Assessment to Address Valley County’s Request for ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Valley, Gem, and Boise Counties, Idaho Boise National Lead Agency: USDA-Forest

Draft Decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant Impacts

Assessment to Address Valley County’s Request for Snowmobile Grooming Routes

2016

Boise National Forest

Cascade, Emmett, and Lowman Ranger Districts Valley, Gem, and Boise Counties, Idaho

Lead Agency:

USDA-Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor

Cecilia R. Seesholtz Boise National Forest

1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200

Boise, ID 83709-1663

For More Information

Contact: Ronda Bishop (208) 382-7460

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

mailto:[email protected]

Snowmobile Grooming Route Project Draft Decision Notice

1

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Assessment to Address Valley County’s Request for Snowmobile Grooming Routes was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1500-1508) and the Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended in 20101,2.

The over snow vehicle (OSV) route grooming program has been ongoing on the Boise National Forest (Forest) since the early to mid-1990s. In 2001, the program was analyzed under NEPA and a Decision Memo (DM) was signed authorizing Valley County’s grooming activities on the Forest. The 2001 DM and the associated biological assessment (BA) established the “baseline” conditions for compacted snow in the West Mountain, East Mountain, Warm Lake, Burntlog, Yellowpine, and Landmark Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs). Baseline conditions for all remaining LAUs on the Forest, including the Bulldead LAU, were established with the Biological Assessment of Effects of Ongoing Activities on Canada Lynx on the Boise National Forest3. Subsequent decisions in 2003 and 2004 increased grooming activities in the Bulldead LAU and decreased miles of OSV trails in the immediately adjacent Landmark LAU. A Decision Notice (DN) signed in 2012 authorized Valley County’s grooming activities on the Forest for 2012–20174.

Under the terms and conditions of a cost-share agreement (CSA) between the Forest Service, Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (agreement #13-CS-11040204-004), Valley County is authorized to use National Forest System (NFS) lands for the purpose of grooming OSV trails on roads, trials and areas that have been previously designated for over snow vehicle (OSV) use by the Forest Service. The Boise National Forest completed the process for designation of roads, trails and areas for OSV use under 36 CFR 212 Subpart C in February 2016 by following the process under 36 CFR 212.81(b).

Valley County is the lead agency and assumes responsibility for completing the grooming activities under the direction of an annual operating plan and the CSA. The Forest portion of the agreement authorized Valley County to groom OSV trails within State Designated Snowmobile Areas 43c, 43d, and a portion of 43b. The current cost-share agreement will expire on May 30, 2017 (EA, section 1.2).

1 USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Boise National Forest land and resource management plan. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 2 USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Boise National Forest land and resource management plan. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 3 Nutt, L. 2002b. Biological assessment of effects of ongoing activities on Canada lynx on the Boise National Forest. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 4 USDA Forest Service. 2012. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for the snowmobile trail grooming in Valley, Gem, and Boise counties project. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest.

Draft Decision Notice Snowmobile Grooming Route Project

2

Purpose and Need Valley County has requested renewal of the CSA between the Forest Service, Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Valley County has also requested additional OSV routes to be included in the existing grooming program and associated CSA. The purpose of an amended CSA would be to document cooperation between the various parties for the OSV grooming routes within the boundaries of State Designated Areas 43c, 43d, and a portion of 43b on the Forest, as authorized under the 2012 DN/FONSI5, as well as any additional routes authorized as a result of this assessment and decision.

This action is needed to respond to the high demand for the recreational benefits of a groomed OSV trail system on the Forest and the associated economic benefits to rural communities. In 2009, employment in sectors reflecting a dependence on visitors and tourism accounted for about 30% of the total jobs in both Cascade and McCall6. Looking at more recent data, the employment base of Valley County related to accommodations and food (the industry category that best captures local expenditures by OSV users visiting from elsewhere) increased from 11.4% in 2001 to 13.5% in 2011, making it one of the fastest growing economic drivers in the county during the reporting period7. Based on a study published by the University of Idaho, snowmobiling visitors spend an average of $106 per person per day, $89 of that in Valley County8. The study states that in 2003, approximately 50,000 snowmobile enthusiasts visited Valley County. The contribution of snowmobiling to the economy of Valley County, measured in terms of potential sales, income (wages and salaries), and jobs in 2002/2003 was 119 jobs created by the sale of goods and services and a total of $2.6 million in personal income directly and indirectly associated with the sale of goods and services. (EA, Section 3.3):

Alternative C (Proposed Action) was developed to meet two specific needs:

1. To respond to Valley County’s request to continue the OSV trail grooming program that helps support rural economies in Valley County

2. To further facilitate an improved recreational experience for OSV operators who prefer groomed routes within areas that have been identified as open to snowmobile use while still meeting other resource management objectives in this area

5 USDA Forest Service. 2012. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for the snowmobile trail grooming in Valley, Gem, and Boise counties project. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 6 ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Final environmental impact statement supporting Forest Plan amendments to integrate the Boise National Forest wildlife conservation strategy. Phase 1: Forested biological community. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 7 Headwaters Economics. 2014. A profile of socioeconomic measures of Valley County, Idaho. Produced by Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit, January 16, 2014. 8 Larsen, R., G. Taylor, and S. Hines. 2006. The economic impact of snowmobiling in Valley County. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station.


3

Groomed OSV routes associated with the Proposed Action would occur in Management Areas (MAs) 9 and 13–21 as described in the Forest Plan as amended in 20109. The Proposed Action is expected to contribute to the accomplishment of all, or portions of, the following Forest Plan goals and objectives:

REGO03—Address current and emerging recreation conflicts, while maintaining recreation opportunities when possible.

REGO06—Provide an array of winter recreation experiences, while mitigating conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use and wintering wildlife.

REOB11—Collaborate with other government agencies, recreation partners, volunteer organizations, and the recreation and tourism industry in recreation planning and delivery efforts to:

a. Provide support to local economies, b. Promote management efficiency, and c. Improve recreation opportunities and experiences available to the public.

REOB22—Provide networks of marked and designed snow machine, cross-country ski, and other winter travel routes and trailhead facilities, while meeting other resource goals and objectives.

REOB24—Provide opportunities for backcountry winter recreation in areas without wintering wildlife conflicts.

REOB25—Support winter trail management through cooperative agreements with other agencies and groups.

TEOB29—During travel planning, identify areas of concentrated snow compaction activities (designated trails, snow play areas) in lynx habitat within LAUs, and minimize snow compaction in those areas to reduce potential conflicts.

MA 13 Objective 1346—Provide over-the-snow recreation access and emphasize user education to reduce the potential for adverse social or environmental effects.

MA 13 Objective 1347—Continue to provide high-quality snowmobiling opportunities, both trail and cross-country, in the Tyndall Ridge and Pilgrim Mountain areas, and in the non-wilderness portions of Bernard Creek drainage.

MA 13 Objective 1348—Continue to cooperate with Valley and Custer Counties for grooming over-snow trails to maintain that winter recreation opportunity.

MA 14 Objective 1431—Continue to coordinate with Boise County on grooming snowmobile trails to enhance winter recreation opportunities and experiences.

9 USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Boise National Forest land and resource management plan. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest.


4

MA 15 Objective 1538—Continue to coordinate with Boise County, Valley County, and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails to maintain winter recreation opportunities.

MA 16 Objective 1635—Continue cooperation with counties on grooming trails to maintain over-snow recreation opportunities.

MA 16 Objective 1637—Provide over-snow recreation access and emphasize user education to minimize the potential social or environmental impacts.

MA 16 Objective 1638—Continue to provide high-quality snowmobiling opportunities, both trail and cross-country, in the Snowbank portion of the area.

MA 17 Objective 1729—Continue to provide high-quality snowmobiling opportunities, both trail and cross-country, in the Snowbank portion of the management area.

MA 17 Objective 1730—Provide over-snow recreation access and emphasize user education to minimize the potential social or environmental impacts.

MA 17 Objective 1733—Continue to coordinate with Boise County, Valley County, and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails to enhance recreation opportunities.

MA 18 Objective 1848—Continue to coordinate with Valley County and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails to maintain that winter recreation opportunity.

MA 19 Objective 1954—Continue to coordinate with Valley County and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails.

MA 20 Objective 2027—Continue to coordinate with Valley County and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails to maintain winter recreation opportunities.

MA 21 Objective 2135—Continue to coordinate with Valley County and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation on the grooming of snowmobile trails to maintain this winter recreation opportunity.

DECISION

Pursuant to the delegation by the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR 2.60 and Chief of the Forest Service at FSM 2404.2 and Exhibit 01 at FSM 2404.28, I have been delegated the authority to make this decision.

