######### ![](media/image1.png){width="0.8895833333333333in" height="1.1590277777777778in"}

######### **National Park Service** 

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**FORT LARAMIE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE**

**WYOMING**

######### **FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN**

######### **Environmental Assessment /Assessment of Effect**

## 

## July 2003

Environmental Assessment

Assessment of Effect

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Fort Laramie National Historic Site

2003

Summary

National Park Service policy requires that any NPS area with combustible
vegetation must prepare a Fire Management Plan. Three alternatives were
considered for the Fort Laramie National Historic Site (Fort Laramie
NHS) Fire Management Plan -- Alternative 1 - no action, continued
aggressive suppression of wildland fires coupled with hazard tree
removal; Alternative 2 - NPS preferred action that would adopt a fire
management program of appropriate management response to unwanted
wildland fires while utilizing prescribed fire and mechanical treatments
for fuels management; and Alternative 3 -- appropriate management
response to unwanted wildland fires coupled with mechanical fuels
management. Suppression operations in each alternative would quickly
respond to wildland fires and achieve effective control to protect human
life and property with the least amount of damage to the park's natural
and cultural resources. An appropriate management response may consider
a variety of factors such as cost, firefighter safety, effectiveness of
actions, and availability of natural or man-made barriers in selecting
firefighting strategies and tactics; the response may not be as
aggressive as that required in the absence of a fire management plan.
The alternative of wildland fire use was considered and rejected because
Fort Laramie NHS is not sufficiently large enough to sustain
free-burning fires without substantial risk to cultural resources and
park neighbors. Managing wildland fire for resource benefits also
requires personnel with specialized skills and qualifications. It is
unlikely that qualified personnel would be readily available to Fort
Laramie NHS within the time periods required by policy.

This environmental assessment analyzes impacts to firefighter and public
safety, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, species of special
concern, air quality, floodplains and wetlands, geology and soils,
cultural resources and cultural landscapes, visitor experience and
aesthetics, and describes cumulative effects of each alternative. None
of the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of the proposed action are
considered major for any of the impact topics.

Public Comment

Note to Reviewers and Respondents:

If you wish to comment on this environmental assessment, you may mail
comments to the name and address below. This environmental assessment
will be on public review for 30 days. Please note that names and
addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If you
wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all
submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

George Helfrich

Superintendent

Fort Laramie National Historic Site

965 Gray Rocks Road

Fort Laramie, WY 82212

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary 2

Chapter 1 -- PURPOSE AND NEED

> Background 6
>
> Purpose 7
>
> Need 7
>
> Scope of Plan 7
>
> Fire Planning Considerations 7
>
> Fire History 8
>
> Relevant Laws, Policies and Planning Documents 9
>
> Objectives 11
>
> Scoping Issues and Impact Topics 11
>
> Scoping Issues 11
>
> Impact Topics 12
>
> Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 12

Chapter 2 -- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1: No-Action 16

Alternative 2: Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels

Management (Preferred Alternative) 18

> Alternative 3: Appropriate Management Response and Non-fire Fuels
>
> Management 22

Alternatives Considered and Rejected 23

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 23

Chapter 3 -- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

> Methodology for Assessing Impacts 32
>
> Intensity of Effects Defined 33
>
> Cumulative Effects Methodology 37
>
> Other Ongoing or Proposed Projects in the Area 37
>
> Compliance with Section 106, NHPA 38
>
> Impairment Methodology 39
>
> Firefighter and Public Safety 39
>
> Geology and Soils 42
>
> Air Quality 46
>
> Floodplains and Wetlands 49
>
> Vegetation 52
>
> Species of Special Concern 59
>
> Wildlife 62
>
> Visitor Experience, Aesthetic Resources 67
>
> Cultural Resources 70

Chapter 4 -- CONSULTATION/COORDINATION

> Agencies/Organizations/Persons Contacted 80
>
> Preparers 81
>
> List of EA Recipients 81

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIXES

> 1\. Fire Management Terms 83
>
> 2\. Recent Fire History 87
>
> 3\. Proposed Prescribed Burns and Mechanical Fuel Treatments 88

FIGURES

> 1\. Fort Laramie NHS Vicinity Map 89
>
> 2\. Fort Laramie NHS Boundary Map 90
>
> 3\. Vegetation Type Map 91
>
> 4\. Proposed Fire Management Projects Map 92

TABLES

> Table 1. Summary of Impact Topics 15
>
> Table 2. Methods each alternative uses to ensure each objective is met
> 25
>
> Table 3. Comparison of alternatives 27
>
> Table 4. Summary comparison of alternatives and impacts 28
>
> Table 5. Impact Threshold Definitions 33

Chapter 1 -- PURPOSE AND NEED

**Background**

Fort Laramie National Historic Site is located on the Laramie River near
its confluence with the North Platte in southeastern Wyoming (Figure 1).
Fort Laramie NHS was a fur trading post from 1834 to 1848 and a military
post from 1849 to 1890. Several historic trails and routes, including
the Pony Express, passed through Fort Laramie; over 350,000 pioneer
immigrants passed through the fort during the westward migration. Fort
Laramie was also the scene of the signing of two important Indian peace
treaties: the Treaty of 1851 and the Treaty of 1868.

Fort Laramie NHS National Monument was established by Presidential
Proclamation (No. 2292) in 1938. In 1960, Congress (P.L. 86-444; 74
Stat. 83) revised the boundaries and renamed the area Fort Laramie
National Historic Site. The boundaries were further modified by Congress
in 1978 (P.L. 95-625; 92 Stat. 3477) to include a total of 832.85 acres
(Figure 2). In 1996, Fort Laramie NHS was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Fort Laramie NHS represents the NPS's theme
of westward expansion, with a sub-theme of military-Indian conflicts.

The Presidential Proclamation of 1938 established Fort Laramie NHS for
the purpose of "... improving, preserving, and conducting such lands and
structures as a public historic site..." Both the 1938 Proclamation and
the 1960 legislation direct that management be consistent with
provisions of the NPS Organic Act (39 Stat. 535).

All lands within the NHS are classified Historic Zone, with three basic
subzones: (1) Development subzone, 100 acres; (2) Natural Environment
subzone, 40 acres; and (3) Special Use subzone, 63 acres. The remaining
land within the park consists of former agricultural property and
natural areas. These lands are managed as prairie grassland (Figure 3).

Fort Laramie NHS's principal features are historic resources: 13
contributing buildings, 20 contributing sites, and 3 contributing
structures. These are described in much greater detail in the Statement
for Management (1989), General Management Plan (1993) and Cultural
Landscapes Inventory (2002).

The local electricity, telephone service, and natural gas providers hold
special use permits for lines that serve the government facilities
within the park. Four companies hold special use permits or rights of
way for oil and gas pipelines that run underground through the northwest
corner of the park. Two irrigation companies convey water underground
through the northeast corner of the park. Parts of the Fort Laramie
Canal are within the southern portion of the park. One corporation and
three named individuals own the mineral interests on approximately 301
acres within the park. None of these would pose problems for fire
management activities.

# 

# Purpose 

Grasslands and riparian areas are the predominant vegetation communities
at Fort Laramie NHS. Fire is a natural component of grassland ecology
and one of the primary influences under which the grasslands of Fort
Laramie NHS evolved. Fire has now been excluded from the Fort Laramie
area, to a large extent, for over 100 years.

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to analyze fire
management program alternatives and their direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts. Under some of these alternatives, prescribed fire
would be used to maintain historic fire-dependent communities.
Subsequent to this EA, a Fire Management Plan (FMP) will be developed to
direct fire management activities. That plan will identify Fire
Management Units, values to be protected, and individual management
actions in conformance with NPS fire management policies.

**Need**

The National Park Service's *Management* *Policies* (2001) and
Director's Order 18 -- Wildland Fire Management -- require that each
park area with vegetation capable of sustaining fire develop a plan to
manage fire on its lands. Fort Laramie NHS needs to have a comprehensive
fire management program to protect natural and cultural resources, the
public and employees, and park facilities. Accordingly, the park will be
preparing a Fire Management Plan based on recommendations listed in the
park's General Management Plan (1993), Vegetation Management Plan
(2002), internal scoping with park staff, and this Environmental
Assessment.

# 

**Scope of the Plan**

The scope of the Fire Management Plan is confined to areas within the
authorized boundaries of Fort Laramie NHS. Therefore, the Fire
Management Plan would deal only with the 832 acres of the NHS. This EA
considers impacts within the NHS and adjacent areas that could
reasonably be impacted by fire management actions.

**Fire Planning Considerations**

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this EA
describes for comparative purposes the potential effects of implementing
alternative fire management programs at Fort Laramie National Historic
Site. At the conclusion of the NEPA process, an operational FMP would be
written and approved, in accordance with the selected alternative.

Included with the description of the preferred alternative is a 5-year
fuels treatment plan (Appendix 3). This action plan defines fuels
treatment activities proposed to be implemented during the 5-year period
following the approval of the NHS's FMP. On a subsequent annual basis,
the Fort Laramie NHS and Grand Teton NP staff would evaluate fuel and
resource conditions, progress on treatments and results, funding
availability, and other issues to update the 5-year fuels treatment
plan. (Grand Teton NP staff is involved because the fire management
office at Grand Teton NP provides fire management assistance to Fort
Laramie NHS.) The plan and its updates would be consistent with the
program objectives and the selected alternative defined in the FMP and
the EA. In this way the fire program incorporates an adaptive management
approach into its planning and program implementation. To ensure
on-going compliance with specific laws such as the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act, requisite consultation
for resource impacts is performed on a project-by-project basis where a
programmatic agreement has not been developed.

It is possible that during the FMP annual evaluation and update, changes
in park conditions or in policy and law may indicate that the fire
management plan is no longer applicable. It is also possible that the
fire program staff may propose a 5-year fuels treatment plan that is
inconsistent with the FMP and EA. If Fort Laramie NHS and Grand Teton NP
staffs decide to revise the FMP or 5-year fuels treatment plan, and if
said revisions would result in new impacts not considered in the
original FMP EA, then such a program change would necessitate additional
NEPA analyses. Regardless of whether changes are made to the plan, if
new regulatory requirements, threatened and endangered species listings,
or changes to the environment have occurred since the original EA,
additional compliance would be required to continue implementing the
program.

**Fire History**

Written records for fire occurrence within the park only date to the
mid-1970s (Appendix 2) and records for the surrounding area are scanty.
Recent oral history, obtained from long time locals and park employees,
describes numerous small fires of less than one acre within current park
boundary. Local residents suggest that fires regularly occur in the
vicinity of the NHS each year, with ignition sources generally being
attributed to escaped agricultural and trash burns, railroad operations
and lightning. Fire occurrence is undoubtedly lower and fire size is
smaller than would have occurred prior to the farming period. With the
onset of farming in the region, the potential for large fires from
outside the NHS to sweep over the area was lost as fuel continuity was
diminished. Fire suppression over the years also contributed to
reduction in fire size.

The active fire season is during the summer, typical of the Great
Plains. Most recent fires within the NHS are lightning-caused and have
occurred from June through August. Only nine fires, burning a total of
13-14 acres, were recorded in the NHS from 1976 through 2002. Fire size
has ranged from 0.1 acre to 5 acres. Only three fires exceeded one acre;
average fire size was less than 2 acres. Fire occurrence and fire size
have been limited largely because (a) much of the area is maintained to
display the historic scene and is therefore not very susceptible to fire
and (b) cultivation of lands surrounding the site reduces the potential
for fire entering from adjacent areas.

Within the NHS itself, fuels can be characterized by Northern Forest
Fire Laboratory (NFFL) Fuel Models 1, 2 and possibly 9. Fuel models 1
and 2 are grass models. Fuel model 2 would also describe riparian
woodlands with open overstories and shrub/grass understories. Fire in
this model is characterized by fairly rapid rates of spread, relatively
short flame length and low resistance to control. Fuel model 9 is a
timber model that describes some riparian areas with a more closed
overstory and less understory vegetation. Fire in this model is
characterized by lower rates of spread, short flame length and somewhat
greater resistance to control. Except under extreme conditions,
firefighters with hand tools and engines could provide effective fire
suppression. When burning conditions are severe, aerial resources such
as retardant and/or helicopter water drops may be necessary for
successful suppression.

Fuels in the NHS may also be characterized as Fire Regime I (0-35 years
fire frequency, low intensity burning), and Condition Class 1. This
means that fires naturally recurred on short intervals in the grasslands
and were not very intense. Condition Class 1 means that, even though
fire has been excluded for a considerable time, the present fuel
condition is such that the response to fire would be within the range of
historic variability (i.e. fire effects would be in the expected range
and there would be a low risk of losing key ecosystem components).

Please see Appendix 1 for definitions and descriptions of NFFL Fuel
Models, Fire Regimes, and Condition Classes.

**Relevant Laws, Policies and Planning Documents**

A multitude of laws, regulations and policies influence development and
implementation of a Fire Management Plan at Fort Laramie NHS. The
following relate directly to preparation of a Fire Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment for Fort Laramie NHS.

> **NPS Organic Act of 1916** -- Congress directed the U.S. Department
> of the Interior and NPS to manage units "to conserve the scenery and
> the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
> provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
> as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"
> (16 U.S.C. § 1). Congress reiterated this mandate in the Redwood
> National Park Expansion Act of 1978 by stating that the NPS must
> conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure no "derogation of the
> values and purposes for which these various areas have been
> established, except as may have been or shall be directly and
> specifically provided by Congress" (16 U.S.C. § 1 a-1).
>
> **National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)** -- The purpose of NEPA is
> to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
> environment; to promote efforts which would prevent or eliminate
> damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of
> mankind; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and
> natural resources important to the Nation. NEPA requirements are
> satisfied by successful completion of an EA or EIS, in addition to a
> decision document.
>
> **Director's Order-12 (DO-12)** -- DO-12 is the NPS guidance for
> Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision
> Making. DO-12 states the guidelines for implementing NEPA according to
> NPS regulations. DO-12 meets all Council on Environmental Quality
> (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. In some cases, NPS has added
> requirements under DO-12 that exceed the CEQ regulations.
>
> **Director's Order-18 (DO-18)** -- DO-18, the NPS guidance for
> Wildland Fire Management, states that "every NPS unit with burnable
> vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan." DO-18 defines
> what an approved FMP must include, stressing that "firefighter and
> public safety is the first priority" and promoting "an interagency
> approach to managing fires on an ecosystem basis across agency
> boundaries." Director's Order 18 also directs parks to identify,
> manage, and reduce, where appropriate, accumulations of hazardous
> fuels. Procedures for completion, review, approval, and required
> contents for FMPs are provided in Reference Manual-18 (RM-18). Until
> an FMP is approved, NPS units must take aggressive suppression action
> on all wildland fires.

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (1995)
and Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy Implementation
Procedures Reference Guide (1998) provide specific guidance on fire
policy, planning and implementation. A more complete listing of relevant
laws, Executive Orders, and policies is provided in Table 1 by impact
topic.

A fire management plan and EA for Fort Laramie NHS must be consistent
with other approved plans for the unit. The General Management Plan
(GMP), completed in 1993 dealt with fire management only indirectly, but
noted that the Resource Management Plan was being revised and proposed
development of a Vegetation Management Plan. The Resource Management
Plan was completed in 1984 and updated in 1995; it does not address fire
management. The Vegetation Management Plan (2002) recommends the use of
prescribed fire to accomplish resource management objectives. The
Cultural Landscapes Inventory (2002) does not directly address fire
management, but does provide objectives for maintenance of historic
scenes. The NHS has a programmatic agreement with the Wyoming SHPO
concerning management of cultural resources, but that document is silent
on issues of fire management. A draft Fire Management Plan for Fort
Laramie NHS was completed about 1990, but was not approved and
implemented.

**Objectives**

Management objectives that relate to resource management are presented
in the Statement for Management (1989) and General Management Plan
(1993). These include:

-   Reestablish and promote native plants and animals that contribute to
    and create the park's historic scene, to the greatest degree
    possible.

-   Reestablish and protect, to the fullest extent possible, the
    integrity of the historic scene of the park.

-   Protect and preserve the historic integrity of the buildings, ruins,
    structures, and collections of the area, assuring their
    availability, and assuring their survival, for the benefit of the
    public, in perpetuity.

Fire management objectives, tiered from resource management objectives,
include the following:

-   Ensure public and employee safety from wildland fire. Reduce risk of
    adverse impacts to park neighbors.

-   Protect the public, private property, cultural, and historic
    resources of the unit by suppressing unplanned wildland fires.

-   Maintain long-term stability and diversity of natural resources.

-   Reduce the level of hazardous fuels.

-   Discourage introduction and proliferation of invasive nonnative
    species.

-   Ensure smoke production would not violate federal and State air
    quality standards.

-   Manage fire cooperatively with adjacent land management agencies and
    private landowners.

-   Avoid impairment of park resources and values.

**Scoping Issues and Impact Topics**

# Scoping Issues 

> Internal scoping was conducted with the park's Interdisciplinary Team,
> Grand Teton NP fire management staff, and Intermountain fire
> management staff on December 3, 2002. Issues which were raised in
> scoping included:

-   Unplanned fire events may have adverse impacts on cultural and
    sensitive natural resources within the park.

-   Unplanned fire events near the boundary may threaten or otherwise
    adversely impact local residential communities.

-   Fire events may encourage the proliferation of invasive nonnative
    species; conversely, fire may be used under some conditions for
    management of invasive nonnative species.

-   Consultation should be initiated pursuant to §7 of the Endangered
    Species Act and §106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to
    ensure that proposed actions would not adversely effect endangered
    species and cultural resources.

> The park also conducted external scoping with tribes, partners,
> cooperators and permitting agencies from February 15 through March 22,
> 2003. A public scoping open house was held on February 22, 2003.
> Parties contacted by letter or press release are noted in Chapter 4.
> No additional issues were raised during external scoping.

# Impact Topics

# 

# Issues and concerns affecting this project were identified by NPS specialists; no additional issues were identified through external scoping. After scoping, issues and concerns were distilled into distinct impact topics to facilitate the analysis of environmental consequences, which allows for a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant information. The impact topics were identified on the basis of federal laws, regulations, and orders; NPS *Management* *Policies*; and NPS knowledge of limited or easily impacted resources. 

# 

# Topics analyzed in this EA include: firefighter and public safety, air quality, geology and soils, vegetation, floodplains and wetlands, wildlife, species of special concern, visitor experiences and aesthetic resources, and cultural resources. Each of these impacts topics is individually addressed later in this Environmental Assessment.

> **Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration**
>
> NEPA and CEQ regulations direct agencies to "avoid useless bulk...and
> concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR
> 1502.15). Certain impact topics that are sometimes addressed in NEPA
> documents for other kinds of proposed actions or projects have been
> judged not to be substantively affected by any of the Fire Management
> Plan alternatives considered in this EA. These topics are listed below
> and in Table 1, and a rationale is provided for dismissing specific
> topics from further consideration.
>
> **Noise:** Noise is defined as an unwanted sound. Hazard fuels
> reduction, hazard tree removal, prescribed fires, and fire suppression
> can all involve the use of noise-generating equipment such as
> chainsaws, trucks, and aircraft. Each of these fire management tools,
> especially when near operating saws and helicopters, are quite loud
> (in excess of 100 decibels) and operators are directed to use hearing
> protection equipment. The use of such equipment would be extremely
> infrequent in light of the fuel types at Fort Laramie NHS (hours or
> days per decade). This is not frequent enough to substantively
> interfere with human activities in the area or with wildlife behavior.
> Nor would such infrequent noise chronically impair the solitude and
> tranquility associated with the NHS. Therefore, this impact topic is
> dismissed from further analysis in this EA.
>
> **Waste Management:** None of the Fire Management Alternatives would
> generate noteworthy quantities of either hazardous material or solid
> wastes that need disposal in hazardous waste or general sanitary
> landfills. Therefore, this impact topic is dismissed from further
> analysis in the EA.
>
> **Transportation:** None of the FMP alternatives would substantively
> affect road, railroad, water-based, or aerial transportation in and
> around the NHS. One exception may be the temporary closure of nearby
> roads during fire suppression or prescribed burning activities or from
> dense smoke from such fires. However, as evidenced by recent fire
> history, such closures would be very infrequent and would not
> substantially impinge on local transportation. Therefore, this impact
> topic is dismissed from further analysis.
>
> **Utilities:** Some types of projects involving construction may
> temporarily impact telephone, electrical, natural gas, water, and
> sewer lines, potentially disrupting service to customers. Other
> projects may exert increased demand on telephone, electrical, natural
> gas, water, and sewage infrastructure, sources, and services, thus
> compromising existing services or creating a need for new facilities.
> None of the FMP alternatives would cause any of these effects to any
> extent. Therefore, this impact topic is dismissed from further
> analysis.
>
> **Land Use:** Vegetation at Fort Laramie National Historic Site
> consists primarily of grassland and riparian communities. Visitor and
> administrative facilities, as well as historic structures, are located
> within the NHS. Residential, industrial, agricultural and commercial
> land uses occur in small towns and farms outside the boundaries. Fire
> management would not affect land uses within the NHS or in areas
> adjacent to it. Therefore, this impact topic is dismissed from further
> analysis.
>
> **Socioeconomics:** NEPA requires an analysis of impacts to the "human
> environment" which includes economic, social and demographic elements
> in the affected area. Implementation of the proposed action,
> particularly prescribed burning, may require temporary closures of
> project areas which may, in turn, inconvenience some park visitors.
> Such closures, however, are likely to be small in size and of very
> short duration. Some fire management activities would bring a
> short-term need for additional personnel in the NHS, but that would
> not substantially affect local businesses. Thus the proposed action
> would not impact local businesses or other agencies. Therefore, the
> socioeconomic environment will not be addressed as an impact topic in
> this document.
>
> **Environmental Justice:** Executive Order 12898, "General Actions to
> Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
> Populations," requires all federal agencies to incorporate
> environmental justice into their missions by identifying and
> addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or
> environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and
> low-income populations and communities. Executive Order 13045 requires
> Federal actions and policies to identify and address
> disproportionately adverse risks to the health and safety of children.
> None of the FMP alternatives would have disproportionate health or
> environmental effects on minorities or low-income populations or
> communities as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's
> Environmental Justice Guidance (1998). Therefore, environmental
> justice was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.
>
> **Prime and Unique Farmlands:** In August, 1980, the Council on
> Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed that federal agencies must assess
> the effects of their actions on farmland soils classified by the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
> (NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil
> that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage,
> fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as
> fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According to the NRCS, no soils in the
> project area are classified as prime and unique farmlands. Thus, the
> topic of prime and unique farmland will not be addressed as an impact
> topic.
>
> **Wilderness:** NPS *Management Policies* direct that proposed actions
> which have the potential to impact wilderness resources must be
> evaluated in accordance with NPS procedures for implementing NEPA.
> Since neither Fort Laramie nor adjacent lands are proposed or
> designated as wilderness, this impact topic was dismissed from further
> analysis.
>
> **Indian Trust Resources:** Indian trusts are assets owned by Native
> Americans but held in trust by the United States. Indian trusts do not
> occur within Fort Laramie NHS and, therefore, are not evaluated
> further in this document.
>
> **Resource Conservation:** The NPS *Guiding Principles of Sustainable
> Design* provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility
> planning and design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and
> encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates principles
> to be used such as resource conservation and recycling. None of the
> FMP alternatives would minimize or add to resource conservation or
> pollution prevention on the NHS. Therefore, this impact topic is
> dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

