, and the presence of the retaining wall), and the existing highway does not appear to have
a significant effect on water quality based on good water quality ratings in waterways in the project
area. Furthermore, concentrations of highway pollutants (e.g., sediment, oil, grease, fuel, litter,
deicing salts and minerals, and heavy metals) are not considered significant on roads with annual
average daily traffic (AADT) less than 30,000 vehicles (FHWA 1981 ). This level of traffic is
approximately 16 times the current AADT and approximately 11 times the projected AADT for the
year 2021. Concentration of highway pollutants are expected to remain insignificant in the project
area.
MITIGATION
Mitigation to minimize water quality impacts will include the following:
•
Implement erosion control Best Management Practices such as erosion bale check dams or
rock check dams for ditches, silt fences, burlap tube diversion dikes, and sediment traps
•
Revegetate disturbed areas in a timely manner
•
Prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control Plan in
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
January 2004
3-21
·'
•
•
Ensure the contractor files a fuel control and spill prevention plan with the DEQ prior to
construction to avoid hazardous materials spills
Obtain 401 certification from Wyoming DEQ and observe special conditions .
In addition to the above mitigation measures, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (vVGFD)
has recommended use of a "porta-dam" type structure over coffer dams with fill material for instream construction. If additional fill is needed to extend the structure to the stream bank, the fill
should be from a non-streambed source that is free of fines (i.e., 90% of the material should be
greater than 0.05 inches diameter). Stream bank disturbance should be kept to a minimum.
Recommended streambank stabilization techniques include (but are not limited to) the use of large
angular rock (greater than 2 feet in one dimension) or wire enclosed riprap structures. Riprap
material should be from a non-stream source and should be free of fine sediments. Any riparian
canopy or bank stabilizing vegetation removed for construction should be reintroduced and protected
from grazing until well established.
3.11 Floodplains
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not designated flood hazard areas for the
project area as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). A flood hazard area is the area
subject to a base flood, i.e., a flood having a !-percent chance of being exceeded in any given year
(also known as a" 100-year flood"). The base flood is a regulatory standard used by federal agencies,
and most states, to administer community floodplain management programs. Due to the rural nature
of the project area, floodplain management regulations have not been adopted.
In the absence ofNFIP maps, a floodplain evaluation was conducted for the project. The evaluation
showed that the existing highway is located in portions of the Hoback River and Fisherman Creek
floodplains.
FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION
The FHWA has established policies and procedures for the location and hydraulic design ofhighway
encroachments on floodplains (23 CFR 650). The policy applies to all encroachments and FHWA
actions, including the Proposed Action, that affect the base floodplain, except for repairs made with
emergency funds during or immediately following a disaster. The policy includes:
•
•
•
•
•
encouragement of a broad and unified effort to prevent uneconomic, hazardous or
incompatible use and development of the Nation's flood plains,
avoidance of longitudinal encroachments, where practicable,
avoidance of significant encroachments, where practicable,
minimization of impacts of highway agency actions that adversely affect base flood plains,
restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial flood-plain values that are
adversely impacted by highway agency actions,
January 2004
3-22
US. Highway 189/191
•
•
•
avoidance of support of incompatible flood-plain development,
consistency with the intent of the Standards and Criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program, where appropriate, and
incorporation of"A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management" of the Water
Resources Council into FHWA procedures.
To meet the objectives of the FHWA policies (including a requirement for location hydraulic
studies), WYDOT contracted with WWC Engineering to prepare a floodplain evaluation for the
Proposed Action since NFIP maps are not available for the project area (WWC Engineering 2003).
The evaluation was based on existing flow data and utilized the HEC-RAS model to estimate the
I 00-flood event for both the existing highway and the Proposed Action. The project would encroach
on portions of the floodplains of Hoback River and Fisherman Creek.
IMPACTS
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no additional encroachment to the Hoback River or
Fisherman Creek floodplains will occur over existing conditions, however the purpose and need for
the project will not be met.
Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the Hoback River occurs within 600 feet of the
centerline of the highway in five longitudinal reaches; two of these reaches warranted detailed
evaluation to determine potential floodplain impacts based on factors such as an increase in grade,
. adjacent land uses, highway realignment, and construction ofthe retaining wall. Both reaches are
located in the Dell Creek section near the north end of the project area. The first reach,
approximately 2,400 feet of river length, is located at the entrance to Hoback Canyon (approximately
MP 147.5) and extends to the north end of the project. This reach includes the proposed retaining
wall. Through this reach, the grade will be raised, the centerline will be moved towards the river,
and the retaining wall will be added. The adjacent land uses are residential and businesses. Eleven
cross-sections were evaluated in this reach and no significant change in water elevation for a 100year flood event was shown in any of the cross-sections. The greatest change in elevation was an
increase of 0.07 feet.
The second reach, approximately I ,800 feet of river length, is a short distance upstream from the first
reach near MP 147. Through this reach the grade will be raised by up to two feet. The adjacent land
use is residential. Eight cross-sections were evaluated in this reach and no significant change in
water elevation for a 100-year flood event was shown in any of the cross-sections. The greatest
change in elevation was an increase of 0.15 feet.
Under the Proposed Action, Fisherman Creek occurs within 600 feet ofthe centerline of the highway
for a large portion of the Pfisterer section, however in most areas the horizontal and vertical
alignment would not change significantly and the adjacent lands are undeveloped. Three reaches
along Fisherman Creek where the grade would change by one-foot or more were evaluated to
determine potential floodplain impacts. These three reaches are toward the southern end of the
project and are generally located betweenMP 137.5 andMP 138.5. At the first reach, the grade will
be raised about 1.5 feet and the surrounding land use is residential and business. At the second
January 2004
3-23
reach, the grade will be lowered approximately one foot and the surrounding land use is irrigated
field. At the third reach, where the highway curves around a slope, the improved superelevation will
cause the edge of the road to the outside of the curve to be above the existing grade by approximately
two feet. Existing livestock and residential structures are located in this area. A total of 25 crosssections were evaluated for the three reaches along Fisherman Creek and no significant change in
water elevation for a 100-year flood event was shown in any of the cross-sections. The greatest
change in elevation was an increase of 0.17 feet.
Since only minor improvements are proposed for the Hoback River bridges, the only encroachment
at these locations is associated with widening and upgrading the approaches to the bridges.
Based on the floodplain evaluation, there will be no significant impact to the Hoback River and
Fisherman Creek floodplain as a result of the Proposed Action. The greatest increase in water
elevation during a 100-year flood event is 0.17 feet (about 2 inches) and this increase is not
considered a significant risk to the scattered residents and businesses in or near the floodplain. A
significant increase can be considered an increase of flood waters by greater than 1.0 foot. In
communities where FEMA has designated base flood elevations under the NIFP, encroachmt:nts are
prohibited in the base floodplain when it is demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
that the proposed encroachment will increase flood levels by greater than 1.0 foot. Since the project
is located in a rural setting and the encroachment is minor, no significant increase in flooding during
a base flood is expected as a result of the project. Furthermore, the proposed highway is not expected
to support incompatible floodplain development. While the project will improve access to the
unincorporated community of Bondurant, existing development is scattered and consists mainly of
houses, outbuildings, commercial buildings, and limited public facilities (elementary school, library,
church, post office, and fire department). It is highly unlikely the project will promote additional
development in the base floodplain to such a degree as to significantly increase base flood elevations.
Natural floodplain values are not expected to be significantly impacted. Of the five reaches
evaluated (two on Hoback River and three on Fisherman Creek), the impact to four of the reaches
is raising or lowering of grade, which is not expected to impact natural floodplain values. The
impact to the fifth reach (along the Hoback River) includes raising the grade, moving the centerline
toward the river, and adding a 900-foot long retaining wall. These impacts would affect the natural
floodplain values in this reach, however the impacts are not considered significant because the
existing highway currently affects the natural floodplain values in this reach and the Proposed Action
would not be a significant change as compared to the current condition. The existing highway
parallels the Hoback River in this reach with a narrow riparian strip ( 10 to 20 feet wide) betw1~en the
highway and the river consisting of the highway slope dominated by grasses and scattered shrubs
(Photo 2). This narrow riparian strip does not provide important natural floodplain values such as
wildlife habitat or floodwater storage, particularly when compared to the extensive willow flats along
the Hoback River floodplain upstream of this reach. Replacing this strip with a retaining wall is not
considered a significant loss of natural floodplain values for this 900-foot stretch of the Hoback
River.
January 2004
3-24
Photo2. Hoback River floodplain .
. The project design did incorporate several measures to minimize or avoid impacts to floodplains such
as steepening fill slopes, minor alignment shifts, and use of a retaining wall. However, in order to
meet the purpose and need for Proposed Action, the impacts to floodplains described above were
unavoidable. The impacts were unavoidable either due to topographical constraints, such as at the
entrance to Hoback Canyon where the highway is confined between the Hoback River to the south
and a slide area to the north, or because alternatives to the Proposed Action would not meet the
design criteria and resuh in a substandard highway. No practicable alternative to the Proposed Action
was identified. The Proposed Action does conform with state or local floodplain protection
standards.
3.12 Wetlands
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area was surveyed for wetlands in July/August 2000. Wetlands within and immediately
adjacent to the ROW were mapped on black and white aerial photography during the survey and later
transferred to the design plans. Wetlands in the project area were delineated in accordance with the
1987 U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (ACOE) wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987). According to this manuaL areas mapped as wetlands must meet three criteria: hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. While all wetlands in the project area meet these
criteria, not all are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. For example, the ACOE typically
does not regulate wetlands associated with irrigation ditches and some isolated wetlands may not be
jurisdictional. The ACOE determines which wetlands are jurisdictionaL and determines the need for
a permit and mitigation. The Wetlands and Other Surface Waters Report for the project is on file
with WYDOT Environmental Services (WEST Inc. 2001) and will be submitted by WYDOT to the
ACOE.
January 2004
3-25
US. Highway 1891191
Based on the 2000 survey, a total of 4 7 wetlands were located and delineated in the project area. The
wetlands in the project area are primarily associated with surface water features such as the Hoback
River and other perennial and intermittent streams and natural drainages, as well as man-made
irrigation ditches. Wetlands are also found associated with various types of depressions/low areas
that either receive and hold runoff or have high groundwater.
Four types of wetlands occur in the project area, according to WYDOT' s classification. The four
types include:
•
•
•
•
Inland fresh meadow
Inland shallow fresh marsh
Shrubswamp
Woody riparian wetland
The inland fresh meadow and shrub swamp are the most common types of wetlands in the project
area, typically dominated by a mix of sedges, rushes, and grasses in the meadows and various willow
species in the shrub swamps. The woody riparian wetlands are found along some of the perermial
streams and the Hoback River and are dominated by willows.
Wetlands in the project area have different functional values depending on their location, size, and
type. Many of the wetlands in the project area occur adjacent to creeks and other drainages and have
functional value for shoreline stabilization, long and short-term surface water storage, and wildlife
habitat. Other wetlands in the project area have functional value for sediment and toxicant retention
from highway runoff. Most sites also provide some wildlife habitat. Biomass production is greater
in wetlands as compared to uplands, and these sites provide forage and cover for wildlife, such as
birds, small mammals, and big game. Seeds produced by wetland plants can provide a significant
food source for many wildlife species, especially waterfowl and other birds.
IMPACTS
No Action. No impacts to wetlands are expected under the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action. The Proposed Action has been designed to avoid wetlands and minimize impacts.
For example, a notable area of avoidance is the proposed cut near MP 144 on the west side of the
highway to avoid a large area of shrub swamp wetland associated with the Hoback River on the east
side of the highway. This wetland provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including moose.
As WYDOT prepares the final design plans for the project, WYDOT will avoid wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable.
The project design, however, will not be able to avoid all wetlands. It is estimated the project will
directly impact 6.3 acres of wetland. Impacts will primarily consist of filling of wetlands. Those
wetlands that are determined by the ACOE to be jurisdictional, will require a permit for filling and
compensatory mitigation. Since impacted wetlands will be mitigated, and the 6.3 acres that will be
impacted are a small percentage of the wetlands in the general project vicinity, impacts to wetlands
are not considered significant.
January 2004
3-26
U.S Highway 189/191
MITIGATION
Impacts to wetlands are minimized as much as practical by engineering design and planning. Loss
of wetlands and associated functions within the project area resulting from implementation of the
Proposed Action require mitigation through an establishment process and/or reclamation/ expansion
program. FHWA has a policy goal that wetlands impacts are mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1.5
to 1 on a program level basis. Wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum of 1:1 ratio for all ACOE
jurisdictional wetlands as well as non-jurisdictional wetlands (i.e. isolated wetlands) that meet the
definition for wetlands contained within FHWA regulations (23 CFR 777 .2).
Wetlands will be mitigated at a site adjacent to the project corridor and in close proximity to the
Hoback River. Wetlands will be replaced type for type for impacted wetlands. Mitigation is
expected to consist of excavation of uplands to a similar elevation as adjacent existing wetlands to
yield wetland hydrology, followed by spreading top soil and planting/seeding the area with
hydrophytic plants.
Additional conservation measures include:
•
•
•
•
Fill/cut slopes adjacent to wetlands will be provided with erosion control silt fencing.
Revegetate disturbed areas in a timely manner to reduce reduce erosion and sedimentation.
·Minimize vegetation removal.
Flag wetland areas during construction to avoid unnecessary disturbance to construction
activities.