I have reviewed the analysis presented in the EA for the Assessment to Address Valley County’s Request for Snowmobile Grooming Routes; considered the comments received


5

during public scoping and legal notice and comment periods; and discussed the project’s anticipated effects with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and Forest Staff. As a result, I have decided to implement Alternative C, the Proposed Action with a modification. My decision authorizes a new CSA between the Forest Service, Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. My decision authorizes the grooming of OSV trails on roads, trials and areas that have been previously designated for over snow vehicle (OSV) use by the Forest Service; the cutting of 10 to 12 trees to establish 0.65 miles of cross-country OSV trail; design features; and a project-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment.

Specifically, I am making the decision to modify the Proposed Action as presented in the EA, apply design features and/or mitigation measures to mitigate undesirable effects, and include a project-specific Forest Plan amendment as described below.

Proposed Action Modification My decision will authorize the amendment of the existing CSA between the Forest Service, Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to respond to Valley County’s August 2013 request for additional routes. Under the terms of the amended agreement, Valley County will be allowed to groom an additional 14.0 miles of routes on roads, trials and areas that have been previously designated for over snow vehicle (OSV) use on the Boise National Forest as noted below:

• An additional 2.0 miles on NF road 437 to the trailhead (Sand Creek Road) • An additional 2.0 miles on NFS road 410 (Ditch Creek Road) • An additional 6.0 miles on NFS road 447 (Burntlog Road) • An additional 4.0 miles on NFS road 414 (Horn Creek Road)

An additional 1.6 miles on NFS road 442 (Sulfur Creek Road) was included in the analysis disclosed in the EA. Individual trail sections were analyzed in terms of environmental effects and contribution to the purpose and need for the project. NFS road 442 (Sulphur Creek Road) is currently groomed to a point of easy access to an open meadow area. Data indicate the open area is already used without the additional groomed trail. I have determined that this trail segment would not contribute to meeting the purpose and need for the project, specifically the second objective: To further facilitate an improved recreational experience for OSV operators who prefer groomed routes within areas that have been identified as open to snowmobile use while still meeting other resource management objectives in this area. I have determined that the effects resulting from this modification would fall within those described in the EA for Alternative C. Thus, no additional supplemental disclosures are needed.

My decision will amend the current agreement and will authorize a new CSA for an additional 5 years. Under the terms of the amended agreement that will expire in May 2017 and the new 5 year agreement to be authorized from 2018 through May of 2022, Valley County will be allowed to groom the 239 miles of OSV trails identified in their existing agreement, as well as an additional 14.0 miles authorized in this decision, for a total of 253.0 miles of OSV trails.


6

An estimated 10 to 12 trees will be felled to establish 0.65 miles of groomed trail (previously authorized under the 2012 decision) that will traverse cross-country in the Gibson Creek drainage. These 0.65 miles will occur in the south end of the Poison Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and within the Backcountry/Restoration Management Theme established by the Idaho Roadless Rule. No other trees will be cut.

Grooming activities will typically occur between November 15 and April 30 annually, as determined by snow conditions. Groomed trail widths will vary somewhat but generally will not exceed 15 feet (EA, section 2.4.1.3).

Design Features My decision includes a number of design features incorporated to minimize or avoid effects on a variety of resources including terrestrial wildlife species, water quality, fisheries, and public safety. Refer to Attachment A of this document for a complete list of the design features associated with my decision.

Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment Based on the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, my decision will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34 regarding snow compaction. I have determined that implementation will require a project-specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. This non-significant amendment will waive the requirement for applying standard TEST34 to this project. As a result, a net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the Burntlog, East Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and West Mountain LAUs for both the modified agreement, which expires on May 30, 2017, and the new 5 year agreement (EA, section 1.5).

Attachment B of this document presents my rationale and determination that this amendment will be non-significant.

Waiving application of this standard through this project-specific amendment only applies for the duration of the CSA and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which future standard consistency will be determined. When the CSA requires expires in May 2022, should a new agreement be approved, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or, if not consistent, a new project-specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

I have selected Alternative C (Authorize a New Grooming Agreement and Expand Groomed Snowmobile Routes) with one modification because it provides the greatest attainment of the project’s purpose and need while still being sensitive to other resource concerns within the project area. My decision is responsive to Valley County’s request to continue the OSV trail grooming program (EA, section 3.2.1), will help meet the high public demand for a groomed


7

OSV trail system (EA, section 3.2.1), and will help support rural economies in Valley County (EA, section 3.3).

The analysis documented in the EA did not identify any unacceptable impacts on terrestrial wildlife species (EA, section 3.10), non-motorized winter recreation (EA, section 3.2.1), water quality (EA, section 3.8.1), fisheries (EA, section 3.9), or other resources (EA, Chapter 3).

Modified Proposed Action My decision to select Alternative C with a modification will authorize Valley County to groom 253.0 miles of OSV trails on the Forest as described above, providing a network of groomed OSV trails similar to historic levels (EA, section 2.5.1.2).

The individual trail sections were analyzed in terms of environmental effects and contribution to the purpose and need for the project. I have determined that adding 1.6 miles of NFS road 442 (Sulphur Creek Road) will not contribute to meeting the purpose and need for the project, specifically the second objective: To further facilitate an improved recreational experience for OSV operators who prefer groomed routes within areas that have been identified as open to snowmobile use while still meeting other resource management objectives in this area. NFS road 442 is currently groomed to a point of easy access to an open meadow area. Data indicate the open area is already used without the additional groomed trail.

Visitor use resulting from my decision is expected to remain similar to or exceed those numbers recorded in 2003 (i.e., 50,000 visitors in Valley County). The contribution of snowmobiling to the economy of Valley County is also expected to remain similar to or exceed those values measured in 2002/2003 (i.e., 119 jobs created and a total of $2.6 million in personal income) (EA, section 3.3).

Given that nearly all of the OSV trails will occur on existing roads or motorized trails, my decision will not reduce the quantity of habitat for any terrestrial wildlife species of concern. My decision could affect habitat quality through disturbance or displacement of individual animals or their prey species if present. However, those effects are expected to be negligible for a variety of reasons, including the apparent tolerance of human presence and/or noise by species of concern and the availability of undisturbed habitat (EA, section 3.10).

Existing information in literature on the behavioral responses of lynx toward humans states that lynx “can tolerate human disturbance and even continued presence”10. Other anecdotal reports suggest that lynx are not displaced by human presence, including moderate levels of

10 Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR- 30WWW.


8

snowmobile traffic and ski area activities11. To date, most investigations of lynx have not shown human presence to influence how lynx use the landscape, but further research is needed on this topic12. A study by Kolbe and Squires13 assessed diurnal activity of lynx and, although the effect of human-caused disturbances on lynx behavior was not specifically assessed, the overlap between peak lynx activity periods and human-related activities (such as motorized recreation) caused the researchers to suggest it may be appropriate to consider potential disturbance to lynx when managing those types of activities. Even if lynx appear to be tolerant of human activities in general, they may be more sensitive when activities occur near den sites11.

Because the science is inconclusive regarding lynx tolerance of human disturbance, I have considered the extent, duration, and level of exposure that will occur from authorizing groomed OSV trails should lynx be present. The amount of lynx habitat within 0.5 miles of any groomed trail, the approximate distance that sound would travel, will be relatively small in comparison to habitat available within each LAU. Therefore, the majority of lynx habitat within individual LAUs will not be affected by the noise of snowmobiles on groomed trails. Since abandonment of a den site could affect kitten survival11, I have included a design feature to protect lynx denning activities from disturbance should a lynx den site be discovered near a groomed trail (EA, section 2.4.2). Finally, extensive hair snare survey work implemented in, and adjacent to, the LAUs in this analysis area has detected other furbearers such as wolverine and fisher but not lynx, inferring if lynx are extant in this portion of their range, they are extremely rare. The most recent confirmed lynx observation on the Forest were hair samples from 1999, but no additional observations were reported between 1999 and 2003 when continued intensive sampling was conducted. Since that observation, the 2007 wildfire season burned much of the lynx habitat in the eastern half of the analysis area (EA, section 3.10.2.1).