**Table 1. Summary of Impact Topics.**

+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| **Impact       | **Retained or     | **Relevant Laws, Regulations   |
| Topic**        | dismissed from    | or Policies**                  |
|                | further           |                                |
|                | evaluation**      |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Geology and    | retained          | NPS Organic Act; NPS           |
| Soils          |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Water          | retained          | Clean Water Act; Executive     |
| Resources      |                   | Order 12088; NPS *Management   |
|                |                   | Policies*                      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Floodplains    | retained          | Executive Order 11988;         |
| and Wetlands   |                   | Executive Order 11990; Rivers  |
|                |                   | and Harbors Act; Clean Water   |
|                |                   | Act; NPS Organic Act; NPS      |
|                |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Vegetation     | retained          | NPS Organic Act; NPS           |
|                |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Wildlife       | retained          | NPS Organic Act; NPS           |
|                |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Species of     | retained          | Endangered Species Act; NPS    |
| Special        |                   | Organic Act; NPS *Management   |
| Concern        |                   | Policies*                      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Air Quality    | retained          | Clean Air Act (CAA); CAA       |
|                |                   | Amendments of 1990; NPS        |
|                |                   | Organic Act; NPS *Management   |
|                |                   | Policies*                      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Visitor        | retained          | Americans with Disabilities    |
| Experience.    |                   | Act; NPS Organic Act; NPS      |
| Aesthetic      |                   | *Management Policies*          |
| Resources      |                   |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Firefighter    | retained          | Director's Order #18; NPS      |
| and Public     |                   | *Management Policies*          |
| Safety         |                   |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Cultural       | archeology,       | Section 106 of National        |
| Resources      | historic          | Historic Preservation Act;     |
|                | structures, and   | Archeologic and Historic       |
|                | landscapes        | Preservation Act;              |
|                |                   | Archeological Resources        |
|                | retained          | Protection Act; 36 CFR 800;    |
|                |                   | NEPA; Executive Order 13007;   |
|                | ethnographic      | Executive Order 11593; the     |
|                | resources and     | Secretary of the Interior's    |
|                | museum objects    | Standards and Guidelines for   |
|                | dismissed         | Archeology and Historic        |
|                |                   | Preservation; Programmatic     |
|                |                   | Memorandum of Agreement Among  |
|                |                   | the NPS, Advisory Council on   |
|                |                   | Historic Preservation, and the |
|                |                   | National Council of State      |
|                |                   | Historic Preservation Officers |
|                |                   | ((1995); Director's Order 28;  |
|                |                   | NPS *Management Policies*      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Park           | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
| Operations     |                   |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Noise          | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Waste          | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
| Management     |                   |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Transportation | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Utilities      | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Land Use       | dismissed         | NPS *Management Policies*      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Socioeconomics | dismissed         | 40 CFR Regulations for         |
|                |                   | Implementing NEPA; NPS         |
|                |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Environmental  | dismissed         | Executive Order 12898          |
| Justice        |                   |                                |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Prime and      | dismissed         | Council on Environmental       |
| Unique         |                   | Quality 1980 memorandum on     |
| Farmlands      |                   | prime and unique farmlands     |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Wilderness     | dismissed         | The Wilderness Act; Director's |
|                |                   | Order #41; NPS *Management     |
|                |                   | Policies*                      |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Indian Trust   | dismissed         | Department of the Interior     |
| Reserves       |                   | Secretarial Orders No. 3206    |
|                |                   | and No. 3175                   |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Resource       | dismissed         | NEPA; NPS *Guiding Principles  |
| Conservation   |                   | of Sustainable Design*; NPS    |
|                |                   | *Management Policies*          |
+----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------+

# Chapter 2 -- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

# 

Alternatives were framed through discussions among NHS personnel, Grand
Teton fire management staff, and Intermountain fire management staff.
The alternatives cover the range of what is physically possible,
acceptable by policy, and feasible for local managers. Under each
alternative, the NHS would be described as a single Fire Management Unit
(FMU). Within the FMU, various activities will be concentrated in
certain areas. For example, mowing would occur primarily around historic
buildings and other interpreted structures. Prescribed burning would
occur primarily in grasslands and hazard fuels projects would be
conducted mainly in wooded areas. With all alternatives, unplanned
wildland fires would be suppressed.

# Alternative 1 - No-Action

This alternative represents a continuation of current management
actions; it does not mean an absence of active management of fire and
fuels. Under the no-action alternative, the fire management program
would consist of aggressively suppressing wildland fires, continuing a
hazard tree removal program, and mowing fine fuels near historic
structures.

Aggressively suppressing wildland fires (initial attack) is accomplished
by depriving a fire of additional fuels (e.g. building a fire line that
is cleared down to mineral soil) or by cooling the fire sufficiently to
prevent further combustion (e.g. applying water to the flaming front).

The hazard tree removal program in 2003 would consist of an evaluation
of potentially hazardous trees in public access areas, followed by a
limited removal of identified hazards. In 2004, potentially hazardous
trees would be evaluated in non-public areas. Mowing vegetation near
historic structures also reduces the vulnerability of those structures
to wildland fires. Associated vehicle use is with rubber-tired, rather
than tracked, vehicles and results in minimal ground disturbance.

Predicting the average annual acreage of unwanted wildland fire is quite
uncertain, dependent as it is on climatic conditions, fuels conditions,
locations and other factors. Given recent fire history, however, only
about one or two fires, each averaging less than two acres, would occur
in a 5-year period. Initial attack activities would be aggressive with
somewhat elevated risks to firefighters.

*Mitigation as Part of the No-action Alternative*

Given the uncertainty of the locations of wildland fires, the
mitigations for the no-action alternative will focus primarily on
endangered species, cultural resources and management constraints.

The fire management actions identified under the no-action alternative
have little potential to adversely affect endangered species. Mitigation
would include confining hazard tree removal to areas and/or times when
bald eagles are not present. No mitigation is anticipated for Preble's
meadow jumping mouse, mountain plover or Ute ladies'-tresses.

Fire management actions identified under the no-action alternative have
little potential to adversely affect cultural resources. Mitigations to
further ensure avoidance of impact include:

-   Use of rubber-tired vehicles involved in mowing, hazard tree removal
    and fire suppression to minimize the potential of disturbing
    archeological sites.

-   Use of water as much as possible rather than construction of hand
    line to contain unplanned wildland fires to minimize the potential
    of disturbing archeological sites.

-   A suite of mitigation actions, used either individually or in
    combination, to reduce the potential effect of wildland fires and
    suppression actions on historic structures. These include
    blacklining around structures or features near wildland fires,
    treating structures with fire retardant foam concurrent with fires,
    wrapping structures with heat reflective materials, and establishing
    sprinkler systems on and around structures concurrent with wildland
    fire suppression activities.

-   Monitor fire suppression activities and halt work if previously
    unknown resources are located; protect and record newly discovered
    resources.

-   Brief suppression personnel about protecting cultural resources.

Additional management constraints which would further mitigate potential
adverse impacts of wildland fire suppression under the no-action
alternative include:

-   Minimum impact suppression tactics would be employed in all tactical
    operations except as noted below.

-   Fire retardant, if used, must be on the approved list of retardants
    used by the U.S. Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

-   Motorized equipment would not normally be used off of established
    roadways in the NHS. However, due to rapid rates of spread and the
    emergency nature of fires near the boundary, off-road use of
    motorized equipment such as all-terrain vehicles and wildland fire
    engines may be authorized by the Superintendent.

-   All extended attack and project fire operations would have a park
    employee designated and available to assist suppression operations
    as a Resource Advisor. If qualified employees are not available, a
    Resource Advisor would be ordered through the interagency dispatch
    system.

-   Helicopters may be used to transport personnel, supplies and
    equipment. Improvement of landing sites would be kept to a minimum
    and would include consultation with the assigned Resource Advisor.
    Helibases and landing sites within the NHS would be rehabilitated to
    pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably possible.

-   Suppression actions would avoid aerial and ground applications of
    retardant or foam within 300 feet of identified water sources.

-   Except for spot maintenance to remove obstructions, no modifications
    would be made to roadways, trails, water sources, or clearings. All
    sites where modifications are made or obstructions removed would be
    rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably
    possible.

-   Earth moving equipment such as tractors, graders, bulldozers, or
    other tracked vehicles would not be used for fire suppression. If
    special circumstances warrant extreme measures to ensure protection,
    the Superintendent may authorize the use of heavy equipment.

-   Fireline location would avoid sensitive areas wherever possible.

-   Following fire suppression activities, firelines would be
    re-contoured and water-barred.

-   As a matter of practice, burned areas would not be reseeded unless
    there are overriding concerns about establishment of invasive
    nonnative species. Any reseeding would be with native species and
    occur only with the Superintendent's prior approval.

**Alternative 2 -- Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels
Management (Preferred Alternative)**

The preferred alternative would incorporate continued suppression of all
unwanted wildland fires, mechanical treatment of hazard fuels, and
prescribed burning.

Appropriate management response provides for the full range of
suppression strategies for management of wildland fires. The average
acreage burned by wildland fires may increase slightly from Alternative
1 since fire managers would have the option of selecting from the full
range of suppression strategies. Under this scenario, managers may
choose to utilize natural or man-made barriers in a confine strategy to
lower cost, increase firefighter safety, or minimize the impacts of
suppression action.

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would be used individually or
in combination (including sequence; i.e. mechanical treatment followed
by burning) to achieve natural resource, cultural landscape, and fuels
management objectives. Each treatment would involve developing an
implementation plan and obtaining appropriate permits and approvals.

Mechanical treatments would be used to clear vegetation away from
structures, cultural resources, and other high value resources to reduce
spread potential and increase defensible space. Mechanical reduction of
hazard fuels would use methods such as mowing grass, chopping shrubs,
thinning woodlands, trimming ladder fuels, and removal of harvested
biomass.

Prescribed burning (broadcast burning) would be conducted for hazard
fuels reduction, maintenance of fire dependent communities, and
nonnative plant control. All prescribed fires will be planned and
approved consistent with the method and format required by RM-18.

Wildland fire used for resource benefit would not be permitted.

During a typical 5-year period, the following fire and fuels management
activities are projected:

-   One or two wildland fires averaging only about 2 acres each using an
    appropriate management response. Maximum fire size would probably
    not exceed 5-10 acres.

-   Three to five prescribed fires of less than 50 acres each. See
    Appendix 3 and Figure 4 for actions proposed for the first 5-year
    period.

-   Three to five mechanical fuels reduction projects, each usually less
    than 20 acres. See Appendix 3 and Figure 4 for actions proposed for
    the first 5-year period. These projects include overstory thinning
    of cottonwoods with chainsaws together with flail chopping
    (tractor-drawn "brush hog") of understory shrubs. Woody material
    would be hand piled for later burning or removal. Eagle roost trees
    and other wildlife trees would be left intact.

-   Pile burning of removed biomass from hazard fuels reduction
    projects. When drought conditions persist, the woody material would
    be hauled away rather than burned in place.

-   Annual mowing of grass areas adjacent to historic structures (an
    ongoing maintenance operation).

##### Mitigation as Part of the Preferred Alternative

The mitigations for the preferred alternative will focus primarily on
endangered species, cultural resources, and management constraints.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified five endangered,
threatened or candidate species which may occur in or near Fort Laramie
National Historic Site. These include the bald eagle (threatened;
*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), black-footed ferret (endangered; *Mustela
nigripes*), mountain plover (proposed for listing; *Charadrius
montanus*), Preble's meadow jumping mouse (threatened; *Zapus hudsonius
preblei*) and Ute ladies'-tresses (threatened; *Spiranthes diluvialis*).

Bald eagles use the NHS area in winter; the area of use focuses on large
cottonwoods in the riparian areas along the Laramie and North Platte
Rivers. FWS recommends providing a 1-mile disturbance-free buffer around
such sites during periods that they are occupied. Black-footed ferrets
are obligates of prairie dog towns. There are no prairie dog towns in
the NHS; the closest known prairie dogs towns are about 5 miles away.
The mountain plover uses bare or nearly bare areas for nesting -- areas
of very short and sparse vegetation; vegetation on these sites would
likely be too discontinuous to support fire. The Preble's meadow jumping
mouse occupies wet meadow and riparian habitats; the species has not
been recorded in Goshen County. Ute ladies'-tresses habitats are usually
disturbed areas in moist soils along rivers and other waterways. To
prosper, they generally require areas with little competing vegetation.
Habitats occupied by Ute ladies'-tresses would typically not be
susceptible to fire.

Mitigation for bald eagles under the preferred alternative would consist
of avoiding fire management activities within 1 mile of roost trees
during the period of occupation by eagles. The proposed mechanical fuel
treatments in riparian zones would be completed in the spring after
eagles have left the area. Rubber-tired vehicles would be used to
minimize ground disturbance. Large standing dead trees that are
preferred roost sites would be left standing.

No mitigation is anticipated for black-footed ferrets, though surveys
might be completed if prairie dog towns expand into the NHS (surveys are
not warranted until or unless a prairie dog town complex reaches 200
acres or more).

Mitigation for Preble's meadow jumping mouse would consist of excluding
broadcast prescribed fire from potential habitats until a FWS survey is
completed. If the presence of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is
confirmed, further consultation would determine additional mitigation
needs.

No mitigation is anticipated for mountain plover since vegetation in
nesting areas would be too discontinuous to support fire .

No mitigation is anticipated for Ute ladies'-tresses since Ute
ladies'-tresses have not been documented in the NHS and habitats
occupied by Ute ladies'-tresses are typically not susceptible to fire.

Most of the park\'s cultural resources are located within the Historic
Zone. By virtue of their concentrated location and absence of flammable
vegetation in their immediate vicinity, most sites are not susceptible
to wildland fire. Other sites and features, while they may not be
vulnerable to fire, are susceptible to damage caused by fire suppression
activities.

For those sites that may be vulnerable to impacts from wildland or
prescribed fire, a wide range of options are available to eliminate or
mitigate potential impacts. These include complete avoidance of
prescribed fire in the vicinity of structures, blacklining around
structures or features near wildland fires or proposed prescribed fires,
treatment with fire retardant foam prior to or concurrent with fires,
wrapping with heat reflective materials, and establishment of sprinkler
systems on and around structures prior to prescribed fires or concurrent
with wildland fire suppression activities. Other standard cultural
resource mitigation measures include the following: prior to doing
treatment work, conduct an inventory of previously unsurveyed areas
using an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's
standards; monitor fire management activities and halt work if
previously unknown resources are located; protect and record newly
discovered resources; brief work crews about protecting cultural
resources; dispose of slash in areas lacking cultural sites; avoid
ground disturbance in areas containing known cultural sites; prior to
implementation of work, protect character-defining elements of the
site's cultural landscapes. For prescribed fires, mitigations would be
included in the prescribed fire burn plan. In all cases, protection of
structures and features will be more important than minimizing acres
burned. The Wyoming SHPO requests that further consultation be conducted
on each prescribed fire during preparation of the prescribed fire burn
plan.

Fire management operations constraints, which would mitigate the
potential impacts of operations (suppression, prescribed burning, hazard
fuel reduction, etc.) on multiple resource values, include the
following:

-   A cultural resource advisor would participate in the planning and
    implementation of all projects.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Potential effects to cultural resources would be mitigated by any
    one or a combination of the following: installation of temporary
    sprinkler systems; application of fire retardant foam; use of heat
    reflective wraps; fuel reduction adjacent to the structures; and
    avoidance of prescribed burns adjacent to or near structures. These
    actions may be employed singly or in combinations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Prescribed fires would not be planned near cultural and other
    sensitive resources unless adequate planning and mitigation has
    assured their protection.

-   Appropriate management response to unwanted wildland fires would
    give priority to protection of cultural and other sensitive
    resources.

-   Minimum impact suppression tactics would be employed in all tactical
    operations except as noted below.

-   Whenever consistent with safe, effective suppression techniques, the
    use of natural barriers, such as sparsely vegetated areas, would be
    used as extensively as possible. The use of counterfire techniques,
    burnout for fireline improvement, and wetting agents (ground and
    aerially delivered) is authorized.

-   Fire retardant, if used, must be on the approved list of retardants
    used by the U.S. Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

-   Motorized equipment would not normally be used off of established
    roadways in the NHS. However, due to rapid rates of spread and the
    emergency nature of fires near the boundary, off-road use of
    motorized equipment such as all-terrain vehicles and wildland fire
    engines may be authorized by the Superintendent.

-   All extended attack and project fire operations would have a park
    employee designated and available to assist suppression operations
    as a Resource Advisor. If qualified employees are not available, a
    Resource Advisor would be ordered through the interagency dispatch
    system.

-   Helicopters may be used to transport personnel, supplies and
    equipment. Improvement of landing sites would be kept to a minimum
    and would include consultation with the assigned Resource Advisor.
    Helibases and landing sites within the NHS would be rehabilitated to
    pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably possible.

-   Suppression actions would avoid aerial and ground applications of
    retardant or foam within 300 feet of identified water sources.

-   Except for spot maintenance to remove obstructions, no modifications
    would be made to roadways, trails, water sources, or clearings. All
    sites where modifications are made or obstructions removed would be
    rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably
    possible.

-   Earth moving equipment such as tractors, graders, bulldozers, or
    other tracked vehicles would not be used for fire suppression. If
    special circumstances (e.g. immediate threats to human life or
    fire-susceptible historic structures) warrant extreme measures to
    ensure protection, the Superintendent may authorize the use of heavy
    equipment.

-   Fireline location would avoid sensitive areas wherever possible.

-   Following fire suppression activities, firelines would be
    re-contoured and water-barred.

-   As a matter of practice, burned areas would not be reseeded unless
    there are overriding concerns about establishment of invasive
    nonnative species. Any reseeding would be with native species and
    occur only with the Superintendent's prior approval.

**Alternative 3 -- Appropriate Management Response and Non-fire Fuels
Management**

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that use of
prescribed fire would not be permitted. Using an appropriate management
response to unwanted wildland fire, fire managers may choose to utilize
natural or man-made barriers in a confine strategy to lower cost,
increase firefighter safety, or minimize the impacts of suppression
action. Mechanical treatment of hazard fuels would be the same as under
Alternative 2. The average acreage burned by wildland fires may increase
slightly from Alternative 1 since fire managers would have the option of
selecting from the full range of suppression strategies.

With Alternative 3, the following fire and fuels management activities
during a typical 5-year period would likely include (see Appendix 3):

-   One or two wildland fires averaging only about 2 acres each even
    under an appropriate management response. Maximum fire size would
    probably not exceed 5-10 acres.

-   Three to five mechanical fuels reduction projects, each usually less
    than 20 acres. See Appendix 3 and Figure 4 for actions proposed for
    the first 5-year period. These projects include overstory thinning
    of cottonwoods with chainsaws together with flail chopping
    (tractor-drawn "brush hog") of understory shrubs. Woody material
    would be hand piled for later burning or removal. Eagle roost trees
    and other wildlife trees would be left intact.

-   Annual mowing of grass areas adjacent to historic structures (an
    ongoing maintenance operation).

*Mitigation as a Part of Alternative 3*

The mitigation actions for Alternative 3 are the same as those described
under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, except that mitigations
for prescribed fire would not be necessary (prescribed fire is not a
component of Alternative 3).

# Alternatives Considered and Rejected

Two additional alternatives were identified and considered in the
scoping process.

Alternative 4 was called the wildland fire use alternative. This
alternative would employ the full range of available fire management
strategies including suppression using an appropriate management
response, wildland fire use, and prescribed burning. Mechanical fuel
reduction methodologies would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3.
This alternative differs from other alternatives in its authorization of
wildland fire use (aka wildland fire used for resource benefit). This
alternative was rejected because Fort Laramie NHS is not of sufficient
size to manage free-burning fires without substantial threat to cultural
resources and/or park neighbors. Managing wildland fire for resource
benefits also requires personnel with specialized skills and
qualifications. It is unlikely that qualified personnel would be readily
available to Fort Laramie NHS within the time periods required by
policy.

Alternative 5, the no management alternative, would allow all wildland
fires to burn unimpeded by management action. No other manipulative
activities (e.g. hazard fuels management) would be permitted. This
alternative was rejected because it compromises public safety, causes
undue risk to values to be protected (e.g. historic structures) and is
inconsistent with federal policy and regulations.

# Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the
criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), which is guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
The CEQ provides direction that "the environmentally preferable
alternative is the alternative that would promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101" (*Forty Most
Asked Questions Concerning Council on Environmental Quality's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations*, 1981.)

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act states that "...it
is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to ... (1)
fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans
safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradations, risk to health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important
historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and
maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable
resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable
resources." The environmentally preferred alternative for this project
is based on these national environmental policy goals.

##### **Alternative 1 -- No Action.** This alternative would aggressively suppress all wildland fires. Limited mechanical treatment (i.e. mowing) would remove fuels in the developed areas and adjacent to historical structures. This alternative would disturb the least amount of natural resources, but the grassland communities in Fort Laramie NHS are regarded as fire dependent. The alternative would not be as effective as Alternative 2 in maintaining the structure and diversity of grasslands. The no-action alternative may also expose firefighters to somewhat elevated risks as well as potentially increased costs since it does not allow for use of confinement strategies in suppression operations. Therefore, this alternative would not result in the same level of protection of natural and cultural resources and people over the long-term as would occur with the preferred alternative. Consequently, the no-action alternative does not satisfy provisions 2, 3, and 4 of NEPA's Section 101.

##### **Alternative 2 -- Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels Management (Preferred Action).** This alternative provides the greatest flexibility in responding to unwanted wildland fire and further provides the greatest opportunities for effective management of hazardous fuels. It provides the lowest risk to firefighters by utilizing an appropriate management response (i.e. the full range of suppression strategies) to wildland fires. It provides opportunities for selection of individual or composite treatments of hazardous fuels, and thus would be most effective in managing such fuels. This fuel reduction program would ultimately provide for better health and safety of visitors and employees and protection of natural and cultural resources for succeeding generations. This alternative further provides for prescribed fire treatments intended to contribute to the maintenance of long-term stability and diversity in fire-dependent vegetation communities. The alternative would protect people and cultural and natural resources with minimum disturbance. This alternative would satisfy each of the provisions of the national environmental policy goals.

##### **Alternative 3 -- Appropriate Management Response and Non-fire Fuels Management.** This is an intermediate alternative between the no-action (Alternative 1) and preferred action (Alternative 2) alternatives. The ability to employ an appropriate management response brings some of the benefits associated with Alternative 2. Mechanical treatments would still be available for hazardous fuel reductions, but these methods are ineffective tools for maintaining the long-term stability and diversity of fire dependent communities. The inability to use prescribed fire, then, renders this alternative less effective to achieving resource management goals. Consequently, Alternative 3 does not satisfy provisions 2 and 4 of NEPA's Section 101 as well as the preferred alternative.

### The *environmentally preferable alternative* is *Alternative 2 -- Preferred Action* because it surpasses the no-action Alternative and Alternative 3 in realizing the full range of national environmental policy goals as stated in §101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the no-action alternative may result in the least immediate disturbance of natural resources, it does result in increased risk to firefighters in comparison with the other two alternatives and it does not provide opportunities for maintenance of fire-dependent vegetation communities. Alternative 3 more closely meets the criteria of §101 but is also foregoes opportunities for maintenance of fire-dependent vegetation communities. 