WETLAND FINDING
The project was designed to avoid impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent possible and still meet
the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative would avoid wetland
impacts, but it is not feasible and prudent because it would not correct existing roadway deficiencies
or address current safety hazards and maintenance problems. This finding documents the measures
taken to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands under the Proposed Action alternative.
The upgraded highway will essentially remain on the existing alignment, except for some minor
deviations to bring the horizontal and vertical alignments to standard. Maintaining the existing
alignment to the greatest extent possible minimizes new disturbance to wetlands. Although wetlands
immediately adjacent to the highway may be impacted by fill slopes associated with the addition of
shoulders or minor alignment deviations, the steepest allowable fill slopes have been used at wetland
locations to minimize impacts to wetlands. Other engineering measures, such as additional retaining
walls or bridges, are not practical or cost-effective, and would be of extraordinary magnitude, to
further minimize impacts to wetlands. Any other realignment of the highway is likely is to result in
greater impact to wetlands than maintaining the existing alignment since wetlands occur on both
sides of the existing highway.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in wetlands and that the Proposed Action includes all practicable measures
to minimize harm to wetlands that would result in such use. Appropriate coordination is being
January 2004
3-27
conducted by FHWA and WYDOT with the ACOE. Impacts to wetlands will be mitigated at a
minimum of 1:1 ratio at a site adjacent to the project corridor and in close proximity to the Hoback
River. Wetlands will be replaced on project and in kind for impacted wetlands.
3.13 Vegetation
EXISTING CONDITIONS
General Vegetation Communities
The project area is located in the transitional zone between the dry sagebrush steppe of the Green
River basin and the forested slopes of the Gros Ventre and Wyoming mountain ranges. General
vegetation types (land cover types) have been mapped for the state of Wyoming as part of the Gap
Analysis Project (GAP); a GIS-database describing vegetation types for the entire state at a scale of
1:100,000. According to the GAP, vegetation types in the project and surrounding area include
(Figure 3-2):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mountain Big Sagebrush: Within this type, mountain sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata ssp.
vaseyana) is the dominant shrub and total shrub cover comprises more than 25 percent of the
total vegetative cover. Mixed grasses are also common in this type. This is the most
common vegetation type in the project area, found on the dry upland areas and lower
mountain slopes.
Shrub-dominated Riparian: This type occurs in riparian zones where shrubs comprise more
than 25 percent of the vegetative cover and where trees occupy less than 25 percent of the
total vegetative cover. In the project area, willows are the dominant shrubs. This type is
found in the floodplains of the Hoback River and Dell and Jack Creeks.
Aspen: Forests in which aspen (Populus tremuloides) dominates the canopy and the total
canopy cover by trees is greater than 25 percent. In the project area, this type is found on the
slopes and ridges to the west ofU.S. 189/191.
Lodgepole Pine: Forests in which lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) dominates the canopy,
with a canopy closure greater than 25 percent. In the project area, lodegpole pine is primarily
found at higher elevations, especially on mesic north-facing slopes.
Spruce/Fir: Engelmann spruce and/or subalpine fir are dominant or co-dominant in the
canopy and the total canopy coverage is greater than 25 percent. The project area is generally
too dry and low in elevation for this vegetation type, but small areas occur at the north1;!m end
where the highway enters Hoback Canyon.
Irrigated Crop: This type includes any irrigated agricultural area, including pastureland and
hayfields as found in the project area on alluvial plains of lowlands along with associated
farm or ranch facilities and shelterbelts.
The vegetation types that occur immediately adjacent to the highway are primarily mountain big
sagebrush and shrub-dominated riparian (Figure 3-2). Some of the forested types are found adjacent
to the highway at the north end of the project area and irrigated agricultural areas occur near the
southern end of the project area.
January 2004
3-28
Noxious Weeds
In general, Sublette County is relatively free of noxious weeds, however there are some areas of
known infestations along the highway ROW (A. Peterson, Sublette County Weed & Pest, pers.
comm.). Weed species that are known to occur include spotted knapweed (Centaurea macu/osa),
oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), the later occurs
along the Hoback River near the Bondurant post office. Sublette County Weed and Pest Department
controls weeds along the highway by both physical removal and spraying herbicide.
In addition to noxious weeds in the highway ROW, a known infestation of spotted knapweed occurs
at the Fisherman Creek pit site. This infestation has been known since 1991, and Sublette County
Weed and Pest has been attempting control the spotted knapweed in this area since its discovery. In
the past, this has included shutting down all or parts of the pit.
Sensitive Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), and
the BTNF were contacted for information on sensitive plant species in the project area. The USFWS
January 2004
3-29
"
US Highway 1891191
did not indicate any federally-l isted plant species are likely to occur in the project area (USFWS
letter March 2002- Appendix A).
WYNDD reported that thirteen state species of concern have been documented in the vicinity of the
project (i.e., the townships in which the project occurs and a one township buffer). Ofthese, nine
occur in specialized habitat that are not found in the project area, such as high elevation settings or
talus slopes. Four potentially occur in the project area based on their preferred habitat (Table 3-7).
The BTNF maintains a list of 18 sensitive plant species that occur on the forest (USFS 1998).
Several of these species occur in specialized habitats that are not found in or near the project area.
However, five of these species occur in habitats that are found in the project area (Table 3-7).
A survey was conducted for the state and BTNF sensitive plant species that could occur in the project
area during August 2002; none were found during the survey (Table 3-7).
IMPACTS
No Action. No impacts to vegetation are expected under the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action.
General Vegetation Communities
Reconstruction of U.S. 189/191 will affect adjacent vegetation communities. In general, the
proposed reconstruction will follow the existing roadway with some minor alignment shifts and the
addition of 8-foot shoulders. The widening and alignment shifts will encroach on the adjacent
vegetation, with mountain big sagebrush and shrub-riparian the most common vegetation types
affected. While some individual plants will be lost, impacts to vegetation are not considered
significant because the vegetation types affected are common throughout the general vicinity of the
project and losses to these communities will be small incremental losses as compared to the existing
condition. Losses to individuals within the mountain big sagebrush community, in particular, are
negligible because large expanses of this type occur in Sublette County and throughout western
Wyoming. The riparian shrub community is generally associated with rivers, streams, and other
water bodies, and is important biologically for food and shelter for a number of wildlife species.
Impacts to this vegetation type are more critical, but still considered insignificant for the proposed
project since losses will be small and the community type is common in the general area (see Figure
3-2). In addition, the highway generally runs parallel to the shrub-riparian habitat rather than
bisecting it, minimizing impacts. As noted in Section 3.13, Wetlands, the Proposed Action has been
designed to avoid wetlands, including the shrub-riparian habitat, and minimize impacts to the
greatest extent practicable.
Since the severe climate of the project area limits the development of fertile topsoil, salvage of
existing topsoil will be very important. WYDOT has recognized this need and included the salvage
and storage of topsoil in the design plans for the project. Furthermore, the seed mix used for
reclamation should include species adapted to the climate and that are fast-growing in order to
stabilize the topsoil once it is replaced.
January 2004
3-30
US Highway 1891191
Table 3-7. Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area.
Species
Status
Soft aster
(Aster mol/is)
Forest Service
Sensitive
(BTNF)
Meadow milkvetch
(Astragalus
diversifolius var.
divers ifolius)
Forest Service
Sensitive
(BTNF)
Payson's milkvetch
(Astragalus paysonii)
Forest Service
Sensitive
(BTNF)
State Species of
Concern
Robbins milkvetch
(Astragalus robbinsii
var. minor)
Narrow leaf
golden weed
(Haplopappus
macronema var.
linearis)
Payson's bladderpod
( Lesquerel/a
paysonii)
State Species of
Concern
Habitat
Potential Occurrence
Sagebrush grasslands
and mountain meadows
in calcareous soils.
6,400 - 8,500 feet
elevation.
Moist, often alkaline
meadows and swales in
sagebrush valleys. 4,400
- 6,300 feet elevation.
No records in the WYNDD database for
the project vicinity 1• Has been reported
from Hoback Canyon (Fertig et al.
1994), but not found in project area2
during 2002 survey.
the project vicinity. Historical report
from the Green River basin in Wyoming
(Fertig et al. 1994). Not found in project
area during 2002 survey.
Three records in WYNDD database for
the project vicinity. Not found in
project area during 2002 survey.
Disturbed areas,
recovering bums, clear
cuts, road cuts on sandy
soils with low cover.
6,700- 9,600 feet
elevation.
Stream banks, meadows,
thickets
Forest Service
Sensitive
(BTNF)
One record in WYNDD database for the
project vicinity. Not found in project
area during 2002 survey.
the project vicinity, and no known
occurrences in Sublette County. Not
found project area during 2002 survey;
limited habitat.
the project vicinity. Not found in the
project area during 2002 survey; limited
habitat.
Semi-barren, whitish
clay flats and slopes,
gravel bars, and sandy
lake shores. 7,700I 0,300 feet elevation.
Rocky, sparselyForest Service
vegetated slopes, often
Sensitive
(BTNF)
calcareous substrates.
6,000- 10,300 feet
elevation
One record in the WYNDD database for
State Species of
Sagebrush and juniper
Flat-top broomrape
(Orobanche
Concern
communities on plains
and hills. 6,600 - 6,800
corymbosa var.
feet elevation.
corymbosa)
State Species of
Rocky slopes and ridges
Creeping campion
(Silene repens var.
Concern
at medium to high
australis)
elevation. 6,500 - 9,800
feet elevation
1
The project vicinity is defined as the townships in which the project occurs and a one township buffer
2
The project area is defined as the existing highway right-of-way
Source: WYNDD database search results (search conducted February2002) and BTNF Sensitive Plant Species list dated
12-16-1998.
January 2004
3-31
Noxious Weeds
Most noxious weeds are aggressive pioneer species that have a strong competitive advantage over
other species on disturbed sites. Therefore, all areas disturbed by the project are potential habitat for
noxious and invasive species, particularly for spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy, and leafy spurge,
which have been reported in the project area. In addition, highways and rivers are known
transportation mechanisms for weed seed, and new weed seeds could be readily introduced to the
disturbed areas.
In accordance with WYDOT Policy and Procedure, WYDOT Field Engineers will contact the
Wyoming Department of Agriculture or the local Weed and Pest Control District to arrange
inspection and/or spraying of construction projects and material sources prior to construction and
after reclamation is completed in order to mitigate potential spreading of noxious weeds. Post
construction and successful reclamation, noxious weed inspection and control will be initiated by
WYDOT maintenance forces following the procedures described in the WYDOT Maintenance
Manual. These procedures also involve a cooperative approach with the Wyoming Department of
Agriculture and the local Weed and Pest Control District and emphasize protection of desirable
native vegetation during control efforts. Impact from noxious and invasive species will not be
significant due to these procedures.
Sensitive Species
Since no sensitive plant species have been found in the project area, impacts to these species are
unlikely. Additionally, because the area that will be disturbed does not provide appropriate habitat
for most of the species listed in Table 3-7, the potential for impacts is further reduced. Impacts could
occur if undocumented individuals are present in the areas that are disturbed.
MITIGATION
The following mitigation measure will be implemented during project construction to minimize
impacts to vegetation:
•
•
•
Reclaim disturbed ground with a seed mix composed of native species appropriate to site
conditions, as developed by the WYDOT agronomist in consultation with the BTNF.
Require all equipment brought into Sublette County for use in the project area be washed
prior to entering the county to minimize the potential for transporting weed seeds into the
project area.
All seed, straw, and hay used on the project will be free of noxious weeds as required by
WYDOT standard specifications, State seed law, and Wyoming Department of Agriculture
Certification Program.
January 2004
3-32
3.14 Wildlife and Fish Resources
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The mountainous terrain through the Hoback Basin and along U.S. 189/191 provide habitat for a
variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Management indicator species (MIS) are those species
designated by the BTNF Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) used to indicate the effects
of habitat changes associated with forest management activities. The BTNF recognizes three types
of MIS: 1) harvested species (big game), 2) ecological indicator species, and 3) sensitive species.
Big Game
Big game species were identified during scoping as a wildlife resource of concern in the project area.
Four species ofbig game commonly occur in the project area including mule deer, elk, moose, and
pronghorn. The WGFD identifies several types of seasonal ranges used by big game in the project
area (Table _3.8).
Table 3-8. Seasonal Ranges for Big Game Populations as Defined by WGFD
Range
Definition
Crucial
Winter
WinterNearlong
Yearlong
Crucial range is any particular range or habitat component which determines
whether a population maintains and reproduces itself at or above the WGFD
population objective over the long term.
A population or portion of a population uses this habitat annually in
substantial numbers only during winter (12/1-4/30).
A portion of a population uses this habitat yearlong, but during winter there
is a significant influx of animals into this area from other seasonal ranges
A population or substantial portion of a population uses this habitat
yearlong.
Spring/Summer/Fall
A population or portion of a population uses this habitat annually (5/111/30), excluding winter.
Parturition
Birthing areas commonly used by a substantial number of females from a
population.
Source: WCWS 1990
Mule Deer
The project corridor passes through the northwest portion of the Sublette Mule Deer Herd Unit. The
Sublette Mule Deer Herd Unit is the third largest in the state, extending northwesterly from the Wind
River Range to the Snake River Range. The herd unit encompasses 6,602 mi 2 and includes 15 hunt
areas. The WGFD manages this herd unit for a post-season population objective of32,000 deer. An
estimated population of34,700 was present in 2001, with a 5-year (1996-2000) average of29,140
(WGFD 2001a). A total of3,223 animals were harvested in 2001 and provided 43,108 recreation
days to hunters.