My decision has the potential to facilitate access beyond the existing groomed route network and further into the backcountry. Recreation use data validates users have historically recreated on ungroomed roads and meadows east and south of Landmark LAU14,15. Data collected in 2011 show most of the use occurs within the Landmark LAU with occasional forays into the lower Burntlog and upper Bulldead LAUs. However, lynx habitat in the Landmark and Burntlog LAUs is currently well below desired conditions because of the 2007 wildfire. Given the rarity of the species within the analysis area, the poor condition of source habitat within the Burntlog and Landmark LAUs, and the expectation that lynx would not be present in these 11 Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holdt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. 12 Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR- 30WWW. 13 Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5): 1409–1418. 14 Heinemeyer, K., J. Squires, and J. Copeland. 2011b. Unpublished Data. Raw GPS recreation user data showing extent of recreation activity between January and April 2011. Data collected as part of the Central Idaho Wolverine and Winter Recreation Research Project. 15 Unpublished data


9

LAUs until substantial habitat recovers in 10 to15 years, the small amount of habitat affected by the additional miles, the apparent tolerance of the species to human presence, and because the majority of source habitat will remain undisturbed by proposed activities in all analysis area LAUs, any impacts from disturbance from these additional miles of groomed route above what would occur under Alternative C will be negligible. (EA, section 3.10.2.1). Based on the analysis summarized in the EA, my decision “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx. The planning record documents that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this effects determination.

Similar to the situation with lynx, the amount of wolverine habitat within 0.5 miles of any groomed trail will be relatively small in comparison to total habitat within the analysis area. Preliminary findings of the Investigating the Interactions Between Wolverines and Winter Recreation Use16 appear to show that at the home range scale there does not appear to be spatial avoidance of recreated areas in wolverines monitored to date 17,18. Selected Alternative C would incrementally increase the amount of source habitat affected by noise from groomed routes; however, the majority of existing suitable source habitat would remain undisturbed, leaving ample undisturbed habitat for wolverine denning, foraging, or traveling activities. Individual wolverine in proximity to groomed snowmobile routes may experience temporary, isolated disturbance but could easily move away from the disturbance and access less disturbed habitat (EA, section 3.10.2.2). Based on the analysis summarized in the EA, my decision will not jeopardize the continued existence of wolverine, and if eventually listed as Threatened under the ESA, the project “may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect” wolverine. The planning record documents that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this effects determination.

Design features associated with my decision (EA, section 2.4.2) stipulate that if an active nest or den site of any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species is found within close proximity of any groomed OSV trail, authorized activities will be modified if those actions are determined by the District Wildlife Biologist to be disrupting reproductive success. Although there are no known lynx or wolverine den sites in close proximity to OSV trails, this design feature should ensure that my decision will not disrupt reproductive success of these species (EA, sections 3.10.2.1 and 3.10.2.2).

The analysis area provides a wide variety of settings for winter recreational experiences including back-country skiing, snow-shoeing, and snowmobiling. While a moderate level of cross-country skiing likely occurs, no routes or trails in the analysis area are specifically groomed for that purpose. Some cross-country skiers likely take advantage of groomed OSV trails while other, more skilled, skiers likely pursue this activity in undisturbed areas where the terrain permits. Snow-shoeing as a recreational activity is also known to occur in the analysis

16 Heinemeyer, K.S. and John Squires. 2014. Idaho Wolverine – Winter Recreation Research Project: Investigating the Interactions Between Wolverines and Winter Recreation. 2014 Progress Report. Round River Conservation Studies and the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 pp. 17 Heinemeyer, K.S., and J. Squires. 2012. Idaho wolverine—winter recreation research project: Investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation. 2011-2012 progress report. Round River Conservation Studies and the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. 22 pp. 18 personal communication


10

area, with the majority of use likely occurring on undisturbed roads in the area and lesser amounts on groomed OSV trails (EA, section 3.2.1).

My decision is not expected to result in a measurable effect on non-motorized recreational uses in the analysis area. The OSV trail grooming program has been ongoing at similar levels since the mid-1990s. The level of use within the analysis area for snow-shoeing and/or cross-country skiing is not expected to noticeably change. Conflicts with non-motorized uses are expected to be minimal and snowmobile use on groomed OSV trails will be comparable to those levels existing for the last decade (EA, section 3.2.1).

My decision is not expected to result in a measurable increase in erosion or sediment delivery to any stream and the increased risk of a fuel spill will be discountable. Of the 253 miles of groomed trails, 250.5 miles will occur on existing authorized roads, 1.82 miles will occur on a motorized trail, and the remaining 0.65 miles will traverse cross-country. Activities associated with my decision will occur over snow and no ground or streambank disturbance is expected (EA, section 3.8.1). Potential effects from a fuel spill, should it occur near a live stream, would be impacts to the water quality of the stream and aquatic organisms immediately downstream of the accident. These effects would lessen as the spill is diluted downstream. Given the quantity of fuel and hydraulic oil contained in a groomer and the low probability that an accident would occur adjacent to a live stream, undesirable impacts to aquatic resources are highly unlikely (EA, sections 3.8.1 and 3.9).

My decision will maintain existing conditions and the overall trend for the sediment and chemical contaminant watershed conditions indicators (WCIs) will be static or improving, depending upon the particular subwatershed. Therefore, my decision will have no effect on the current population trends of fish species (EA, section 3.9).

Design Features

My decision includes a number of design features incorporated to minimize or avoid effects on a variety of resources with the emphasis on those related to terrestrial wildlife species, water quality/fisheries, and public safety. As explained above, my decision includes a design feature requiring that if an active nest or den site of any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species is found near any groomed OSV trail, authorized activities will be modified if those actions are determined by the District Wildlife Biologist to be disrupting reproductive success (EA, section 2.4.2). This design feature should ensure that my decision does not disrupt reproductive success of species of concern such as lynx and wolverine (EA, sections 3.10.2.1 and 3.10.2.2).

Design features associated with my decision stipulate that grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur, nor will grooming occur when the snow is wet or soft and could lead to channelized runoff across the snow surface into streams. Design features require all fuel and other chemicals associated with grooming operations will be stored at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of riparian conservation areas (RCAs); all equipment maintenance and refueling will occur at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs; grooming equipment will be maintained in a “leak-free” condition; and spill containment equipment will be kept at the groomer storage


11

shed(s) (EA, section 2.4.2). Given the incorporated design features, my decision will not result in a measurable increase in erosion or sediment delivery to any stream and the increased risk of a fuel spill will be discountable (EA, section 3.8.1). Consequently, my decision will have no effect on the current population trends of fish species (EA, section 3.9).

My decision also includes a number of design features related to public safety. One such feature states that snowmobile trail maps/brochures associated with the grooming program should promote avalanche awareness and safety for all trails and for all users. Another design feature requires Valley County to be responsible for posting and maintaining signs alerting users of the avalanche hazard in the Deadwood Summit and Deer Creek areas. A third design feature requires the annual operating plan to include a protocol for grooming activities in the vicinity of Deadwood Summit and along NFS road 435 in the Deer Creek area. This protocol has been developed by Valley County and is reviewed annually and updated/modified as necessary (EA, section 2.4.2).

Refer to Attachment A of this document for a complete list of design features associated with my decision.

Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment

Given the lack of information on the sensitivity of lynx to snow compaction, the following standard was incorporated into the Forest Plan (TEST34): “Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over- the-snow routes or play areas, outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, and access to private inholdings. Also, permits, authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still comply with this standard.”

The analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA explains that my decision will increase the total miles of groomed routes and consistent snow compaction within the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs in areas previously ungroomed and, therefore, will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34. The analysis also concluded my decision will not adversely affect lynx or its habitat (EA, section 3.10.2.1).

Routes groomed under the existing CSA put the LAUs over threshold in the East Mountain LAU by 4.91 miles and in the West Mountain LAU by 3.64 miles. Both of these LAUs also have segments of groomed routes outside the baseline footprint (5.28 miles in the East Mountain LAU and 3.50 miles in the West Mountain LAU). The Landmark and Warm Lake LAUs are currently below baseline in groomed amounts; however, 1.11 and 3.09 miles, respectively, are outside of the baseline footprint.

Of the additional 14.0 miles selected under selected Alternative C, 5.85 miles are within the Landmark LAU and will result in a net increase in miles of compacted snow conditions within the LAU that exceeds baseline conditions by 4.62 miles, nearly all of which do not overlap


12

spatially with baseline routes. The additional routes included under selected Alternative C will increase snow compaction in the Burntlog LAU by 8.18 miles.

Given the rarity of lynx on the Forest, the small increase in groomed miles in suitable lynx habitat, and the extent of habitat greater than 0.5 miles from OSV trails, any disturbance from authorized activities will likely be tolerated by a lynx and effects will be negligible (EA, section 3.10.2.1).

Given the information summarized above, I am confident that the selected Alternative C will meet the intent of Forest Plan standard TEST34 (i.e., minimize or avoid adverse effects to lynx). Therefore, my decision includes a project-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment. This non-significant amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project. As a result, a net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the Landmark, West Mountain, East Mountain, and Burntlog LAUs for the duration of the CSA through May 2022 (EA, section 2.4.1.3).

Attachment B of this document presents my rationale and determination that this will be a non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan.