**Summary**

####### Table 2: Methods Each Alternative Uses to Ensure Each Objective is Met

+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ####          | ####### Alt.   | #               | ####### Alt. 3  |
| ### Objective | 1 - No-Action  | ###### Alt. 2 - |  -- AMR and Non |
|               |                | - AMR and Integ | -fire Fuels Mgt |
|               |                | rated Fuels Mgt |                 |
+===============+================+=================+=================+
| Ensure public | Removal of     | Integrated      | Mechanical      |
| and employee  | hazard trees   | management      | reduction of    |
| safety from   | and mowing     | (prescribed     | hazardous fuels |
| wildland      | fine fuels     | fire,           | would decrease  |
| fire. Reduce  | around         | mechanical      | danger to       |
| risk of       | historic       | removal of      | visitors, park  |
| adverse       | structures     | hazardous       | neighbors, park |
| impacts to    | would decrease | fuels) would    | facilities, and |
| park          | danger to      | decrease danger | employees by    |
| neighbors.    | visitors, park | to visitors,    | reducing the    |
|               | neighbors,     | park neighbors, | likelihood of   |
|               | park           | park            | more intense    |
|               | facilities,    | facilities, and | wildland fires. |
|               | and employees  | employees by    | Implementing    |
|               | by reducing    | reducing the    | LCES, reviewing |
|               | the likelihood | likelihood of   | 10 Standard     |
|               | of more        | more intense    | Firefighting    |
|               | intense        | wildland fires. | Orders and 18   |
|               | wildland       | Implementing    | Watch Out       |
|               | fires.         | LCES, reviewing | Situations,     |
|               | Implementing   | 10 Standard     | using temporary |
|               | LCES,          | Firefighting    | closures, and   |
|               | reviewing 10   | Orders and 18   | increasing      |
|               | Standard       | Watch Out       | public          |
|               | Firefighting   | Situations,     | awareness would |
|               | Orders and 18  | using temporary | increase public |
|               | Watch Out      | closures, and   | and firefighter |
|               | Situations,    | increasing      | safety during   |
|               | using          | public          | suppression of  |
|               | temporary      | awareness would | wildland fires. |
|               | closures, and  | increase public | Appropriate     |
|               | increasing     | and firefighter | management      |
|               | public         | safety during   | response would  |
|               | awareness      | suppression of  | allow greater   |
|               | would increase | wildland fires. | flexibility in  |
|               | public and     | Appropriate     | ensuring        |
|               | firefighter    | management      | firefighter and |
|               | safety during  | response would  | public safety   |
|               | suppression of | allow greater   | though the      |
|               | wildland       | flexibility in  | inability to    |
|               | fires.         | ensuring        | use prescribed  |
|               |                | firefighter and | fire would make |
|               |                | public safety.  | reduction of    |
|               |                |                 | hazardous fuels |
|               |                |                 | less effective. |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Protect       | Aggressive     | Appropriate     | Appropriate     |
| cultural      | initial attack | management      | management      |
| resources     | would be used  | response (the   | response (the   |
| from wildland | to protect     | full range of   | full range of   |
| fire.         | cultural       | suppression     | suppression     |
|               | resources from | strategies)     | strategies)     |
|               | wildland fire. | would be used   | would be used   |
|               | Removal of     | to protect      | to protect      |
|               | hazard trees   | cultural        | cultural        |
|               | and mowing     | resources from  | resources from  |
|               | fine fuels     | wildland fire.  | wildland fire.  |
|               | around         | Integrated      | Mechanical      |
|               | historic       | management of   | reduction of    |
|               | structures     | hazardous       | hazardous fuels |
|               | would reduce   | fuels, using    | would reduce    |
|               | both the       | prescribed fire | both the        |
|               | likelihood and | and mechanical  | likelihood and  |
|               | intensity of   | reduction of    | intensity of    |
|               | wildland fires | fuels would     | wildland fires  |
|               | near cultural  | reduce both the | near cultural   |
|               | resources.     | likelihood and  | resources.      |
|               |                | intensity of    |                 |
|               |                | wildland fires  |                 |
|               |                | near cultural   |                 |
|               |                | resources.      |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Maintain      | Removal of     | Prescribed      | Mechanical      |
| long-term     | hazard trees   | burning and     | reduction of    |
| stability and | and mowing     | mechanical      | hazardous fuels |
| diversity of  | fine fuels     | reduction of    | would protect   |
| natural       | around         | hazardous fuels | wildlands from  |
| resources.    | historic       | would protect   | exposure to     |
|               | structures     | wildlands from  | unusually       |
|               | would help     | exposure to     | intense fires   |
|               | protect        | unusually       | with fire       |
|               | wildlands from | intense fires   | effects         |
|               | exposure to    | with fire       | potentially     |
|               | unusually      | effects         | outside the     |
|               | intense fires  | potentially     | range of normal |
|               | with fire      | outside the     | variability.    |
|               | effects        | range of normal |                 |
|               | potentially    | variability.    |                 |
|               | outside the    | Prescribed fire |                 |
|               | range of       | in grasslands   |                 |
|               | normal         | would help      |                 |
|               | variability.   | maintain the    |                 |
|               |                | long-term       |                 |
|               |                | stability and   |                 |
|               |                | diversity of    |                 |
|               |                | those           |                 |
|               |                | vegetation      |                 |
|               |                | communities.    |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Discourage    | Some projects  | Some projects   | Some projects   |
| introduction  | may use        | may use         | may use         |
| and           | mechanical     | prescribed fire | mechanical      |
| proliferation | treatments of  | and mechanical  | treatments on   |
| of invasive   | invasive       | treatments on   | invasive        |
| nonnative     | nonnative      | invasive        | nonnative       |
| species.      | species which  | nonnative       | species which   |
|               | are also       | species which   | are also        |
|               | hazardous      | are also        | hazardous       |
|               | fuels.         | hazardous       | fuels. Cleaning |
|               | Cleaning of    | fuels. Cleaning | of equipment    |
|               | mechanical     | of equipment    | after the       |
|               | equipment      | after the       | treatment would |
|               | would help     | treatment would | help prevent    |
|               | prevent the    | help prevent    | the spread of   |
|               | spread of      | the spread of   | invasive        |
|               | invasive       | invasive        | nonnatives to   |
|               | nonnatives to  | nonnatives to   | other portions  |
|               | other portions | other portions  | of the park.    |
|               | of the park.   | of the park.    |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Reduce the    | Hazard trees   | Prescribed fire | Hazardous fuels |
| level of      | and mowing     | and mechanical  | would be        |
| hazardous     | fine fuels     | removal would   | reduced by      |
| fuels.        | around         | be used to      | mechanical      |
|               | historic       | reduce          | treatments.     |
|               | structures     | hazardous       |                 |
|               | would somewhat | fuels.          |                 |
|               | reduce the     |                 |                 |
|               | level of       |                 |                 |
|               | hazardous      |                 |                 |
|               | fuels.         |                 |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Smoke         | Smoke          | Prescribed fire | Smoke           |
| production    | production     | burn plan       | production      |
| would not     | would be       | prescriptions   | would be        |
| violate       | limited to     | would be        | limited to that |
| federal and   | that from      | designed to     | from unwanted   |
| State air     | unwanted       | minimize smoke  | wildland fires. |
| quality       | wildland       | production.     |                 |
| standards.    | fires.         | Smoke modeling  |                 |
|               |                | would be        |                 |
|               |                | included in     |                 |
|               |                | prescribed fire |                 |
|               |                | planning to     |                 |
|               |                | ensure smoke    |                 |
|               |                | impacts are not |                 |
|               |                | unacceptable at |                 |
|               |                | sensitive       |                 |
|               |                | receptors.      |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Avoid         | Fire           | Fire            | Fire            |
| impairment of | suppression,   | suppression and | suppression and |
| park          | removal of     | integrated      | mechanical      |
| resources and | hazard trees,  | management of   | removal of      |
| values.       | and mowing     | hazardous fuels | hazardous fuels |
|               | fine fuels     | would not       | would not       |
|               | around         | impair park     | impair park     |
|               | historic       | resources and   | resources and   |
|               | structures     | values. Use of  | values in the   |
|               | would not      | prescribed fire | immediate       |
|               | impair park    | in fire         | future.         |
|               | resources and  | dependent       |                 |
|               | values in the  | communities     |                 |
|               | immediate      | would help      |                 |
|               | future.        | maintain the    |                 |
|               |                | long-term       |                 |
|               |                | stability and   |                 |
|               |                | diversity of    |                 |
|               |                | those           |                 |
|               |                | communities.    |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

# Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives

+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ####### Issue | ####### Alt.   | ##              | ####### Alt. 3  |
|               | 1 -- No Action | ##### Alt. 2 -- | -- AMR and Non- |
|               |                |  AMR and Integr | fire Fuels Mgt. |
|               |                | ated Fuels Mgt. |                 |
+===============+================+=================+=================+
| Fire          | Continued      | The appropriate | The appropriate |
| management    | aggressive     | management      | management      |
|               | suppression of | response would  | response would  |
|               | all wildland   | be applied to   | be applied to   |
|               | fires.         | all wildland    | all wildland    |
|               |                | fires. The full | fires. The full |
|               |                | range of        | range of        |
|               |                | suppression     | suppression     |
|               |                | strategies      | strategies      |
|               |                | would be        | would be        |
|               |                | available to    | available to    |
|               |                | fire managers.  | fire managers.  |
|               |                | Prescribed fire |                 |
|               |                | would be used   |                 |
|               |                | to meet         |                 |
|               |                | specific        |                 |
|               |                | resource        |                 |
|               |                | management      |                 |
|               |                | objectives.     |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazardous     | Removal of     | Prescribed fire | Mechanical      |
| fuels         | hazard trees   | and mechanical  | removal would   |
| management    | and mowing     | treatments      | be used to      |
|               | fine fuels     | would be used   | reduce          |
|               | around         | individually or | hazardous       |
|               | historic       | in combination  | fuels.          |
|               | structures     | to reduce       |                 |
|               | would be used  | hazardous       |                 |
|               | to reduce      | fuels.          |                 |
|               | hazardous      |                 |                 |
|               | fuels.         |                 |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Maintenance   | Removal of     | Prescribed fire | Mechanical      |
| of fire       | hazard trees   | would be used   | reduction of    |
| dependent     | and mowing     | in selected     | hazardous of    |
| vegetation    | fine fuels     | locations to    | hazardous fuels |
| communities   | around         | maintain or     | would reduce    |
|               | historic       | restore fire    | the potential   |
|               | structures     | dependent       | for high        |
|               | would slightly | vegetation      | intensity fire  |
|               | reduce the     | communities.    | and attendant   |
|               | potential for  | Mechanical      | abnormal fire   |
|               | high intensity | reduction of    | effects, but    |
|               | fire and       | hazardous fuels | would otherwise |
|               | attendant      | would reduce    | not contribute  |
|               | abnormal fire  | the potential   | to maintenance  |
|               | effects, but   | for high        | of fire         |
|               | would          | intensity fire  | dependent       |
|               | otherwise not  | and attendant   | vegetation      |
|               | contribute to  | abnormal fire   | communities.    |
|               | maintenance of | effects, but    |                 |
|               | fire dependent | would otherwise |                 |
|               | vegetation     | not contribute  |                 |
|               | communities.   | to maintenance  |                 |
|               |                | of fire         |                 |
|               |                | dependent       |                 |
|               |                | vegetation      |                 |
|               |                | communities.    |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

# Table 4: Summary Comparison of Alternatives and Impacts

+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #######       | ####### Alt.   | ##              | ####### Alt. 3  |
|  Impact Topic | 1 -- No Action | ##### Alt. 2 -- | -- AMR and Non- |
|               |                |  AMR and Integr | fire Fuels Mgt. |
|               |                | ated Fuels Mgt. |                 |
+===============+================+=================+=================+
| **Firefighter | Aggressive     | Use of          | Use of          |
| and Public    | fire           | prescribed fire | mechanical      |
| Safety**      | suppression    | and mechanical  | reduction of    |
|               | poses greater  | reduction of    | hazardous fuels |
|               | risks to       | hazardous fuels | would reduce    |
|               | firefighters   | would reduce    | risks to        |
|               | than an        | risks to        | firefighter and |
|               | appropriate    | firefighter and | public safety   |
|               | management     | public safety   | from larger,    |
|               | response.      | from larger,    | more intense    |
|               | Removal of     | more intense    | wildland fires. |
|               | hazard trees   | wildland fires. | The ability to  |
|               | and mowing     | The ability to  | employ an       |
|               | fine fuels     | employ an       | appropriate     |
|               | around         | appropriate     | management      |
|               | historic       | management      | response        |
|               | structures     | response        | provides the    |
|               | would reduce   | provides the    | greatest        |
|               | risks to       | greatest        | protection of   |
|               | visitors and   | protection of   | firefighter and |
|               | employees.     | firefighter and | public safety   |
|               |                | public safety   | in suppression  |
|               |                | in suppression  | actions. The    |
|               |                | actions. The    | adverse impact, |
|               |                | adverse impact, | compared to the |
|               |                | compared to the | no-action       |
|               |                | no-action       | alternative,    |
|               |                | alternative     | would be minor  |
|               |                | would be minor  | in the          |
|               |                | in the          | short-term and  |
|               |                | short-term and  | of minor        |
|               |                | moderately      | benefit in the  |
|               |                | beneficial in   | long-term.      |
|               |                | the long-term.  |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Air         | With low fire  | Slightly more   | Slightly more   |
| Quality**     | occurrence and | smoke may be    | smoke may be    |
|               | small fire     | produced with   | produced with   |
|               | size, the      | various         | various         |
|               | impact from    | suppression     | suppression     |
|               | smoke would be | strategies      | strategies      |
|               | minor,         | under the       | under the       |
|               | localized and  | appropriate     | appropriate     |
|               | temporary.     | management      | management      |
|               |                | response.       | response.       |
|               |                | Additional      |                 |
|               |                | smoke would be  |                 |
|               |                | produced from   |                 |
|               |                | prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning, but    |                 |
|               |                | given the small |                 |
|               |                | acreage         |                 |
|               |                | proposed for    |                 |
|               |                | burning, the    |                 |
|               |                | incremental     |                 |
|               |                | impact from the |                 |
|               |                | no-action       |                 |
|               |                | alternative     |                 |
|               |                | would be minor  |                 |
|               |                | for short       |                 |
|               |                | periods in the  |                 |
|               |                | immediate       |                 |
|               |                | project area.   |                 |
|               |                | Prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning would   |                 |
|               |                | comply with     |                 |
|               |                | Wyoming         |                 |
|               |                | Department of   |                 |
|               |                | Environmental   |                 |
|               |                | Quality smoke   |                 |
|               |                | regulations.    |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Geology and | Some soil      | Under the       | Under the       |
| Soils**       | disturbance    | appropriate     | appropriate     |
|               | would occur in | management      | management      |
|               | fire           | response, soil  | response, soil  |
|               | suppression    | disturbance     | disturbance     |
|               | activities     | would be the    | would be the    |
|               | such as        | same or less    | same or less    |
|               | fireline       | than with       | than with       |
|               | construction.  | aggressive      | aggressive      |
|               | Impacts would  | suppression.    | suppression.    |
|               | be short-term  | Minor soil      | Minor soil      |
|               | and minor.     | disturbance     | disturbance     |
|               |                | would occur     | would occur     |
|               |                | during fuels    | during fuels    |
|               |                | management      | management      |
|               |                | activities.     | activities.     |
|               |                | Impacts would   | Impacts would   |
|               |                | be temporary    | be short-term   |
|               |                | and minor in    | and minor.      |
|               |                | the short run.  |                 |
|               |                | In the long     |                 |
|               |                | run, hazard     |                 |
|               |                | fuels reduction |                 |
|               |                | and prescribed  |                 |
|               |                | burning for     |                 |
|               |                | grassland       |                 |
|               |                | maintenance     |                 |
|               |                | would be a      |                 |
|               |                | minor to        |                 |
|               |                | moderate        |                 |
|               |                | benefit by      |                 |
|               |                | reducing soil   |                 |
|               |                | disturbance     |                 |
|               |                | associated with |                 |
|               |                | unwanted fires. |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| *             | # Th           | Compared to the | Incrementally   |
| *Vegetation** | e magnitude of | no-action       | larger areas    |
|               |  current wildl | alternative,    | (cannot be      |
|               | and fires and  | the proposed    | quantified in   |
|               | hazard tree re | action would    | advance) may    |
|               | moval is so sm | affect fewer    | burn under the  |
|               | all that the i | than 200 acres  | appropriate     |
|               | mpact to veget | with prescribed | management      |
|               | ation is minor | burning and up  | strategy than   |
|               |  from a park c | to 100 acres of | with aggressive |
|               | ontext. Given  | mechanical fuel | suppression.    |
|               | the typical fi | reduction       | Mechanical      |
|               | re behavior, f | during a        | treatment       |
|               | ire effects ar | typical 5-year  | acreage would   |
|               | e localized an | period.         | be similar to   |
|               | d short-term.  | Incrementally   | Alternative 2.  |
|               | Impacts would  | larger areas    | The impacts,    |
|               | therefore be m | (cannot be      | incrementally   |
|               | inor. Exclusio | quantified in   | from the        |
|               | n of fire from | advance) may    | no-action       |
|               |  fire dependen | burn under the  | alternative,    |
|               | t communities  | appropriate     | are minor.      |
|               | may eventually | management      |                 |
|               |  result in min | strategy than   |                 |
|               | or to moderate | with aggressive |                 |
|               |  adverse effec | suppression. In |                 |
|               | ts with conver | the context of  |                 |
|               | sion of those  | the park's      |                 |
|               | communities to | size, the       |                 |
|               |  less desirabl | impact, though  |                 |
|               | e communities. | beneficial in   |                 |
|               |                | fire dependent  |                 |
|               |                | communities,    |                 |
|               |                | would be minor. |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Floodplains | Minor adverse  | The appropriate | The appropriate |
| or Wetlands** | impacts could  | management      | management      |
|               | result from    | response would  | response would  |
|               | fire           | facilitate      | facilitate      |
|               | suppression    | avoidance of    | avoidance of    |
|               | activities.    | floodplains or  | floodplains or  |
|               | Hazardous tree | wetlands in     | wetlands in     |
|               | removal        | suppression     | suppression     |
|               | activities     | operations.     | operations.     |
|               | would have     | Compared to the | Compared to the |
|               | short-term     | no-action       | no-action       |
|               | minor adverse  | alternative,    | alternative,    |
|               | to minor       | this would be a | this would be a |
|               | beneficial     | minor           | minor           |
|               | impacts.       | beneficial      | beneficial      |
|               |                | impact.         | impact.         |
|               |                | Hazardous fuels | Hazardous fuels |
|               |                | reduction       | reduction       |
|               |                | activities      | activities      |
|               |                | would have      | would have      |
|               |                | short-term      | minor adverse   |
|               |                | minor adverse   | and minor       |
|               |                | and minor       | beneficial      |
|               |                | beneficial      | impacts.        |
|               |                | impacts.        |                 |
|               |                | Prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning would   |                 |
|               |                | avoid sensitive |                 |
|               |                | floodplains or  |                 |
|               |                | wetlands and    |                 |
|               |                | therefore have  |                 |
|               |                | no effect.      |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Wildlife**  | Impacts of     | Compared to the | The impacts of  |
|               | fire exclusion | no-action       | Alternative 3   |
|               | under the      | alternative,    | on wildlife and |
|               | no-action      | the impacts of  | wildlife        |
|               | alternative    | this            | habitat, with   |
|               | would be       | alternative     | fuels reduction |
|               | slightly       | would have      | projects but no |
|               | adverse for    | minor           | prescribed      |
|               | wildlife and   | beneficial      | burning, would  |
|               | wildlife       | effects as the  | be minor.       |
|               | habitats since | stability and   |                 |
|               | only minimal   | diversity of    |                 |
|               | acres of       | grassland       |                 |
|               | grasslands     | communities are |                 |
|               | would be       | increased       |                 |
|               | revitalized by | through         |                 |
|               | fire.          | prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning and     |                 |
|               |                | mechanical fuel |                 |
|               |                | modifications.  |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Species of  | Given the low  | The impacts of  | Incrementally   |
| Special       | fire           | fire            | more acres      |
| Concern**     | occurrence and | suppression     | (cannot be      |
|               | small fire     | activities      | quantified in   |
|               | size, impacts  | would be less   | advance) may    |
|               | of the         | than the        | burn under the  |
|               | no-action      | no-action       | appropriate     |
|               | alternative on | alternative.    | management      |
|               | listed and     | Prescribed      | strategy than   |
|               | sensitive      | burning and     | with aggressive |
|               | species would  | mechanical fuel | suppression.    |
|               | be negligible. | reduction       | Mechanical      |
|               | Similarly the  | projects would  | treatment       |
|               | limited nature | be scheduled to | acreage would   |
|               | of hazard tree | avoid sensitive | be similar to   |
|               | removal        | time periods    | Alternative 2.  |
|               | projects would | for listed and  | The impacts,    |
|               | result in      | sensitive       | incrementally   |
|               | negligible     | species. The    | from the        |
|               | impacts on     | effects of      | no-action       |
|               | listed and     | prescribed      | alternative,    |
|               | sensitive      | burning would   | are negligible. |
|               | species.       | range from      | Therefore there |
|               | Therefore      | negligible for  | would be "no    |
|               | there would be | some listed     | effect" on      |
|               | "no effect" on | species to      | listed species. |
|               | listed         | slightly        |                 |
|               | species.       | beneficial for  |                 |
|               |                | other listed    |                 |
|               |                | species.        |                 |
|               |                | Therefore there |                 |
|               |                | would be "no    |                 |
|               |                | effect" on      |                 |
|               |                | listed species. |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Visitor     | Any adverse    | This            | This            |
| Experience,   | impacts of the | alternative     | alternative     |
| Aesthetic     | no-action      | would result in | would result in |
| Resources**   | alternative    | fewer than 200  | slightly more   |
|               | would be       | additional      | acres burned    |
|               | short-term and | acres burned    | than under the  |
|               | minor.         | during a        | no-action       |
|               |                | typical 5-year  | alternative.    |
|               |                | period than     | Visitors may    |
|               |                | under the       | regard burned   |
|               |                | no-action       | areas as either |
|               |                | alternative or  | pleasing or     |
|               |                | Alternative 3.  | displeasing.    |
|               |                | Displacement of | Mechanical fuel |
|               |                | visitor         | reductions      |
|               |                | activities by   | would be        |
|               |                | prescribed      | conducted       |
|               |                | burning, if it  | during periods  |
|               |                | occurs at all,  | of low          |
|               |                | would be only   | visitation or   |
|               |                | for a period of | in areas of     |
|               |                | a few hours     | limited visitor |
|               |                | each year.      | use and managed |
|               |                | Visitors may    | to minimize     |
|               |                | regard burned   | visual impact.  |
|               |                | areas as either | Impacts would   |
|               |                | pleasing or     | be short-term,  |
|               |                | displeasing.    | localized, and  |
|               |                | Mechanical fuel | minor.          |
|               |                | reductions      |                 |
|               |                | would be        |                 |
|               |                | conducted       |                 |
|               |                | during period   |                 |
|               |                | of low          |                 |
|               |                | visitation or   |                 |
|               |                | in areas of     |                 |
|               |                | limited visitor |                 |
|               |                | use and managed |                 |
|               |                | to minimize     |                 |
|               |                | visual impact.  |                 |
|               |                | Impacts would   |                 |
|               |                | therefore be    |                 |
|               |                | localized,      |                 |
|               |                | short-term, and |                 |
|               |                | minor.          |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Cultural    | Aggressive     | Use of an       | Use of an       |
| Resources**   | suppression of | appropriate     | appropriate     |
|               | wildland fires | management      | management      |
|               | and mowing of  | response in     | response in     |
|               | vegetation     | suppression of  | suppression of  |
|               | near historic  | wildland fires  | wildland fires  |
|               | structures     | would reduce    | would reduce    |
|               | would nearly   | ground          | ground          |
|               | eliminate the  | disturbance and | disturbance and |
|               | exposure of    | potential to    | potential to    |
|               | those          | impact buried   | impact buried   |
|               | structures to  | or unknown      | or unknown      |
|               | wildland fire. | cultural        | cultural        |
|               | Although       | resources.      | resources.      |
|               | fireline       | Suppression of  | Suppression of  |
|               | construction   | wildland fires  | wildland fires  |
|               | has the        | and mowing of   | and mowing of   |
|               | potential to   | vegetation near | vegetation near |
|               | disturb        | historic        | historic        |
|               | unknown        | structures      | structures      |
|               | archeological  | would nearly    | would nearly    |
|               | resources,     | eliminate the   | eliminate the   |
|               | potential      | exposure of     | exposure of     |
|               | impacts on     | those           | those           |
|               | cultural       | structures to   | structures to   |
|               | resources are  | wildland fire.  | wildland fire.  |
|               | regarded as    | When prescribed | Mechanical      |
|               | unlikely       | fires are       | fuels reduction |
|               | because fire   | proposed near   | projects would  |
|               | occurrence and | historic        | avoid known     |
|               | size are so    | structures a    | cultural        |
|               | low. Where     | suite of        | resources.      |
|               | suppression    | mitigation      | Direct impacts  |
|               | activities     | measures would  | of Alternative  |
|               | might          | be utilized to  | 3 on cultural   |
|               | encounter      | protect         | resources are   |
|               | unknown        | cultural        | regarded as     |
|               | archeological  | resources.      | negligible for  |
|               | sites, the     | Mechanical      | historic        |
|               | adverse impact | fuels reduction | structures; and |
|               | would be       | projects would  | beneficial,     |
|               | minor.         | avoid known     | minor to        |
|               |                | cultural        | moderate for    |
|               |                | resources. Most | cultural        |
|               |                | if not all      | landscapes.     |
|               |                | pre-European    |                 |
|               |                | archeological   |                 |
|               |                | sites have      |                 |
|               |                | probably        |                 |
|               |                | experienced     |                 |
|               |                | multiple fires. |                 |
|               |                | Prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning then    |                 |
|               |                | would have      |                 |
|               |                | negligible      |                 |
|               |                | impacts on      |                 |
|               |                | these sites.    |                 |
|               |                | Prescribed      |                 |
|               |                | burning to      |                 |
|               |                | maintain or     |                 |
|               |                | restore fire    |                 |
|               |                | dependent       |                 |
|               |                | vegetation      |                 |
|               |                | communities may |                 |
|               |                | have minor to   |                 |
|               |                | moderate        |                 |
|               |                | beneficial      |                 |
|               |                | impacts to      |                 |
|               |                | cultural        |                 |
|               |                | landscapes.     |                 |
|               |                | Direct impacts  |                 |
|               |                | of the proposed |                 |
|               |                | action on       |                 |
|               |                | cultural        |                 |
|               |                | resources are   |                 |
|               |                | regarded as     |                 |
|               |                | negligible to   |                 |
|               |                | minor.          |                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

# Chapter 3 -- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Park management, with input from the public, identified cultural and
natural resources that may be impacted by this project. Impact topics
are resources protected by law, regulation, and policy that may be
beneficially or adversely affected by an alternative.