Deer in the Sublette Mule Deer Herd Unit are likely the most migratory deer herd in North America,
annually moving 60-100 miles between winter and summer ranges (Sawyer and Lindzey 2001).
These deer congregate to winter in the sagebrush deserts of the Green River Basin, then distribute
January 2004
3-33
themselves among 5 different mountain ranges (Wind River Range, Gros Ventre Range, Snak~;: River
Range, Wyoming Range, and Salt River Range) during the summer (Sawyer and Lindzey 2001 ).
Many of these deer use the Hoback Basin for parturition and summer range.
Areas adjacent to the project corridor are considered spring/summer/fall range for mule deer. Deer
are common throughout the project area May through October, but spend most of the winter months
in the Green River Basin.
Elk
The project corridor passes through the central portion of the Hoback Elk Herd Unit. The 288-mi2
herd unit includes two hunt areas and is managed for a post-season population objective of 1,100 elk.
The Hoback Elk Herd Unit includes two winter feedgrounds; Dell Creek and McNeel, which
annually feed approximately 250 and 600 elk, respectively. An estimated population of 1,100 was
present in2001, with a 5-year(1996-2000) average of1,030 (WGFD 2001a). A total of311 animals
were harvested in 2001 and provided 6,297 recreation days to hunters.
A variety of elk seasonal ranges occur in and adjacent to the project corridor, including crucial
winter/yearlong, winter/yearlong, and spring/summer/ fall ranges (Figure 3-3). Elk are common in
the project area April through November, but typically restricted to feedgrounds during the winter.
Moose
The project corridor passes through the northern portion of the Sublette Moose Herd Unit. The herd
unit encompasses 5,801-mi2 and includes ten hunt areas. The WGFD manages this herd unit for a
post-season population objective of 5,500 moose. An estimated population of 5,665 was present in
2001, with a 5-year (1996-2000) average of 5,768 (WGFD 2001a). A total of 551 animals were
harvested in 2001 and provided 3,078 recreation days to hunters.
A variety of moose seasonal ranges occur in and adjacent to the project corridor, including erucial
winter, crucial winter/yearlong, and spring/summer/fall ranges (Figure 3-4). Although moose occupy
the project area on a year-around basis, they occur at higher densities during the winter.
January 2004
3-34
U.S. Highway /891191
I
January 2004
3-35
US. Highway 1891191
Antelope
The project corridor passes through the northern portion of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit. The
herd unit encompasses 10,546-m? and includes eleven hunt areas covering most of the Green River
basin north of Interstate 80 and portions of the Hoback and Gros Ventre drainages. The WGFD
manages this herd unit for a post-season population objective of 48,000 antelope. An estimated
population of 49,500 was present in 1999, with a 5-year (1994-1998) average of 43,260 (WGFD
1999). A total of 5,396 animals were harvested in 1999 and provided 15,803 recreation days to
hunters.
Areas adjacent to the project corridor are considered spring/summer/fall range for antelope.
Although the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit supports close to 50,000 antelope, only a small number
(150-300) occupy the Hoback Basin (D. McWhirter, WGFD, pers. commun). Most occur along
portions of Dell Creek, the Hoback River, and Noble Basin. Similar to mule deer, the pronghorn
winter in the Green River Basin and only occupy the Hoback Basin in the spring, summer, and fall.
Vehicle-Related Mortality of Big Game
The presence of big game in the project area creates the potential for vehicle-animal collisions.
Information of vehicle-animal collisions was obtained from the WYDOT crash database (38 records)
and the Wildlife Observation System (WOS) database (11 records) maintained by the WGFD.
WYDOT records included vehicle-animal collisions that were reported and total damages were at
least $500.
WOS records included vehicle-animal collisions that were reported by WGFD
personnel. Because WGFD personnel rarely report animal-vehicle collisions, these data represent
only a small percentage of actual collisions (D. McWhirter, WGFD, pers. commun.). Between 1990
and 2001 , a minimum of38 mule deer, 10 moose, and 1 elk collisions occurred in the project area
(Figure 3-5). The timing of collisions corresponded with seasonal distribution of big game species,
with deer being killed in summer and fall, while moose were killed in fall and winter. Of the 3 8
vehicle-animal collisions reported by WYDOT, 32% (12 collisions) occurred during daylight hours.
Of the 49 documented road kills, 86% (42 collisions) occurred in 2 stretches of highway. One
stretch includes four miles and runs from MPs 143.5 to 147.5. Another stretch includes three miles
and runs from MPs 136 to 139. The WGFD indicated the section ofhighwaybetween MPs 136 and
138 was an important animal crossing. Additionally, this two-mile stretch has been designated by
the WYDOT Safety Program as a high insurance claim area for animal collisions.
Ecological Indicator Species
Ecological indicator species represent species restricted to specific habitat types during some phase
of their lifespan. Because these species are limited to specific habitat conditions they are particularly
sensitive to environmental disturbance. Given their sensitive response to habitat changes, the USFS
is able to use these species as indicators of ecological conditions of an area. Ecological indicator
species for the BTNF include the pine marten (Martes americana) and Brewer's sparrow (Spizella
breweri).
January 2004
3-36
U.S Highway 1891191
'I
\
/'
- ·- - ··---- - ·
;~--i . ··- --.- ... ::_
• T
'
Road Kll loc:lltlona
. L.·-
.
•
clller
•
elk
moc.e
Mlleposls
0
o
o;,.._ _ _1i;;;;--.;2 Miles
Pine (American) marten
Pine martens occupy a narrow range ofhabitats in or adjacent to coniferous forests (Allen 1987).
More specifically, they associate closely with late-successional stands of mesic conifers, especially
those with complex physical structure near the ground (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Pine marten
occupy large home ranges and occur at low densities (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Suitable habitat
exists near the project area where observations of the species have been documented (Luce et al.
1999).
Brewer's sparrow
Brewer's sparrows typically nest in sagebrush and other shrubs, but prefer areas with bare ground
between the shrubs. Although Brewer's sparrows typically nest more than 100 meters away from
roads (Ingelfinger 2001 ), suitable foraging habitat exists adjacent to the project area and recorded
observations of the species have been documented there (Luce et al. 1999). Brewer's sparrows are
commonly observed south ofthe project area, along the Green River north ofDaniel Junction (Dom
and Dom 1990).
January 2004
3-37
US. Highway 1891191
USFS Sensitive Species
Sensitive species identified by the BTNF include 4 mammals, 9 birds, 1 amphibian, and 2 fishes
(Table 3-9). Sensitive species are those for which population viability is a concern. Records of
species occurrence were obtained from three sources: 1) Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
(WYND D), 2) WOS, and 3) WGFD's Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians (Luce
et al. 1999). Based on these records, two are unlikely to occur in the project area (spotted bat and
Colorado River cutthroat trout), one is listed as "accidental" occurrence (fisher), ten are potential
residents in or near the project area (wolverine, Townsend's big-eared bat, trumpeter swam, boreal
owl, flammulated owl, three-toed woodpecker, northern goshawk, great gray owl, peregrine falcon,
and spotted frog), two are potential summer residents/migrants (common loon and harlequin duck),
and one is a known resident in the area (Snake River fine spotted cutthroat trout) .
Fisheries
The Hoback Basin is part ofthe Snake River watershed. Those portions of the Hoback River and
Fisherman Creek located in the project area are considered Class III trout streams by the WGFD
(1991 ). Class III streams are defined as important trout waters supporting fisheries of regional
importance (WGFD 1991). Native fish species in this river reach include the fine-spotted Snake
River cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), Utah
sucker (Catostomus ardens), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolous), speckled dace (Rhinichthys
osculus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Piaute sculpin (Cottus beldingi) and mottled
sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Incidental records of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) have been
documented in portions ofDell Creek. (R. Hudelson, WGFD, pers. commun.). The BTNF has noted
that the Snake River cutthroat trout and Colorado River cutthroat trout occur in irrigation ditches
(Appendix A).
IMPACTS
Big Game
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, impacts to big game are expected to be similar to
existing conditions, although vehicle-big game collisions could increase as traffic volumes are
expected to increase.
Proposed Action. It is difficult to estimate the potential increase/decrease in highway related
wildlife mortality due to project implementation. The expected increase in traffic may increase the
potential for accidents involving big game, however the posted speed limit will not change under the
Proposed Action. Better sight distance and improved clear zones may reduce the potential for
vehicle-big game collisions, particularly during daylight periods.
Ecological Indicator Species
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no impacts are expected to ecological indicator species.
Janumy 2004
3-38
U.S Highway 1891191
Table 3-9. Sensitive Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest
Species
Mammals
Wolverine
(Gulo gulo)
Fisher
(Maries pinnanti)
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
(Plecotus townsendii)
Spotted Bat
(Euderma maculatum)
Habitat
Dense coniferous forest,
alpine tundra
Dense coniferous forest with
high canopy closure
Coniferous and deciduous
forests, foothill shrubs and
caves
Low deserts to coniferous
forests; cliffs over perennial
water
Occurrence*
Potential resident; records in area 1.J
Accidental; records in area3
Potential resident; records in area3
Unlikely; no records
Birds
Common Loon
Potential summer resident and migrant;
Lakes above 6,000 feet
(Gavia immer)
records in area3
Harlequin Duck
Fast, turbulent rivers in high
Potential summer resident; records in area3
(Histrionicus histrionicus)
mountains
Marshes with open water,
Trumpeter Swan
Potential resident; records in area2.3
(Cyngus buccinator)
rivers, lakes
High-elevation spruce/fir
Boreal Owl
(Aegolius funereus)
forests
Flammulated Owl
Open, mixed coniferous
(Otus jlammeolus)
forest, Ponderosa pine
Lodgepole and spruce/fire
Three-toed Woodpecker
(Picoides tridactylus)
forests, bums
Mature coniferous forest and
Northern Goshawk
Potential resident; records in area2•3
(Accipiter gentilis)
aspen stands
Great Gray Owl
Mixed coniferous forest with
Potential resident; records in area 1.3
(Strix nebulosa)
open areas
Peregrine Falcon
Mountainous zones or cliffs
Potential resident; records in area 1.J
(Falco peregrinus)
near large lakes and rivers
Amphibians
Spotted Frog
Marshy ponds/lakes and slow
Potential resident; records in area 1•3
(Rona pretiosa)
moving streams
Fish
Unlikely; no records
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout
Cold, clear water in rocky,
(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) steep gradient streams
Resident; records ip project area 1•3
Snake River Fine Spotted
Native of Snake River
Cutthroat Trout
Drainage, mainly above
(Oncorhynchus clarki spp.)
Pallisades Reservoir
*For the purposes of this document, "area" is defined by latilong #8 (from Dom and Dom 1990); an area that
encompasses the northwest portion of the BTNF. A latilong is a block of land one degree latitude by one degree
longitude. 1 WYNDD 2002, 2 WOS 2002, 3 Luce eta!. 1999.
January 2004
3-39
Proposed Action. Because most of the disturbed habitat required for project implementation occurs
in the existing highway corridor, no significant impacts to ecological indicator species are expected.
The project may temporarily displace pine marten from forested areas immediately adjacent to the
highway, but such temporary impacts would not be significant. Although sagebrush habitats occur
along portions of the project area, Brewer's sparrows typically nest more than 100 meters away from
roads (Ingelfinger 2001). The project may temporarily displace Brewer's sparrows from foraging
areas immediately adjacent to the roadway, but is unlikely to impact nesting sites.
USFS Sensitive Species
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no impacts are expected to occur to USFS sensitive
species.
Proposed Action. Because most of the disturbed habitat required for project implementation occurs
in the existing highway corridor, no significant impacts to USFS sensitive species are expected.
Of the four mammal species, wolverine, fisher, and Townsend's big-eared bat have been documented
in the latilong of the project area (Luce et al. 1999). While these uncommon speci(:s may
occasionally cross the project area during the course of their seasonal movements, their expected
occurrence in the project area is extremely low. Additionally, project implementation will not
impact habitats associated with these species. There are no records of spotted bat in the proj(:ct area
(Luce et al. 1999, WOS 2002, WYNND 2002) and no impacts are expected.
The primary concern for the three waterfowl bird species (common loon, trumpeter swan, and
harlequin duck) is the removal of, or modification of aquatic habitats. Because no changes to stream
morphology or open water sources are anticipated, potential impacts to these species are negligible.
With the exception of the peregrine falcon, the primary concern for the raptor bird species (boreal
owl, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, and great gray owl) and the three-toed woodpecker is the
removal of mature coniferous forest. Because the project does not involve the removal of coniferous
timber stands, no significant impact to these species is expected. The primary concern for peregrine
falcons is disturbance to nest sites, which in this area of Wyoming generally consist of rocky
outcrops or cliffs. Peregrine falcons have been observed in the project area (Luce et al. 1999,
WYNND 2002), however no nests occur in the project area and no impacts are expected.
Concern for the spotted frog and consideration of amphibian friendly road crossings were discussed
at preliminary scoping meetings. However, after review of available data, no records of spotted frogs
in the project area could be found, and only 2 records of boreal toads (Bufo boreas) were obtained
(WYNDD 2002). Additionally, because the highway generally runs parallel to riparian habitats
(Figure 3-2), rather than bisecting them, the use of amphibian friendly culverts appears unwarranted.
The only area the highway bisects substantial areas of riparian habitat is near MP 139 where it
crosses the Hoback River. Here, an existing bridge is in place and should not impede amphibian
movements.