Waiving application of this standard through this project-specific amendment only applies for the duration of the CSA through May 2022 and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which future standard consistency will be determined. When the CSA expires in May 2022, should a new agreement be approved, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or, if not consistent, a new project-specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.y.

Consultation, Governmental Agency Coordination, and Public Involvement

Public involvement has been extensive throughout the planning and analysis process leading to this decision. The project was presented to or discussed with key stakeholder organizations at appropriate meetings and/or public forums, including Valley County Commissioners meetings (multiple dates spanning 2013 to 2015, as shown in project record); Valley County Snowmobile Advisory Committee (multiple dates spanning 2013 to 2015, as shown in the project record); and the Winter Recreation Advisory Meeting in McCall, Idaho, on November 11, 2014.

Representatives from the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries discussed the project and potential effects on multiple dates. The project was first introduced to the Level 1 Team during a field trip on September 17, 2013. The project was officially presented to the Level 1 Team on December 10, 2013, The Biological Assessment (BA) was finalized in August 2014 and submitted for concurrence. Subsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries issued concurrence letters. In late 2014, the decision to expand the scope of the project to include both the proposed route expansion and the authorization of the CSA for 2018-2022 was made. On December 11, 2014, a Level 1 meeting was held to present the revised project to the team. The Cascade District then wrote the current


13

BA in April and May 2015 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries issued concurrence letters on November 30, 2015 (01EIFW00-2016-I-0143) (USDI FWS 2015)19. In April 2016, the status of the wolverine was listed as federally proposed. An amendment to the BA was prepared and submitted for conferencing with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 2016. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence on September 9, 2016 (USDI FWS 2016)20.

The project was presented in person to the Shoshone Paiute Tribe at the Wings and Roots meeting on December 12, 2013; tabled for additional information; and presented again at the Wings and Roots meeting on September 11, 2014. At that meeting, the Shoshone Paiute Tribe expressed concerns that expanding groomed routes could impact the land and wildlife and were troubled by the frequency of consultations regarding snowmobile use (2012 CSA renewal, 2014 route expansion, and future 2017 CSA renewal). After further consideration, the Forest Supervisor decided to expand the scope of the project to address both the proposed route expansion and the renewal of the CSA so that their concerns could be addressed comprehensively.

Following consultation procedures established with each tribe, consultation letters were sent to the Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on December 19, 2013. No concerns were identified.

A scoping package describing the Proposed Action was mailed to individuals, agencies, and/or groups on December 19, 2013, and legal notices soliciting scoping comments were published in the Idaho Statesman and The Star News on December 26, 2013. Thirty-one organizations, individuals, and/or agencies were sent hardcopy letters with attachments requesting input regarding the project and another 52 emails were sent with the same information via GovDelivery. Letters soliciting comments on the Proposed Action were addressed to representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, and Valley and Gem County Commissioners. In response to these scoping efforts, comments were received from 6 interested parties who voiced a variety of concerns, including potential impacts of additional miles on recreation access, the local economy, and wildlife. The project record contains all comments received relative to these scoping efforts and discloses how the interdisciplinary team addressed those concerns. This original scoping period was focused on adding 15.6 miles of groomed routes in the eastern side of the project area.

Following the decision to expand the scope of the project to include both the proposed route expansion and the authorization of the CSA for 2018-2022, the District Ranger reached out to key stakeholders to explain the scope of the project was changing and determine if an additional formal scoping period was warranted. After those discussions, an additional formal

19 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2015. Letter of Concurrence to the Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest, for the Valley County Snowmobile Route Grooming Project Biological Assessment, from USFWS (01EIFW00-2016-I-0143). November 30, 2015. 20 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2016. Letter of Conference Concurrence to the Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest, for the Valley County Snowmobile Route Grooming Project Biological Assessment Addendum to include Wolverine, from USFWS (01EIFW00-2016-I-1025). September 9, 2016.


14

scoping period was determined to not be warranted and the analysis proceeded with consideration of both the route expansion and 2018-2022 agreement authorization.

Following these scoping efforts, but prior to completing the assessment, a legal notice announcing the 30-day opportunity to comment on the project pursuant to 36 CFR 218 was published in the Idaho Statesman (the newspaper of record) on June 15, 2016. The GovDelivery system was used to notify individuals who had expressed an interest in the project of the availability of the EA for review. Comments were received from 7 interested parties. The project record contains all comments received and discloses how the interdisciplinary team addressed those concerns.

Other Alternatives Considered Through the scoping process, the public and other agencies raised concerns in response to the Proposed Action. Identification of issues included review of written and verbal comments, input from Forest Service resource specialists, review of the Forest Plan, and comments from State and other federal agencies. Comments identified during the public involvement process were evaluated against established criteria to determine whether or not the concern would be a major factor in the analysis process. Although a number of concerns were noted during scoping and the analysis, no major issues were identified.

Although both action alternatives would necessitate a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to allow increases in snow compaction above baseline conditions, the analysis concluded that doing so would not result in adverse effects on lynx. Therefore, development and detailed analysis of a separate action alternative to address this concern was not deemed necessary.

The following alternative was suggested during public scoping in 2014 but was eliminated from detail study:

• Off-set snowmobile route expansion with OSV closures in Recommended Wilderness—This alternative was proposed during public scoping in 2014. The intent of this alternative was to off-set impacts associated with increases in OSV groomed routes by prohibiting off-road and OSV use in the Red Mountain and Tenmile–Black Warrior Recommended Wilderness Areas. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the Red Mountain and Tenmile–Black Warrior Recommended Wilderness Areas are located outside of the project area (over 15 miles from any existing or proposed route within the analysis area). Furthermore, establishing an OSV closure does not meet the purpose and need of this project, which is focused on authorizing grooming of routes already open to OSV use, not the appropriateness of OSV use in specific areas.

The discussions below summarize my rationale for not selecting Alternative A (No Action) or Alternative B (Authorize a New Grooming Agreement without Expansion).

Alternative A: No Action (Do not Authorize a New Grooming Agreement)—Alternative A is the alternative that provides a baseline against which impacts of the action alternatives can be measured and compared. Under this alternative, no additional miles would be added to the


15

existing CSA authorizing Valley County to groom OSV trails on the Forest. Grooming of existing routes for snowmobile use within the majority of the area would continue until the current agreement expires on May 30, 2017. Upon expiration, the Valley County snowmobile grooming program on NFS lands within Forest would end.

This alternative was not selected because it did not meet the purpose and need of the project. Specifically, it would not be responsive to Valley County’s request to continue the OSV trail grooming program, would not meet the high public demand for a groomed OSV trail system, nor would it support rural economies in Valley County (EA, sections 3.2.1 and 3.3).

Alternative B: No Change (Authorize a New Grooming Agreement without Expansion)—This alternative was developed in response to Valley County’s request to continue the OSV trail grooming program; to meet high public demand for a groomed OSV trail system; and to support rural economies in Valley County, as identified in the 2012 Snowmobile Trail Grooming decision21.

Under this alternative, no additional miles would be added to the existing or new CSA. Upon expiration of the current agreement, the new agreement would authorize grooming on the same 239 miles of OSV trail.

Although this alternative would meet the purpose and need of the project to a high degree, it would not be responsive to the public’s desire for groomed OSV trails in the vicinity of Landmark area. Since Alternative C will provide a network of trails in the Landmark area and the analysis did not identify any unacceptable effects, no compelling reason to select Alternative B existed.

Consistency with the Forest Plan, National Forest Management Act, and Other Laws

Forest Plan

Long-term management direction for the project area is provided in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest22, the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement23, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Forest Plan Amendments to Integrate the Boise National Forest Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Phase 1: Forested Biological Community and its associated Record of Decision24. Chapter III of the Forest Plan describes management 21 USDA Forest Service. 2012. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for the snowmobile trail grooming in Valley, Gem, and Boise counties project. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 22 USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Boise National Forest land and resource management plan. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 23 USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Southwest Idaho Ecogroup land and resource management plan final environmental impact statement. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 24 USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Final environmental impact statement supporting Forest Plan amendments to integrate the Boise National Forest wildlife conservation strategy. Phase 1: Forested biological community. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest.


16

direction to guide Forest personnel to achieve desired outcomes and conditions for both land stewardship and public service. This direction is presented in two sections: (1) Forest-wide management direction and (2) Management Area description and direction. Forest-wide management direction provides general direction for all Forest resources and the foundation for more specific direction at the management area level. Management area description and direction describes these areas in detail, highlights resource areas of importance or concern, and prescribes specific management direction to address these concerns. Activities within the various management areas are further directed by management prescription categories (MPCs). MPCs are broad categories of management prescriptions that indicate the general management emphasis prescribed for a given area.