## 

## **Methodology for Assessing Impacts**

Applicable and available information on known natural and cultural
resources was compiled. Alternatives were evaluated for their effects on
the resources and values determined during the scoping process. The
impact analyses were based on professional judgment using information
provided by park staff, relevant references and technical literature
citations, and subject matter experts. For each impact topic, the
analysis includes a brief description of the affected environment and an
evaluation of effects. Potential impacts are described in terms of type
(are the effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the effects
site-specific, local, or even regional?), duration (are the effects
short-term or long-term?), and intensity (are the effects negligible,
minor, moderate, or major, or would the effects constitute impairment of
the Fort Laramie NHS' resources and values?). Because definitions of
intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or major) vary by impact topic,
intensity definitions are provided separately for each impact topic
analyzed in this environmental assessment/assessment of effect.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are discussed in each impact
topic. Predictions about direct and indirect effects are based on
previous studies, monitoring information, wildland fire effects that
have occurred in Fort Laramie National Historic Site or similar
vegetation communities, and the expertise and judgment of resource
management specialists.

When appropriate, we have also tried to identify mitigation measures
that may be employed to offset or minimize potential adverse impacts.

Definitions of intensity levels varied by impact topic, but, for all
impact topics, the following definitions were applied.

*Beneficial:* A positive change in the condition or appearance of the
resource or a change that moves the resource toward a desired condition.

*Adverse:* A change that moves the resource away from a desired
condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.

*Direct:* An effect that is caused by an action and occurs in the same
time and place.

*Indirect:* An effect that is caused by an action but is later in time
or farther removed in distance, but is still reasonably foreseeable.

*Short-term:* An effect that within a short period of would no longer be
detectable as the resource is returned to its predisturbance condition
or appearance. Short-term impacts, depending on impact topic, may range
from a few hours up to five years (see table below).

Long-term: A change in a resource or its condition that does not return
the resource to predisturbance condition or appearance, and for all
practical purposes is considered permanent.

**Intensity of Effects Defined**

The following table defines impact thresholds, by impact topic, for each
level of intensity included in this assessment.

**Table 5. Impact Threshold Definitions**

+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| ***Impact  | ***Negl   | **        | ***Mo     | ***      | ***D    |
| Topic***   | igible*** | *Minor*** | derate*** | Major*** | uration |
|            |           |           |           |          | of      |
|            |           |           |           |          | Im      |
|            |           |           |           |          | pact*** |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **F        | An action | An action | An action | An       | Sho     |
| irefighter | that      | that      | that      | action   | rt-term |
| and Public | could     | could     | would     | that     | would   |
| Safety**   | cause a   | cause a   | cause     | would    | refer   |
|            | change in | change in | change to | cause a  | to the  |
|            | level of  | risk      | levels of | severe   | d       |
|            | risk to   | level,    | risk;     | change   | uration |
|            | human     | but the   | however,  | or       | of a    |
|            | safety,   | change    | m         | exc      | fire    |
|            | but the   | would be  | itigation | eptional | man     |
|            | change    | small and | to offset | benefit  | agement |
|            | would be  | have a    | adverse   | to human | in      |
|            | so small  | localized | effects   | safety   | cident. |
|            | that it   | effect.   | would     | related  | Lo      |
|            | would not | M         | generally | values.  | ng-term |
|            | be of any | itigation | be of     | The      | refers  |
|            | m         | would be  | moderate  | change   | to      |
|            | easurable | a         | c         | would    | d       |
|            | or        | standard  | omplexity | have a   | uration |
|            | pe        | procedure | and would | sub      | ex      |
|            | rceptible | and       | be        | stantial | tending |
|            | effect.   | highly    | e         | and      | beyond  |
|            |           | effective | ffective. | possible | the     |
|            |           | in        |           | p        | s       |
|            |           | m         |           | ermanent | pecific |
|            |           | inimizing |           | effect,  | in      |
|            |           | risk.     |           | and      | cident. |
|            |           |           |           | mi       |         |
|            |           |           |           | tigation |         |
|            |           |           |           | to       |         |
|            |           |           |           | offset   |         |
|            |           |           |           | adverse  |         |
|            |           |           |           | effects  |         |
|            |           |           |           | is not   |         |
|            |           |           |           | assured. |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Geology  | Impacts   | Changes   | Changes   | Impacts  | Sho     |
| and        | to soils  | to        | to        | to soils | rt-term |
| Soils**    | would not | character | character | char­act  | refers  |
|            | be        | of soils  | of soils  | eristics | to      |
|            | m         | is        | readily   | severe   | du      |
|            | easurable | d         | apparent  | or of    | rations |
|            | or of any | etectable | and of    | exc      | of less |
|            | pe        | but       | con       | eptional | than 5  |
|            | rceptible | small,    | sequence. | benefit  | years.  |
|            | con       | local­ized | Changes   | over a   | Lo      |
|            | sequence. | and of    | would be  | wide     | ng-term |
|            |           | little    | evident   | area.    | refers  |
|            |           | con       | over      | Mi       | to      |
|            |           | sequence. | large     | ti­gation | du      |
|            |           | Any       | portion   | to       | rations |
|            |           | m         | of        | offset   | in      |
|            |           | itigation | monument  | adverse  | excess  |
|            |           | needed to | area.     | effects  | of 5    |
|            |           | offset    | M         | would be | years.  |
|            |           | ad­verse   | itigation | needed,  |         |
|            |           | effects   | measures  | but its  |         |
|            |           | would be  | to offset | success  |         |
|            |           | standard, | adverse   | not      |         |
|            |           | unco      | effects   | assured. |         |
|            |           | mplicated | would     |          |         |
|            |           | and       | probably  |          |         |
|            |           | e         | be        |          |         |
|            |           | ffective. | necessary |          |         |
|            |           |           | and       |          |         |
|            |           |           | likely    |          |         |
|            |           |           | su        |          |         |
|            |           |           | ccessful. |          |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Air      | Impact    | Impact    | Changes   | Changes  | Sho     |
| Quality**  | barely    | m         | in air    | in air   | rt-term |
|            | d         | easurable | quality   | quality  | would   |
|            | etect­able | but       | would     | would    | refer   |
|            | and not   | local­ized | have      | have     | to      |
|            | me        | and of    | con       | sub      | hours   |
|            | as­urable; | little    | se­quences | stantial | or      |
|            | if        | con       | to        | cons     | days;   |
|            | detected, | sequence. | sensitive | e­quences | i.e.    |
|            | would not | No        | r         | to       | the     |
|            | be of any | m         | eceptors, | s        | d       |
|            | pe        | itigation | but       | ensitive | uration |
|            | rceptible | measures  | effects   | re       | of the  |
|            | con       | would be  | would     | ceptors. | fire    |
|            | sequence. | n         | remain    | Mi       | man     |
|            |           | ecessary. | local.    | tigation | agement |
|            |           |           | M         | measures | in      |
|            |           |           | itigation | n        | cident. |
|            |           |           | measures  | ecessary | Lo      |
|            |           |           | necessary | and      | ng-term |
|            |           |           | and       | success  | would   |
|            |           |           | likely    | of       | refer   |
|            |           |           | e         | meas­ures | to that |
|            |           |           | ffective. | not      | substa  |
|            |           |           |           | assured. | ntially |
|            |           |           |           |          | beyond  |
|            |           |           |           |          | the     |
|            |           |           |           |          | d       |
|            |           |           |           |          | uration |
|            |           |           |           |          | of the  |
|            |           |           |           |          | i       |
|            |           |           |           |          | ncident |
|            |           |           |           |          | or      |
|            |           |           |           |          | action. |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **F        | Impacts   | Changes   | Changes   | Changes  | Sho     |
| loodplains | would be  | to        | to        | to       | rt-term |
| or         | so small  | f         | f         | fl       | refers  |
| Wetlands** | that they | loodplain | loodplain | oodplain | to a    |
|            | would not | or        | or        | or       | period  |
|            | be of     | wetland   | wetland   | wetland  | of 1-3  |
|            | m         | function  | function  | function | years.  |
|            | easurable | would be  | would be  | would be | Lo      |
|            | to        | small,    | of        | no       | ng-term |
|            | pe        | localized | con       | ticeable | refers  |
|            | rceptible | and of    | sequence. | and      | to a    |
|            | con       | little    | M         | result   | period  |
|            | sequence. | con       | itigation | in       | of      |
|            | No        | sequence. | to offset | severely | longer  |
|            | su        | Any       | adverse   | adverse  | than 3  |
|            | bstantial | adverse   | effects   | or       | years.  |
|            | change to | effects   | extensive | be       |         |
|            | f         | to        | but       | neficial |         |
|            | loodplain | function  | likely    | impacts. |         |
|            | or        | can be    | su        | Loss of  |         |
|            | wetland   | ef        | ccessful. | ec       |         |
|            | function. | fectively |           | ological |         |
|            |           | m         |           | function |         |
|            |           | itigated. |           | may be   |         |
|            |           |           |           | pe       |         |
|            |           |           |           | rmanent. |         |
|            |           |           |           | Mi       |         |
|            |           |           |           | tigation |         |
|            |           |           |           | to       |         |
|            |           |           |           | offset   |         |
|            |           |           |           | adverse  |         |
|            |           |           |           | effects  |         |
|            |           |           |           | is       |         |
|            |           |           |           | required |         |
|            |           |           |           | and      |         |
|            |           |           |           | ex       |         |
|            |           |           |           | tensive, |         |
|            |           |           |           | and      |         |
|            |           |           |           | success  |         |
|            |           |           |           | not      |         |
|            |           |           |           | assured. |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Ve       | The       | Changes   | A large   | Severely | Sho     |
| getation** | change in | in        | segment   | adverse, | rt-term |
|            | native    | po        | of one or | and      | refers  |
|            | v         | pulations | more      | possibly | to a    |
|            | egetation | of native | species   | p        | period  |
|            | co        | v         | po        | ermanent | of 1-3  |
|            | mmunities | egetation | pulations | effects  | years.  |
|            | would be  | would be  | would     | to       | Lo      |
|            | so small  | small,    | exhibit   | native   | ng-term |
|            | that it   | l         | effects   | plant    | refers  |
|            | would not | ocalized, | that are  | comm     | to a    |
|            | be of any | and of    | of        | unities. | period  |
|            | m         | little    | con       | Response | of      |
|            | easurable | con       | sequence, | to fire  | longer  |
|            | or        | sequence. | but would | and/or   | than 3  |
|            | pe        | Response  | be        | other    | years.  |
|            | rceptible | to fire   | r         | tr       |         |
|            | con       | and/or    | elatively | eatments |         |
|            | sequence. | other     | l         | would be |         |
|            |           | t         | ocalized. | outside  |         |
|            |           | reatments | Response  | the      |         |
|            |           | would be  | to fire   | normal   |         |
|            |           | within    | and/or    | range of |         |
|            |           | the range | other     | expected |         |
|            |           | of normal | t         | fire     |         |
|            |           | fire      | reatments | effects. |         |
|            |           | effects.  | would be  | Mi       |         |
|            |           | Any       | within    | tigation |         |
|            |           | adverse   | the       | to       |         |
|            |           | effects   | normal    | offset   |         |
|            |           | can be    | expected  | adverse  |         |
|            |           | ef        | range of  | effects  |         |
|            |           | fectively | normal    | would be |         |
|            |           | m         | fire      | required |         |
|            |           | itigated. | effects.  | and      |         |
|            |           |           | M         | ex       |         |
|            |           |           | itigation | tensive, |         |
|            |           |           | could be  | and      |         |
|            |           |           | e         | success  |         |
|            |           |           | xtensive, | not      |         |
|            |           |           | but       | assured. |         |
|            |           |           | likely    |          |         |
|            |           |           | e         |          |         |
|            |           |           | ffective. |          |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Wildlife | The       | Changes   | Changes   | Severely | Sho     |
| and        | change in | in        | in        | adverse  | rt-term |
| Wildlife   | wildlife  | wildlife  | wildlife  | and      | refers  |
| Habitat**  | po        | po        | po        | possibly | to a    |
|            | pulations | pulations | pulations | p        | period  |
|            | and/or    | or        | or        | ermanent | of 1-3  |
|            | habitats  | habitats  | habitats  | effects  | years.  |
|            | would be  | would be  | would be  | to       | Lo      |
|            | so small  | small,    | of        | native   | ng-term |
|            | that it   | l         | con       | wildlife | refers  |
|            | would not | ocalized, | sequence, | pop      | to a    |
|            | be of any | and of    | but would | ulations | period  |
|            | m         | little    | be        | or       | of      |
|            | easurable | con       | r         | h        | longer  |
|            | or        | sequence. | elatively | abitats. | than 3  |
|            | pe        | Response  | l         | Response | years.  |
|            | rceptible | to fire   | ocalized. | to fire  |         |
|            | con       | and/or    | Response  | and/or   |         |
|            | sequence. | other     | to fire   | other    |         |
|            |           | t         | and/or    | tr       |         |
|            |           | reatments | other     | eatments |         |
|            |           | would be  | t         | would be |         |
|            |           | within    | reatments | outside  |         |
|            |           | the range | would be  | the      |         |
|            |           | of normal | within    | normal   |         |
|            |           | fire      | the       | range of |         |
|            |           | effects.  | normal    | expected |         |
|            |           | Any       | expected  | fire     |         |
|            |           | adverse   | range of  | effects. |         |
|            |           | effects   | normal    | Mi       |         |
|            |           | can be    | fire      | tigation |         |
|            |           | ef        | effects.  | to       |         |
|            |           | fectively | M         | offset   |         |
|            |           | m         | itigation | adverse  |         |
|            |           | itigated. | to offset | effects  |         |
|            |           |           | adverse   | would be |         |
|            |           |           | effects   | required |         |
|            |           |           | to native | and      |         |
|            |           |           | species   | ex       |         |
|            |           |           | extensive | tensive, |         |
|            |           |           | but       | and      |         |
|            |           |           | likely    | success  |         |
|            |           |           | su        | not      |         |
|            |           |           | ccessful. | assured. |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Species  | Listed    | There     | A         | No       | Sho     |
| of Special | species   | would be  | n         | ticeable | rt-term |
| Concern**  | would not | a         | oticeable | effect   | refers  |
|            | be        | m         | effect to | with     | to a    |
|            | affected  | easurable | a         | severe   | period  |
|            | or the    | effect on | p         | cons     | of 1-3  |
|            | change    | one or    | opulation | equences | years.  |
|            | would be  | more      | of a      | or       | Lo      |
|            | so small  | listed    | listed    | exc      | ng-term |
|            | as to not | species   | species.  | eptional | refers  |
|            | be of any | or their  | The       | benefit  | to a    |
|            | m         | habitats, | effect    | to       | period  |
|            | easurable | but the   | would be  | pop      | of      |
|            | or        | change    | of        | ulations | longer  |
|            | pe        | would be  | co        | or       | than 3  |
|            | rceptible | small and | nsequence | habitats | years.  |
|            | co        | r         | to        | of       |         |
|            | nsequence | elatively | po        | listed   |         |
|            | to the    | l         | pulations | species. |         |
|            | po        | ocalized. | or        |          |         |
|            | pulation. |           | habitats. |          |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Visitor  | An action | An action | An action | An       | Sho     |
| E          | that      | that      | that      | action   | rt-term |
| xperience; | could     | would     | would     | that     | refers  |
| Aesthetic  | cause a   | affect    | cause a   | would    | to      |
| R          | change in | some      | su        | cause a  | d       |
| esources** | visitors' | visitors  | bstantial | severe   | uration |
|            | a         | and cause | m         | change   | of days |
|            | ctivities | a change  | easurable | or       | to a    |
|            | and/or    | in        | change in | exc      | few     |
|            | aesthetic | visitors' | a         | eptional | months. |
|            | resource  | a         | ctivities | benefit  | Lo      |
|            | values,   | ctivities | available | to the   | ng-term |
|            | but the   | or        | to many   | ac       | refers  |
|            | change    | aesthetic | park      | tivities | to      |
|            | would be  | r         | visitors. | of most  | d       |
|            | so small  | esources, | M         | park     | uration |
|            | that it   | but the   | itigation | v        | in      |
|            | would not | change    | to offset | isitors. | excess  |
|            | be of any | would be  | adverse   | The      | of a    |
|            | m         | small and | effects   | change   | year.   |
|            | easurable | l         | would be  | would    |         |
|            | or        | ocalized. | necessary | have     |         |
|            | pe        | M         | and       | sub      |         |
|            | rceptible | itigation | e         | stantial |         |
|            | effect.   | would not | ffective. | and      |         |
|            | Few       | be        | Aesthetic | possibly |         |
|            | visitors  | n         | resources | p        |         |
|            | would be  | ecessary. | would not | ermanent |         |
|            | affected. |           | be        | effect   |         |
|            |           |           | subs      | on       |         |
|            |           |           | tantially | visitor  |         |
|            |           |           | degraded. | use.     |         |
|            |           |           |           | A        |         |
|            |           |           |           | esthetic |         |
|            |           |           |           | r        |         |
|            |           |           |           | esources |         |
|            |           |           |           | would be |         |
|            |           |           |           | subst    |         |
|            |           |           |           | antially |         |
|            |           |           |           | d        |         |
|            |           |           |           | egraded. |         |
|            |           |           |           | Mi       |         |
|            |           |           |           | tigation |         |
|            |           |           |           | to       |         |
|            |           |           |           | offset   |         |
|            |           |           |           | adverse  |         |
|            |           |           |           | effects  |         |
|            |           |           |           | would be |         |
|            |           |           |           | needed   |         |
|            |           |           |           | with     |         |
|            |           |           |           | success  |         |
|            |           |           |           | not      |         |
|            |           |           |           | assured. |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+
| **Cultural | Impacts   | The       | The       | The      | Sho     |
| R          | to        | impact    | impact    | impact   | rt-term |
| esources** | arch      | affects   | affects   | affects  | refers  |
|            | eological | an        | an        | an       | to a    |
|            | r         | archa     | archa     | archae   | tra     |
|            | esources, | eological | eological | ological | nsitory |
|            | historic  | or        | or        | or       | effect; |
|            | p         | historic  | historic  | historic | one     |
|            | roperties | site or   | site or   | site or  | which   |
|            | (National | feature   | cultural  | cultural | largely |
|            | Register  | or        | landscape | l        | dis     |
|            | of        | cultural  | with      | andscape | appears |
|            | Historic  | landscape | modest    | with     | over a  |
|            | Places    | with      | data      | high     | period  |
|            | eligible  | little    | p         | data     | of days |
|            | or listed | data      | otential. | po       | or      |
|            | structure | p         | The       | tential. | months. |
|            | or        | otential. | historic  | The      | The     |
|            | b         | The       | context   | historic | d       |
|            | uilding), | historic  | of the    | context  | uration |
|            | natural   | context   | affected  | of the   | of      |
|            | or        | of the    | site(s)   | affected | lo      |
|            | physical  | affected  | would be  | site(s)  | ng-term |
|            | eth       | site(s)   | State.    | would be | effects |
|            | nographic | would be  | For a     | n        | is      |
|            | resource, | local.    | National  | ational. | esse    |
|            | or        | The       | Register  | For a    | ntially |
|            | cultural  | impact    | eligible  | National | per     |
|            | la        | would not | site, the | Register | manent. |
|            | ndscapes, | affect    | adverse   | eligible |         |
|            | either    | the       | impact    | or       |         |
|            | b         | con       | would     | listed   |         |
|            | eneficial | tributing | affect    | site,    |         |
|            | or        | elements  | the       | the      |         |
|            | adverse,  | of a      | con       | impact   |         |
|            | which are | listed    | tributing | would    |         |
|            | at the    | structure | elements  | affect   |         |
|            | lowest    | eligible  | of the    | the      |         |
|            | levels of | for the   | site but  | cont     |         |
|            | d         | National  | would not | ributing |         |
|            | etection, | Register  | diminish  | elements |         |
|            | barely    | of        | the       | of the   |         |
|            | pe        | Historic  | integrity | site by  |         |
|            | rceptible | Places.   | of the    | dim      |         |
|            | and not   | Also, an  | resource  | inishing |         |
|            | me        | action    | and       | the      |         |
|            | asurable. | that      | j         | i        |         |
|            | For       | could     | eopardize | ntegrity |         |
|            | purposes  | affect a  | its       | to the   |         |
|            | of        | natural   | National  | extent   |         |
|            | Section   | or        | Register  | that it  |         |
|            | 106, the  | physical  | eli       | is no    |         |
|            | dete      | eth       | gibility. | longer   |         |
|            | rmination | nographic |           | eligible |         |
|            | of effect | resource, | Also, an  | for      |         |
|            | would be  | but the   | action    | listing  |         |
|            | *no       | effect    | that      | on the   |         |
|            | adverse   | would be  | would     | National |         |
|            | effect*.  | small,    | cause     | R        |         |
|            |           | and, if   | some      | egister. |         |
|            |           | me        | effect to | Also, an |         |
|            |           | asurable, | a natural | action   |         |
|            |           | it would  | or        | that     |         |
|            |           | be small  | physical  | would    |         |
|            |           | and       | eth       | cause a  |         |
|            |           | l         | nographic | no       |         |
|            |           | ocalized. | resource. | ticeable |         |
|            |           | For       | The       | to       |         |
|            |           | purposes  | effect    | severe   |         |
|            |           | of        | would be  | effect   |         |
|            |           | Section   | n         | or       |         |
|            |           | 106, the  | oticeable | exc      |         |
|            |           | dete      | but       | eptional |         |
|            |           | rmination | l         | benefit  |         |
|            |           | of effect | ocalized. | to a     |         |
|            |           | would be  | For       | natural  |         |
|            |           | *adverse  | purposes  | or       |         |
|            |           | effect*.  | of        | physical |         |
|            |           |           | Section   | ethn     |         |
|            |           |           | 106, the  | ographic |         |
|            |           |           | dete      | r        |         |
|            |           |           | rmination | esource. |         |
|            |           |           | of effect | The      |         |
|            |           |           | would be  | effect   |         |
|            |           |           | *adverse  | would be |         |
|            |           |           | effect*.  | sub      |         |
|            |           |           |           | ­stantial |         |
|            |           |           |           | and      |         |
|            |           |           |           | possibly |         |
|            |           |           |           | pe       |         |
|            |           |           |           | rmanent. |         |
|            |           |           |           | For      |         |
|            |           |           |           | purposes |         |
|            |           |           |           | of       |         |
|            |           |           |           | Section  |         |
|            |           |           |           | 106, the |         |
|            |           |           |           | deter    |         |
|            |           |           |           | mination |         |
|            |           |           |           | of       |         |
|            |           |           |           | effect   |         |
|            |           |           |           | would be |         |
|            |           |           |           | *adverse |         |
|            |           |           |           | effect*. |         |
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+

**Cumulative Effects Methodology**

From CEQ regulations (1508.7), a "cumulative effect" is the effect on
the environment that results from the incremental effect of the
action(s) when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or
person undertakes such action.