January 2004
3-40
US. Highway 1891191
Fisheries
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no impacts are expected to fisheries.
Proposed Action. Of the two sensitive fish species recognized by the BTNF, only the fine-spotted
Snake River cutthroat occurs in the project area. No impacts to fisheries are expected from the
project if proper site management practices are implemented to prevent sediment-laden water from
entering the Hoback River or Fisherman Creek. Construction of the retaining wall and potential
relocation of irrigation ditches is not expected to significantly impact fish populations, although
some individuals could be trapped in a coffer dam or irrigation ditch.
MITIGATION
Mitigation for wildlife ~nd fisheries impacts include the following:
•
Use big game crossing signs along the highway to warn motorists of the potential risk
•
Successful reclamation to adjacent habitat standards
•
Allow wider ROW on BTNF sections with high rates of vehicle-animal collisions (e.g.,
MPs 136-138)
•
Construct of ROW fences on BTNF lands conducive to big game movement
3.15 Threatened and Endangered Species
EXJSTING CONDITIONS
A list of federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species potentially occurring in
the project area was determined through project scoping with the USFWS (Table 3-1 0). The
USFWS identified Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), threatened; gray wolf (Canis lupus),
experimental- nonessential; grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis), threatened; bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), threatened; whooping crane (Grus americana), endangered; black-footed ferret
(Mustela nigripes), endangered; Kendall Warm Spring dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis),
endangered; and Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvalis), proposed, as potentially occurring in the
project area.
A Biological Assessment (Biological Assessment) has been prepared, which addresses projectrelated effects to these species as required by the Endangered Species Act (WEST 2004). The BA
will be submitted to the USFWS by the FHWA for their review and concurrence. The information
and conclusions presented here is abstracted from the BA.
Canada Lynx - Canada lynx are generally associated with boreal forests in northern latitudes and
with forested mountains in the lower 48 states where there are extensive tracts of dense forest with
varying habitat features such as bogs, rocky outcrops, and thickets (McCord and Cordoza 1982,
Crowe 1986). In the lower 48 states, lynx typically occur in large, uneven aged stands of
spruce/fir/lodgepole pine forest in higher elevations with relatively flat slopes (USFWS 2000b,
Squires and Laurion 2000, McKelvey et al. 2000). The uneven aged stands are important to provide
mature stands with dense tree growth, dead fall for denning, early successional forests with snowJanuary 2004
3-41
Table 3-10. Endangered and Threatened Species Identified by the USFWS as
Potentially Occurring in the Project Area.
Species
Habitat
Occurrence
Status
Canada lynx
(Lynx canadensis)
dense coniferous forest
with moderate slope
resident; records in project
area
threatene:d
Gray wolf
(Canis lupus)
varied; coniferous forest resident; project area is within experimental range ofYNP experimental
nonessential
population
Grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horibilis)
varied; wilderness
probable resident; few records threatened
areas; plateau grassland; near project area
gravel slopes; ungulate
range
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
mixed coniferous forest, breeding resident and migrant; threatened
cottonwood riparian
breeding habitat along
near water
Hoback River
Whooping crane
(Grus americana)
wet meadows, marshes,
shorelines
rare migrant; occasional
records from Hoback area
endangered
Black-footed ferret (Mustela prairie dog colonies
nigripes)
no records, only known from
Shirley Basin in Wyoming
endangered
Kendall Warm Spring dace
(Rhinichthys osculus
thermalis)
warm (84 oF) creek
only found in Kendall Warm
Spring Creek in Sublette
County
endangered
Ute ladies' -tresses
(Spiranthes diluvialis)
mesic or wet meadows
near springs, lakes, or
perennial streams
in Wyoming, known from
Converse, Goshen, Laramie,
and Niobrara Counties
threatened
shoe hares, and areas of open understory for travel. Topography with gentle slopes are preferred
(Mowat et al. 2000, USFWS 2000b). Dispersal from the preferred habitat has been linked to
snowshoe hare population fluctuations (Quinn and Parker 1987, USFWS 1998a, Tumlison 1987).
In Wyoming, the majority oflynx sightings have been in the northwestern and west-central parts of
the state (Reeve et al. 1986, Laurion and Oakleaf 1998). A summary of historical lynx distribution
in Wyoming lists two records of lynx in townships of the project and 16 records from adjacent
townships (Reeve et al. 1986). The habitat surrounding the project area is suitable for lynx with
dense forest and wilderness areas in relatively close proximity. The WGFD and USFS have
conducted surveys for lynx in the western Wyoming mountains since the winter of 199511996.
Radio collared lynx from the Wyoming Range (Lincoln and Sublette Counties) have been tracked
making long range movements north into southern Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and crossing
U.S. 189/191 east of the project area (B. Oakleaf, WGFD, pers. comm.). A pair of lynx were
collared from 1996-1998. During the first year of the study both individuals left their hom€: range
in the Wyoming Range and could not be located until their return in the winter. The female of this
pair died in the spring of 1999, however, the male was fitted with a satellite collar and was then
documented making long range movements to the north. This individual repeated this movement
January 2004
3-42
pattern in the late summer and fall over a four year period before dying in the winter 2002 (B.
Oakleaf, WGFD, pers. comm.).
Gray Wolf- Prior to the reintroduction efforts, gray wolves were believed extirpated from Wyoming
by the 1930's. In 1995 and 1996, the USFWS implemented a wolf reintroduction program in YNP.
Fourteen wolves were released in 1995 and 17 released in 1996 (USFWS 2000d). A similar
reintroduction effort took place in central Idaho. Both reintroduction efforts in YNP and central
Idaho have been considered successful (USFWS 2000c ). By the end of 2000, approximately 177
wolves existed in 18 packs throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) (USFWS 2001 b).
Because of the reintroduction program, any wolves located in Wyoming and the project area are
considered part of a non-essential, experimental population. Mapping in the Rocky Mountain Wolf
Recovery Annual Reports (USFWS 2000d, 2001 b) indicates the Gros Ventre pack exists north of
the project and two small packs, Big Piney and Pinedale, occur south and east of the project. The
habitat is suitable for wolves throughout the project area and the surrounding BTNF. Currently, gray
wolves are not known to inhabit the project area, but due to the suitable habitat, it is possible they
could occur there in the future as the population continues to grow.
Grizzly Bear- Grizzly bears are not considered common in the project area. The WGFD lists this
species as breeding in the latilong of the project (Luce et al. 1999). The USFS and WGFD consider
grizzly bears common north of the project area and they are expanding their range south in to the
Gros Ventre wilderness and Wind River ranges (D. Moody, WGFD, pers. comm.). Currently,
grizzly bears are not known to inhabit the project area, but due to the suitable habitat they are
expected to occur there in the future as the GYE population continues to grow (D. Moody, WGFD,
pers. comm.). The highway falls within habitat suitable for grizzly bears, but this habitat is
considered somewhat degraded due to the human occupancy of the area. The project is outside the
grizzly bear recovery zone and no Grizzly Bear Management Situations are mapped for the area
(IGBC 1986). The southern boundary ofthe recovery area is approximately 20 miles north ofthe
highway.
Bald Eagle- Historically, bald eagles occurred over most ofNorth America in a variety ofhabitats.
In Wyoming, bald eagles are listed as an uncommon resident and primarily occur in the northwestern
portion of the state and along major river drainages (Luce et al. 1999). In the winter the population
of bald eagles in Wyoming increases due to an influx of migrants from the north. In 1978, there
were only 20 nests known in Wyoming, but by 1996 there were 70 known pairs nesting, with the
majority ofthese occurring in the GYE. Approximately 60% of all bald eagle nests in Wyoming
occur in the GYE area (Stevenson et al. 1998). By 2001, the WGFD was monitoring 89 nests in the
state and it is believed that there are more (Patla et al. 2002).
Bald eagles are known to occur in the project area and it is suspected that a pair may nest nearby.
The WGFD has frequently documented bald eagles near Bondurant but has not found a nest (B.
Oakleaf, WGFD, pers. comm.). The WGFD lists this species as breeding in the latilong of the
project (Luce et al. 1999). The sightings of bald eagles have been made throughout the year and
reflect a year round presence in the project area (B. Oakleaf, WGFD, pers. comm.).
January 2004
3-43
Whooping Crane- Wyoming is outside of whooping crane breeding range except for one historical
nesting record from YNP (Luce et al. 1999). Between 1975 and 1988 extensive efforts wert:~ made
to establish a migratory population of whooping cranes that bred in Idaho and wintered in the middle
Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. This population was never more than 33 individuals, some of
which occasionally migrated through or summered in western Wyoming, and by 1997, only three
non-breeding adult whooping cranes survived in the Gray's Lake population (USFWS 1997).
Typical habitat is wet meadows and grasslands, marshes, poorly drained potholes, and shorelines
with water depths less than 12 inches (Doughty 1990). During migration, habitats most frequently
used by whooping cranes include wetlands and shallow river sandbars for roosting and cropland for
feeding (Johns et al 1997, Currier et al. 1985).
Although whooping cranes were occasionally observed throughout western Wyoming in the 1970's
and 1980's, the number of observations has declined since the Idaho reintroduction efforts were
ceased. The only observation of a whooping crane near the project area that could be locat(:d was
in the WOS from 1979. Whooping cranes are not expected to occur in the project area.
Black-footed Ferret - The black-footed ferret is a federally listed endangered species that was
historically distributed across the western plains ofNorth America (Anderson et al. 1986); they were
nearly extirpated by the 1980's. Black-footed ferrets are habitat specialists and dependent on prairie
dog colonies for survival (Biggins et al. 1985). Prairie dogs comprise more than 90% of blackfooted ferret diets (Campbell et al. 1987). Additionally, prairie dog burrows provide ferrets with
their lone source of shelter. Recovery and reintroduction programs have had mixed results, however
at least one Wyoming population persists in Shirley Basin.
No suitable black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog colonies) exists in or adjacent to the projec:t area.
Although white-tailed prairie dogs are known to inhabit the Green River Basin, no prairie dog
colonies occur in the Hoback Basin (Clark and Stromberg 1987, Luce et al. 1999).
Kendall Warm Springs Dace- This species is a small minnow that occurs only in one smaH creek
in Sublette County, Kendall Warm Springs Creek. The creek flows from several springs in the
surrounding limestone and is at or near a constant temperature of 84 °F. Its terminus is a 13-foot
waterfall into the Green River. Although this species occurs in the same county as the proje:ct, the
project is in the Snake River basin, not the Green River basin.
Ute Ladies'-Tresses- Ute ladies' -tresses are endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near
springs, lakes, or perennial streams between 1,800 and 6,000 feet elevation. The species occurs
primarily in areas where the vegetation is relatively open and not overly dense, overgrown, or
overgrazed (50 CFR Part 17, Final rule, February 18, 1992). In Wyoming, Ute ladies'-tresses occur
at four locations on the Western Great Plains in Converse, Goshen, Laramie, and Niobrara Counties;
no populations are known from western Wyoming (Fertig 2000). The nearest known population is
in Idaho along the Snake River, approximate! y 60 river miles downstream from Jackson Hole (Jones
2000).
January 2004
3-44
Limited habitat occurs in the project area for Ute ladies' -tresses. Forty-seven wetlands were
identified in the project area, but over half of them (55%) were classified as shrub swamp or woody
riparian and were dominated by a dense overstory of willow (Salix spp.) (Johnson and Lack 2001 ).
These wetlands do not provide habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses. The remaining wetlands were
classified as either meadows or marshes and could provide Ute ladies' -tresses habitat; however, none
were found during late July/early August 2000 when all wetlands in the project area were inspected.
Furthermore, the project area is at the upper elevationallimit for the species.
IMPACTS
No Action.
The No Action alternative should have no additional effects on threatened or endangered species
above the existing conditions. Although Canada lynx road kills are rare (Gunther et al. 1998), the
highway has the potential to result in the death of lynx through collisions with vehicular traffic.
However, due to the general unsuitability of the habitat in the project area and the large areas of good
habitat nearby, the project corridor is probably not used by lynx. Similarly, wolves, grizzly bears,
and bald eagles may also be at risk of vehicle collisions, however, due to their rare occurrence in the
project area they are not expected to be at risk from the exiting highway in the project area. The No
Action alternative will have no effect on whooping crane, black-footed ferret, Kendall Warm Springs
dace, or Ute ladies' -tresses.
Proposed Action.
Canada Lynx - The project does not occur in prime lynx habitat which is typically uneven aged
stands of coniferous forest. The primary habitats impacted by the project include mountain
sagebrush meadow and willow riparian. Additionally, the human influence in the project area from
the community of Bondurant further degrades the habitat suitability for lynx. The project will not
affect lynx habitat.
The project has the potential of displacing lynx if they occur in the area during construction;
however, this is not expected to adversely affect lynx due to their secretive nature and propensity to
avoid areas of human disturbance. Additionally, lynx are not expected to occur in the project area
due to the lack of habitat. The project is not likely to affect lynx through disturbance or displacement.
The improved highway following completion of the project is not likely to pose a barrier to lynx
movement. Lynx are known to cross the existing highway to the east of the project area and likely
do so at night and in areas away from human disturbance where there is good cover near the road.
The existing highway currently does not create a barrier to lynx movement and the improvements
to the road, in an area of generally unsuitable habitat, are not expected to change this situation or
affect connectivity of lynx habitat.
Although lynx road kills are rare, the highway has the potential to result in mortality oflynx though
collisions with vehicular traffic. No lynx were reported in a study of road kills in YNP (Gunther et
al. 1998). Due to the general unsuitability of the habitat in the project area, the large amount of good
habitat nearby, and since the highway is an existing disturbance, the habitat within the corridor is
probably not used by lynx.