Groomed OSV trails associated with my decision will occur in several different MAs: MA 9 (Harris Creek); MA 13 (Deadwood River); MA 14 (Lower Middle Fork Payette River); MA 15 (Upper Middle Fork Payette River); MA 16 (Sage Hen Reservoir); MA 17 (North Fork Payette River); MA 18 (Cascade Reservoir); MA 19 (Warm Lake); MA 20 (Upper Johnson Creek); and MA 21 (Lower Johnson Creek) (EA, section 1.7). Several MPCs apply within these MAs and groomed OSV trails will occur only in MPC 5.1 in MAs 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21; in MPC 3.2 in MAs 13 and 20; in MPCs 5.1 and 4.1c in MA 18; and in MPCs 3.2 and 4.2 in MA 19 (EA, section 1.7).

I have evaluated the features of my decision against the Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for consistency with the Forest Plan. As disclosed in the EA (Chapters 1, 2, and 3) and summarized in this document, my decision is consistent with direction in the Forest Plan as amended in 2010 with the exception of Forest Plan standard TEST34. Appendix B of my decision includes the documentation concerning the plan amendment pertaining to this standard and my rationale as to why this amendment, which pertain to this specific project only, would be non-significant.

National Forest Management Act

On April 9, 2012, the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning rule for NFS land management planning (2012 Rule; 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]).The 2012 Rule explains, “[The 2012 Rule] supersedes any prior planning regulation. No obligations remain from any prior planning regulation, except those that are specifically included in a unit’s existing plan. Existing plans will remain in effect until revised” (36 CFR §219.17). In addition, the project-specific Forest Plan amendment included with my decision discussed above is consistent with plan amendment direction found in the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.5 (a)(2)(ii) and 219.13 (a)(b).

Suitability for Timber Production: No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or sales to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber production [16 USC 1604(k)].—My decision does not propose any timber harvest activities (EA, sections 2.4.1 and 3.5).

Timber Harvest on National Forest Lands. A Responsible Official may authorize site-specific projects and activities to harvest timber on National Forest System lands only where:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362536.pdf


17

a. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(i)].

b. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration harvest [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(ii)].

c. Protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iii)].

d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)].

My decision does not propose any timber harvest activities (EA, sections 2.4.1 and 3.5).

Clearcutting and Even-aged Management: Insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where:

a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)].

b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(ii)].

c. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)].

d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm [FSM R1 supplement 2400-2001-2 2471.1, 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)].

e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource [16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)].

My decision does not propose any timber harvest activities (EA, sections 2.4.1 and 3.5).


18

Stands of trees are harvested according to requirements for culmination of mean annual increment of growth [16 USC 1604(m)].—My decision does not propose any timber harvest activities (EA, sections 2.4.1 and 3.5).

Construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or leases. Unless the necessity for a permanent road is set forth in the forest development road system plan, any road constructed on land of the National Forest System in connection with a timber contract or other permit or lease shall be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover has been disturbed by the construction of the road, within ten years after the termination of the contract, permit, or lease either through artificial or natural means. Such action shall be taken unless it is later determined that the road is needed for use as a part of the National Forest Transportation System [16 USC 1608(b)].—My decision does not propose construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, other permits, or leases (EA, section 2.4.1).

Standards of roadway construction. Roads constructed on National Forest System lands shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources {16 USC 1608(c)].—My decision does not propose any roadway construction (EA, section 2.4.1).

Other Laws

As summarized below, my decision is consistent with federal, State, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Clean Air Act—My decision does not include any burning activities. Vehicle emissions resulting from grooming activities will not have a measurable effect on air quality in the surrounding airshed, nor will my decision noticeably affect air quality in the vicinity of any sensitive areas, population centers, or in any Class I Areas. Emission levels resulting from my decision will be below Environmental Protection Agency–established standards (EA, section 3.12).

Clean Water Act—My decision is not expected to result in a measurable increase in erosion or sediment delivery to any stream and the increased risk of a fuel spill will be discountable. Authorized activities will occur over snow and no ground or streambank disturbance is expected. Design features (EA, section 2.4.2) stipulate that grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur, nor will grooming occur when the snow is wet or soft and could lead to channelized runoff across the snow surface into streams (EA, section 3.8.1).

Design features (EA, section 2.4.2) associated with my decision require that all fuel and other chemicals associated with grooming operations be stored at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs. Design features also stipulate that all equipment maintenance and refueling occur at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs and spill containment equipment be kept at the groomer storage shed(s). Therefore, the greatest potential for chemical contamination of a stream would be an accident involving the groomer and an associated fuel spill (EA, section 3.8.1).


19

Potential effects from such a spill, should it occur within proximity of a live stream, would be impacts to the water quality of the stream and aquatic organisms immediately downstream of the accident. These effects would lessen as the spill is diluted downstream. Given the quantity of fuel and hydraulic oil contained in a groomer and the low probability that an accident will occur adjacent to a live stream, undesirable impacts to aquatic resources will be highly unlikely (EA, sections 3.8.1 and 3.9).

My decision is consistent with applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all affected streams. In addition, my decision will comply with the Clean Water Act and associated permit requirements. Part 401 certifications and Part 404 permits will not be required because no activities will occur below the normal high water mark of any stream. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) permits will not be required due to the lack of any identifiable point source pollution and lack of ground disturbance (EA, section 3.8.1).

Endangered Species Act—The EA discloses that my decision will have no effect on any threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species (EA, section 3.6); may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, or any designated critical habitat (EA, section 3.9); may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx; and will have no effect on northern Idaho ground squirrel. My decision will not jeopardize the continued existence of wolverine, and if eventually listed as Threatened under the ESA, the project may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect wolverine (EA, section 3.10). The planning record documents that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries have concurred with these effects determinations where required.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act—My decision will comply with Executive Order (EO) 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001, Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement EO 13186. If new requirements or direction result from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to EO 13186, this project will be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent (EA, section 1.8.4).

National Historic Preservation Act—My decision will not have any direct or indirect effects on historically significant sites. Authorized activities will occur over snow and no ground disturbance is expected.

Further, design features (EA, section 2.4.2) stipulate that grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur. On April 18, 2014, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the Forest’s no adverse effect determination (EA, section 3.7).

Idaho Stream Alteration Act—My decision will adhere to requirements of the Idaho Stream Alteration Act and the 404 permit processes of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Proposed activities will occur over snow and no ground or streambank disturbance is expected nor will any activities occur below the normal high water mark of any stream (EA, sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.5).


20

Idaho Roadless Rule—My decision will be consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule. The cutting of 10 to 12 trees in the Backcountry/Restoration Management Theme will be incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited. In addition, nothing in the Idaho Roadless Rule prohibits grooming OSV trails within inventoried roadless areas (EA, section 3.4.2).

Idaho Forest Practices Act—The selected Alternative C does not propose any activities constrained or prohibited by the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)—My decision will not have any measurable impacts on wetland values, floodplains, or flood hazard. The goals of EOs 11988 and 11990 will be met (EA, section 3.8.5).

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation)—On August 16, 2007, President George Bush signed an executive order directing appropriate federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat (FR Vol. 72, No. 160, August 20, 2007). The project area provides habitat for several game species including deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, wolf, and forest grouse. However, my decision will not have any effect on habitat for these species nor will it measurably affect hunting opportunities (EA, section 3.10).

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)—Federal agencies are required to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations. Based upon the analysis disclosed in the EA, the selected Alternative C will not disproportionately affect minority or low income populations and will comply with EO 12898.

Executive Order 11644—EO 11644 defines off-road vehicles (ORVs) as any motorized vehicle designed to be capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. It also requires that trails be located to minimize the following: 1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources on public lands; 2) harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and 3) conflicts between ORV use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands and to ensure compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas.

As disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA, my decision will have no measurable effect on water quality, water yield, slope stability, soil quality, or wetlands and floodplains (EA, section 3.8); no meaningful effects on vegetation (EA, section 3.5); only subtle impacts on inventoried roadless areas (EA, section 3.4); and no effects on the current population trends of fish species (EA, section 3.9). Section 3.10 of the EA explains that the selected Alternative C is not expected to result in harassment of wildlife species of concern or cause significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Section 3.2 of the EA discloses that conflicts with non-motorized recreational uses will be minimal and the effects of my decision will be comparable to those levels existing for the last decade (EA, section 3.2.1).


21

Executive Order 11989—EO 11989 directs an agency to close certain trails and other areas upon a finding that ORV use will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources. My decision will not cause considerable adverse effects to soil (EA, section 3.8.4); vegetation (EA, section 3.5); wildlife or wildlife habitat (EA, section 3.10); or cultural or historic resources (EA, section 3.7).