Cumulative impacts are determined by combining the impacts of each
alternative with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Therefore, it is necessary to identify other ongoing or
reasonably foreseeable future projects on NPS lands of Fort Laramie
National Historic Site and, if applicable, the surrounding area.

**Other Ongoing and Proposed Projects in the Area**

Fort Laramie NHS is currently conducting an environmental assessment on
the development of a new visitors\' center. The environmental assessment
will be released in the summer of 2003. The document will examine the
no-action alternative and five action alternatives. Three of the action
alternatives propose new construction within the park boundaries; one
proposes new construction in the Town of Fort Laramie; and two propose
expanded adaptive use of historic buildings.

As called for in the 1993 Record of Decision for the General Management
Plan, Fort Laramie NHS is seeking line item construction funding to move
the maintenance facility from its current location in the historic
district to the other side of the Laramie River in the vicinity of the
park\'s \"bone yard\" or storage area. Currently, Fort Laramie NHS
understands that funding may be available as early as 2007 or as late as
2010.

Fort Laramie NHS is engaged in a grassland restoration program to more
appropriately represent the historic scene. Part of this effort includes
"brush-hogging" (i.e. motorized chopping) in natural areas to favor
native species. Another part of the effort may include chemical
treatment of invasive nonnative species (primarily thistle and Russian
olive). Separate NEPA analysis will be completed for these chemical
treatments.

Fort Laramie NHS has historically provided winter pasture (6-7 months
per year) for 25 to 30 horses from Rocky Mountain National Park. Forage
availability limits the number of horses pastured to no more than 32
animals. Though this activity is not necessarily intended as a
vegetation management program, it does affect fine fuels and thus
potentially influences the fire management program.

**Compliance with Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act**

In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800,
*Protection of Historic Properties*), impacts to cultural resources and
the cultural landscape will be identified and evaluated by (1)
determining the area of potential effects, (2) identifying cultural
resources present in the area of potential effects that were either
listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, (3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural
resources either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National
Register, and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate
adverse effects.

CEQ regulations and the NPS's *Conservation Planning, Environmental
Impact Analysis and Decision-making* (Director's Order #12) also call
for a discussion of the appropriateness of miti­gation, as well as an
analysis of how effective the mitigation would be in reducing the
intensity of a potential impact, e.g., reducing the intensity of an
impact from major to moderate or minor. However, any resultant reduction
in intensity of impact resulting from mitigation is an estimate of the
effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA only. It does not suggest that
the level of effect as defined by Section 106 is similarly reduced.
Although adverse effects under Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect
remains adverse.

Under the Advisory Council's regulations, a determination of either
*adverse effect* or *no adverse effect* also must be made for affected
National Register-eligible cultural resources. An *adverse effect*
occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any
characteristic of a cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in
the National Register, e.g., diminishing the integrity of the resource's
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or
association. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects
caused by an alternative that would occur later in time, be farther
removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5, *Assess­ment of
Adverse Effects*). As noted earlier, although adverse effects under
Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse. A
determination of *no adverse effect* means there is an effect, but the
effect would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural
resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register.

A Section 106 summary will be included in the impact analysis section
for cultural resources. The Section 106 summary is intended to meet the
requirements of Section 106 and is an assessment of the effect of the
undertaking (implementation of the alternative) on cultural resources,
based upon the criterion of effect and criteria of adverse effect found
in the Advisory Council's regulations.

**Impairment Methodology**

National Park Service\'s *Management Policies* (2001) require analysis
of potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair
park resources. The fundamental purpose of the National Park System,
established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities
Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and
values. National Park Service managers must always seek ways to avoid,
or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adversely impacting
park resources and values. However, the laws do give the National Park
Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and
values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park,
as long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected
resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park
Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within park,
that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the
National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired,
unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise.
The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional
judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm
the integrity of park resources or values. An impact to any park
resource or value may constitute an impairment, but an impact would be
more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it has a
major or severe adverse effect upon a resource or value whose
conservation is:

-   necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
    establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;

-   key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

-   identified as a goal in the park\'s general management plan or other
    relevant NPS planning documents.

Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing
the park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners,
contractors, and others operating in the park. A determination on
impairment is made in the Environmental Consequences section by resource
topic.

**FIREFIGHTER AND PUBLIC SAFETY**

Affected Environment. There are several small communities near Fort
Laramie NHS -- the towns of Guernsey (pop. about 1300 people) and Lingle
(pop. about 500 people), and the unincorporated community of Fort
Laramie (pop. about 300 people). Guernsey and Lingle are about 10 miles
west and east, respectively, from Fort Laramie NHS. The community of
Fort Laramie is only a couple of miles from the NHS.

Thirteen individuals, partnerships, corporations, or associations own
most of the property surrounding the fort. The land is in ranching and
agricultural use. The federal government owns one piece of property
along the south boundary. It is managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. Additional information about land ownership is available
though Goshen County.

A Goshen County road crosses the park north to south near the eastern
boundary. The Fort Laramie Cemetery Association owns in fee simple part
of the right of way along the road. The association\'s ownership totals
approximately 1.3 acres.

Wildland fire management and fuels management programs have some level
of inherent risk to both firefighters and the public. Potential risks to
firefighter and public safety can be reduced or eliminated by mitigation
measures such as, but not limited to:

-   Adhering to the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders.

-   Being aware of potential Watch Out Situations.

-   Employing LCES (Lookouts, Communications, Escape Routes, Safety
    Zones; this is risk mitigation firefighters commonly use).

-   Completing risk analyses.

-   Imposing temporary closures.

-   Distributing informational fliers to park staff and visitors,
    including information on temporary closures.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Firefighters and the public are protected from
injury or undue threat from wildland fire management, prescribed burning
or fuels management projects.

*Source* -- NPS *Management Policies*, D.O. 18, RM-18.

Impacts of Alternative 1: No-Action

*Impact Analysis:* Suppression activities would continue on an average
of one or two small fires (average less than 2 acres each) in a typical
5-year period, primarily in NFFL fuel models 1 and 2. Fire behavior is
characterized by slow to rapidly moving surface fires in grasslands with
flame lengths varying from a few inches to 4 or 5 feet. Fire in wooded
riparian areas may exhibit more intense fire behavior but most fires
would be confined to surface fuels. Most fire suppression efforts, based
on recent fire history, would be confined to a few hours duration.
Hazard tree removal would employ the use of chainsaws and vehicles.

The direct effect of the no-action alternative is exposure of fire
management personnel to the hazards typically associated with wildland
fire suppression: burns, cuts and abrasions from equipment, falls, smoke
inhalation, and other injuries. Indirect effects include long-term
effects of smoke inhalation.

Direct and indirect effects to firefighters would be mitigated by
application of the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders, LCES and other risk
mitigation actions. Temporary closures would be used to reduce exposure
to park visitors and neighbors. Mechanical hazard tree removal would
employ standard safety equipment and protocols.

The communities of Guernsey, Lingle and Fort Laramie have so many
cultivated lands and other fuel discontinuities (e.g. man-made barriers
to fire such as roads) between them and Fort Laramie NHS that the
potential for an escaped wildland fire in the NHS to threaten the
communities is substantially reduced.

Overall, the direct impacts to firefighters and the public would be
localized, short-term, and minor. Indirect effects would also be
localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Firefighters, visitors and park neighbors are
exposed regularly to hazards associated with vehicle use and other work
activities. Cumulative effects of the no-action alternative include a
slightly longer duration of exposure to hazards associated with fire
suppression activities. The cumulative effects on wildland firefighter
and public safety are temporary, localized and minor.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis*: The preferred alternative would reduce risks to
wildland firefighters and visitors by allowing use of an appropriate
management response to wildland fires. This response may include
selecting control lines along natural or man-made barriers which reduces
the exposure of firefighters in unburned fuels adjacent to a fire
perimeter. Additional exposure is created by prescribed burning and
mechanical fuels reduction so the overall risks, particularly to
firefighters, are slightly elevated from the no-action alternative.

The direct effect of the no-action alternative is exposure of fire
management personnel to the hazards typically associated with wildland
fire suppression and prescribed burning: burns, cuts and abrasions from
equipment, falls, smoke inhalation and other injuries. Indirect effects
include the long-term effects of smoke inhalation.

Direct and indirect effects to firefighters would be mitigated by
application of the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders, LCES and other risk
mitigation actions. Temporary closures would be used to reduce exposure
to park visitors and neighbors. The risks associated with prescribed
burning would be further mitigated by ensuring the burns are conducted
within the approved prescription. Mechanical hazard fuel reduction
activities would employ standard safety equipment and protocols.

The communities of Guernsey, Lingle and Fort Laramie have so many
cultivated lands and other fuel discontinuities (e.g. man-made barriers
to fire such as roads) between them and Fort Laramie NHS that there is
virtually no potential for an escaped wildland fire in the NHS to
threaten the communities.

With mitigation measures in place, the direct impacts of the preferred
alternative would be short-term, localized, and minor. Indirect effects
would also be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Firefighters, visitors and park neighbors are
exposed regularly to hazards associated with vehicle use and other work
activities. Cumulative effects of the preferred alternative include a
slightly longer duration of exposure to hazards associated with fire
suppression and prescribed burning activities. The cumulative effects on
wildland firefighter and public safety are temporary, localized, and
minor.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* The direct and indirect impacts to wildland
firefighter and public safety with Alternative 3 are intermediate
because risk on wildland fires is reduced by using an appropriate
management response and there would be no prescribed burning.
Mitigations to risk would be similar to those described above under the
preferred alternative. Overall, the direct impacts of Alternative 3 to
firefighters and the public would be short-term, localized, and minor.
Indirect effects would also be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Firefighters, visitors and park neighbors are
exposed regularly to hazards associated with vehicle use and other work
activities. Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 are similar to, but
slightly less than, the preferred alternative. The cumulative effects on
wildland firefighter and public safety are temporary, localized, and
minor.

**GEOLOGY AND SOILS**

Affected Environment. The GMP (1993) states the following regarding
soils within Fort Laramie NHS: "The soils of the historic site are
composed of Banks Loamy Fine Sand and sandy silt overlaying river
gravels. Soil permeability is good-to-moderate. Recurrent construction
activity in the area has resulted in a mixed condition, with saturation
of cultural litter and debris. Unconsolidated sand and gravel are
saturated to a depth of over 150 feet in the fort area, in a narrow
gravel-filled channel, which rapidly diminishes south of the river. The
water table is very shallow (16-18 feet) on the north side of the
Laramie River. The water table is higher south of the river, because of
seepage from the Fort Laramie Canal, with water standing in lower holes
and Oregon Trail ruts." The NRCS notes that these soils are relatively
young with limited organic matter. They are resistant to water erosion
but may be eroded by wind when denuded of vegetation or litter cover.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Soil stability and fertility are perpetuated.
Soil stability and fertility in the long-term are not decreased as a
result of fire management programs and practices.

*Source* -- NPS Organic Act, NPS *Management Policies* (2001).

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* Wildland fire has various effects on soil properties.
Variables which influence effects include: fire severity (related to the
downward heat pulse), residence time of the flaming front, soil
moisture, and the amount of organic matter. The direct effects of fire
on soil properties may include changes in soil chemistry (e.g. loss of
nitrogen), reduction in porosity, and consumption of organic matter.
Indirect effects would include an increase in soil temperature and
erosion after vegetation layers are removed. Because fuel loading is
light with grass fuel types, fires in grass fuel types have a short
residence time and generate only a small downward heat pulse. The
effects of unplanned wildland fires on soils in Fort Laramie NHS,
particularly given small fire size and infrequent occurrence as well as
low organic content in local soils, would be well within the range of
normal effects. As such the impacts of fire on soils would be minor and
short-term.

Localized and temporary direct adverse impacts to soils result from fire
suppression operations. Since all of the recent wildland fires have been
limited to 5 acres or less, the impact of fire suppression is considered
minor. Indirect effects could include erosion on fire lines, but that
potential can be mitigated by not placing firelines on steep slopes or
by rehabilitation of firelines in those areas.

Hazard tree removal and mowing grass near historic structures also has
the potential to disturb soil surfaces. The type and magnitude of
potential disturbance is substantially reduced by use of hand-held tools
and rubber-tired vehicles. With reasonable care to minimize ground
disturbance during these projects, the potential adverse impact is
expected to be localized, short-term and minor.

Both the direct and indirect effects of the no-action alternative on
soils and geology would be localized, short-term and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Cumulative effects on soils and geology would
include the effects of construction projects proposed in the General
Management Plan. These effects are expected to be short-term and
localized to the immediate construction areas. Cumulative effects on
soils and geology, then, are anticipated to be localized, short-term and
minor.

*Conclusion:* The no-action alternative would result in localized,
short-term and minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to geology and
soils. Alternative 1 would not produce any major adverse impacts or
impairment of soil and geology resources or values whose conservation is
necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are
key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are
actions identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Wildland fire has various effects on soil properties.
Variables that influence effects include: fire severity (related to the
downward heat pulse), residence time of the flaming front, soil
moisture, and the amount of organic matter. The direct effects of fire
on soil properties may include changes in soil chemistry (e.g. loss of
nitrogen), reduction in porosity, and consumption of organic matter.
Indirect effects would include an increase in soil temperature and
erosion after vegetation layers are removed. Because fuel loading is
light with grass fuel types, fires in grass fuel types have a short
residence time and generate only a small downward heat pulse. The
effects of unplanned wildland fires on soils in Fort Laramie NHS,
particularly given small fire size and infrequent occurrence as well as
low organic content in local soils, would be well within the range of
normal effects. As such the impacts of fire on soils would be minor and
short-term.

Localized and temporary direct adverse impacts to soils result from fire
suppression operations. Since all of the recent wildland fires have been
limited to 5 acres or less, the impact of fire suppression is considered
minor. Indirect effects could include erosion on fire lines, but that
potential can be mitigated by not placing firelines on steep slopes or
by rehabilitation of firelines in those areas.

Use of an appropriate management response to wildland fires may result
in a slight increase in acres burned. However, the use of existing
barriers under this scenario would result in less fireline construction,
less ground disturbance and fewer direct and indirect impacts to soils.

In addition to the annual grass mowing around historic structures,
mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels would involve up to about 100
acres during a typical 5-year period. Chainsaws would be used to thin
cottonwood stands; cut material would be piled for later burning or
removal. Shrubs would be reduced by mechanical flailing ("brush hog"
pulled with a rubber-tired tractor). Soil disturbance from these
activities would be minimal. The increase in potential impacts
attributable to this aspect of the preferred alternative would be
short-term, localized and minor.

Prescribed burning would be broadcast on fewer than 200 acres during a
typical 5-year project period; these surface burns would elevate ground
temperatures only a few degrees with virtually no effect on soils.
Planning for such burns can utilize natural barriers and other
mitigation measures to minimize ground disturbance. Pile burning would
occur in the mechanical fuels treatment areas in the year following the
mechanical treatments when soils are moist and cool. Although there
would be increased heating of soils directly below the piles, the impact
to soils would be temporary, minor and localized. Areas dominated by
highly erosive soils of the Calvin-Gilpin association would be avoided
in prescribed fire planning unless adequate mitigations are in place.
The direct impacts of the prescribed burning component of the preferred
alternative, therefore, are expected to be minor, localized, short-term,
and easily mitigated. The indirect impacts -- that of potential wind
erosion and increased soil heating (from solar radiation) with removal
of vegetation from blocks of land up to 50 acres annually -- would be
somewhat increased over the no-action alternative, but are still
regarded as localized, short-term and minor.

Both the direct and indirect impacts of the preferred alternative on
geology and soils would be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Cumulative effects on soils and geology would
include the effects of construction projects proposed in the General
Management Plan. These effects are expected to be short-term and
localized to the immediate construction areas. The direct and indirect
effects of the preferred alternative are regarded as short-term,
localized and minor. Cumulatively the effects on soils and geology are
also anticipated to be localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The preferred alternative would result in increased soil
exposure as vegetation is removed by wildland and prescribed fires. In a
grass community, regrowth is rapid following fire so ground cover would
be absent only a short period. Soil heating from burning in grasslands
is minimal and would not be sufficient to cause substantive changes in
soil properties. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of this
alternative on soils and geology would be localized, short-term and
minor. The preferred alternative would not produce any major adverse
impacts or impairment of soil and geology resources or values whose
conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the
monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* The impacts of Alternative 3 would be intermediate
between those of the no-action and preferred alternatives. Use of an
appropriate management response to unwanted wildland fires may result in
a slight increase in acres burned. However, the use of existing barriers
under this scenario would result in less fireline construction and
subsequently less ground disturbance. Mechanical treatment of hazardous
fuels would differ from Alternative 2 only in the removal rather than
burning of woody fuels. The direct and indirect impacts of this
alternative would be the same as those described for the preferred
alternative, except that there would be no prescribed burning and
attendant impacts.

The potential direct and indirect impacts on soils by this alternative
are therefore regarded as short-term, localized, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* The cumulative effects of fire management actions
would be the same as those described under the preferred alternative, or
perhaps slightly less due to an absence of prescribed fire. Cumulative
effects on soils and geology, then, are anticipated to be localized,
short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar but less
than those of the preferred alternative -- short-term, localized and
minor. Alternative 3 would not produce any major adverse impacts or
impairment of soil and geology resources or values whose conservation is
necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are
key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are
actions identified as a management goal of the monument.

**AIR QUALITY**

**Affected Environment**. Fort Laramie NHS is classified as a Class II
Air Quality area. A Class II designation indicates the maximum allowable
increase in concentrations of pollutants over baseline concentrations of
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as specified in the 1963 Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq*.). Further, the Clean Air Act provides
that the federal land manager has an affirmative responsibility to
protect air quality related values (including visibility, plants,
animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and visitor health)
from adverse pollution impacts.

Mobile sources of air pollution in the area include railroads, motor
vehicles and farm equipment. The GMP notes that the area is unclassified
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Air quality at the site
is within attainment of Class II standards.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Air quality related values would be protected
from pollution sources emanating from within and outside park
boundaries. Park management activities do not violate federal and state
air quality standards.

*Source* -- Clean Air Act; NPS Organic Act; NPS *Management Policies*
(2001).

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* Direct impacts to air quality from wildland fire
under the no-action alternative would include release of particulates
and smoke into airshed and the potential for a slight increase in
fugitive dust from suppression activities. On a local basis, there may
be a localized, intermittent, and temporary exceeding of air quality
standards (especially particulates) resulting in short-term, minor to
moderate adverse impacts to air quality and visibility. Mitigation would
include rapid suppression and extinguishing of remaining smoke from
heavy fuels. On a regional basis, effects to air quality would generally
include minor short-term adverse impacts, as quantities of pollutants,
primarily particulates, are released to the atmosphere and travel beyond
NHS boundaries. Indirect effects from these air emissions would include
reduced visibility along roadways, reductions in recreation values due
to visibility limitations, smoke and odors, and possible health effects
to sensitive residents and visitors.

Under the no-action alternative, wildland fires would be suppressed at
as small a size as possible. Although it is not possible to accurately
predict the number of acres burned and amount of smoke generated, the
recent past history suggested that fewer than 5 acres would burn in an
average 5-year period. Gasoline-powered equipment is used for hazard
tree removal and mowing around historic structures. However, the amount
of acres treated by these mechanical methods would result in a very
small contribution of air pollutants.

Thus the direct and indirect impacts of the no-action alternative would
be short-term and minor on a local scale and nearly negligible on a
regional scale.

*Cumulative Effects:* Cumulative effects on air quality and visibility
in the NHS would result from traffic on highways, recreational user
traffic, farming activity, other wildland fires and the local
residential communities. Construction projects proposed by the GMP would
further contribute to cumulative effects on air quality. The cumulative
effects, absent a major increase in non-fire related pollutants or very
large wildland fires in the regional area, are regarded as localized,
short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* Adverse impacts to air quality and air quality-related
values result from emissions of air pollutants, smoke and odors. Since
recent wildland fire occurrence is so low and fire size so small, the
direct and indirect adverse impacts of the no-action alternative to air
quality would be localized, short-term and minor. The no-action
alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of
air quality resources or values whose conservation is necessary to the
purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions
identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, the
additional sources of air pollution would come from prescribed burning
and from less aggressive suppression of some unwanted wildland fires.
Prescribed fire would likely be used to burn three to five blocks
totaling fewer than 200 acres during a typical 5-year period; ignition
design and timing can minimize smoke production, though burning in these
fuel models would not generate much smoke. Pile burning in the
mechanical fuels treatment area would be scheduled for the winter or
spring and conducted on days of good smoke dispersion. Some additional
smoke would be generated from utilization of the appropriate management
response, though the acres burned would likely be small. These increases
in smoke production would result in similar, but slightly greater direct
and indirect impacts compared with the no-action alternative. The
pollutant generated by use of gasoline-powered equipment during
mechanical fuel reduction projects would be slightly greater than that
of the no-action alternative. Given the level of burning and fuel
reduction over a typical 5-year period, however, the direct and indirect
impacts on air quality are still regarded as localized, short-term and
minor.