January 2004
3-45
The presence of the highway, however, could result in the death of a Canada lynx; this is considered
an extremely unlikely event due to the apparently small population oflynx in Wyoming, the secretive
nature oflynx, and their propensity to avoid areas of human disturbance. The highway construction
itself is not expected to adversely affect lynx for the same reasons. Although the presence of the
highway could result in the death or injury to Canada lynx, this considered extremely unlikely to
occur; therefore, the project is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx.
Gray Wolf- Habitat in the project area, while considered suitable, is probably underutilized by gray
wolves due to the high human presence. Additionally, wolves are not known to occupy habitat
surrounding the project at this time. Total loss of habitat to the improved road is not consid(:red an
adverse effect given the extensive amount of suitable wolf habitat in the region and eurrent
conditions.
The project has the potential of displacing wolves if they were to occur in the area during
construction; however, this is not expected to adversely affect wolves due to their current distribution
and propensity to avoid areas of human occupancy. The project is not likely to affect wolves through
disturbance or displacement.
Wolves regularly cross highways throughout the GYE and may cross U.S. 189/191 if they were to
occur in the area. The existing highway currently does not create a barrier to wolf movement. The
improvements to the road are not expected to change this situation or affect connectivity of wolf
habitat. Wolves are highly mobile and occupy large home ranges and the addition of shoulders, and
larger clear zones are not likely to create movement barriers.
The highway has the potential to result in mortality of wolves though collisions with vehicular traffic
and road killed wolves have been reported in the GYE since their reintroduction. However,
wolf/vehicle collisions are not likely to occur in the project area due to the current wolf distribution.
The level of wolf mortality due to road kills, while considered an adverse impact is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence ofwolves in the GYE 1•
Grizzly Bear - Habitat in the project area, while considered suitable, is currently not utilized by
grizzly bears. At this time, grizzly bears are not known to occupy habitat surrounding the project.
Also, the habitat in the project area will likely be underutilized in the future, should grizzly bears
move into the area, due to the high human presence. Total loss ofhabitat to the improved :road is
not considered an adverse effect given the extensive amount of suitable grizzly bear habitat in the
region and current conditions.
Grizzly bears generally avoid human contact and the habitat disturbance from the project is within
or adjacent to the existing highway corridor. While this area is considered grizzly bear habitat, it is
1
Note: for species listed as experimental non-essential the determination to be made by the action agency
(FHWA) and the threshold for initiating formal consultation with the USFWS, is whether the project will jeopardize
the continued existence of the species as opposed to whether the project is likely to adversely affect individuals of
the species for threatened or endangered species.
January 2004
3-46
US. Highway 189/191
not currently used by grizzly bears, reducing the potential for the project to adversely affect grizzly
bears through disturbance or displacement. The work force and machinery required for highway
construction could temporarily displace grizzly bears if they occurred in the area, however, this
displacement effect is not likely to occur at this time.
The project could alter grizzly bear movement by creating a disturbance during construction but it
is not expected to alter movement over the long-term. Grizzlies are highly mobile and occupy large
home ranges. The addition of shoulders and larger clear zones are not likely to create barriers for
grizzly bears or affect connectivity of grizzly bear habitat.
The highway has the potential to result in mortality of grizzly bears through collisions with vehicles
and road-killed grizzly bears have been reported throughout the GYE. However, while grizzly bear
road kills do occur, they are not common. No grizzly bear road kills have been reported for the
project area, and they currently do not occupy the project area. Therefore, the project is not likely
to adversely affect grizzly bears.
Bald Eagle- Habitat in the project area, especially the river riparian areas, is considered suitable
for bald eagles and they are periodically observed in the area (B. Oakleaf, WGFD, pers. comm.).
Loss of river riparian habitat will be minimized through project design and the total loss of habitat
to the improved road is not considered an adverse effect given the extensive amount of suitable bald
eagle habitat in the region and current conditions.
While bald eagles are believed to occur in the area, it is inconclusive as to whether they nest there
and there are no known winter roosts in the area. Construction of the project could affect bald eagles
through disturbance or displacement should they occur or attempt to nest near the project. At this
time, the project is not expected to disturb or displace bald eagles, which are very mobile and can
easily avoid construction areas.
The project is not likely to create a barrier to bald eagle movement or result in the fatality of a bald
eagle. Bald eagles will forage on carrion and road-killed wildlife may be used as a source of food.
Bald eagles foraging on road-killed wildlife may be at greater risk of a vehicle collision, however,
no bald eagle road kills were reported from a study in YNP (Gunther et al. 1998) and this possibility
is considered rare and not likely to occur. The level of impact from the project is not likely to
adversely affect bald eagles.
Whooping Crane- Based on the current status of whooping cranes from the Gray Lake National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) population, they are not expected to occur in the project area. The project
will have no effect on whooping cranes.
Black-footed Ferret- There is no suitable black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog towns) in the
project area precluding their occurrence. The project will have no effect on black-footed ferrets.
January 2004
3-47
Kendall Warm Springs Dace- Since the project does not occur in the same drainage basin as the
Kendall Warm Springs dace, the project will have no effect on this species.
Ute Ladies-'tresses - Since Ute ladies'tresses were not observed during a 2000 inspection of
wetlands in the Project area and since they are unlikely to be found in the area based on elevation,
project is expected to have no effect on this species.
3.16 Historic and Archaeological Preservation
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A Class III cultural resource survey was conducted for the Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections ofU.S.
189/191 and the Pfisterer pit location by the Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist (OWSA)
(Clayton 2002). File searches were conducted on June 11, 2002 and field surveys on June 25 - 28,
2002. The survey covered a 300 foot corridor on either side of centerline. The McKee pit location
was previously surveyed by OWSA for WYDOT and no sites were recorded (Eakin 1998). The
Fisherman Creek pit was previously surveyed by the BTNF and one site was recorded. This site will
be avoided by activities associated with the project.
Three sites are located in the area potentially affected by the project (Table 3-11 ). These include the
Reverend Parker Sermon Marker located at the north end of the project area, the V Bar V Ranch also
at the northern end of the project area, and the Sailor Ditch near the south end of the projec:t area.
One prehistoric site may have also been located in the area potentially affected by the project,
however it was completely collected when it was recorded in 1977. The Reverend Parker Sermon
Marker and Sailor Ditch were recommended as not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), while the V Bar V Ranch has been recommended as eligible.
Six additional sites are located in the general project area, but outside the area that will be disturbed
by the project. These include the Triangle F Ranch, the St. Hubert the Hunter Church, a location of
historic inscriptions, and three historic trash scatters. The St. Hubert the Hunter Church is already
enrolled in the NRHP and the other sites were not evaluated for eligibility because they will not be
affected by the project.
IMPACTS
No Action. No cultural resources will be affected by the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action. Three sites occur in the area potentially affected by the project. These include the
Reverend Parker Sermon Marker, the V Bar V Ranch, and the Sailor Ditch. The Proposed Action
includes flattening the fill slope at the current location of the Reverend Parker Sermon Marker,
therefore it may be necessary to move the marker a few feet to the south of its present location. An
interpretative sign at a highway pull-outjust east of the marker may also be relocated; WYDOT will
consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Monuments and Markers Program
regarding possible relocations. Possible relocation of the marker and interpretive sign will result in
no effect.
January 2004
3-48
Table 3-11. Cultural Resource Sites In and Near the Project Area.
Inside the Area of
Potential Affect?
NRHP 1 Status
Reverend Parker Sermon Marker
Yes
Recommended not eligible
V BarV Ranch
Yes
Recommended eligible
Sailor Ditch
Yes
Triangle F Ranch
No
Unevaluated 2
St. Hubert the Hunter Church
No
Listed
Historic inscription
No
Unevaluated 2
Historic trash scatter
No
No
Site Name
No
National Register of Historic Places
2
Potential cultural resources were identified in the survey, however, a full detennination was not made for some sites
located outside the area of potential effect.
1
New fill slopes may slightly encroach on property associated with the NRHP eligible V Bar V
Ranch. This will have no direct effect to buildings and no changes in the setting. The proposed
action will have no adverse effect on this resource. The Sailor Ditch is located adjacent to the
highway and crosses the Pfisterer Pit. It has been recommended as ineligible to the NRHP, and will
the proposed action will have no effect.
The other cultural resource sites listed in Table 3-11 are well outside proposed fill slopes and will
not be impacted by the project.
The SHPO has reviewed the Class III cultural resource survey report for this project (Clayton 2002),
and has concurred that no adverse effects to the cultural resources in the project area will occur as
a result of the proposed action (the SHPO letter of concurrence is available from WYDOT,
Environmental Services).
3.17 Hazardous Waste Sites
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Wyoming DEQ maintains databases on solid and hazardous waste facility sites, spills, and above
and below ground fuel storage tanks. These databases were searched for information on hazardous
waste sites in the project area. The one listing for a solid or hazardous waste facility in Boudurant
is over five miles from the project area. No spills were listed for the project area. Three
January 2004
3-49
underground fuel storage tanks are registered with the DEQ in the project area. All are located at
the gas station near the north end of the project area near MP 145. Two are gasoline tanks and one
is a diesel tank.
IMPACTS
No Action. The No Action alternative will have no effect on hazardous materials.
Proposed Action. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action are not likely to
encounter any hazardous waste. Although the project may affect the pumps at the gas station near
MP 145, the three associated fuel storage tanks will not be impacted. WYDOT will negotiate with
the landowner regarding possible relocation of the pumps.
3.18 Visual Quality
EXISTING CONDITIONS
U.S. 189/191 is located within the southern portion of the BTNF, however, portions of the land
adjacent to the highway are not a part of the forest. The Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP) for the BTNF ( 1989 and as amended) was used as a guideline in preparing the visual
assessment.
Landscape Character
Landscape character can be broken down into landscape units containing similar landscape elements
that are different from other distinct areas. The foreground landscape units are those immediately
visible from the highway and describe the local character of the area. The foreground is defined as
the area within 0 to 0.5 mile. The middleground is defined as 0.5 mile to 4 miles from U.S. 189/191.
The background views are 4 miles or greater and include the adjacent mountains and peaks. in the
Gros Ventre range. Wide viewsheds are typical.
The visual landscape units within the project corridor are defined as:
•
•
•
Grassland and meadows. These areas are open, flat to rolling terrain. Many of these areas
provide a wide viewshed that enhances the scenic quality. Agriculture and grazing activities
are present within the corridor. Occasional patches of scrub/shrub occur within the corridor
as well. This landscape unit is commonly occurring in the foreground and middleground.
Coniferous and Deciduous Forest. The adjacent buttes provide the setting for sporadic to
dense stands of conifer and deciduous trees. Areas containing trees are not typically found
adjacent to the highway or in the foreground.
Rural Residential and Commercial Development. Rural homesites appear sporadically
within the project corridor foreground and middleground. Occasional areas of low-density
development are found at Bondurant and near the Hoback River bridge.
January 2004
3-50
US. Highway 189/191
Visual Quality Objectives
The LRMP identifies visual quality objectives (VQO) for each management prescription area or
Desired Future Condition for NFS lands. Activities must meet this standard for the portion of the
project located within the BTNF. The project is located within Management Area 21. The following
Management Prescriptions are located adjacent to the project corridor (Figure 3-6).
•
•
•
•
2B Management Prescription Area: Motorized Recreation-retention. This management
prescription is located adjacent to the highway in a number of locations. According to the
LRMP, new road building should be kept to minimum standard and density necessary to
achieve resource objectives.
9A Management Prescription Area: Developed and Administration Sites (campgrounds
and other commercial areas). The foreground zone relative to the Hoback River and U.S.
189/191 will be managed to meet a VQO of retention. Middle ground and background zones
will be managed to meet partial retention. Roads are common to the area as well as human
activity. Developed recreation is the focus. Facilities are often evident, but harmonize and
blend with the natural setting. This management prescription is located adjacent to the
highway near MP 144.
10 Management Prescription Area:
Simultaneous Development of Resources,
Opportunities for Human Experiences, and Support for Big Game and a Wide Variety of
Wildlife Species-partial retention. This management prescription area is located outside
of the highway ROW.
12 Management Prescription Area: BackCountry Big Game Hunting, Dispersed
Recreation, and Wildlife Security Areas- partial retention. This management prescription
area is located outside of the highway ROW.
The minimum standards for visual quality (partial retention, retention, etc.) describe the maximum
degree of acceptable alteration (impact) of the natural landscape based on the importance of
aesthetics to the management activity. The degree of alteration is measured in terms of visual
contrast with the surrounding landscape.
•
•
Partial retention activities may introduce form, line, color, or texture but they should remain
subordinate to the visual strength of the landscape. Mitigation measures to meet partial
retention should be accomplished as soon as possible after project completion or at a
minimum within the first year.
Retention activities are not evident and blend well with the natural landscape. Road
construction may occur in this area but must be designed to appear natural and unnoticeable.
This VQO is generally applied to areas that are in the foreground of sensitive viewing areas.
January 2004
3-51
U.S Highway 189/ 191
~
;:s
~
""~
BEGIN PROJ ECT
(MP 147.7)
~
LI:: GI::NC :
r:::= 2 L\ - ·'-' G-l\J' It(-~(; 1-i:ec: ·t;HI .:n Aren:.;
c:::=i
81\ C.: eve ~: ;J0cl & Adlr ·lni:; lr;Ji i•ic S 1-tu
I
· r.•- l:P.·v·P.