As noted in section 1.6 of the EA, decisions associated with this project are specific to whether or not individual trails should be groomed for OSV use on roads, trails, and areas that have been previously designated for over snow vehicle (OSV) use by the Forest Service; what design features and/or mitigation measures should be applied to mitigate undesirable effects; and what, if any, Forest Plan amendments should be included. See also the response to Travel Management Rule, Subpart C below.

Travel Management Rule, Subpart C—My decision authorizes grooming for snowmobile use on roads, trails, and areas that have been previously designated for over snow vehicle (OSV) use by the Forest Service. The Boise National Forest completed the process for designating roads, trails, and areas for OSV use under 36 CFR 212 Subpart C in February of 2016 by following the process under 36 CFR 212.81(b). Since my decision involves grooming only, and not designation of roads, trails, or areas for OSV use, I have determined that my decision is consistent with regulations and procedures at 36 CFR 212, Subpart C. As noted in the response to comments when 36 CFR Subpart C was revised, the revised rule “. . . will not have any direct effect on grooming programs or cooperative agreements for grooming among private organizations, counties, and the Forest Service. 80 Fed. Reg. No. 18 4503 (January 28, 2015) (EA, section 2.4.1.3).

Consultation with Tribal Governments (EO 13175)—This order established a requirement for regular and meaningful consultation between federal and tribal government officials on federal policies that have tribal implications. Three federally recognized Native American tribes have expressed interest in activities proposed on the Forest: the Nez Perce, Shoshone-Paiute, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

As described in section 1.10 of the EA, regular notification and consultation, as requested, with potentially affected tribes has occurred throughout the planning process to date. Through this tribal notification and/or consultation processes, the three tribes identified above did not identify any adverse effects to tribal interests or rights specifically associated with the project.

Best Available Science—The conclusions summarized in the EA are based on a review of the project’s record that reflects consideration of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views where raised by internal or external sources and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and/or risk where pertinent to the decisions being made.


22

Finding of No Significant Impacts I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) and have determined that this decision is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. This determination is based on the following factors as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27.

1. The selected alternative will be limited in geographic application [40 CFR 1508.27(a)].

Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the 253 miles of OSV trails described in the EA and will be limited to those actions disclosed in that document and its appendices. Further, with the exception of the project-specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan associated with my decision (Attachment B), this action will be consistent with the management area prescriptions, desired future conditions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines specified for the area (EA, Chapter 3).

2. My decision will not result in any significant beneficial or adverse effects [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)].

The analysis documented in Chapter 3 of the EA did not identify any individually or cumulatively significant adverse impacts resulting from implementing the selected Alternative C (EA, Chapter 3).

3. The selected alternative will not result in substantive effects on public health or safety [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(2)].

Design features associated with my decision will minimize potential impacts on public health and safety during implementation. One such feature states that snowmobile trail maps/brochures associated with the grooming program should promote avalanche awareness and safety for all trails and for all users. Another design feature requires Valley County to be responsible for the posting and maintenance of signs alerting users of the avalanche hazard in the Deadwood Summit and Deer Creek areas. A third design feature requires the annual operating plan to include a protocol for grooming activities in the vicinity of Deadwood Summit and along NFS road 435 in the Deer Creek area. This protocol has been developed by Valley County and is reviewed annually and updated/modified as necessary (EA, section 2.4.2).

4. My decision will not result in any significant effects on any unique characteristics of the geographic area, historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)]

The analysis documented in the EA discloses that Alternative C will not result in any major effects on cultural or historic resources (EA, section 3.7), wetlands (EA, section 3.8.5), roadless resources (EA, section 3.4); or wild and scenic rivers (EA, section 3.13). No park lands or prime farmlands occur in the project area.


23

5. The selected alternative will not result in any effects that are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)].

Controversy in this context refers to situations where substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of the faction exist, rather than opposition to its implementation. The scientific basis for the analysis is contained in the project record and summarized in the EA. Standard analysis techniques and models were used and limitations of those models were summarized in the EA where pertinent. Literature supporting the use of these models, as used in this analysis, is contained in the project’s planning record (EA, Chapter 3). The analysis presented in the EA represents a thorough review and consideration of the best available science applicable to the Forest and this project. Therefore, I have concluded that, while there may be opposition to this project, the effects of my decision are not highly controversial.

6. The effects associated with the selected alternative will not result in any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(5)].

The environmental analysis, including the EA, resource technical reports, Biological Assessments, and Biological Evaluations, determined that the selected alternative will not involve any highly uncertain or unknown risks. The management activities associated with my decision are typical of those successfully implemented in the past on NFS lands.

7. My decision does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(6)].

My decision implements direction found in the Forest Plan as amended in 2010. Implementing my decision will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.

8. The analysis documented in the EA discloses that my decision will not result in any significant short- term, long-term, or cumulative effects [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)].

Chapter 3 of the EA discloses that Alternative C will not result in any known significant temporary, short-term, long-term, or cumulative effects to resources assessed. In addition, activities authorized by my decision are for the duration of the CSA (EA, section 2.4.1.3).

9. My decision will not adversely affect sites or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)].

My decision will not have any direct or indirect effects on historically significant sites. Authorized activities will occur over snow and no ground disturbance is expected. Further, design features (Appendix A) stipulate grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur. On April 18, 2014, the Idaho SHPO concurred with the Forest’s no adverse effect determination (EA, section 3.7).


24

10. My decision will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)].

The EA discloses that my decision will have no effect on any threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species (EA, section 3.6); may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, or any designated critical habitat (EA, section 3.9); may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx; and will have no effect on northern Idaho ground squirrel. My decision will not jeopardize the continued existence of wolverine, and if eventually listed as Threatened under the ESA, the project may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect wolverine (EA, section 3.10). The planning record documents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries have concurred with these effects determinations where required.

11. My decision is consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements imposed for the protection of the environment [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)].

Chapter 1 of the EA (section 1.8) and previous sections of this document disclose consistency of the selected alternative with applicable laws and regulations relating to federal natural resource management. Chapter 3 of the EA and the project’s planning record provide supporting information.

Predecisional Administrative Review This decision is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, Subpart B. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with §218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities.

At a minimum, an objection must include the following: (1) Objector's name and address as defined in § 218.2, with a telephone number, if available; (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection); (3) When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector as defined in § 218.2 (verification of the identity of the lead objector must be provided upon request or the reviewing officer will designate a lead objector as provided in §218.5(d)); (4) the name of the proposed project, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name(s) of the national forest(s) and/or ranger district(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented; (5) a description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and (6) a statement demonstrating the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunities for comment.


25

Incorporating documents by reference is not allowed, except for the following list of items that may be referenced by including date, page, and section of the cited document, along with a description of its content and applicability to the objection; all other documents must be included with the objection: (1) all or any part of a federal law or regulation; (2) Forest Service directives and land management plans; (3) documents referenced by the Forest Service in the proposed project EA or environmental impact statement subject to objection; or (4) comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during public involvement opportunities for the proposed project where written comments were requested by the responsible official.

Any objections must be filed with the reviewing officer, who is the Regional Forester, Intermountain Region. Objections filed by regular mail or express delivery must be sent to the reviewing officer: Nora Rasure, Regional Forester, Intermountain Regional Office, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401. Objections may also be hand-delivered to the above address between the hours of 8 AM and 4:30 PM Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Objections may also be submitted by fax at 801-625-5277.

Electronic objections must be submitted in a rich text format (.rtf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format as an e-mail message to [email protected]. E-mailed objections must include the project name in the subject line. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification.

Objections may also be submitted through a web form on the Valley County Snowmobile Grooming Project webpage (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43272). To submit comments using the web form select “Comment/Object on Project” under “Get Connected” on the right panel of the project’s webpage.

An objection, including attachments, must be filed with the appropriate reviewing officer within 45 days of the date of publication of the legal notice for the objection process in the Idaho Statesman, the newspaper of record. It is the objector's responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer. Timeliness must be determined by the following indicators: (1) the date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark for an objection received before the close of the fifth business day after the objection filing period; (2) the Agency's electronically generated posted date and time for email and facsimiles; (3) the shipping date for delivery by private carrier for an objection received before the close of the fifth business day after the objection filing period; or (4) the official agency date stamp showing receipt of hand delivery. For emailed objections, the sender should receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgment of receipt of the objection, it is the sender's responsibility to ensure timely filing by other means.

The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection (see §§218.26(a) and 218.32(a)). Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43272


26

Objections received in response to this request will be available for public inspection in the “Public Comment/Objection Reading Room” on the Project webpage at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43272.

