Iditarod Trail-Based Special Recreation Permits and Trail Facility Maintenance Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Anchorage Field Office 4700 BLM Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Iditarod Trail-based Special Recreation Permits and Trail Facility Maintenance Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA Case File: AA-57929 Table of Contents ACRONYMS 3 1.0 Introduction 3 1.1 Summary of Proposed Project 3 1.2 Background 3 1.3 Purpose and Need 4 1.3.1 Decision to be Made 4 1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance 4 1.5 Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc. 4 1.6 Summary of Public Involvement 4 1.7 Issues Identified 5 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 8 2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 8 2.2 Alternative 2 – Maintain Current Number of Trail Users and Events 8 2.3 Alternative 3 - Increase Permitted Users or Races (Preferred Alternative) 9 2.4 Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives 10 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 16 3.1 Physical or Visual effects to Iditarod Trail, setting, or facilities 16 3.1.1 Affected Environment 16 3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 22 3.1.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 23 3.1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 27 3.1.5 Cumulative Effects 30 3.1.6 Recommended Mitigation 30 Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA 1 3.2 Vegetation and Soil 30 3.2.1 Affected Environment 30 3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 31 3.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 32 3.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) 32 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects 33 3.2.6 Recommended Mitigation 33 3.2.7 Residual Impacts 33 3.3 Cultural Resources 34 3.3.1 Affected Environment 34 3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 37 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 37 3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 37 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts 38 3.4 User Conflicts 38 3.4.1 Affected Environment 39 3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 40 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 41 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 41 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects 42 3.4.6 Recommended Mitigation 42 3.5 Socio-Economic Effects 42 3.5.1 Affected Environment 42 3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 43 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 43 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 43 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects 43 3.5.6 Recommended Mitigation 43 3.6 Decreased Length of Winter Trail Travel Season 44 3.6.1 Affected Environment 44 3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 44 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 44 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 44 Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA 2 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects 45 3.5.6 Recommended Mitigation 45 3.7 Residual Impacts 45 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 45 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 45 6.0 REFERENCES CITED 46 7.0 APPENDICES / ATTACHMENTS 46 APPENDIX A: 46 Appendix B 46 APPENDIX C: 46 ACRONYMS ARC Alaska Road Commission AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices INHT Iditarod National Historic Trail NRHP National Register of Historic Places SRP Special Recreation Permit 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Summary of Proposed Project The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is completing a programmatic Environmental Assessment to analyze the potential impacts of issuing new Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for the use of BLM- managed public lands in conjunction with the Iditarod Trail (Trail). This includes but is not limited to the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, the Iron Dog snowmobile race, human powered races, and eco-tourism events. 1.2 Background The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race and Iron Dog snowmobile race have made use of the Trail between Anchorage and Nome since the early 1970’s. Long-distance human powered races began joining these endeavors on the Trail in the 1980’s. In order to manage these activities BLM authorizes the events with SRPs. The current SRPs were issued for 10-years in 2008. Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA 3 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of conducting this analysis is to document the current conditions of the Trail and forecast potential impacts from any future SRP uses. The BLM anticipates that the events that have been held for the past 40-years will continue to be held and possibly have increases in competitor and spectator participant numbers over the next 10-year period. In order to issue SRPs to applicants for trail-based events, BLM needs to analyze potential impacts to the resources potentially affected by the events. There is also a need to upgrade public facilities associated with the Trail in order to meet anticipated future uses. 1.3.1 Decision to be Made Whether to issue 10-year SRPs for permitted commercial activities in 2018, and authorize facility maintenance and improvement projects on BLM-managed lands. 1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance The activity described in this document is not currently covered under a Land Use Plan. It will however, be covered under the BLM Bering Sea/Western Interior Land Use Plan currently under development. 1.5 Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc. All SRPs would be subject to various laws, regulations, and acts, including but not limited to the following Federal laws: ● Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) (16 U.S.C. 1531 – 1544) ● National Trails System Act (PL-90-543) as amended by the National Parks and Recreation Act (PL 96-625) ● National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended (16 U.S.C 470 et seq.) ● Executive Order 11644 – Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands (February 1972) ● Executive Order 11989 – Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (May 1977) ● National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, P.L. 89-655, 80 Stat 915, 16 USC 470, 1966 U.S. Code Cong. And Ad. News 3855; amended; P.L.s 91-243, 93-54, 94-422, 94-458, 96-244 and 96-515 ● Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661 – 666c) ● Federal Subsistence Hunting Regulations (Title 36 CFR Part 242) ● Federal Clean Air Act of 1970/1977 as Amended ● Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (40 CFR 239 -282) ● National Trails System Act of 1968 as amended ( 16 U.S.C. 1241-1251) 1.6 Summary of Public Involvement A public scoping period was opened on May 31, 2017 for thirty days. Two comments were received during that time. The concerns that were presented involved the continued opportunities for commercially permitted activities on the Trail and access to the trial for use by individuals in nearby communities. By analyzing the two action alternatives that would allow for continued or increased commercially permitted activities, these issues are being addressed. Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA 4 1.7 Issues Identified This analysis considers the no action alternative, which would allow all permits to expire. In this alternative, each permit would be analyzed in accordance with FLPMA and NEPA and a decision made at a future date. Alternative 2 would continue with current permit levels of authorized SRP entrants, Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would allow for increased number of permits and entrants to utilize the Trail. Issues to be analyzed: Vegetation What impacts could trail-based activities by SRP-authorized users have on vegetation and soil? Recreation Will the proposed activities have significant negative physical and visual effects on the Trail, adjacent setting, and associated facilities? The BLM recommended establishing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC’s) in the 1981 Southwest Management Framework Plan. The Iditarod Trail crosses several of these proposed ACEC’s. How will the proposals affect the area or resource within the boundaries of the ACEC? Will the Preferred Alternative create significant conflicts between casual users and permittees? Cultural Resources Will cultural resources be significantly negatively affected by the proposed activities? Social-Economic Will the proposed activities have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations? Length of Winter What are the effects of the changing length and intensity of seasonal winter weather on winter-specific trail use? Issues Eliminated from Further Analysis Impacts to air quality The Preferred Alternative is not expected to have a noticeable effect on air quality from emissions caused by aircraft use and wood smoke, in proportion to existing emissions from casual use. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to have a significant effect on air quality from the use of snowmobiles, in proportion to existing emissions from casual use. Improved emission standards for snowmobiles have resulted in significant decreases in emissions for the fleet of snowmobiles operating in the United States, in Alaska, and on the Iditarod Trail. Annual Trail usage has remained approximately the same for the past decade. If more snowmobiles are operated on the Trail as a result of Programmatic Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2017-0012-EA 5 additional permitted events, the overall quality of the air will likely remain the same due to decreases in snowmobile fleet emissions.