:;;1.-n~nl
of ncso .wcc-s.
· Iu1 ·1an Cxpo ' iDI : G'-'l:J . Su;; :mr: ','•/ild 11o.:
C::J . 2
8;:;.c:k•:OUI' tr.~
[~~-=· Nc:'1-Nn tir.. n ~3 F :: ref.~ Sys1e1'~, l. <-1 r1G
. - ·-----·-- -
TETON
NATIONA L
FOREST
w
I
Vl
N
TETON
NATIONAL
FOREST
~.... :-.~
§
~
~ :3;
i:t~
END PROJECT
(MP 136.4)
0
N
~~
~~
~ a;;
~ ~
"" '0
i:!_._
FI GURE 3-6
l:JSFS -~a'!_~gem e nt Prescri ption Areas
IMPACTS
NoAction Alternative. The No Action alternative will not create any visual impacts.
Proposed Action. The previously identified landscape character and visual quality objectives create
a baseline against which to assess the project impacts. The proposed roadway improvements follow
the existing centerline and vertical profile. In some locations the road is offset slightly to improve
sight distance or avoid excessive cuts or impacting a sensitive land use. The Proposed Action
includes the following elements, some of which may require additional coordination through the
design process to maintain the retention VQO:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Retaining wall located adjacent to the Hoback River. The retaining wall is within the BTNF
Management Prescription 2B. VQO is retention.
Cut slope at near the Dell Creek County Road intersection (approx. MP 145). Due to past
problems with slope stability at this location, the proposed cut has been minimized to the
greatest extent practicable, and the tributary or irrigation ditch at this location will be piped
for approximately 500 feet rather than relocated. This is BTNF land and is located in
Management Prescription 2B. The VQO is retention.
Cut slope near MP 144 is located in Management Prescription 9A. The VQO is retention.
The alignment shift to the southwest is to avoid the Hoback River and wetlands on the east.
Cut slopes in this area will be laid back at a 1:4 ratio.
Cut slope near 143.5. Much ofthis area is located within Management Prescription 2B and
9A with a VQO of retention. The alignment is slightly shifted west to avoid the Hoback
River on the east.
Fill slope near MP 140.5. This area is located in Management Prescription 2B and has a
VQO of retention.
Cut slope near MP 137.5 is not located within the BTNF land.
Guardrail will be replaced near MP 138 for protection of the steep highway embankment
down to the Fisherman Creek.
Visual impacts associated with the Proposed Action will be both short and long-term. Short-term
visual impacts include:
•
•
•
Construction equipment and excavated material associated with construction in the staging
areas. The views of the construction staging areas by travelers on U.S. 189/191 will be
temporary and of brief duration during construction. Equipment, stockpiles, and supplies
will be visible as motorists pass the construction staging areas.
Dust and debris associated with construction activity. The dust will be kept to a minimum
and controlled by dust suppression techniques to minimize related air quality impacts.
Traffic congestion and detours associated with construction activity .
January 2004
3-53
Long-term visual impacts associated with the Proposed Action include:
Highway reconstruction:
•
Additional width from widened shoulders will increase the pavement width from 24 feet to
40 feet. The expanded pavement width will increase the motorist's foreground view of the
roadway from that which currently exists. However, the improved safety associated with
wider shoulders and standard lane widths should enhance the motorist's driving experience.
The wider shoulders also provide more opportunities for motorists to pull-offfor sight seeing
activities.
•
Loss of vegetation. A loss of vegetation will occur along most of the corridor due to fill
embankment slopes and the new roadway width. Selective clearing and grubbing of the cut
and fill slope limits and the clear zone, instead of clearing the entire ROW, will reduce
impacts to vegetation within the ROW. The intent of the project is to revegetate: every
disturbed area. Some areas may revegetate more successfully than others.
Highway Elements:
•
ROW fence is an existing element and fencing will be similar upon reconstruction.
•
Retaining wall will be included along the Hoback River.
MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures may be incorporated into the design to mitigate for visual impacts
and maintain the specified VQO:
Vegetation
•
When the project requires clearing of vegetation and/or soil disturbance, use in·egular
clearing edges and shapes to blend with the natural landscapes.
•
Revegetation is a component of mitigating the visual impacts of the highway improvements.
Soil and Rock Treatments
•
Blend soil and rock disturbance into the natural topography to achieve a natural appearance,
reduce erosion and rehabilitate groundcover. This can be achieved by slope rounding and
warping to blend with the surrounding natural topography.
•
Project design plans will include criteria and specifications for topsoil placement on various
slopes.
Highway Elements
•
Retaining wall colors, line, texture and materials should blend with adjacent landscape
character. Retaining wall in focal locations with a high visual priority should be of a scale
and design that makes natural vegetation a dominant element in the scene.
•
The existing pavement should be reclaimed and reseeded in areas where the alignment is
offset.
January 2004
3-54
Reclamation ofStaging Area
Reclamation measures should erase the visual impacts associated with the extraction site and return
the area to a natural looking state that is congruent with the areas immediate surroundings. This will
involve regrading the land to its approximate original contours and revegetating with plant species
similar to those found on adjacent land.
3.19 Energy
Reconstruction of the Dell Creek and Pfisterer sections of U.S. 189/191 will produce temporary
energy demands. During construction, energy will be used by equipment needed for the
improvements. Also, energy will be wasted when vehicles are delayed due to construction activities.
The energy requirements are expected to be typical of highway construction projects and not
significant.
3.20 Permits
This EA will be used to support decisions by FHWA and WYDOT concerning the proposed action.
Several other federal, state, and local agencies will also be responsible for making decisions as to
whether to issue necessary permits and approvals for the proposed project (Table 3-12).
Table 3-12. Permits and Approvals Required for the Proposed Action.
Agency
Permit
Reason for Permit
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404
Individual Permit
Placement of fill material in
waters ofthe U.S., including
wetlands
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
Air permit
Operation of crushers
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Storm water General Permit
Erosion control
Wyoming State Engineer's
Office
Permit for Appropriation
Acquisition of the right to the
beneficial use of the public water
ofthe state of Wyoming
Sublette County
Conditional Use Permit
Removal of material from the
McKee and Fisherman Creek pits
January 2004
3-55
3.21 Temporary Construction Impacts
Construction is expected to occur from approximately April through October. The length of
construction is expected to be two construction seasons for the each project, with construction on
the Pfisterer section first followed by the Dell Creek section. Construction activities will include,
but not be limited to, grading and paving, blasting, culvert replacement, bridge work, access road
grading, retaining wall construction, and other activities such as fencing, signing, and reclamation.
Some short-term construction easements may be required.
The two material pits, the McKee Pit in the Dell Creek section and the Fisherman Creek Pit for the
Pfisterer section, will also be used as the respective staging areas. These sites will also be used for
the crushers and hot plant mix sites.
WYDOT expects to maintain two lane traffic through the construction zone throughout most of the
construction period, however there may be temporary construction delays. Any traffic delay will be
a maximum of 20 minutes.
Temporary traffic routes will be required during grading operations. These routes will conform to
the following guidelines:
•
•
All temporary traffic routes will be at least 24 feet wide with a minimum travel speed of 30
mph.
These routes will be constructed of borrow material or roadway excavation, and surfaced
with reused surfacing from the existing road.
It is not anticipated that any temporary traffic routes will be required for bridge work. Furthermore,
it is not anticipated that temporary culverts will be required during project construction, but if
temporary culverts are needed, they will be of sufficient size to handle the flow of water in the
channel where it is used.
Temporary concrete barriers will be used for work on the construction of the retaining wall. All
traffic lanes will be open for full use during hours of darkness unless temporary traffic signals are
used. All temporary roadway connections and tapers inside and outside the project limits will
comply with the standard specifications. Each taper or connection will conform to a 30 mph design
speed.
The Proposed Action will have minor short-term impacts to access along US 189/191 during
construction. Access could be temporarily restricted during construction along with general slowing
of traffic. Emergency access will be maintained during the construction period. Residents could
experience increase in noise levels, traffic congestion, and air pollution (dust) from construction.
The alignment will move closer to some residences as a result of the proposed improvements.
January 2004
3-56
3.22 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts that "result 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) undertakes such actions" (40 CFR 1508. 7). Known projects planned
for this vicinity are listed in Table 3-13.
Table 3-13. Anticipated future projects in the project area vicinity
Project
Location
Type of Project
Estimated Schedule
Hoback Junction,
approximately 15
miles northwest of
the project
Highway reconstruction on
U.S. Highways 189/191 and
191 at and near Hoback
Junction.
Construction is
expected at some time
between 2005 and
Pinedale Anticline
Oil and Gas
Activity
Primarily on ELMmanaged lands in the
general region south
of the project area.
Oil and gas development
On-going
Lower Valley
Energy Pipeline
Project
The general pipeline
route is from the
Natural gas pipeline to
supply the town of Jackson
NEPA process
expected to begin in
Hoback Junction
Reconstruction
2010.
2004
Merna area,
through Bondurant,
to Jackson.
The effect of cumulative impacts is difficult to predict. For many resources the effect is likely to be
beneficial. For example, this highway reconstruction project in conjunction with other highway
reconstruction projects in the region (Table 3-13) will result in a highway system that meets current
design and safety standards. It is anticipated that such a system will help to reduce hazards that lead
to crashes and provide improved opportunities for pedestrians and bicycles, as well as cars and
trucks. Because each highway project undergoes environmental review, it is anticipated that the
updated highway system will also benefit wildlife over the existing condition by providing fences
conducive to big game movement or other improvements specific to a local situation. However, an
improved highway system may also lead to increased traffic volumes, thus increasing the
possibilities of vehicle-animal collisions. Cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered, and
sensitive plant and animal species are not known, but each project is scrutinized for potential impacts
to such species and if impacts are anticipated, mitigation measures are implemented, therefore the
cumulative impact may be low. Habitat loss, however, is a likely cumulative impact. Even ifhabitat
is not occupied during project construction, an expanded highway system limits future use. An
improved highway system can bring social and economic benefits to a community by improving
access. Businesses such as gas stations, hotels, and restaurants may see an increase in revenue, and
consequently benefit local governments through an increased tax base. Quality of life impacts,
however, could be negative if improved access brings unwanted development to an area. Quality
of life impacts can include increased noise, air pollution, and water pollution.
January 2004
3-57
Environmental Assessmeni
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
In accordance with NEP A, WYDOT conducted an early and open scoping process to determine the
scope of issues related to the proposed reconstruction ofU.S. 189/191. WYDOT solicited comments
from both the public and various agencies and organizations. Comments and suggestions received
early in the scoping process were considered during the design of the proposed project and
alternatives. A scoping summary, including copies of public and agency letters and comments
regarding the project, is included in Appendix B.
4.1 Public and Agency Coordination
A public scoping open house regarding the proposed project was held on June 22, 2000, in
Bondurant, Wyoming. The purpose of the open house was to provide information to the public and
agencies regarding the project, the NEP A process, and provide an opportunity for the public to
identify environmental issues and concerns. Both the public and agency personnel were invited to
attend the open house.
In additional to the public scoping open house, an agency scoping meeting was held with the BTNF
on February 19, 2002 in Marbleton, Wyoming. The Forest Service commented on potential affects
to Forest Service lands associated with the proposed project, and provided suggestions and
recommendations.
A public information meeting was held May 7, 2003 in Bondurant to update the public on the
progress of the project. Further details regarding public and agency scoping for this project are
provided in Appendix B, Scoping Summary.
Comments received regarding this project are listed below, along with references to sections of this
EA where the issue is discussed or assessed.
•
Several requests were made for copies of the EA (Section 4. 2) .
•
The need for cattle guards at approaches (Section 2.2 and Section 3.1.3) .
•
A request was made for the potential location of the retaining wall (Section 2.2) .
•
Speed limits through the project area (Section 3.6.2) .
•
Pedestrians (Section 3. 6. 3) .
•
Right-of-way needs for the project and land transfers (Sections 3.1.1 and 3.5) .
•
Use of native plants for reclamation (Section 3.13) .
•
Knapweed issues at the Fisherman Creek pit site (Section 3.13) .
January 2004
4-1
•
Big game passage through the highway corridor (Section 3.14).
•
Type of fencing that would be used, e.g., fencing should be designed to minimize wildlife
entanglements and enhance migration and specific fencing would be required on lands within
the BTNF (Sections 2.2, 3.14, and 3.15).
•
Reduce the risk of collisions with wildlife, e.g. increase the width of the right-of-way clear
zones (Section 3.14).
•
Potential for loss of moose habitat (Sections 3.12, 3.13, 3.14).
•
Impacts of the retaining wall to water resources and aquatic habitats (Section 3.10 and 3.14).
•
Modifications to bridges or culverts should allow or improve fish passage (Section 3.14).
•
Threatened and endangered species (Section 3.15).
•
Species ofbirds, raptors, and eagles protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Section 3.14).
•
Cumulative impacts, specifically, development of the Pinedale Anticline gas fields in the
region (Section 3.22).
•
"Amphibian friendly" crossings/culverts (Section 3.14).
•
Potential impacts to lynx (Section 3.15).
•
Fish use of irrigation ditches, particularly Snake River cutthroat trout and Colorado River
cutthroat (Section 3.15).
•
Potential wetland losses (Section 3.12)
•
Potential relocation of a portion of Fisherman Creek (Section 3.1 0).
•
Potential relocation of irrigation ditches (Section 3.1. 4).