The reviewing officer must issue a written response to an objector concerning their objection within 45 days following the end of the objection filing period. The reviewing officer has the discretion to extend the time for up to 30 days when he or she determines that additional time is necessary to provide adequate response to objections or to participate in resolution discussions with the objector(s).

Implementation The responsible official may not sign a DN until the objection reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections (see § 218.11(b)(1)). The responsible official may not sign a DN until all concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed. When no objection is filed within the objection filing period, approval of the proposed project or activity documented in a DN may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period.

For additional information on the EA and this draft DN/FONSI, please contact Terre Pearson-Ramirez, Team Leader, at [email protected] or by phone at 208-382-7457.

CECILIA R. SEESHOLTZ Forest Supervisor Boise National Forest

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43272


1

Attachment A— Details of Decision

Alternative C—Authorize a New Grooming Agreement and Expand Groomed Snowmobile Routes This alternative would amend the existing cost-share agreement between the Forest Service, Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to respond to Valley County’s August 2013 request to expand the miles of groomed snowmobile routes on the Forest. Under the terms of the amended agreement, Valley County would be allowed to groom the 239 miles of OSV trails identified in their existing agreement as well as an additional 14.0 miles authorized in the modification, for a total of 253.0 miles of OSV trails. The additional 14.0 miles of routes would be authorized within areas identified as open to snowmobile use on the Forest as noted below:

• Add 2.0 miles on NF road 437 to the trailhead (Sand Creek Road) • Add 2.0 miles on NFS road 410 (Ditch Creek Road) • Add 6.0 miles on NFS road 447 (Burntlog Road) • Add 4.0 miles on NFS road 414 (Horn Creek Road)

Under the terms of the cost-share agreement, Valley County will be allowed to groom 253.0 miles of OSV trails on the Boise National Forest within State Designated Snowmobile Areas 43c, 43d, and a portion of 43b (Figures DN-1 and DN-2).

Of the 239 miles of groomed trails, 250.50 miles will occur on existing authorized roads, 1.82 miles on a motorized trail, and the remaining 0.65 miles will traverse cross-country.

An estimated 10 to 12 trees will be felled to establish the 0.65 miles of groomed trail that will traverse cross-country in the Gibson Creek drainage. These 0.65 miles will occur in the south end of the Poison Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and within the Backcountry/Restoration Management Theme established by the Idaho Roadless Rule. No other cutting of trees will occur.

Grooming activities will typically occur between November 15 and April 30 annually, as determined by snow conditions. Groomed trail widths will vary somewhat, but generally will not exceed 15 feet in width.

This alternative will authorize grooming of OSV trails in areas currently open to OSV use. This alternative does not establish restrictions or prohibitions on OSV use under 36 CFR 212 Subpart C, nor does this alternative propose to designate routes or designate over snow “play areas”.


2

Based on the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, my decision will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34 regarding snow compaction. I have determined that implementation will require a project specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. This non-significant amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project. As a result, a net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the Landmark, West Mountain, East Mountain, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs for the duration of the cost-share agreement (EA, section 2.4.2.3). Attachment B of this document presents my rationale and determination that this amendment will be non-significant.

Waiving application of this standard through this project specific amendment only applies for the duration of this cost share agreement and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which standard consistency will be determined in the future. When this cost-share agreement requires renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not consistent, a new project specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.


3

Figure 1. Alternative C—Western Half


4

Figure 2. Alternative C—Eastern Half


5

Design Features In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines designed to mitigate impacts, the IDT identified the following measures to be applicable to the implementation of either Alternative B or C. These design features have been incorporated to reduce or prevent undesirable effects on a variety of resources.

1. The cost-share agreement will authorize trail grooming between November 15 and April 30. However, grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur, nor will grooming occur when the snow is wet or soft and could lead to channelized runoff across the snow surface into streams. Recent, current, and forecasted weather conditions will be considered to ensure these conditions are met.

2. The Forest Service and its Cooperators will meet annually, prior to beginning grooming activities, to discuss the annual operating plan and any changes deemed necessary to meet the intent of incorporated design features.

3. All fuel and other chemicals associated with grooming operations will be stored at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs.

4. All equipment maintenance and refueling will occur at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs, and grooming equipment will be maintained in a “leak-free” condition.

5. Spill containment equipment will be kept at the groomer storage shed(s).

6. The annual operating plan will include a protocol for grooming activities in the avalanche-prone area in the vicinity of Deadwood Summit and along NFS road 435 in the Deer Creek area. Valley County will be responsible for the posting and maintenance of signs alerting users of the avalanche hazard in these areas.

7. Snowmobile trail maps/brochures associated with the grooming program should promote avalanche awareness and safety for all trails and for all users.

8. The groomed OSV cross-country trail in the Gibson Creek drainage will be positioned as necessary to avoid the need to fell any whitebark pine trees that may be present. The route will be delineated on the ground and approved by the Forest Service prior to implementation. A 30-foot buffer should be maintained from existing whitebark pine trees for all layout and grooming activities. This buffer is needed to protect individual whitebark pines from damage while laying out and grooming snowmobile routes.

9. The annual operating plan will address the need to protect NFS road signs during grooming activities and the repair of signs damaged by grooming operations.

10. The Forest Service and its Cooperators will, to the extent practicable, devise a signing system for groomed OSV trails that would not conflict with signs associated with other trails/routes.


6

11. Valley County will be responsible for obtaining any required permits or permissions to groom trails on non-NFS lands.

12. If an active nest or den site of any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species is found near any groomed OSV trail, proposed activities will be modified if those actions are determined by the District Wildlife Biologist to be disrupting reproductive success.

13. If occupied habitat of any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive, or Forest watch plant species is found near any groomed OSV trail, proposed activities will be modified if those actions are determined by the District Botanist to be adversely affecting habitat or individuals.


25

Attachment B— Project-specific Non-Significant Amendment of

Forest Plan Standard TEST34

Forest Plan Standard TEST34 states, “Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, and access to private inholdings. Also, permits, authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still comply with this standard.”

From this definition, there are two triggers for noncompliance: 1) if the total miles of groomed route within a lynx analysis unit (LAU) exceed the existing baseline miles for that LAU, and 2) if new or proposed groomed routes are spatially different than existing baseline routes (i.e., the new groomed route occurs in a previously ungroomed area and does not overlap with baseline miles).

As disclosed in Chapter 3 of the environmental assessment (EA), Alternative C will increase the total miles of groomed routes and consistent snow compaction within the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs in areas previously ungroomed and, therefore, will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34.

Routes groomed under the existing cost-share agreement put the LAUs over threshold in the East Mountain LAU by 4.91 miles and in the West Mountain LAU by 3.64 miles. Both of these LAUs also have segments of groomed routes outside the baseline footprint (5.28 miles in the East Mountain LAU and 3.50 miles in the West Mountain LAU). The Landmark and Warm Lake LAUs are currently below baseline in groomed amounts; however, 1.11 and 3.09 miles, respectively, are outside of the baseline footprint.

Of the additional 14.0 miles proposed under Alternative C, 5.85 miles are within the Landmark LAU and will result in a net increase in miles of compacted snow conditions within the LAU that exceeds baseline conditions by 4.62 miles, nearly all of which do not overlap spatially with baseline routes. The additional routes proposed under Alternative C will increase snow compaction in the Burntlog LAU by 8.18 miles.

Given the rarity of lynx on the Boise National Forest (Forest), the small increase in groomed miles in suitable lynx habitat, and the extent of habitat greater than 0.5 miles from OSV trails, it is expected that any disturbance from authorized activities will likely be tolerated by a lynx and effects will be negligible (EA, section 3.10.2.1).


26

Existing information on the behavioral responses of lynx toward humans shows that lynx “can tolerate human disturbance and even continued presence”25. Other anecdotal reports also suggest that lynx are not displaced by human presence, including moderate levels of snowmobile traffic and ski area activities26. To date, most investigations of lynx have not shown human presence to influence how lynx use the landscape, but further research is needed on this topic23. Evidence also suggests continued human presence is tolerable, particularly if it is predictable. Groomed routes provide a predictable disturbance corridor where animals become familiar with the associated noise and level of threat of the groomed routes, facilitating normal movement on the landscape.

