Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

OFFICE: Upper Breaks National Monument LLMTL07000

TRACKING NUMBER: DOI-BLM MT-L070-2016-0003-DNA

PROPOSED ACTION TITLE/TYPE: Appaloosa Horse Club Commemorative Trail Ride on the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument

LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

A. Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures The proposed action would permit the Appaloosa Horse Club to plan and execute their Chief Joseph/ trail ride under the authority of Land Use Plans (LUP) that were identified in the approved Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (2008). The proposed action also would allow the group to complete the last section of the National Historic Nez Perce trail for the 4111 time in its 52 years since reenacting the trail ride.

B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance Date Approved 2008 LUP Name*: UMRBNM RMP

./ The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions:

This EA is tiered to the December 2008 Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. The proposed action is in conformance with the UMRBNM Resource Management Plan (RMP). As stated in the UMRBNM RMP on page 70 under Nez Perce National Historic Trail:

The Nez Perce National Historic Trail passes through the Monument. The ELM will manage the recreation activities and opportunities associated with this portion of the trail in a manner consistent with the purposes and provisions of Public Law 90-543, as amended by Public Law 99-445, and the comprehensive plan prepared by the US Forest Service (USFS 1990). This key segment of the trail begins near Winifred and enters the UMNWSR near Cow Island. It provides several opportunities for interpretation. It also parallels portions of the Missouri River Breaks Back Country Byway. Scenic and cultural values will be protected on ELM land along the trail.

An activity plan ·will be developed to detail the management activities along the trail.

1 The UNRBNM RMP also specifically defines the BLM's land use goals and management of Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). As stated in the UMRBNM RMP on page 68 under Uplands Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA):

The BLM's goal is to manage these lands for a variety ofsustainable visitor experience in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. This goal would allow BLM to provide dispersed and developed recreation opportunities and ensure that visual quality characteristics reflect a predominately primitive or natural landscape while providing a diversity of visitor services.

As Stated on Page 69 under Special Recreation Permits:

The BLM may also issue permits for commercial hiking, horseback riding, and other commercial recreation activities that are not associated with big game hunting or river boating.

On Page 86 of the UMRBNM RMP, Management of the Cow Creek ACEC is specifically addressed under the heading Cow Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern:

As discussed in the Proclamation, "The Monument also encompasses segments of the ... Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and the Cow Creek Island Area of Critical Concern." This area (14,270 Acres) contains a portion of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail; high scenic quality; and impo11ant paleontological resources. The BLM will provide protection for the significant resources in the Cow Creek Area, which was designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in the 1998 West HiLine RMP. This area will continue to be designated an ACEC and managed for the following resources:

• Preserve the scenic, interpretive, recreational, and paleontological values in the Cow Creek area associated with the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. • Protect paleontological sites within the ACEC from surface disturbance by other management activities; and Scientific use of the resource will be allowed

C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other related documents that cover the proposed action.

Lewistown Field Office EA Number: MT-060-03-44 Commemorative Chief Joseph Trail Ride/Equestrian Ride of Historic Nez Perce Trail on Cow Creek Lease/Serial/Case File No.: MT-060-03-230

D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria

1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s )? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial?

2 YES, the action is the same action as analyzed in the Commemorative Chief Joseph Trail Ride/Equestrian Ride of Historic Nez Perce Trail on Cow Creek Environmental Assessment # MT-060-03-44. The FONSI for this EA was signed on 7/25/2003. No protests were received in response to the proposed decision which became final on 7/25/2003 with a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) #MT-060-03-230 issued on 7/25/2003. No appeals were received on the final decision which was implemented on 7/25/2003. The primary difference between this action and the previous action is a reduction in scope:

• Number of participants reduced from original number (350) to (150). • Campsite locations have been relocated for the 2016 event from public to private land with consent from landowners.

2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values?

YES, all reasonable alternatives, including a No Action alternative were analyzed.

3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of ELM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?

YES, there are no new circumstances that would require a substantial change in the analysis needed to conduct the proposed action.

4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document?

YES, BLM's NEPA responsibilities are being met, and the methodology and analytical approach are fully adequate. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are essentially the same as analyzed by the. Chief Joseph Trail Ride/Equestrian Ride of Historic Nez Perce Trail on Cow Creek Environmental Assessment# MT-060-03-44.

5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?

Yes, public and interagency review solicited during the preparation Chief Joseph Trail Ride/Equestrian Ride of Historic Nez Perce Trail on Cow Creek Environmental Assessment# MT-060-03-44.

3 E. Persons/Agencies /BLM Staff Consulted

Recreation/Special Management Designations/ Mark Schaefer Supervisory ORP VRM/Project Lead

Jody Peters Wildlife Biologist Wildlife/T &E/Migratory birds/Fisheries

Zane Fulbright Archaeologist Archaeology and Paleontology

Josh Sorlie Soil Scientist Soils

Natural Resource Kenneth Keever Noxious & Invasive Species/Project Lead Specialist

Dan Brunkhorst NEPA Coordinator NEPA/Environmental Review

Ben Hileman Range Specialist Rangeland ResourcesN egetation

Note: Refer to the EA/EIS for a complete list of the team members participating in the preparation of the original environmental analysis or planning documents.

F. Mitigation Measures

Special Stipulations reflective of the original SRP issued in 2003 are attached to the permit for compliance by the Appaloosa Horse Club.

Conclusion

Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM' s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.

Signature of Project Lead

7 11' 20/l,

4 Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM's internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program-specific regulations. A Decision Document may be required (if the Decision Document for the previously-completed action does not apply), consistent with program requirements.

5