•
Potential conflicts with Forest Service grazing permits (Section 3.1.3).
•
Potential relocation of power poles and other utilities (Section 3. 5).
•
Protection of significant historic and archaeological sites (Section 3.16)
•
Landslides and slope stability (Section 3. 9)
January 2004
4-2
4.2 Hearing and Decision Process
A Notice of Availability of the EA and the announcement for a willingness to hold a Public Hearing
will be announced in the Pinedale Roundup, the Jackson Hole News, and the Casper Star Tribune.
The Notice of Availability will also be mailed to people and agencies on the project mailing list.
The public will be given an opportunity to provide official comment on the EA. Written comments
will be included as part of the official record and will be accepted for 30 days following the Notice
of Availability.
The FHWA and WYDOT will prepare a decision document following the EA public review and
hearing process. Comments received during the public review period will be addressed in the
decision document.
January 2004
4-3
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1 Literature Cited
Allen, A. W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pp. 164-179 In: Novak, M., J .A.
Baker, and M.E. Obbard, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North
America. Ontario Trappers Association, North Bay, Ontario.
Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T. W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986. Paleobiology, biogeography, and
systematics of the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman), 1851.
Great Basin Nat. Mem. 8:11-62.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001. Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Biggins, D.E., M. Schroeder, S. Forrest, and L. Richardson. 1985. Movements and habitat
relationships of radio-tagged black-footed ferrets. Pp. 11.1-11.17. In: Anderson, S.H. and
D.B. lnkley, eds. Black-footed ferret workshop proceedings. Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, Cheyenne.
Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pp. 283296 In: Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, and M.G. Raphael, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers:
biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Buskirk, S.W. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. Pp. 7-37 In: R].lggiero, L.F., 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 western United States.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254.
Campbell. T.M., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, S.C. Forrest, and B. Houston. 1987. Food habits of
Wyoming black-footed ferrets. American Midland Naturalist 117:208-210.
Clark. T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University ofKansas Museum of
Natural History, Lawrence, KS. 314 pp.
Clayton, C. 2002. Class III Cultural Resource Survey Daniel Junction - Hoback Junction, Dell
Creek and Pfisterer Sections, WYDOT Projects SCP-ON 13-02(604)/(076), Sublette County,
Wyoming. Prepared for Wyoming Department of Transportation by the Office of the
Wyoming State Archaeologist. On file at the Office of the State Archaeologist, Laramie.
Crowe, D.M. 1986. Furbearers in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne,
Wyoming. 74 pp.
January 2004
5-1
Currier, P.J., G.R. Lingle, and J.G. VanDerwalker. 1985. Migratory Bird Habitat on the Platte and
North Platte Rivers in Nebraska. The Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat
Maintenance Trust, Grand Island, NE.
Dorn, J.L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY. 139
pp.
Doughty, R.W. 1990. Return of the whooping crane. Univ. of Texas Press. 182 pp.
Eakin, D. 1998. A Class III Cultural Resource survey, Noble and McKee Pits, WYDOT Project
SCP-013-2(64), Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for Wyoming Department of
Transportation by the Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist. On file at the Office of
the State Archaeologist, Laramie.
Fertig, W., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Bureau ofLand
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service,
Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Natural
Diversity Database.
Gunther, K.A., M.J. Biel, and H.L. Robison. 1998. Factors influencing the frequency of road-killed
wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Pp. 32-42.
Ingelfinger, F.M. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe passerines in
Sublette County, Wyoming. MS Thesis. Dept. of Zoology, UniversityofWyoming, Laramie,
WY.
Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. 2000. Draft Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear
in the Yellowstone Area. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, March 2000.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. 99 pp.
Johns, B.W., E.J. Woodsworth, and E.A. Driver. Habitat use by migrant whooping cranes in
Saskatchewan. In: R. P. Urbanek and D. W. Stahlecker eds., Proceedings of the Seventh
North American Crane Workshop. 1997. North American Crane Working Group.
Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In: The Birds ofNorth Ameriea, No.
211 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and
The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Knopf, F.L., and B.J. Miller. 1994. Charadrius montanus- montane, grassland, or bare-ground
plover? Auk Ill :504-506.
January 2004
5-2
'{
Laurion, T. and B. Oakleaf. 1998. Wyoming lynx inventories completion report. In: Threatened,
Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal Investigations. Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, Nongame Program Biological Services Section. Annual Completion Report,
12 August 1998.
Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L. Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of Birds, Mammals,
Reptiles and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife
Division, Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. November 1999. 192 pp.
McCord, C.M. and J.E. Cordoza. 1982. Lynx: Felis lynx. Pp. 728-766, In: J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer (eds. ). Wild Mammals ofNorth America: Biology, Management, and Economics.
McKelvey, K.S., K.B.. Aubry, Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and Distribution of lynx in the
contiguous United States. Pp. 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. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of
Lynx in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW.
Mowat, G., K.G. Poole, M. O'Donoghue. 2000. Ecology oflynx in Northern Canada and Alaska.
Pp. 265-306 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S.
McKelvey, and J .R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR30WWW.
Patla, S., B. Oakleaf, A. Cerovski, T. McEneaney, S. Loose, and T. Thomas. 2002. Bald eagle
completion report. In: Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal
Investigations. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program, Biological
Services Section. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Quinn, N.W., and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. Pp. 682-694, In: M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard,
and B. Malloch (eds.). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.
Reeve, A., F. Lindzey, and S. Buskirk. 1986. Historic and recent distribution of the lynx in
Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Sawyer, H. and F. Lindzey. 2001. The Sublette mule deer study. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY. 54 pp.
Squires, J.R., and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range and movement in Montana and Wyoming:
preliminary results. Pp. 337-349 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M.
Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of
January 2004
5-3
Lynx in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW.
Squires, J., S. Tomson, L. Ruggiero, and B. Oakleaf. 2001. Distribution oflynx and other forest
carnivores in the Wyoming Range, Southcentral, Wyoming. Progress Report Winters 2000
and 2001. Rocky Mountain Research Station. December 2001.
Stevenson, D., B. Oakleaf, A. Cerovski, S. Loose, S. Cain, T. McEneaney. 1998. Bald eagle
completion report. In: Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal
Investigations. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program, Biological
Services Section. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Tumlison, R. 1987. Felis lynx.
Mammalogists.
Mammalian Species 269:1-8.
The American Society of
U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. 1997 Economic Census.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Determination of Certain Bald Eagle Populations as
Endangered or Threatened. 43:6230-6233
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
to Reclassify the Bald Eagle from Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States.
Fed. Reg. 60(133):36000-36010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
to Designate the Whooping Cranes of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental Nonessential
and to Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Designations from Four Locations. Federal
Register 62( 139):38932-38939.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal
to List the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx as a
Threatened Species; and the Captive Population of Canada Lynx Within the Coterminous
United States (lower 48 States) as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, with a
Special Rule. Federal Register 63(130):36994-37013.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Rule to Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 64(128):36454-36464.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed
Threatened Status for the Mountain Plover. Fed. Reg. 64(30):7587-7601.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. The Endangered Species Act and Candidate Species. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Arlington, Virginia. 1p.
January 2004
5-4
US. Highway 189/191
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population
Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule; Final Rule. Federal Register 65(58): 1605216086.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal
to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endnagered and Threatened
Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Proposal to Establish Three Special
Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves; Proposed Rule. Fed. Reg. 65(135):43450-43496.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000d. Rocky Mountain WolfRecovery 1999 Annual Report. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. <http://www.r6.fws.gov/wolf/>
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 b. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. <http://www.r6.fws.gov/wolf/>
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1989. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan.
WCC Engineering. 2003. Daniel Junction- Hoback Junction Floodplain Evaluation. Unpublished
report prepared for Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, WY. Prepared by
WWC Engineering, Laramie, WY. December 17.
Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST) Inc., 2004. Biological Assessment, U.S. Highway
189/191 - Daniel Junction to Hoback Junction, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for
Federal Highway Administration and Wyoming Department ofTransportation. Prepared by
WEST Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
Wyoming Chapter of the Wildlife Society (WCWS). 1990. Standardized definitions for seasonal
wildlife ranges. 14 pp.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Air Quality Division. 2003. Wyoming
Air Quality Standards and Regulations. February 7, 2003.
Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) Systems Planning. 2003. Wyoming Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. April.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 1991. Wyoming Trout Stream Classification.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 1999. Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports: Green
River Region. Cheyenne, WY. 453 pp.
January 2004
5-5
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2000. Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports:
Jackson/Pinedale Region. Cheyenne, WY. 800 pp.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2001a. Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports:
Jackson/Pinedale Region. Cheyenne, WY. In Press.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2001b. Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game
Harvest 2000. Cheyenne, WY. 273 pp.
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2002. Data compilation for H. Sawyer,
completed August 6, 2002. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database,
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
5.2 Personal Communications
Bennett, D. District Conservationist, Natural Resource Conservation District, Pinedale, Wyoming.
Personal communication with E. Lack, WEST Inc.
Moody, D. Large Predator Program Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander,
Wyoming.
Oakleaf, B. Non-Game Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming.
Peterson, A. Sublette County Weed & Pest. Personal communication w/ E. Lack, WEST Inc.
October 18, 2002.
Shulte, M. WYDOT Geology Dept. Personal communication w/ E. Lack WEST Inc. January 8,
2002.
January 2004
5-6
APPENDIX A
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONCURRENCE LETTER
BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST CONCURRENCE LETTER
Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Richard Currit, SHPO
2301 Central Avenue
Barrett Building, 3'd Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7697
FAX (307) 777-6421
January 17, 2003
Julie Francis, Environmental Services
5300 Bishop Boulevard
P. 0. Box 1708
RE: Daniel Junction-Hoback Junction, Dell Creek and Phisterer Sections: Reconstruction of Highway 187/189
(SCP-ONB--02(064)(076) (SHPO File# 1202SES019)
Dear Dr. Francis:
We have received infonnation concerning the aforementioned projecL including a Class III Cultural Resources
Survey and your email of January 15, 2003. A December 23, 2002, phone call to Keven Powell of your office
approved our extension for reviewing the project. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
As we understand the project plans. the reconstruction of the highway will have the appearance of a pavement
overlay. There will be no curb, gutter, or sidewalk installed. thus there will be no change in visual conditions.
Thus it appears that, although there are two historic properties (the listed SL Hubert the Hunter Church
(48SU2673] and the eligible V Bar V Ranch [48SU426J) and one unc\ aluatcd property (Triangle F R.:1nch
[48SU447]) within the area of potential effect, none will be affected. Although there will be a slight
"introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant
historic features" (36 CFR 800.5(al[2l[v]), we believe it is not enough to constitute an adverse effect.
We also concur with the eligibility and finding of no effect for the following sites: 48SU4675 (not eligible),
48SU4676 (not eligible), 48SU4677 (not eligible), and 48SU4678 (uncvaluated). We agree with the
detennination that site 48SU68, the Reverend Parker Sermon Marker, is not eligible and may be relocated.
Thus we concur tllat no historic properties will be adversely affected if tlle proposed project is carried out as
plaimed. Please refer to SHPO project control number 1202SESO 19 on any future correspondence dealing with
this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 307-777-(>112.
Sincerclv.
1 ~')4.-·v(. y
y/4.:-ll'-.f
Nancy Hanks, Ph.D.
Architectural Historian
cc: Jamie Schoen, Bridger-Teton National Forest
Dave Freudenthal, Governor
John T. Keck, Interim Director
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Bridger-Teton
National Forest
340 North Cache
P.O. Box 1888
Jackson, WY 83001-1888
File Code: 2360
Date:
November 19,2002
Judy Wolf
State Historic Preservation Office
Barrett Building
2301 Central Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Dear Judy,
I have received and reviewed a copy of the Daniel Junction-Hoback Junction Dell Creek ::md
Phisterer Sections Class III survey report (SCP-ONB-02(064)/(076) prepared by the Office of
the Wyoming State Archeologist for the Wyoming Department of Transportation. I concur with
the recommendations made in the report concerning the eligibility of historic sites 48SU4676,
48SU4675, 48SU4677 and 48SU4698 (the Sailor Ditch). These sites are located on National
Forest System Lands.
Prehistoric site 48SU27 was recommended as not eligible in the body of the report, on the site
summary table and on the site form, however the abstract for the report states that the site is
unevaluated. I concur with the recommendation that is site is not eligible for the National
Register. I have tried on many occasions to find this site but have not been able to do so. I agree
with the presumption that this site was destroyed by the 1977 collection when the site was
initially recorded.
As a point of clarification, site 48SU4678 (historic inscriptions) is listed on the site summary
table as being on private lands however the site form indicates that the site is on National Forest
System Lands. I have checked with our land status maps and the site is located on private lands.
In summary, I concur with the recommendations made in the report that no historic properties
will be adversely affected by the project and that cultural clearance is recommended with the
standard stipulations.
If you have any questions concerning this report or if you need additional information, please do
not hesitate to call me at (307) 739-5523.
Sincerely,
: t-. \.\.
r~.
Jamie Schoen
Forest Archeologist
cc. Julie Francis
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recyded Paper
..~
•4'
APPENDIX 8
SCOPING SUMMARY
SCOPING SUMMARY
U.S. HIGHWAY 189/191, DELL CREEK AND PFISTERER SECTIONS
PROJECT NUMBERS 013-2(64) & 013-2(76)
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) proposes improvement to two adjacent
sections ofU.S. Highway 189/191, near the town ofBondurant. The sections are known as the Dell
Creek section and the Pfisterer section. The Dell Creek section (approximately 4.85 miles in length)
lies between the entrance to Hoback Canyon to the north and the town of Bondurant to the south.