The amount of suitable lynx habitat within 0.5 miles of groomed routes is relatively small in comparison to the available habitat within each LAU, even considering the degraded state most of these LAUs are currently in—two LAUs (West Mountain and East Mountain) are mostly intact and currently fall below the 30% unsuitable habitat threshold (compliant with TEST15). The percent of habitat potentially being impacted by groomed routes is relatively low, 6% and 16%, respectively, and would have a correspondingly low potential to disturb or displace lynx if they are present. Because the majority of existing suitable habitat would remain undisturbed within these two LAUs, leaving abundant undisturbed habitat for lynx denning, foraging, and traveling activities, and considering the rarity of the species, any effects from disturbance or displacement in these LAUs is considered negligible (BA, p. 21). The remaining 5 LAUs that are in a severely degraded state due to recent wildfires also have the majority of remaining habitat outside the disturbance band. However, no disturbance effects are expected because so little suitable habitat is currently available in these LAUs, and it is unlikely lynx would use this habitat until a substantial amount of vegetative recovery occurs, which is not expected to occur during the life of this agreement or this analysis period.

Groomed OSV trails compact snow and potentially improve access for other species that compete with lynx for prey, such as pine marten, wolf, mountain lion, and bobcat. However, recent research27 found that the overall influence of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within occupied lynx home ranges during winter months appeared to be minimal. Although coyotes did utilize the compacted trails, they did not use them more than random expectation. It is possible other predators would similarly utilize compacted snow conditions as they encounter them. Should lynx be present in the analysis area and should other forest carnivores take advantage of compacted trails does not change the fact that the groomed OSV trails will access a small amount of lynx habitat within any individual LAU. Lynx would be expected to maintain a competitive advantage in deep snow conditions away from groomed trails. Some

25 Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR- 30WWW. 26 Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holdt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. 27 Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5): 1409–1418.


27

interspecific predator competition may occur, but the extent of lynx habitat away from groomed trails would reduce the extent of any negative effects (EA, section 3.10.2.1).

Since the Forest Wildlife Biologist, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has determined that implementing Alternative C may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx, I have decided to waive application of this standard for this specific project in order to accomplish multiple use resource objectives identified in the Forest Plan.

Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment The following section discloses the existing management direction and the project-specific Forest Plan amendment.

Page III-14 of the 2010 Forest Plan discloses the following Forest-wide standard (TEST34):

“Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with immediately adjacent LAUs unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, and access to private inholdings. Also, permits, authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow compaction and routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past and still comply with this standard.”

Project Specific Forest Plan Amendment

Based on the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA and supporting Biological Assessment, my decision will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34 regarding snow compaction. I have determined that implementation will require a project-specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. This non-significant amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project. As a result, a net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the within the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs for the duration of the cost- share agreement (EA, section 2.4.1.3).

Waiving application of this standard through this project-specific amendment only applies for the duration of this cost-share agreement and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which future standard consistency will be determined. When this cost-share agreement requires renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or, if not consistent, a new project-specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.

This project-specific Forest Plan amendment is consistent with plan amendment direction found in the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.5 (a)(2)(ii) and 219.13 (a)(b).


28

Policy and Analysis

Under the National Forest Management Act [NFMA, 16 USC 1604(f)(4)], forest plans may “be amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption and after public notice, and, if such amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, be in accordance with subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this section.”

As required in the 2012 National Forest Land Management Planning Rule implementing the NFMA:

• “Projects and activities authorized after approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must be consistent with the plan as provided in paragraph (d) of this section” (36 CFR 219.15(b)).

• “When a proposed project or activity would not be consistent with the applicable plan components, the responsible official shall take one of the following steps, subject to valid existing rights:

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended; or

4. Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be limited to apply only to the project or activity.” (36 CFR 219.15(c))

As identified above, the Forest Plan will be amended for this project-specific activity. This non-significant plan amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project. Waiving application of this standard through this project-specific amendment will apply only for the duration of the cost-share agreement resulting from this decision and will not alter the existing baseline miles for the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs from which future standard consistency will be determined. Thus, when this cost-share agreement requires renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or, if not consistent, a new project-specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.

As required at 36 CFR 219.16, public notification of this non-significant amendment was made consistent with the requirements at 36 CFR 218. As allowed at 36 CFR 219.17(a)(3), the effective date of this project-specific amendment will be on the date the project may be implemented in accordance with administrative review regulations at 36 CFR 218.

Under the Directives for the 2012 Planning Rule (FSM 1926.51), changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from the following.


29

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management

Application of this criterion requires an analysis of the overall forest plan and the various multiple-use resources, services, and outputs that may be affected by the proposed amendment. Of particular focus relative to this amendment are balancing the goals and objectives pertaining to providing recreation outputs and services with the need to further the long-term recovery of ESA listed species; in this case, Canada lynx.

The following examples of Forest Plan Recreation Goals and Objectives are pertinent to the amendment:

REGO06—Provide an array of winter recreation experiences, while mitigating conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use and wintering wildlife.

REOB22—Provide networks of marked and designated snow machine, cross-country ski, and other winter travel routes and trailhead facilities, while meeting other resource goals and objectives.

REOB25—Support winter trail management through cooperative agreements with other agencies and groups.

The following examples of Forest Plan Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) Species Goals and Objectives are pertinent to the amendment:

TEGO01—Habitat within the respective ranges of species listed under ESA contributes to their survival and recovery.

TEGO04—Environmental conditions and habitat components support reproductive needs important to sustainable populations of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) species.

TEGO05—Well-distributed habitat capable of maintaining self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of TEPC species exists within their respective ranges across the planning unit.

TEGO06—Habitat capable of maintaining stable or increasing trends in abundance of TEPC species in all recovery units within the planning unit exists.

TEOB30—Allow for expansion of winter recreation facilities that maintain opportunities for lynx movement and dispersal.

TEOB31—Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity.

Allowing for an increase in groomed routes within the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs clearly furthers the achievement of the recreation goals and objectives identified above. Based on conclusions reached in the Biological Assessment and documented in the EA (section 3.10.2.1), TEOB30 will also be met by allowing


30

for an expansion of winter recreation facilities that maintain opportunities for lynx movement and dispersal. The effects disclosures in the Biological Assessment also supports that the other TEPC goals and objectives identified above will be met. As disclosed in the Biological Assessment, the determination for Alternative C, including the project-specific amendment to waive application of TEST34, was may affect, not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. The rationale for this determination was five-fold:

• The majority of lynx habitat in the analysis area, and within individual LAUs, will not be affected by the noise of snowmobiles on groomed trails.

• Individual lynx in proximity to groomed snowmobile trails can move away from the disturbance and access less disturbed habitat.

• A design feature to protect lynx denning activities from disturbance from grooming activities will minimize the risk of loss of reproductive success.

• Increases in compacted trails are moderated by the miles occurring outside of currently suitable lynx habitat, or where in potential habitat, this habitat will not be expected to recover during the duration of this agreement.

• The extensive hair snare survey work that has been implemented in, and adjacent to, the LAUs in this analysis area has detected other rare furbearers, such as wolverine and fisher, but not lynx, inferring that if lynx are extant in this portion of their range they are extremely rare.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management

This project-specific amendment does not adjust management area boundaries. The amendment will not change the management prescriptions or desired future conditions for Management Areas (MAs) 16, 18, 19, or 20, nor will any other management area within the total forest planning area be affected. In addition, amending the Forest Plan as described above will be consistent with the intended goals, objectives, and outputs portrayed in the Forest Plan. Other goods and services associated with MAs 16, 18, 19, and 20 will not be measurably affected.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines

The project-specific amendment will waive application of standard TEST34 for this project only and only as it applies to the East Mountain, West Mountain, Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog LAUs.

There are 19 different LAUs on the Forest containing approximately 547,088 acres of potential lynx habitat (i.e., source habitat capacity). The East Mountain LAU includes 25,235 acres of potential lynx habitat or 5% of the total potential habitat. The West Mountain LAU includes 19,053 acres of potential lynx habitat or 3% of the total potential habitat. Landmark, Warm Lake, and Burntlog include another 22,353 acres of potential lynx habitat or 4% of the total potential


31

habitat. Combined, these five LAUs contain about 12% of the total potential lynx habitat within the 19 LAUs.

Waiving application of this standard through this project-specific amendment will only apply for the duration of this cost-share agreement and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which future standard consistency will be determined. When this cost-share agreement requires renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or, if not consistent, a new project-specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription

The activities authorized by this project-specific Forest Plan amendment balance the goals and objectives pertaining to providing recreation outputs and services with the need to further the long-term recovery of ESA listed species; in this case, Canada lynx. This project-specific Forest Plan amendment only pertains to authorization of this project and does not apply to other projects or activities. Each project or activity must go through its own specific determination of Forest Plan consistency.

Finding of Non-significance On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the EA, associated Biological Assessment, concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the determination for lynx, associated planning record, and my evaluation of the amendment under the four factors outlined above, it is my determination that adoption of the plan amendment described in above is a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan, as amended in 2010.

Documents

Assessment to Address Valley County’s Request for ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Valley, Gem, and Boise Counties, Idaho Boise National Lead Agency: USDA-Forest