The park would comply with all federal, state, and local air quality
laws and regulations, specifically the U.S. Clean Air Act and State of
Wyoming regulations. Smoke modeling using SASEM (Simple Approach Smoke
Estimation Model) or similar models would be completed to ensure
sensitive receptors are not unduly impacted. Park staff would notify the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality regarding the date and
location of proposed burns and comply with any state burning
restrictions. If the state suspends burning because of poor air quality
on the scheduled burn date, the park would not ignite any fuels. The
influence of smoke on health and safety and the scenic viewshed would be
kept to a minimum by following smoke management prescriptions listed in
the Fire Management Plan.

Overall the direct adverse impacts to air quality would be short-term,
localized and minor. Mitigation would probably not be needed, but could
be applied in the form of altered ignition patterns on prescribed fires.
Indirect impacts would be short-term and minor in a local context and
nearly negligible on a regional scale.

*Cumulative Effects:* Cumulative effects on local and regional air
quality and visibility would result from traffic on highways,
recreational user traffic, farming activity, other wildland fires and
the local residential communities. Construction projects proposed by the
GMP would further contribute to cumulative effects on air quality. The
cumulative effects, including the increased smoke from prescribed
burning but absent a major increase in non-fire related pollutants or
very large wildland fires in the regional area, are regarded as
localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* Adverse impacts to air quality and air quality-related
values result from emissions of air pollutants, smoke, and odors. The
direct and indirect impacts of the preferred alternative would be
somewhat greater than the no-action alternative due to the contribution
of prescribed burning. Since the occurrence of both wildland and
prescribed fires is so infrequent and of such short duration, the direct
adverse impacts of the preferred alternative to air quality would be
localized, short-term and minor. The indirect effects would be
short-term and minor in a local context and nearly negligible on a
regional scale. The preferred alternative would not produce any major
adverse impacts or impairment of air quality resources or values whose
conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the
monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Under Alternative 3, the only source of increased air
pollution compared with the no-action alternative would be the slight
increase in smoke production from less aggressive suppression of some
fires and the use of gasoline-powered equipment in hazard fuels
reduction projects. With the absence of prescribed burning, the direct
and indirect impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to but less than
those described for the preferred alternative.

*Cumulative Effects:* Cumulative effects on local and regional air
quality and visibility would result from traffic on highways,
recreational user traffic, farming activity, other wildland fires and
the local residential communities. Construction projects proposed by the
GMP would further contribute to cumulative effects on air quality. The
cumulative effects, absent a major increase in non-fire related
pollutants or very large wildland fires in the regional area, are
regarded as localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* Adverse impacts to air quality and air quality-related
values result from emissions of air pollutants, smoke, and odors. The
direct and indirect impacts of Alternative 3 would be somewhat greater
than the no-action alternative due to the contribution of hazard fuels
reduction projects and slightly greater burned acreage for wildland
fires managed under an appropriate management response. The impacts
would be less than those attributed to the preferred alternative due to
the absence of prescribed burning. Since the occurrence of wildland
fires is so infrequent and of such short duration, the direct adverse
impacts of Alternative 3 to air quality would be localized, short-term
and minor. The indirect effects would be short-term and minor in a local
context and nearly negligible on a regional scale. Alternative 3 would
not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of air quality
resources or values whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of
the establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

**FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS**

**Affected Environment.** A survey of existing information by the NPS
Water Resources Division (cited in the GMP 1993) indicates that the
100-year flood elevation is 4,240 feet and the 500-year floodplain
elevation is 4,248 feet. No existing developments or historic buildings
are within the 100-year floodplain. Several ruins and a laundress area
lie within the 100-year floodplain on the southeast side of the Laramie
River. Flash flooding is not a common occurrence within the NHS.

Properly functioning floodplains store water during flood periods,
reduce the volume and velocity of immediate runoff and release water
from bank storage during periods of lower flows.

Some wetlands at Fort Laramie NHS exist in association with the
floodplain riparian area. These are identified as Palustrine emergent,
Palustrine scrub-shrub, Riverine lower perennial unconsolidated bottom,
and Riverine lower perennial unconsolidated shore classes. Some wetlands
occur as a result of seepage from the Laramie Canal. These latter sites,
existing because of canal seepage, are occupied by artificially
sustained vegetation that was not on the landscape during the historic
period. (See Jones and Tebben (2002) for more discussion of wetland
vegetation types.)

Properly functioning wetlands also store water and sustain submerged
and/or emergent vegetation. Wetlands contribute to a diversity of
habitats for vegetation and wildlife at Fort Laramie NHS.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Floodplains and wetlands retain their natural
function. Changes within floodplain and wetlands remain within the range
of natural variation.

*Source* -- NPS Organic Act; NPS *Management Policies* (2001); E.O.
11988.

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis*: Under the no-action alternative, wildland fires could
occur on floodplains in the riparian area or near wetlands. Aggressive
suppression would result in minor ground disturbance (compaction or
rutting), but would not substantively affect floodplain or wetland
functions. Similarly, vehicle use associated with hazard tree removal
would cause very limited compaction and rutting. These effects can be
minimized by conducting hazard tree operations when floodplain soils are
not wet. Wildland fire would also most likely occur when floodplain
soils are drier. Given the very low fire occurrence and small fire size
(and the occurrence of most fires outside the riparian zone), direct
effects on floodplain and wetland function would be localized,
short-term and minor. Potential indirect impacts include erosion of
topsoil from burned uplands onto the floodplains; these are also
expected to be localized, short-term and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other actions which may contribute to cumulative
effects on floodplains and wetlands include: flow manipulation from
Grayrocks Reservoir (Laramie River) and/or Glendo Reservoir (North
Platte River), vegetation changes which decrease or increase the ability
of floodplains to store water, and park management actions (particularly
in avoiding disturbance to wetlands). There are no indications that a
change in these actions are anticipated which would adversely affect
floodplains and wetlands. No other projects are planned that would
adversely impact floodplains and wetlands. Therefore, the cumulative
effect of the no-action alternative on floodplains and wetlands would be
localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct and indirect impacts on floodplains from the
no-action alternative would at most be very localized, short-term and
minor. The no-action alternative would not produce any major adverse
impacts or impairment of floodplains and wetlands whose conservation is
necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are
key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are
actions identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Under the preferred alternative, slightly larger
acreage may be burned when the appropriate management response is
applied to wildland fires. Because suppression activities could
generally avoid sensitive riparian areas, the net effect of reducing
such disturbance even with larger burned acreage would be a direct minor
beneficial impact. Prescribed burning, except possibly for pile burning,
is not proposed in floodplains and wetlands. Prescribed burning would
have negligible direct and indirect effects on floodplain and wetland
function.

Mechanical treatments -- reduction in dead standing trees and chopping
shrubs -- would be conducted on less than 100 acres during a typical
5-year period; much of the area currently proposed for treatment is
within the areas of riparian and wetland communities. Accumulated dead
fuels (mainly cottonwood) would be cut with chainsaws and hand piled.
Direct adverse impact would be compaction or rutting of soils on
floodplains. Indirect impacts include the potential for a very slight
reduction in water storage. Use of a rubber-tired tractor to pull and
power the flail chopper would minimize adverse impacts in the riparian
zone as would scheduling the work when soils are less vulnerable to
compaction. Most wetlands would simply be avoided. Overall, the direct
impacts of fuels reduction on floodplain and wetland functions would be
short-term, localized and minor.

The overall direct impacts of the preferred alternative on floodplains
and wetlands would be short-term, localized and minor. The indirect
impacts would be negligible.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other actions which may contribute to cumulative
effects on floodplains and wetlands include: flow manipulation from
Grayrocks Reservoir (Laramie River) and/or Glendo Reservoir (North
Platte River), vegetation changes which decrease or increase the ability
of floodplains to store water, and park management actions (particularly
in avoiding disturbance to wetlands). There are no indications that a
change in these actions are anticipated which would adversely affect
floodplains and wetlands. No other projects are planned that would
adversely impact floodplains and wetlands. Therefore the cumulative
effect of the preferred alternative on floodplains and wetlands would be
localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The preferred alternative would at most have very
localized, short-term and minor direct impacts on floodplains. The
indirect impacts would be negligible. The alternative would not produce
any major adverse impacts or impairment of floodplains and wetlands
whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of
the monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* The fire management activities of Alternative 3 in
floodplains and wetlands would be virtually the same as those of the
preferred alternative. Therefore, the impacts are judged to be the same
-- short-term, localized and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other actions which may contribute to cumulative
effects on floodplains and wetlands include: flow manipulation from
Grayrocks Reservoir (Laramie River) and/or Glendo Reservoir (North
Platte River), vegetation changes which decrease or increase the ability
of floodplains to store water, and park management actions (particularly
in avoiding disturbance to wetlands). There are no indications that a
change in these actions are anticipated which would adversely affect
floodplains and wetlands. No other projects are planned that would
adversely impact floodplains and wetlands. Therefore, the cumulative
effect of Alternative 3 on floodplains and wetlands would be localized,
short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* Alternative 3 would at most have very localized,
short-term and minor direct impacts on floodplains. The indirect impacts
would be negligible. Alternative 3 would not produce any major adverse
impacts or impairment of floodplains and wetlands whose conservation is
necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are
key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are
actions identified as a management goal of the monument.

**VEGETATION**

**Affected Environment**. The Vegetation Management Plan (2002) provides
considerable detail concerning the current and historic vegetation for
Fort Laramie NHS. Much of the information below is summarized from that
report; we will generally not cite the publications cited in the Report.
The reports states: "The vegetation of Fort Laramie is predominantly a
mix of upland grass vegetation types, with a mix of riparian and wetland
vegetation types growing in strips along the Laramie River..., the Fort
Laramie Canal..., and the North Platte River..." Most of the lands
within the NHS were disturbed at some time in the past, perhaps
beginning with the fur trade period, increasing with occupation of
trading and military posts, and continuing through the
homestead/agricultural period.

Two native grass communities occur in the park. One is a
needle-and-thread/blue grama community that probably represents the
native grassland typical of the Fort Laramie NHS area. This community
includes varying amounts of western wheatgrass. Exotic species that
occur in this community include cheatgrass, common salsify, Japanese
brome, smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. The second community is
dominated by sand dropseed, buffalo grass and the exotic cheatgrass.
This community occurs on sites that were disturbed in the past several
decades, and the Vegetation Management Plan suggests that, absent the
previous disturbance, community composition would be similar to the
needle-and-thread/blue grama type.

The Vegetation Management Plan also describes other disturbed site
communities, most notably one dominated by cheatgrass, common kochia,
and Russian thistle, and the other dominated by smooth brome. The report
notes that both types occur on lands that would probably have supported
native grass communities prior to disturbance.

The riparian areas are a mosaic of cottonwood groves with herbaceous
understories. The dominant species is plains cottonwood, but peachleaf
willow, green ash, narrowleaf cottonwood and lanceleaf cottonwood also
occur in these groves. Other species include western snowberry, western
wheatgrass, prairie cordgrass and Nebraska sedge. Much of the riparian
area appears approximately similar to that which existed prior to the
establishment of the trading and military posts though it now contains
several nonnative species.

The Vegetation Management Plan for Fort Laramie NHS notes that 177
species of vascular plants have been documented in the NHS. Nearly 50
nonnative vascular plant species occur in the NHS, most of which were
apparently introduced after the period of historic significance.
Cheatgrass is the most widespread nonnative species. Species included on
the Wyoming noxious weed list include: Canada thistle, quackgrass, field
bindweed, yellow toadflax, scotch thistle, marsh sowthistle and
puncturevine. Most park management documents include direction to reduce
the occurrence and dominance of nonnative species. The Vegetation
Management Plan recommends a management scheme which includes survey
(inventory), monitoring, and restoration of areas dominated by nonnative
species. Restoration tools include tilling, mowing, other mechanical
treatments, chemical treatments, seeding and prescribed burning. The
Plan, citing NPS documents and scientific publications, notes that
prescribed fire is recommended as the primary means of maintaining
native grass communities.

The Plan notes that although one study recommended prescribed burning
between mid-March and late April, the typical natural fire season is
during the summer. The Plan notes that burning during the summer may be
more effective in contributing to the control of some nonnative species.
Many invasive nonnative species (e.g. cheatgrass) employ an ecological
strategy of early maturation and seed dissemination. For this type of
species, summer burning may not provide effective control since their
seeds would already be released and surface temperatures under fast
moving summer fires may not be high enough to kill the seeds.
Conversely, fire effects studies at Dinosaur National Monument have
documented the replacement of cheatgrass by western wheatgrass after
summer burning.

The following information concerning fire ecology and fire effects on
native and invasive nonnative species is drawn primarily from the Fire
Effect Information System (FEIS) (<http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis>).
The information is not intended to express recommendations but merely to
indicate how various authors characterized the effect of fire on species
of interest. More information is available at the website.

-   Native grasses such as needle-and-thread, blue grama, western
    wheatgrass, and sand dropseed generally respond vigorously to fire,
    particularly fire in the later summer when the grasses are dormant.
    Fire effects studies at Dinosaur National Monument indicate that
    response is strongest when fires have short residence times
    (Perryman, et al. 2002).

-   Canada thistle can survive individual fires, but repeated burning on
    relatively short intervals (annually to every 4 or 5 years) reduces
    plant density, especially when burning during periods that favor
    native grasses. Early spring burning of Canada thistle may result in
    vigorous sprouting and reproduction.

-   Fire would kill above ground parts of field bindweed but the plant
    would sprout from surviving rhizomes. Some contributors to FEIS
    suggested that an integrated approach to control might include
    herbicide applications.

-   The literature in FEIS is mixed concerning the effects of fire on
    quackgrass with some studies showing quackgrass populations
    stimulated by fire and others suggesting fire may suppress
    quackgrass.

-   The literature is mixed on the effects of spring or fall burning on
    smooth brome and Japanese brome, except that repeated burning on
    short intervals (less than 5 years) results in decreased density.
    There was no information on the effects of summer burns, though some
    researchers suggested control may be better if brome plants are
    burned while they still retain seeds. Native species competition
    after burning may depress brome species.

-   Information on fire effects of the other invasive species at Fort
    Laramie NHS was not available in the Fire Effects Information
    System.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Vegetation communities in Fort Laramie NHS would
be restored and would maintain long-term ecological diversity and
stability, with fire-dependent communities sustained by fire and fire
intolerant communities protected for unwanted wildland fire.

*Source* -- NPS Organic Act, NPS *Management Policies* (2001)

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* Under this alternative, wildland fires would be
suppressed at the smallest reasonable acreage. Given recent fire
incidence, an estimated one or two fires during a 5-year period would
burn a total of 3-4 acres. With relatively continuous fuel beds the
potential exists for larger fires (see Appendix 1 for example),
especially under drought conditions and/or as fuel accumulations
increase. In Fort Laramie NHS, however, fuel discontinuities would
likely prevent large fire size except under the most extreme conditions.

The direct impacts of wildland fire include removal of above ground
biomass. Some mortality of grass, shrub and tree species would result,
especially if the residence time of fire is extended and the intensity
(downward heat pulse) is subsequently greater. Although no fire effects
monitoring or research has been conducted at Fort Laramie NHS, fire
effects studies at Dinosaur National Monument showed that mortality of
needle-and-thread and Indian ricegrass averaged over a two-year period
following a head fire was not substantially different from mortality
expected from plant senility.

Indirect effects of wildland fire on these vegetation community types is
varied, depending on species affected (whether they sprout or not in
response to fire) and the degree of immediate impact (whether individual
plants are killed or not). The response of grassland or riparian
communities would be expected to be within the normal range of response
where those communities are already dominated by native species.
Re-sprouting by grass and many shrubs would be expected during the same
year as burning or, if the year is particularly dry, no later than the
next spring. The timing and intensity of burning may result in an
indirect effect -- a slight shift in species composition, though the
degree of shift would be minor. The long-term indirect effect of burning
in native grasslands is to invigorate the community, resulting in robust
growth and increased seed production.

The direct effect of burning communities dominated by nonnative species
would also include removal of above ground biomass and some mortality of
individual plants. The indirect impacts may range from
expansion/proliferation of nonnative species in the burned area to
depression of nonnative species. The response is largely dependent on
the time and intensity of burning as well as secondary factors such as
competition with native species, reseeding the burned area with native
species, or other subsequent treatment(s) of nonnative species.

The direct impact of hazard tree removal is removal of individual trees.
Indirect effects include some damage to herbaceous plants and shrubs by
vehicle use associated with the project.

Overall, the direct impacts of wildland fire under the no-action
alternative, particularly given the low occurrence of wildland fire and
small acreages burned, would be localized, short-term and minor. The
indirect impacts would be localized, short-term and negligible.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other projects and activities such as grassland
restoration (treatment of invasive nonnative weeds, reseeding with
native species), construction of facilities, and grazing by domestic
horses contribute to cumulative impacts. Grassland restoration would
have minor to moderate beneficial long-term effects on vegetation
communities. No data exists to document the effects of grazing by
domestic horses, but the direct impact on grassland vigor and
composition is probably minimal since grazing occurs during periods when
native grasses are dormant. Facility construction would have long-term
adverse impacts in the immediate construction area, but the area
affected would be sufficiently small that the overall impacts to
vegetation communities would be minor. The cumulative effects of the
no-action alternative, therefore, would be localized, short-term and
minor, though fire exclusion in fire-dependent grassland communities
could be moderately adverse in the long-term since these communities
have a natural fire return interval of less than 10 years.

*Conclusion:* The no-action alternative would have localized, short-term
and minor direct adverse impacts on vegetation communities. The indirect
impacts would be localized, short-term and negligible. The no-action
alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of
vegetation communities whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of
the establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Under the preferred alternative, slightly larger
acreage may be burned when the appropriate management response is
applied to wildland fires. Because suppression activities could avoid
sensitive plant communities, the net effect of reducing such disturbance
even with larger burned acreage would be a localized, short-term, minor
beneficial impact.

Under this alternative, fewer than 200 acres of grassland would be
burned with broadcast prescribed fire in a typical 5-year period; no
more than about 50 acres would be burned in any year. The objective of
such burning is the restoration and/or maintenance of native grassland
communities. Grasslands identified for burning are dominated by native
species though patches of nonnative vegetation are included in the burn
blocks.

The direct effects of an appropriate management response to wildland
fires and implementation of prescribed burning are the same as those
described under the no-action alternative. They would simply be evident
on a somewhat larger scale -- i.e. on about 200 acres over a typical
5-year period -- as a result of prescribed burning. The indirect effects
are also the same but again on a somewhat larger scale. A moderate,
long-term indirect beneficial effect would generally be a more diverse,
robust and stable native grassland community.

The impacts of burning on nonnative species are less certain and may
range from suppression of some nonnatives to stimulation of others. Each
prescribed fire burn plan which involves patches dominated by nonnative
species would consider the species present and design the burn to
discourage nonnatives and encourage native species. Further
investigation and monitoring of initial prescribed burns would refine
prescriptions for use of fire in management of invasive nonnative
species.

Overall, then, the direct effects of fire on the landscape under the
preferred alternative would be localized, minor, and short-term. In the
long-term, indirect effects would be minor to moderate and beneficial.

Hazard fuel reduction activities would include thinning of cottonwoods
and brush reduction (flail chopping) in the riparian area. The direct
effects of these activities on vegetation would be a reduction in fuel
loading, a change in understory dominance (from brush to grass) in
treated areas, and some crushing of herbaceous vegetation. Use of
rubber-tired tractors to pull the flail would minimize disturbance of
herbaceous plants. Pile burning would probably kill the vegetation
immediately under the piles; early seral species should be evident in
these burned areas within one or two years. The indirect effect would be
more open stands which would be less susceptible to intense wildland
fires. This aspect of the preferred alternative would therefore result
in localized, short-term and minor adverse impacts. Long-term indirect
impacts would be localized, minor to moderate and beneficial for native
vegetation communities.

Overall, the long-term impacts of the preferred alternative on
vegetation communities would be beneficial, moving the communities
toward more natural composition.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other projects and activities such as grassland
restoration (treatment of invasive nonnative weeds, reseeding with
native species), construction of facilities, and grazing by domestic
horses contribute to cumulative impacts. Grassland restoration would
have minor to moderate beneficial long-term effects on vegetation
communities. No data exists to document the effects of grazing by
domestic horses, but the direct impact on grassland vigor and
composition is probably minimal since grazing occurs during periods when
native grasses are dormant. Facility construction would have long-term
adverse impacts in the immediate construction area, but the area
affected would be sufficiently small that the overall impacts to
vegetation communities would be minor. The cumulative effect on
vegetation would be minor and adverse in the short-term but minor to
moderate and beneficial in the mid- to long term.

*Conclusion:* The preferred alternative would have direct localized,
short-term and minor adverse impacts on vegetation communities.
Long-term indirect impacts would be minor to moderate and beneficial as
grassland communities are restored and maintained. The preferred
alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of
vegetation communities whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of
the establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Wildland fire suppression activities under
Alternative 3 would be the same as those described for the preferred
alternative and would have the same direct and indirect impacts. The
direct and indirect impacts of mechanical fuels reductions would be the
same as described under the preferred alternative. Thus the overall
direct and indirect effects in the short-term would be localized, minor
and adverse. The long-term indirect effect of hazard fuels reduction
would be minor and beneficial. Not as many beneficial effects accrue
under this alternative as under the preferred alternative because less
effort is invested in restoring and maintaining native grasslands.

*Cumulative Effects:* Other projects and activities such as grassland
restoration (treatment of invasive nonnative weeds, reseeding with
native species), construction of facilities, and grazing by domestic
horses contribute to cumulative impacts. Grassland restoration would
have minor to moderate beneficial long-term effects on vegetation
communities. No data exists to document the effects of grazing by
domestic horses, but the direct impact on grassland vigor and
composition is probably minimal since grazing occurs during periods when
native grasses are dormant. Facility construction would have long-term
adverse impacts in the immediate construction area, but the area
affected would be sufficiently small that the overall impacts to
vegetation communities would be minor. The cumulative effect on
vegetation would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Cumulative
effects would be minor and beneficial in the long-term.

*Conclusion:* Alternative 3 would have localized, short-term and minor
direct adverse impacts on vegetation communities. Long-term indirect
impacts would be minor and beneficial as the potential for intense
wildland fire is diminished. Alternative 3 would not produce any major
adverse impacts or impairment of vegetation communities whose
conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the
monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

**SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN**

**Affected Environment.** The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
identified five endangered or threatened species that may occur in or
near Fort Laramie National Historic Site. These include the bald eagle
(threatened; *Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), black-footed ferret
(endangered; *Mustela nigripes*), mountain plover (proposed for listing;
*Charadrius montanus*), Preble's meadow jumping mouse (threatened;
*Zapus hudsonius preblei*) and Ute ladies'-tresses (threatened;
*Spiranthes diluvialis*). There are no designated critical habitats
within the NHS.

Bald eagles use the NHS area in winter, roosting in and hunting from
large cottonwoods in the riparian areas along the Laramie and North
Platte Rivers. FWS recommends providing a 1-mile disturbance-free buffer
around such sites during periods that they are occupied. Mitigation for
this species under the preferred alternative would consist of avoiding
fire management activities within 1 mile of roost trees during the
period of occupation by eagles. Mechanical fuel treatments in riparian
zones would be completed in the spring after eagles have left the area.
Large standing dead trees that are preferred roost sites would be left
standing.

Black-footed ferrets are obligates of prairie dog towns. There are no
prairie dog towns in the NHS; the closest known prairie dogs towns are
about 5 miles away. No mitigation is therefore anticipated, though
surveys might be completed if prairie dog towns expand into the NHS
(surveys are not warranted until or unless a prairie dog town complex
reaches 200 acres or more).

The mountain plover uses bare or nearly bare areas for nesting -- areas
of very short and sparse vegetation. Vegetation on these sites would be
too discontinuous to support fire. No mitigation is therefore
anticipated.