The Pfisterer section begins at Bondurant and extends south for approximately 6.35 miles.
Improvements include widening the roadway and adding shoulders, minor straightening of curves,
and new pavement. Approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is necessary for the
project to proceed. It was determined that an analysis of the environmental effects of the project is
necessary as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) and that the preparation of
an Environmental Assessment (EA) will help in decision making. Providing opportunity for public
participation in the environmental analysis is required. The public and agencies were invited to
participate at the beginning of the process to identify issues and help define the scope of the
environmental analysis. The public and agencies will again be asked to comment following the
publication of the EA.
The scoping process for the EA was initiated in June 2000. The public; federal, state, and local
agencies; and other interested parties were invited to participate in the environmental analysis in two
ways: through a scoping notice mailing and a public open house. The Scoping Notice was sent to
a mailing list of 242 addresses, which included private landowners along the highway, state and
federal agencies, Native American tribes, media outlets, state and local elected officials, conservation
organizations, and other interested parties. The notice outlined the proposed project and solicited
public involvement in the environmental process. The name and address ofWYDOT Environmental
Services was provided so comments could be sent by mail. The notice also announced the public
scoping open house.
Comments were solicited from the following agencies and Native American tribes:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
B-1
Scoping Summary
Small Business Administration
Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Wyoming Office ofFederal Land Policy
Wyoming State Archaeologist
Wyoming Emergency Management Agency
Sublette County Clerk
Sublette County Commissioners
Sublette County Planner
Northern Arapaho Business Council
Eastern Shoshone Business Council
The public scoping open house was held on June 22, 2000 at the Bondurant Elementary School
gymnasium in Bounderant, Wyoming. A notice of the open house was published in area media
outlets (the Pinedale Roundup, the Jackson Hole News, and the Casper Star Tribune) approximately
2 and 1 weeks prior to the date. The open house format allowed interested parties to come and go
at their leisure. Twenty-six people signed-in at the open house. Displays of the preliminary
proposed road alignment and proposed typical cross-sections were available for review. Personnel
involved in the project from WDOT and consultants attended the open house to answer questions,
elaborate on the proposal, and discuss issues. Comment forms were provided so that attendees could
provide written comments, concerns, and issues for consideration in the EA. Comment forms were
collected during the meeting and by mail. A certified shorthand reporter was also present to record
oral comments.
Five written comment forms were received at the public scoping open house along with three oral
comments. Seven additional comment letters were received by mail. The comments were received
from eight local citizens affected by the project, two federal government agencies, four state
agencies. and one conservation organization. In general, the majority of the comments provided
suggestions for the project, with wildlife and water resources the most common areas in which
suggestions were made or concern was expressed. Big game use of the area was noted and several
suggestions to minimize collisions with big game and enhance migration were made. Issues
concerning water resources were primarily related to the retaining wall, wetlands, and the location
of the Fisherman Creek. Several comments expressed general support for the project. Supporters
of the project typically stated public safety concerns, such as wider shoulders which would better
accommodate pedestrians. Concerns regarding speed limit in the Bondurant area were also
expressed. Copies of written comments and transcripts of oral comments are attached.
In additional to the public scoping open house, an agency scoping meeting was held with the Bridger
Teton National Forest on February 19, 2002 in Marbleton, Wyoming. The Forest Service
commented on potential affects to Forest Service lands associated with the proposed project, and
provided suggestions and recommendations.
B-2
Scoping Summary
Following is a summary of comments received and issues raised during the scoping process
organized by resource and/or issue. Some comments and issues cover two topics and are considered
under both.
General
•
General support for the project was expressed by the Wyoming Office of Federal Land Policy
provided the concerns of the State and its agencies are given proper consideration.
•
Some comments expressed general support for the project, including local citizens who look
forward to the project completion.
•
Several requests were made for copies of the EA.
•
The location of two 24-foot approaches on the east side of the highway near MP 139 was
provided by a commentor. The commentor also noted the need for cattle guards at these
approaches.
•
The Forest Service commented that they do not anticipate major issues with this project.
•
A request was made for the potential location of the retaining wall.
Public Safety
•
One comment suggested slower speeds or turn lanes at the post office, the school, and the Elk
Hom and specifically a 50 mph speed limit near the school.
•
Concern was expressed about the speed limit through the project area, noting that 65 mph is too
fast for an area with businesses, multiple year-round houses with children, and county road
junctions.
•
Support was expressed for the 8-foot shoulders to better accommodate pedestrians.
Right-of-way and Landownership
•
One commentor asked about the right-of-way needed for the project and how additional right-ofway needs would affect her property and business.
•
The Forest Service mentioned landownership as a potential issue in regards to who has the
existing right-of-way and how it would be transferred to FHWA, if necessary. The Forest
Service noted that Title 23 may apply in regards to land transfer. The Forest Service also
requested that the full extent of roadside slopes, which will be maintained by WYDOT, be
transferred to WYDOT.
B-3
Scoping Summary
•
The Forest Service noted that some public buildings in Boudurant, including the fire house and
the church, are located on Forest Service land and suggested that WYDOT work with the county
regarding these facilities.
Vegetation/Reclamation
• One commentor suggested using native plants and grasses for reclamation of the project area
rather than yellow clover. It was noted that blue flax was used at one time near LaBarge.
•
The Forest Service noted that knapweed is present at the Fisherman Creek pit site .
•
The Forest Service requested that a Forest Service seed mix composed of native plants be used
on Forest Service lands that are disturbed, or approve any other seed mix proposed by WYDOT.
The Forest Service also suggested that the Sublette County Weed and Pest representative be
consulted on the seed mix that is used.
Wildlife and Aquatic Resources
•
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) expressed concern over providing big game
passage through the highway corridor since the project area contains crucial winter range for the
Sublette moose herd, significant movements of deer from the Sublette mule deer herd, and some
elk and antelope. WGFD noted that the stretch that probably receives the most use is from the
Pfisterer tum-off east to the Hoback Rim.
•
The WGFD expressed concern over the type of fencing that would be used, and suggested the
use offence designs that minimize entanglements and enhance migration. The WGFD provided
specifications for such fencing.
•
The potential for animal-vehicle collisions was a concern for the WGFD, and WGFD suggested
increasing the width of the right-of-way clear zones to help reduce the risk of collisions.
•
The potential for loss of moose habitat was a concern for the WGFD should any re-routes impact
the riparian areas of the Hoback River basin. These areas provide crucial moose winter range
and any re-routes should avoid these areas to avoid habitat losses and to minimize chances of
moose-vehicle collisions.
•
The WGFD noted that retaining walls can be very detrimental to aquatic habitats, and the need
for and possible alternatives to the retaining wall should be investigated.
•
The WGFD noted that any modifications to bridges or culverts should allow or improve fish
passage.
•
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), six threatened, endangered, or
experimental species/populations may be present in the project area (black-footed ferret, Canada
B-4
Scoping Summary
lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, bald eagle, and whooping crane). The USFWS noted that a
biological assessment will need to be prepared to determine the effects of the proposed action
on these species in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
•
The USFWS noted that WYDOT has an obligation to protect the many species of birds, raptors,
and eagles protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act.
•
Concern was expressed regarding potential impacts to wildlife and water quality, especially in
light of impending development of the Pinedale Anticline gas fields in the region.
•
The Forest Service may require "amphibian friendly" crossings/culverts, depending on findings
ofthe Biological Evaluation.
•
The Forest Service noted that if the parking lot at the north end of the project is enlarged, it
would provide additional parking for winter recreationists and would therefore trigger a lynx
concern. The Forest Service recommended keeping the parking lot the same size to avoid this
issue. Note: increasing the size of the parking lot is not part of the proposed project.
•
The Forest Service noted that fish occur in irrigation ditches, and moving ditches could affect
Snake River cutthroat trout and Colorado River cutthroat - this should be addressed in the
Biological Evaluation as necessary.
Water Resources/Wetlands/Riparian Zone
•
The USFWS recommended that measures be taken to avoid any wetland losses in accordance
with Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and Executive Order 11988,
as well as the goal of"no net loss of wetlands", as well as riparian/ streamside areas.
•
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) noted that a wetland and waters of the U.S. delineation
should be conducted to aid in assessing the impacts of the project and determine the appropriate
level of permit analysis required.
•
Concern was expressed regarding potential impacts to wildlife and water quality, especially in
light of impending development of the Pinedale Anticline gas fields in the region.
•
One landowner noted that a portion of Fisherman Creek, prior to construction of the existing
highway, meandered through a meadow and the meanders slowed the flow of the creek. This
section of stream was relocated to the borrow ditch when the highway was originally built, so
that now the stream is very forceful and picks up gravel and carries it downstream where it is
deposited under the landowner's bridge. The gravel has built up the base of the stream such that
every few years the landowner has to add rip-rap to the banks to hold the stream in its course.
The commentor noted that although it would be nice to put the stream back in its original course,
it is now virtually impossible because the original course has filled with debris during the past
B-5
Scoping Summary
sixty years. Therefore, the commentor suggested that the best course of action is to leave the
stream where it is because it is depositing less debris than it would if it was moved to a new
course.
•
The Forest Service mentioned that even if the proposed retaining wall is located on private land,
downstream effects on Forest Service lands should be evaluated in the EA. The Forest Service
also suggested minimizing the footprint of the retaining wall.
•
The Forest Service observed that a large cut slope on Forest Service land is necessary to avoid
wetlands, and suggested noting in the EA that relocating the road in the wetland was an
alternative considered but not brought forward.
Irrigation
•
The locations of irrigation pipes and ditches that run parallel to the highway near MP 139 were
provided by a commentor.
•
The Forest Service noted that private irrigation ditches run across Forest Service lands. The
relocation of ditches on Forest Service lands is a Forest Service issue. The Forest Service
requires a special use permit for ditch maintenance, and suggested WYDOT work with the
irrigators as well as the Forest Service if any ditches are moved.
Fencing
•
The WGFD expressed concern over the type of fencing used, and suggested the use of fence
designs that minimize wildlife entanglements and enhance migration and provided specifications.
•
A commentor noted that several types of fences have been used over the years and that most did
not hold up very well leading to high maintenance costs. A preference was expressed for barbed
wire fencing with poles attached to the posts. The posts should be close together with shorter
poles.
•
The Forest Service will require top rail fencing in riparian areas on Forest Service lands; top rail
fencing is not required on uplands. The Forest Service provided fencing specifications for both
types of fences.
Grazing
•
The Forest Service commented that a proposed staging area/topsoil storage area at an old landing
strip in the Pfisterer section may conflict with grazing permits. If it is used as a staging area,
WYDOT would need to fence it and maintain the fences until it is revegatated and cattle can
graze again (probably a couple years). This would have to be worked out with the permittees and
the Forest Service.
B-6
U.S. Highway /89/191
Scoping Summary
Utilities
•
The Forest Service noted that it would be best to keep power poles and other utilities in the rightof-way rather than move them onto Forest Service lands.
Runoff
•
One landowner stated that he receives tremendous runoff onto his lot and requested that a pipe
or some other corrective measure be incorporated into the project.
Cultural/Historical Resources
•
The Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources noted that a survey, evaluation,
and prot~ction of significant historic and archaeological sites prior to any disturbance is required
in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory Council
regulation 36 CFR Part 800.
•
The Forest Service noted that an archaeology survey would need to be conducted and cleared
through the State Historic Preservation Office.
Geology and Soils
•
The Wyoming State Geological Survey raised the issue of landslides and slope stability for the
project area, noting that known landslides are scattered along the project area, some of which
have been troublesome in the past. They suggested that a detailed evaluation of landslides and
slope stability be included in the project.
•
The Forest Service, in general, would want the minimum ground disturbance for the large cut
slope on Forest Service land, but noted that is should be balanced with other resources such as
revegetation potential and sedimentation.
Alternatives
•
The WGFD requested involvement in any re-route discussions because the riparian areas ofthe
Hoback River basin provide crucial moose winter range and any re-routes should avoid these
areas to avoid habitat losses and to minimize chances of moose-vehicle collisions.
•
The WGFD suggested that alternatives to the proposed retaining wall should be considered to
avoid impacts to aquatic habitats.
•
The Forest Service observed that a large cut slope on Forest Service land is necessary to avoid
wetlands, and suggested noting in the EA that relocating the road in the wetland was an
alternative considered but not brought forward.
·
B-7
Scoping Summary
Project Description
•
The Forest Service noted that the EA should include the gravel pits and describe what they will
look like once the project is finished. The Forest Service urged use of the existing Fisherman
Creek pit, located on Forest Service lands, rather than a new site.
•
The Forest Service noted that if power poles are going to be moved as part of the project, this
should be addressed in the EA.
•
The Forest Service suggested keeping staging areas and topsoil storage areas off Forest Service
lands, if possible; if not, this should be evaluated in the EA.
B-8
Scoping Summary

Daniel Jct to Hoback Jct EA

Transcription

Similar documents

Yateem Legacy Shopping Center

Map of Site 1 – Lyndale Farmstead Park

zoning map - Town of Kaukauna

Coastal Highway from Tmn Perling to Horizon Hills is Opened!

sales gallery location map

april golf auto sale rev5

THE SECRET BEHIND SUSHI DEN`S SUCCESS l^H[[i

VACANT LAND – 339 ACRES M/L State Highway 45/County

Hoover Dam Bypass: History in the Making

Raggamuffin