The Preble's meadow jumping mouse occupies wet meadow and riparian
habitats. Although the species has not been recorded in Goshen County,
FWS recommends surveys to determine presence or absence of the species
and has volunteered to conduct such surveys. Mitigation would consist of
excluding broadcast prescribed fire from potential habitats until a FWS
survey is completed. If presence of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is
confirmed, further consultation would determine additional mitigation
needs.

Ute ladies'-tresses habitats are usually disturbed areas in moist soils
along rivers and other waterways. To prosper, they generally require
areas with little competing vegetation. Since Ute ladies'-tresses have
not been documented in the NHS and habitats occupied by Ute
ladies'-tresses are typically not susceptible to fire, no mitigations
are anticipated.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Federal-and state-listed threatened and
endangered species and their habitats are sustained. No fire management
actions jeopardize the continued existence of listed or candidate
species or adversely impact critical habitats.

*Source* -- Endangered Species Act; NPS Organic Act; NPS Management
Policies.

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* With the no-action alternative, all wildland fires
would be aggressively suppressed, thus minimizing the potential
disturbance of listed species and their habitats. Recent fire history
suggests this would involve only one or two fires totaling 3-4 acres
during a 5-year period. Hazard tree removal would be scheduled during
periods (e.g. spring and summer) when bald eagles would not be present.
Hazard tree removal would occur on lands not likely to be occupied by
any of the other listed (or proposed for listing) species. Vehicle use
associated with wildland fire suppression and hazard tree removal would
occur in habitats potentially occupied by listed species, with the
effect of temporarily pressing vegetation. Given that none of the
species except bald eagle are known in the area, both direct and
indirect impacts of the no-action alternative to species of special
concern are regarded as negligible and have "no effect."

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to species of special concern. The
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
be negligible to minor on listed species, especially since that grazing
occurs during the winter. Construction proposed by the GMP would be
outside habitats utilized by species of special concern. No other
projects are planned for the NHS that would affect listed species or
their habitats. Therefore, the cumulative effects associated with the
no-action alternative are negligible.

*Conclusion:* The potential direct and indirect effects of the no-action
alternative on special concern are regarded as negligible. The no-action
alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of
species of special concern whose conservation is necessary to the
purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions
identified as a management goal of the monument. From the standpoint of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the impacts of the no-action
alternative would have "no effect."

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* With Alternative 2, an appropriate management
response may employ the use of natural or man-made barriers to contain
an unwanted wildland fire rather than building fire lines through
sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore, individual fires might
become slightly larger under an appropriate management response.
Potential habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses, mountain plover and Preble's
meadow jumping mouse are usually not susceptible to fire. No prairie dog
towns exist in the park. Eagle roost trees can be identified and
protected. The direct effects of wildland fire and suppression
activities on potential endangered species habitats including the
removal and crushing of vegetation would be minor due to the very low
frequency of activity associated with fire occurrence. The direct
effects of suppression actions under the preferred alternative are
therefore negligible and of "no effect." Indirect effects of suppression
action would include the loss or improvement of potential habitats over
time and are regarded as negligible.

Fewer than 200 acres of upland grasslands would be treated with
broadcast prescribed fire during a typical 5-year period. Isolated piles
would be burned within the areas of mechanical fuels reduction. None of
the listed species are expected to inhabit the upland grasslands where
most of the prescribed burning would occur. With the mitigations
identified in the Affected Environment section above, the potential
direct adverse impact on species of special concern would at most be a
small, temporary loss of habitat. Thus the direct adverse impacts would
be short-term, localized and negligible to minor. Prescribed burning
would have minor long-term indirect beneficial impacts to listed species
through the restoration of native grasslands.

The potential for mechanical treatments proposed for the riparian areas
to adversely affect habitat for Preble's meadow jumping mouse is
extremely low. Mechanized equipment is very unlikely to traverse
potential habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses. Mechanical treatments would
not be conducted when bald eagles are present, thus avoiding any direct
impacts. Direct impacts could include crushing of vegetation and
consuming vegetation under burn piles. Indirect effects of mechanical
fuels reduction may include the loss or improvement of potential
habitats over time. The direct and indirect impacts would therefore be
localized, short-term and negligible to minor.

Overall, the direct impacts of the preferred alternative on species of
special concern are short-term, localized, and negligible to minor.
Longer-term indirect impacts would be beneficial due to restoration and
maintenance of more natural habitats.

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to species of special concern. The
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
be negligible to minor on listed species, especially since that grazing
occurs during the winter. Construction proposed by the GMP would be
outside habitats utilized by species of special concern. No other
projects are planned for the NHS that would affect listed species or
their habitats. Therefore, the cumulative effects associated with the
preferred alternative would be localized, short-term, and negligible to
minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the preferred alternative on species
of special concern are short-term, localized, and negligible to minor.
Longer-term indirect impacts would be beneficial due to restoration and
maintenance of more natural habitats. The preferred alternative would
not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment of species of
special concern whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of the
establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument. From the standpoint of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, the impacts of the preferred alternative would
have "no effect."

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* With the absence of prescribed burning in this
alternative, only a slightly larger area may be burned than under the
no-action alternative using an appropriate management response to
suppression of unwanted wildland fires. Mechanical treatments would
remain the same as under Alternative 2. The potential direct and
indirect impacts of Alternative 3 would therefore be the same as the
preferred alternative except that no effects attributable to prescribed
burning would accrue. Therefore the direct impacts of Alternative 3 on
listed species would be short-term, localized, and negligible to minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to species of special concern. The
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
be negligible to minor on listed species, especially since that grazing
occurs during the winter. Construction proposed by the GMP would be
outside habitats utilized by species of special concern. No other
projects are planned for the NHS that would affect listed species or
their habitats. Therefore, the cumulative effects associated with
Alternative 3 would be localized, short-term, and negligible to minor.

*Conclusion:* The potential direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3
on special concern would be localized, short-term, and negligible to
minor. Alternative 3 would not produce any major adverse impacts or
impairment of species of special concern whose conservation is necessary
to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions
identified as a management goal of the monument. From the standpoint of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the impacts of Alternative 3
would have "no effect."

**WILDLIFE**

Affected Environment. Fort Laramie NHS contains a variety of wildlife
typical of the high plains and Rocky Mountain area. Mammals frequenting
the area include: mule deer, coyote, beaver, muskrat, cottontail,
jackrabbit and several rodents. Birds include a suite of passerines,
waterfowl, woodpeckers and raptors. The Laramie and North Platte Rivers
include both native and nonnative species, the most common being
longnose sucker, white sucker, longnose dace, creek chub, johnny darter,
red shiner and sand shiner.

No fire effects monitoring or research has been conducted in Fort
Laramie NHS. Fire effects studies of small mammals in Dinosaur National
Monument indicated that although there was decreased community diversity
in the initial few years following burning of shrublands, there was no
long-term impact on species richness and similarity compared with
unburned control plots (Olson, et al. 2003). There were no differences
in diversity indexes between burned and control plots across sample
years and sites combined; diversity on burned plots generally fluctuated
more across post-burn sample years by site than did diversity on control
plots. There were shifts in species composition within communities
during early post-burn years. We expect the shifts in composition would
be less when grasslands are burned at Fort Laramie NHS than when
shrublands were burned at Dinosaur National Monument since many of the
species that prefer shrublands (e.g. sagebrush vole, green-tailed
towhee) would be less common at Fort Laramie NHS.

Large ungulates may be temporarily displaced by fire, but fire effects
studies in Dinosaur National Monument indicated increased use of
post-burn habitats.

Olson, et al. (*in prep*) found that species richness, density and
diversity of breeding birds at Dinosaur National Monument were higher on
burned than unburned plots across all sites during the early post-burn
period (1-5 years). These indices were lower on burned plots during
later post-burn periods (5+ years). Similarity index values indicated
that maximum overlap of bird species between burned and unburned plots
across all sites occurred during the intermediate post-burn years and
minimal overlap occurred during early and late post-burn periods. They
concluded that fire in Wyoming big sagebrush resulted in short-term (5-7
years) increases in species richness, density, and community diversity
on burned sites. Though not analyzed by Olson, et al. (*in prep*), a few
species appeared to be nearly obligate in unburned sites (e.g.
green-tailed towhee) while granivores appear to be more common in the
burned sites. As a general conclusion, then, it appears that burning in
Wyoming big sagebrush does not adversely effect breeding bird
populations. Since grasslands would recover structure more rapidly than
shrublands, burning in grasslands would likely result in smaller changes
in the avian community than those evident in burning shrublands.

Species diversity and abundance of birds within prairie ecosystems is
typically greater in riparian areas than in adjacent uplands. Burning in
riparian areas may have varied effects on birds, depending on the
intensity and extent of the fire. Fires, which are large and severe, may
displace breeding birds for many years. Mortality of trees, however,
would result in increased bark insect populations and subsequent
increases in use by insectivorous birds. Fires that are small and/or of
low intensity would result in few or very short-term changes in bird
populations.

The effects of fires on wildlife are also influence by scale. Small
fires would result in little if any effect on wildlife populations.
Large fires have the potential for greater impact since a greater area
is burned. Irregular perimeters on wildland fires have the effect of
creating more edge, an effect which brings greater habitat diversity.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Most species present in the mid-1800s are still
represented in the NHS fauna. Diversity and abundance of wildlife
populations are robust, within the carrying capacity of the area.
Population fluctuations remain within the normal range of variability.

*Source* -- NPS Organic Act; NPS *Management Policies* (2001).

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* Under this alternative, wildland fires would be
suppressed at the smallest reasonable acreage. Given recent fire
incidence, an estimated one or two fires during a 5-year period would
burn a total of 3-4 acres. Direct impacts would include very limited
loss of habitat for short periods following fire and possible disruption
of ground nests and dens due to fireline construction. Short-term
indirect impacts would include temporary displacement of individuals.
Long-term indirect impacts of fire exclusion would be slightly adverse
as habitats senesce and are less able to support wildlife populations.

Direct impacts of hazard tree removal under the no-action alternative
would include a small loss of nesting sites for birds and small mammals
and possible disruption of ground nests and dens due to vehicle use.
Short-term indirect impacts would include temporary displacement of
individuals.

From the standpoint of a suite of wildlife population, the direct and
indirect impacts would be of such short duration and small magnitude as
to likely not be measurable. Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts
of the no-action alternative on wildlife would be localized, short-term
and negligible. In the long-term, the indirect effect of fire exclusion
on wildlife would be minor and adverse with a loss of habitat diversity.

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to wildlife populations. The direct
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
include trampling of runs and under-snow paths used by small mammals.
From a population standpoint, these effects are regarded as adverse but
minor. Construction proposed by the GMP would displace individuals of
wildlife populations in the limited area of the construction site(s).
From a population standpoint, this impact would be regarded as
localized, long-term and minor. No other projects are planned for the
NHS that would adversely affect wildlife or their habitats. Therefore,
the cumulative adverse effects associated with the no-action alternative
would be localized, short-term, and negligible to minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the no-action alternative would be
localized, short-term and negligible to minor. In the long-term, the
indirect effect of fire exclusion on wildlife would be minor and adverse
with a loss of habitat diversity. Long-term population effects would be
negligible. The no-action alternative would not produce any major
adverse impacts or impairment to wildlife resources whose conservation
is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the monument, that
are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that
are actions identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* The preferred alternative would result in an increase
of acreage burned from slightly larger wildland fires suppressed under
an appropriate management response (i.e. holding fires at existing
barriers rather than constructing firelines), but ground disturbance
would be lessened in comparison with the no-action alternative. Fewer
than 200 acres would be burned by broadcast prescribed fire during a
typical 5-year period. Most prescribed fires would not exceed 50 acres.

The direct effects of this burning include short-term, localized losses
of habitat and subsequent displacement of wildlife. The direct
population impacts would be minor, short-term changes in abundance and
diversity of small mammals and passerine birds. If fires extend into
wooded areas with some tree mortality, slight increases in populations
of insectivorous birds might be expected. The indirect effect of burning
under the preferred alternative would be greater habitat diversity
(structure, stand age, stand closure, etc.). Abundance of some species
might decline slightly while other species abundance may slightly
increase. From the standpoint of the entire faunal community, the
short-term impacts of burning under the preferred alternative would be
minor and, depending on the species, adverse or beneficial. Long-term
indirect effects would be beneficial and minor to moderate.

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments would include thinning and brush
chopping on up to 100 acres during a typical 5-year period, followed a
year later by pile burning of activity fuels. Piles would provide
temporary increased cover for small mammals, but their limited area
would probably not provide population level effects. Snags (standing
dead trees) with evidence of wildlife importance use would be retained
in the stands. Direct effects on individuals of species which prefer
shrublands would include temporary displacement and loss of habitat.
Conversely, some species would find more and better habitat as a result
of brush reduction. Indirect impacts include greater habitat diversity
for the faunal complex and a reduced potential for large fires and
subsequent loss of large areas of habitat. Therefore, the direct and
indirect impacts of mechanical fuel reduction on wildlife would be minor
in the short-term and, depending on the species, adverse or beneficial.
From the standpoint of the entire faunal community, the longer-term
indirect effect of hazard fuels reductions would provide a minor
beneficial impact as habitats become more diverse and natural.

Overall, then, the direct impacts of the preferred alternative on
wildlife in the short-term would be localized, negligible to minor, and
adverse or beneficial depending on the species affected. Long-term
indirect impacts would be localized, minor and beneficial.

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to wildlife populations. The direct
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
include trampling of runs and under-snow paths used by small mammals.
From a population standpoint, these effects are regarded as adverse but
minor. Construction proposed by the GMP would displace individuals of
wildlife populations in the limited area of the construction site(s).
From a population standpoint this impact would be regarded as localized,
long-term and minor. No other projects are planned for the NHS that
would adversely affect wildlife or their habitats. The long-term effects
associated with the preferred alternative would be a slight increase in
species diversity associated with a mosaic of restored habitats.
Therefore, the cumulative adverse effects associated with the preferred
alternative would be localized, short-term, and negligible to minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the preferred alternative would be
localized, short-term, and depending on the species, negligible or minor
and adverse or beneficial. Long-term indirect impacts would be
localized, minor and beneficial. Long-term population effects would be
beneficial and negligible to minor. The preferred alternative would not
produce any major adverse impacts or impairment to wildlife resources
whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of
the monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Use of an appropriate management response to unwanted
wildland fires would result in a slightly increased burned acreage but
less ground disturbance. Mechanical fuel reduction activities would be
similar to those of the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) except
that harvested biomass would be removed rather than pile burned. No
prescribed burning would occur under this alternative. The direct and
indirect impacts of Alternative 3 would be the same as those described
under the preferred alternative, with the exception of those impacts
attributed to prescribed burning. Thus the impacts of Alternative 3
would be short-term, localized, and depending on species, negligible to
minor and adverse to beneficial. From the standpoint of the entire
faunal community, the long-term impacts would be minor and beneficial.

*Cumulative Effects:* Efforts to restore native grassland communities
(e.g. treatment of invasive nonnative species) would eventually provide
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to wildlife populations. The direct
impacts of grazing by horses have not been identified, but would likely
include trampling of runs and under-snow paths used by small mammals.
From a population standpoint, these effects are regarded as adverse but
minor. Construction proposed by the GMP would displace individuals of
wildlife populations in the limited area of the construction site(s).
From a population standpoint, this impact would be regarded as
localized, long-term and minor. No other projects are planned for the
NHS that would adversely affect wildlife or their habitats. The
long-term effects associated with Alternative 3 may be a slight increase
in species diversity associated with a mosaic of restored habitats.
Therefore, the cumulative adverse effects associated with Alternative 3
would be localized, short-term, and negligible to minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the Alternative 3 would be
localized, short-term, and, depending on the species, negligible to
minor and adverse or beneficial. Long-term population effects would be
beneficial and negligible to minor. Long-term indirect impacts would be
localized, minor and beneficial. Alternative 3 would not produce any
major adverse impacts or impairment to wildlife resources whose
conservation is necessary to the purpose of the establishment of the
monument, that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument, or that are actions identified as a management goal of the
monument.

**VISITOR EXPERIENCE, AESTHETIC RESOURCES**

Affected Environment. Annual visitation at Fort Laramie NHS is
approximately 50,000 people with over two-thirds of visits occurring in
June through August. Nearly 80 percent of visitors come from outside the
local area. The average visit lasts about 1 hour and 50 minutes.
Principal activities are walking tours of the historic buildings and
grounds as well as the Visitor Center.

The GMP (1993) and Cultural Landscapes Plan (2002) note that views of
and from the NHS are important components of the historic scene. The
rural character of the land, with few visual intrusions, evokes images
of how the area may have looked during the days of the fur trade and
military occupation.

Fire management activities which have the potential to effect park
operations, visitor uses and visitor experiences include suppression,
prescribed burning and hazard fuels projects. Suppression and prescribed
fire would involve having additional personnel, engines and other
equipment in the area. Temporary closures may be imposed restricting
access to visitors. Hazard fuels projects would also involve additional
fire personnel in the area as well as use of chainsaws and vehicles.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Visitor activities are not substantially
disrupted by fire management activities. The quality of visitor
experiences, particularly with respect to scenic vistas, is not
adversely impacted by smoke or other fire management activities.

*Source* -- NPS Organic Act; NPS *Management Policies*, Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* The no-action alternative would continue aggressive
suppression of wildland fires and limited removal of hazard trees.
Depending on the location of a wildland fire, park operations and
visitor uses may be temporarily disrupted, but the disruption would
probably not extend beyond a few hours. Temporary closures to restrict
visitor access would ensure visitor safety. Indirect effects would
include the presence of burned areas within views, but that would lend
another aspect to the historical scene. Most burned areas would "green
up" during the same season or, at the latest, the next spring. Given the
recent fire history of one or two small fires in a five-year period, the
direct and indirect impacts of the no-action alternative on park
operations, visitor experience and aesthetic resources would be
localized, minor and very short-term.

Hazard tree removal would be (a) either scheduled during periods of low
visitor use or (b) be conducted in areas where visitor access is
restricted. Visitor access to the NHS would not be curtailed;
consequently there would be no direct impacts to visitors. Indirect
effects would include the sound of chainsaws for very short periods of
time and the sight of scars where limbs or trees were removed. The
continued exclusion of fire from the area may detract from the historic
scene for some discerning visitors, but this indirect effect would not
likely diminish their experience. The direct and indirect effects on
visitor experience and aesthetics would therefore be localized,
short-term and negligible to minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* The other projects proposed for the area which
would contribute to cumulative effects on visitor experience and
aesthetics are construction of a new visitor center and moving
maintenance operations away from the historic resources. In the
short-term, these construction activities would intrude on the pastoral
scene and be a localized, direct, and minor adverse impact. In the
long-term, these actions would reduce the intrusion of administrative
facilities in the historic scene and thus enhance visitor experiences.
The direct and indirect effects of the no-action alternative would be
localized, short-term and minor. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the
no-action alternative would be localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct and indirect adverse impacts of the no-action
alternative on aesthetic resources and visitor experiences would be
localized, short-term and minor. The no-action alternative would not
produce any major adverse impacts or impairment to visitor experiences
and aesthetic resources whose conservation is necessary to the purpose
of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* With the preferred alternative, there may be a slight
increase in smoke production and temporarily blackened areas from (a)
potential small increases in burned acreage by wildland fires managed
under an appropriate management response and (b) small prescribed burns
(fewer than 200 acres in 5 years) designed to restore and manage
grasslands. Smoke production would be of very limited duration in these
fuels -- usually a few hours at most. Blackened areas in a grassland
usually green up within weeks to months (and no later than the following
spring). There may be minor displacement of some visitor activities
during prescribed burn operations, but that effect would be limited to a
few hours each year. Temporary closures to restrict visitor access would
ensure visitor safety. The presence of fire, smoke, and blackened areas
presents an opportunity for interpretation and would enhance the
experience of some visitors. Thus the direct impacts of increased
burning on visitor experiences and aesthetic resources would include
smoke in scenic views, temporary restrictions in access to some areas,
and the presence of blacked areas within historic scenes. Because the
frequency and size of these fires would be so small, the direct impact
to visitor experiences and aesthetic resources is localized, short-term
and minor. On the other hand, the potential for restored grasslands and
a more appropriate historic scene would be a minor to moderate,
long-term, beneficial indirect impact.

Mechanical removal of hazardous fuels would be conducted (a) during
periods of low visitation or (b) in areas of restricted public access
and designed to create little visual impact or change in scenic vistas.
Visitor access to the NHS would not be curtailed; consequently there
would be no direct impacts to visitors. Indirect effects would include
the sound of chainsaws and/or flail choppers for very short periods of
time and a somewhat changed scene as riparian woodlands are thinned
(most visitors would probably not recognize the thinning). Therefore,
the adverse direct impacts of the preferred alternative on visitor
experiences would be short-term, localized, and minor. Longer-term
indirect impacts would include a reduced potential for large fires and
subsequent reduced potential for substantive modifications of historic
scenes; these indirect impacts would be minor to moderate and
beneficial.

*Cumulative Effects:* The other projects proposed for the area which
would contribute to cumulative effects on visitor experience and
aesthetics are construction of a new visitor center and moving
maintenance operations away from the historic resources. In the
short-term, these construction activities would intrude on the pastoral
scene and be a localized, direct, and minor adverse impact. In the
long-term, these actions would reduce the intrusion of administrative
facilities in the historic scene and thus enhance visitor experiences.
The direct and indirect effects of the preferred alternative would be
localized, short-term and minor. Therefore the cumulative effect of the
preferred alternative would be localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* The adverse direct impacts of the preferred alternative on
visitor experiences would be short-term, localized, and minor.
Longer-term indirect impacts would be localized, minor to moderate, and
beneficial. The preferred alternative would not produce any major
adverse impacts or impairment to visitor experiences and aesthetic
resources whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of the
establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* Alternative 3 would have intermediate impacts
compared to the no-action and preferred alternatives. Some very slight
increases in smoke production and burned acres may occur with wildland
fires managed under an appropriate management strategy. Mechanical fuel
reduction activities would be similar to those of the preferred
alternative (Alternative 2) except that harvested biomass would be
removed rather than pile burned. Mechanical removal of hazardous fuels
would be conducted during periods of low visitation or in areas of
restricted public access and designed to create little visual impact or
change in scenic vistas. No prescribed burning would occur under this
alternative. Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts of Alternative 3
on visitor experiences and aesthetic resources would be similar, except
for those attributed to prescribed burning, to the preferred alternative
and are regarded as short-term, localized, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* The other projects proposed for the area which
would contribute to cumulative effects on visitor experience and
aesthetics are construction of a new visitor center and moving
maintenance operations away from the historic resources. In the
short-term, these construction activities would intrude on the pastoral
scene and be a localized, direct, and minor adverse impact. In the
long-term, these actions would reduce the intrusion of administrative
facilities in the historic scene and thus enhance visitor experiences.
The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 would be localized,
short-term and minor. Therefore, the cumulative effect of Alternative 3
would be localized, short-term and minor.

*Conclusion:* Both the direct and indirect adverse impacts of
Alternative 3 on aesthetic resources and visitor experiences would be
localized, short-term and minor. Alternative 3 would not produce any
major adverse impacts or impairment to visitor experiences and aesthetic
resources whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of the
establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

**CULTURAL RESOURCES**

Affected Environment. The cultural resources of Fort Laramie NHS are
described in considerable detail in the GMP (1993), Preliminary Cultural
Landscape Report (1993) and Cultural Landscapes Inventory (2002). The
NHS was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRIS Number
66000755) in 1966. With an additional certification, a historic district
of approximately 536 acres was listed in the National Register in 1986.
Additional information generated by the Cultural Landscapes Inventory is
being submitted to the National Register. The NHS has a programmatic
agreement (2002-2005) with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation
Officer for day-to-day management activities.

The GMP identifies two types of cultural resources: archeological
resources and historic resources, the latter comprised of historic
structures and historic views. The current term "cultural landscape"
includes historic views.

> Archeological Resources. Archeological resources include sites from
> both the fur trade/military occupation period and Native American
> features and artifacts. Archeological investigations have identified
> many historical features, foundations and deposits from the fur trade
> period through the ranching and farming period. Archeological surveys
> could not be presumed to be complete, but surface examinations have
> been completed throughout the NHS. Given the short natural fire return
> interval in grasslands, any archeological sites that predate early
> military occupation would probably have been subjected to the effects
> of multiple wildland fires.
>
> Historic Resources. The List of Classified Structures identified 44
> significant structures, of which 36 historic structures have been
> documented on the National Register nomination. These include 13
> buildings, 20 sites, and 3 structures.
>
> Cultural Landscapes. A Level II cultural landscape inventory has been
> completed for the NHS. A Level II inventory identifies landscape
> characteristics and their associated features. It includes a condition
> assessment, costs associated with treatment and stabilization, and
> establishes priorities for Level III inventory and the preparation of
> Cultural Landscape Reports.
>
> The Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) considers the NHS as a single
> historic landscape. Historic views from and within the NHS are
> regarded as contributing components of the historic fabric. Since
> adjacent lands are used primarily for agriculture, the views have
> retained a historic appearance. The CLI states: "Overall, the Fort
> Laramie cultural landscape retains historic integrity from the early
> and late military eras." Of particular note relative to this analysis
> is a statement in the Cultural Landscapes Inventory that "Fort
> Laramie's existing vegetation does not reflect the type of vegetation
> that existed during the site's historic period." This is primarily due
> to the introduction of invasive nonnative species that occurred after
> the military era.

No ethnographic studies have been conducted for Fort Laramie NHS. There
are no records of any traditional cultural properties.

Heat from typical grassland fires would be insufficient to damage
artifacts and other archeological materials in subsurface settings even
if they are buried only a centimeter or less below the ground surface.
In heavier or continuous fuels, temperatures at the soil surface,
however, are sufficient to damage stone or ceramic resources by
scorching, fracturing, charring, and spalling.  The type of fire spread
can influence heat levels at and below the soil surface. Head fires
generate less heat at the surface than do backing fires.

Cultural resources at Fort Laramie NHS vary in their susceptibility and
vulnerability to the effects of wildland and prescribed fires. Most of
the park\'s cultural resources are located within the Historic Zone. By
virtue of their concentrated location and absence of flammable
vegetation in their immediate vicinity, most sites are not susceptible
to wildland fire. Other sites and features, while they would not be
vulnerable to fire, are susceptible to damage caused by fire suppression
activities.

For those sites which would be vulnerable to impacts from wildland or
prescribed fire, a wide range of options are available to eliminate or
mitigate potential impacts. These include complete avoidance of
prescribed fire in the vicinity of structures, blacklining around
structures or features near wildland fires or proposed prescribed fires,
treatment with fire retardant foam prior to or concurrent with fires,
wrapping with heat reflective materials, and establishing sprinkler
systems on and around structures prior to prescribed fires or concurrent
with wildland fire suppression activities. Other standard cultural
resource mitigation measures include the following: prior to doing
treatment work, conduct an inventory of previously unsurveyed areas
using an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's
standards; monitor fire management activities and halt work if
previously unknown resources are located; protect and record newly
discovered resources; brief work crews about protecting cultural
resources; dispose of slash in areas lacking cultural sites; avoid
ground disturbance in areas containing known cultural sites; prior to
implementation of work, protect character-defining elements of the
site's cultural landscapes. For prescribed fires, mitigations would be
included in the prescribed fire burn plan. In all cases, protection of
structures and features will be more important than minimizing acres
burned. The Wyoming SHPO requests that further consultation be conducted
on each prescribed fire during preparation of the prescribed fire burn
plan.

**Regulations and Policies.** Current laws and policies require that the
following conditions be achieved in the park:

*Desired Conditions* -- Historic properties and archeological sites are
identified and inventoried and their significance and integrity are
evaluated under National Register criteria. The qualities that
contribute to the eligibility for listing or listing of historic
properties or archeological sites on the NRHP are protected in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

*Source* -- National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11593;
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; Archeological Resources
Protection Act; the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines
for Archeology and Historic Preservation; Programmatic Memorandum of
Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); NPS
Organic Act; NPS Management Policies.

Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action

*Impact Analysis:* Under this alternative, wildland fires would be
suppressed at the smallest reasonable acreage. Given recent fire
incidence, an estimated one or two fires during a 5-year period would
burn a total of 3-4 acres. Fire suppression activities in fine fuels
include construction of "scratch" lines, blacklining, use of swatters
and direct attack with water.  Fire suppression in heavier fuels would
include construction of a handline to mineral soil and direct attack
with water. Management constraints (see Description of Alternatives)
note that retardant may be used; that off-road use of equipment such as
engines is warranted only if the potential disturbance they would cause
is less than resource damage from fire; and that heavy equipment such as
bulldozers would be used only in the event of threats to human life or
fire-susceptible historic structures. Given past fire history, these
circumstances are very unlikely. A wide range of mitigation measures
(see Affected Environment above) are also available for use concurrent
with fire occurrence.

> **Archeological Resources**
>
> The direct impacts of fire suppression on archeological resources
> under the no-action alternative would be to expose buried
> archeological materials during handline construction or disturb
> materials immediately below the surface with vehicle use. In
> grasslands, however, the primary initial attack would probably be with
> swatters and water, thus further limiting ground disturbance. Fire may
> have a higher resistance to control in woodlands. Most woodlands occur
> in the riparian zone/floodplain where the likelihood of archeological
> resources is much lower. The indirect effects include exposure of
> artifacts to erosion and theft. Given (a) very infrequent fire
> occurrence, (b) small fire size, and (c) implementation of identified
> mitigations and management constraints, the direct and indirect
> effects of fire suppression on archeological resources under the
> no-action alternative would be localized and minor.
>
> The direct impact of hazard tree removal and mowing on archeological
> resources would be exposure of materials due to ground disturbance by
> vehicles associated with the activities. Indirect impacts would
> include exposure of artifacts to erosion and theft. With avoidance of
> known archeological resources and implementation of mitigation
> actions, the direct and indirect impacts of hazard tree removal and
> mowing would be localized and minor.
>
> **Historic Structures**
>
> The direct impact of fire suppression on historic structures would be
> limited to the potential to damage such structures by contact with
> fire fighting equipment. Indirect impacts include the possibility of
> smoke damage. Given (a) very infrequent fire occurrence, (b) small
> fire size, and (c) fuel management (mowed grass) adjacent to most
> structures, the direct and indirect effects of fire suppression on
> historic structures under the no-action alternative would be localized
> and negligible to minor.
>
> The direct impact of hazard tree removal and mowing on historic
> structures would include the potential of damage to such structures by
> contact with mowing equipment. Indirect effects are not apparent.
>
> The direct and indirect impacts of hazard tree removal and mowing
> grass near historic structures would be localized and negligible to
> minor.
>
> **Cultural Landscape**
>
> The direct effects of fire suppression on the cultural landscape under
> the no-action alternative would be the temporary presence of
> firefighters and firefighting equipment and the intrusion of
> firelines. Given past fire history, the intrusion of firefighters and
> equipment would be in the magnitude of a few hours or days per decade.
> Firelines would be rehabilitated (obliterated or camouflaged) soon
> after fires are controlled. Indirect effects of suppression would
> include potential erosion in mineral soil of firelines. Use of water
> rather than digging firelines and rehabilitation of new firelines
> would mitigate this potential effect. The longer term indirect effect
> would be adverse and minor due to the difficulty in restoring more
> natural grasslands under the no action alternative.
>
> The direct effect on the cultural landscape from hazard tree removal
> and mowing around historic structures is the presence of small areas
> of manicured vegetation within the landscape. Such actions are deemed
> appropriate, though, for visitor safety and defensible space around
> historic structures. Indirect effects of hazard tree removal and
> mowing are not evident.
>
> The direct and indirect impacts of the no-action alternative on the
> cultural landscape would be localized, short-term and minor.

In summary, the direct impacts of the no-action alternative on cultural
resources would be localized, short-term, and negligible to minor. The
indirect impacts of the no-action alternative on cultural resources
would be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* The NHS is engaged in or planning other activities
which would contribute to cumulative impacts. These include restoration
of native grasslands which would more completely present the historic
scene, construction of a new Visitor Center, and moving maintenance
operations out of the Historic Zone. Grazing of horses would be
compatible with the cultural landscape. The impacts of these activities
on cultural resources would be mitigated in the planning and
implementation phases and would therefore be localized and minor. The
impacts of the no-action alternative are regarded as localized,
short-term and negligible to minor. Therefore, the cumulative impacts
would be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the no-action alternative on
cultural resources would be localized, short-term, and negligible to
minor. The indirect impacts of the no-action alternative on cultural
resources would be localized, short-term, and minor.

The no-action alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or
impairment to cultural resources whose conservation is necessary to the
purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions
identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 2: AMR and Integrated Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* As noted above under the no-action alternative, the
effects of fire on surface and subsurface artifacts vary with fuel
loading and fire behavior. More intense fire on surface artifacts may
cause scorching, fracturing, charring, and spalling.  If artifacts are
buried under as little as 1 cm of soil, the effects are far less. Head
fires generate a smaller downward heat pulse than do backing fires. With
prescribed burning, use of head fires can reduce any potential impact on
unknown surface archeological resources. Fire suppression and prescribed
fire activities in fine fuels include construction of "scratch" lines,
blacklining, use of swatters, and direct attack with water. 

The amount of fire on the landscape would be increased under the
preferred alternative. With use of appropriate management responses to
wildland fires, acreage may increase slightly as natural and man-made
barriers are used in lieu of constructed firelines. Prescribed fire
would be used to maintain and restore native grasslands on fewer than
200 acres during a typical 5-year period. When prescribed burning is
proposed near historic structures, the prescribed burn plans would
specify actions to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts to known
structures or features.

Mechanical reduction of hazardous wildland fuels would be conducted
primarily in the riparian areas. The Cultural Landscapes Inventory
regards the riparian cottonwood groves as noncontributing elements.

> **Archeological Resources**
>
> With the preferred alternative, slightly larger acreage may burn as
> appropriate management responses are implemented. This, however, would
> result in fewer firelines and avoidance of known archeological sites.
> The direct impacts of fire suppression on archeological resources
> under the preferred alternative would be to expose buried
> archeological materials during handline construction or disturb
> materials immediately below the surface with vehicle use. In
> grasslands, however, the initial attack would focus on using natural
> barriers. Other suppression activities would probably be with swatters
> and water, thus further limiting ground disturbance. Fire may have a
> higher resistance to control in woodlands. Most woodlands occur in the
> riparian zone/floodplain where the likelihood or archeological
> resources is much lower. The indirect effects include exposure of
> artifacts to erosion and theft. Given (a) very infrequent fire
> occurrence, (b) small fire size, and (c) implementation of identified
> mitigations and management constraints, the direct and indirect
> effects of fire suppression on archeological resources under the
> preferred alternative would be localized and minor.
>
> Prescribed burning would occur under the preferred alternative on
> fewer than 200 acres in a typical 5-year period and seldom over 50
> acres in a single year. Burning would be primarily in grasslands.
> Known archeological sites could be avoided during preparation of
> control lines. The direct impacts of prescribed burning would be to
> damage stone or ceramic resources by scorching, fracturing, charring,
> and spalling if fire intensity is quite high. However, fire intensity
> in grasslands is usually low (especially with head fires) so
> temperatures at the ground surface would be elevated only slightly.
> Indirect impacts include exposure of surface artifacts to erosion or
> theft. Most burned grasslands, however, would "green up" within the
> same season or, at the latest, the next spring. Regrowth would then
> diminish the possibility of artifacts being eroded or stolen. The
> direct and indirect impacts of prescribed burning would be localized,
> short-term and minor.
>
> Most mechanical hazardous fuels reduction would occur in the riparian
> woodlands. These are situated on floodplains where the likelihood of
> archeological material is less than on uplands. The direct impact of
> mechanical hazard fuel reductions would be exposure of materials due
> to ground disturbance by vehicles associated with the activities.
> Indirect impacts would include exposure of artifacts to erosion and
> theft. With avoidance of known archeological resources and
> implementation of mitigation actions, the direct and indirect impacts
> of hazard tree removal and mowing would be localized and minor.
>
> **Historic Structures**
>
> Again, slightly more acres may be burned when wildland fires are
> managed under an appropriate management response. The direct impact of
> fire suppression on historic structures would be limited to the
> potential to damage such structures by contact with fire fighting
> equipment. Indirect impacts include the possibility of smoke damage.
> Given (a) very infrequent fire occurrence, (b) small fire size, and
> (c) fuel management (mowed grass) adjacent to most structures, the
> direct and indirect effects of fire suppression on historic structures
> under the preferred alternative would be localized and negligible to
> minor.
>
> Most prescribed burning would not be conducted near historic
> structures. When prescribed burning is proposed near historic
> structures, one or more of the mitigations mentioned under the
> Alternatives section above would be included in the prescribed fire
> plan and implemented prior to ignition. With mitigations in place and
> mowed grass adjacent to historic structures, there should be no direct
> adverse impacts to historic structures. Indirect impacts would include
> smoke drifting into historic structures. Prescriptions using wind
> directions that move smoke away from structures would reduce or
> eliminate this effect. Given the infrequency of prescribed burning and
> small burn block size, the direct and indirect impacts of prescribed
> burning on historic structures would be localized, short-term, and
> negligible to minor.
>
> Most mechanical hazardous fuels reduction would occur in the riparian
> woodlands. These are situated on floodplains where there are no
> historic structures. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect
> adverse impacts of mechanical hazardous fuels reduction actions on
> historic structures.
>
> In summary, the direct and indirect adverse impacts of the preferred
> alternative on historic structures would be localized, short-term, and
> negligible to minor.
>
> **Cultural Landscape**
>
> The direct effects of fire suppression on the cultural landscape under
> the preferred alternative would be the temporary presence of
> firefighters and firefighting equipment and the intrusion of
> firelines. Given past fire history, the intrusion of firefighters and
> equipment would be in the magnitude of a few hours or days per decade.
> Firelines would be rehabilitated (obliterated or camouflaged) soon
> after fires are controlled. Indirect effects of suppression would
> include potential erosion in mineral soil of firelines. Use of water
> rather than digging firelines, and rehabilitation of new firelines
> would mitigate this potential effect. The direct and indirect adverse
> impacts of fire suppression under the preferred alternative would be
> localized, short-term, and minor.
>
> Prescribed burning would occur under the preferred alternative on
> fewer than 200 acres in a typical 5-year period and seldom over 50
> acres in a single year. Burning would be primarily in grasslands. The
> SHPO requests that consultation occur on individual prescribed fires
> during preparation of the prescribed fire burn plan. The direct impact
> of prescribed burning on the cultural landscape would be temporarily
> blackened areas -- fewer than 200 acres in an average 5-year period
> and seldom more than 50 acres in a single year. Most burned
> grasslands, however, would "green up" within the same season or, at
> the latest, the next spring. Regrowth would then diminish the effect
> on the cultural landscape. The indirect effect of prescribed burning
> would be to maintain robust and diverse grassland communities and thus
> maintain an important element of the cultural landscape. The direct
> adverse impacts of prescribed burning on the cultural landscape would
> be localized, short-term, and minor. The indirect impact of prescribed
> burning on the cultural landscape would be localized, long-term, minor
> to moderate, and beneficial.
>
> Riparian woodlands are considered a noncontributing element to the
> cultural landscape. Mechanical fuels reduction projects would thin
> cottonwood stands and reduce shrub understories. There would be no
> direct adverse impacts on the cultural landscape from mechanical fuels
> reductions. The indirect impact of mechanical fuels reductions would
> be to bring the vista associated with riparian woodlands closer to
> that which would have existed in the historical period. Thus the
> indirect effect would be localized, minor, and beneficial.
>
> In summary, the direct adverse impacts of the preferred alternative on
> the cultural landscape would be localized, short-term, and minor. The
> indirect impacts would be localized, long-term, minor to moderate, and
> beneficial.
>
> Overall, the direct impacts of the preferred alternative on the
> cultural resources would be localized, short-term, and minor. The
> indirect impacts, particularly for cultural landscapes, would be
> localized, long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial.

*Section 106 Summary:* After applying the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5,
*Assessment of Adverse Effects*), we conclude that the preferred
alternative would be managed and implemented to have *no adverse effect*
on cultural resources at Fort Laramie National Historic Site.

*Cumulative Effects:* The NHS is engaged in or planning other activities
which would contribute to cumulative impacts. These include restoration
of native grasslands which would more completely present the historic
scene, construction of a new Visitor Center, and moving maintenance
operations out of the Historic Zone. Grazing of horses would be
compatible with the cultural landscape. The impacts of these activities
on cultural resources would be mitigated in the planning and
implementation phases and would therefore be localized and minor. The
adverse impacts of the preferred alternative are regarded as localized,
short-term and negligible to minor. Therefore, the cumulative adverse
impacts would be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Conclusion:* The direct impacts of the preferred alternative on
cultural resources would be localized, short-term, and minor. The
indirect impacts, particularly for cultural landscapes, would be
localized, long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial.

The preferred alternative would not produce any major adverse impacts or
impairment to cultural resources whose conservation is necessary to the
purpose of the establishment of the monument, that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions
identified as a management goal of the monument.

Impacts of Alternative 3: AMR and Non-fire Fuels Mgt

*Impact Analysis:* The impacts of Alternative 3 would be the same as
described under the preferred alternative, with the exception that no
prescribed burning and attendant impacts would occur. With the absence
of prescribed fire from this alternative, grasslands important to the
cultural landscape would be more difficult to maintain in the long-term.
This would be an indirect adverse impact associated with Alternative 3.

Overall, the direct and indirect adverse impacts of Alternative 3 on the
cultural resources would be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Cumulative Effects:* The NHS is engaged in or planning other activities
which would contribute to cumulative impacts. These include restoration
of native grasslands which would more completely present the historic
scene, construction of a new Visitor Center, and moving maintenance
operations out of the Historic Zone. Grazing of horses would be
compatible with the cultural landscape. The impacts of these activities
on cultural resources would be mitigated in the planning and
implementation phases and would therefore be localized and minor. The
adverse impacts of Alternative 3 are regarded as localized, short-term
and negligible to minor. Therefore, the cumulative adverse impacts would
be localized, short-term, and minor.

*Conclusion:* Both the direct and indirect impacts of Alternative 3 on
cultural resources would be localized, short-term, and minor.
Alternative 3 would not produce any major adverse impacts or impairment
to cultural resources whose conservation is necessary to the purpose of
the establishment of the monument, that are key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the monument, or that are actions identified as a
management goal of the monument.

# Chapter 4 -- CONSULTATION/COORDINATION

### 

# Agencies/Organizations/Persons Contacted During Scoping

> By telephone and letter:
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> State Historic Preservation Officer, State of Wyoming
>
> By letter:
>
> Arapaho Business Council
>
> Flandreau Santee Lakota
>
> Oglala Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Santee Sioux Tribal Council
>
> Standing Rock Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Shoshone Business Council
>
> Crow Tribe of Montana
>
> Cheyenne River Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Lower Brule Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Crow Creek Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council
>
> Rosebud Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Council
>
> Yankton Sioux Tribal Council
>
> Bureau of Land Management
>
> Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
>
> Laura Flannery
>
> Historic Landmark Commission
>
> Sophia Foote
>
> Fort Laramie Cemetery Association
>
> Jack Gregg
>
> Byron Paules
>
> Charles Oliver
>
> Goshen County
>
> Walter Missel
>
> Town of Fort Laramie
>
> City of Torrington
>
> Town of Lingle
>
> Goshen County Irrigation Ditch Company
>
> Fort Laramie Ditch Company
>
> Corn Creek
>
> Hal Carnahan
>
> By Press Release:
>
> Scottsbluff Star Herald
>
> Gering Courier
>
> KOLT Radio (Scottsbluff)
>
> KDUH TV (Scottsbluff)
>
> Wheatland Chamber of Commerce
>
> KUWR (Laramie)
>
> Guernsey Gazette
>
> The Lingle Guide
>
> The Lusk Herald
>
> KGOS Radio (Torrington)
>
> KSTF TV (Gering)
>
> Torrington Chamber of Commerce
>
> Wyoming Travel & Tourism
>
> Buffalo Bill Historical Center Museum (Cody)
>
> The Torrington Telegram
>
> Platte County Record
>
> KMOR Radio (Scottsbluff)
>
> Wyoming State Historical Society (History News) (Cheyenne)
>
> Representative Barbara Cubin.

# Preparers 

# Stephen Petersburg, Wildland Fire Associates

Tammy Benson, Chief Ranger, Fort Laramie National Historic Site

Lisa Elenz, Fire Management Officer, Grand Teton National Park

# List of EA Recipients

##### Federal Agencies

> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> Bureau of Land Management
>
> Natural Resource Conservation Service

##### Tribes

> Arapaho Business Council
>
> Flandreau Santee Lakota
>
> Oglala Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Santee Sioux Tribal Council
>
> Standing Rock Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Shoshone Business Council
>
> Crow Tribe of Montana
>
> Cheyenne River Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Lower Brule Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Crow Creek Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council
>
> Rosebud Lakota Tribal Council
>
> Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Council
>
> Yankton Sioux Tribal Council

##### State Agencies

> State Historic Preservation Officer
>
> Wyoming Game and Fish Department

# REFERENCES

Jones, G.P. and B. Tebben. 2002. A Vegetation Management Plan for Fort
Laramie National Historic Site. Final Report for CA 1248-00-005. Univ.
of Wyo. Laramie, WY. 93 pp.

Keohan, T.G. 1993. Preliminary Cultural Landscape Report, Fort Laramie
National Historic Site, Goshen County, Wyoming. *In* Final Environmental
Impact Statement, General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan,
Interpretive Prospectus. August 1993. Nat. Park Service, Rocky Mountain
Reg. Off. 55 pp.

National Park Service. 1989. Statement for Management, Fort Laramie
National Historic Site. May 1989. Nat. Park Service, Fort Laramie NHS.
22 pp.

National Park Service. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement and
General Management Plan. *In* Final Environmental Impact Statement,
General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Interpretive
Prospectus. August 1993. Nat. Park Service, Fort Laramie NHS. 137 pp.

National Park Service. 2001. *Management Policies*. U.S. Department of
Interior, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 2002. Fort Laramie National Historic Site
Cultural Landscape. Internal report. Nat. Park Service, Intermountain
Region. 48 pp.

Olson, R.A., B.L. Perryman, S. Petersburg, and T. Naumann. 2003. Fire
effects on small mammal communities in Dinosaur National Monument.
Western North Amer. Nat. 63 (1): 50-55.

Olson, R.A., B.L. Perryman, S.J. Petersburg and T. Naumann. *In prep.*
Fire Effects on Passerine Bird Communities in Dinosaur National
Monument.

Perryman, B.L., R.A. Olson, S. Petersburg, and T. Naumann. 2002.
Vegetation response to prescribed fire in Dinosaur National Monument.
Western North Amer. Nat. 62 (4):414-422.

**To request a copy of the appendices or figures please contact:**

**Superintendent**

**Fort Laramie National Historic Site**

**965 Gray Rocks Road**

**Fort Laramie, Wyoming 82212**

**(307) 837-2221**