Celebration Park Recreation Site Improvement Plan DOI-BLM-ID-B011-2018-0016-EA

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

February, 2019 Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area 3948 Development Ave. Boise, Idaho 83703

Table of Contents

1 Introduction & Background ...... 1 2 Alternatives ...... 5 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences ...... 8 4 Implementation ...... 18 5 Consultation and Coordination ...... 21

Appendices

Appendix A – Figures

Appendix B – Public Scoping Summary

Appendix C – Acronyms & Abbreviations

Appendix D – References

Appendix E – Wildlife Species List

Appendix F – Comment Period Responses

1 Introduction & Background 1.1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Celebration Park Recreation Site Improvement Plan (CPRSIP) is the product of extensive public and agency input. The intent of the plan is to establish a parking area and network of routes, meeting both current and future access needs to the public lands in this area, and minimize conflict among users. The plan identifies designated routes and a parking area to access the Celebration Park area, as well as the terms for use and maintenance.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides an analysis of the proposed action and additional alternatives considered during the planning process. The CRSIP/EA is specific to BLM Lands adjacent to Celebration Park) within the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA).

1.2 Purpose and Need

Purpose The purpose of the action is to provide for recreation site improvements that create safe motorized and equestrian access to Celebration Park through BLM-managed lands, as per the guidance in the 2008 Snake River Birds of Prey RMP. Development of this plan would meet the RMP’s Desired Future Conditions, as provided in Section 1.6.11, Recreation: of “a range of motorized, non-motorized, undeveloped and developed recreation opportunities would exist in a manner compatible with the NCA-enabling legislation”. Further guidance is provided by Transportation Objective (2.16), to “provide motorized access to the majority of the NCA while reducing the number of unnecessary routes, and increasing non-motorized opportunities” (BLM 2008).

Need The need is to enhance evacuation safety in cases of emergency, such as wildfires while increasing public safety, reducing route redundancy, offering protection of sensitive resources, and to reduce parking conflicts between equestrian and other recreational users. This management would comply with the BLM’s national direction and BLM’s regulatory obligation as stated in the RMP to designate lands as open, limited, or closed to off highway vehicles (OHV) for the purpose of (1) meeting public land demands for OHV activities, (2) protecting natural resources, (3) providing for public health and safety, and (4) minimizing conflicts between user groups. This Plan is also needed to respond to increased user created routes and routes that have not been evaluated and designated by the BLM for motorized travel in order to protect cultural and natural resources and to meet enhanced evacuation safety requirements. 1.3 Decision to be Made

The CPRSIP will identify a system of motorized, non-motorized, non-mechanized, and parking access within the project area. Decisions in the plan will apply only to federal land within the project area. This CPRSIP will establish a travel network, with each route explicitly designated, per the requirements of 43 CFR 8342.1, BLM Manual 1626, and BLM Handbook 8342-1. The plan, in conjunction with other public outreach efforts, would ensure that users are aware that motorized travel will only be allowed to occur on routes and parking areas designated by the BLM for such purpose. 1.4 Analysis Area

The Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NCA was established in 1993 by Public Law (PL) 103-64 (16 USC 460iii-2; 107 Stat. 304). The Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NCA is one of sixteen NCAs designated to conserve, protect, enhance and manage public lands for their exceptional scientific,

cultural, ecological, historical and recreational values. It contains the greatest concentration of nesting raptors in North America and the greatest density of prairie falcons in the world (BLM 2008).

The project area is located in the northwest corner of the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NCA and covers approximately 116.5 acres of BLM administered lands. Celebration Park is comprised of BLM and county lands, within Canyon County (Table 1-1, Figure 1). Celebration Park was established as Idaho's only archaeological park in 1989 and contains large basalt boulders with petroglyphs 100 to 10,000 years old.

Table 1-1 Acreage within the Recreation Site Development Plan

BLM Lands State Lands Private Lands Total Number of Acres 116.5 0 0 116.5

1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance

The BLM currently manages the project area under the 2008 Snake River Birds of Prey NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP). The management objective for transportation provided in the 2008 RMP is to “provide motorized access to the majority of the NCA while reducing the number of unnecessary routes, and increasing non-motorized opportunities” (BLM 2008 2:25). In order to achieve this management objective and make consistent decisions relative to specific route designations the 2008 RMP also identifies evaluation criteria that was used to develop alternatives (BLM 2008 2:21-24). The RMP objectives also state “Develop small secondary sites as necessary to meet user needs (BLM 2008 2:19).

The alternatives included in this plan have been determined to be in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Snake River Birds of Prey NCA RMP by limiting vehicle access in the analysis area to designated routes. This EA incorporates the Desired Future Conditions related to travel, as set forth in the 2008 Snake River Birds of Prey NCA RMP. These Desired Future Conditions provide the objectives for travel management within the project area. Basic reference information for each route segment can be found in the route reports in the project record. Progress in meeting these objectives will be determined through monitoring (see Section 4.1.4, Monitoring).

1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans

Federal agencies are directed to manage motorized vehicle use on public lands through Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989, which have been incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), under 43 CFR 8342.1. While national goals are set by documents such as the Travel and Transportation Handbook (BLM 2012), BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual (BLM 2016), National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (BLM 2001), Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005) and Executive Orders 11644/11989 Off-Road Vehicle Management Policies (USC 1972). Other applicable statutes, regulations or plans include:

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).  Title 43 CFR 8342, Designation of Areas and Trails.  BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).  BLM Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLMPA).  BLM Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342).  BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual (M-1626).  Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 7, as amended (ESA).  The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended.

 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA).  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA).  Programmatic Agreement (PA).  Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868.  Executive Order 11593.  Executive Order 11644.  Executive Order 11989.  Executive Order 13175.  Executive Order 13007.  Antiquities Act of 1906.  Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA).  American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA).  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

1.6.1 Route Management Objectives The BLM’s route management objectives, as provided in the BLM Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (BLM 2012), are as follows:

 Provide access for a wide variety of recreational activities on public lands.  Provide administrative, commercial, and private land access where necessary.  Discourage and reduce trespass on adjacent private lands.  Provide clear information to facilitate compliance with route designations.  Identify future planning needs and opportunities related to travel management.

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement

Public involvement activities were undertaken during the spring of 2017 for the NCA West Travel Management Area, which included the boundary and routes located in the Celebration Park area at the time. The CPRSIP was separated as a stand-alone EA and prioritized due to comments received during scoping identifying resource degradation in the area and the need for improved access and egress. The public outreach process included notifications through a project website, email list and postcard mailing, online comment response, and three public scoping meetings.

The objectives of the public scoping process were to:

1. Review the inventory of roads and trails. 2. Discuss and identify key issues and access opportunities. 3. Learn more about how to contribute to this collaborative effort.

Public scoping meetings were held in three locations: Boise (March 14), Nampa (March 15), and Kuna (March 16). Thirty-four (34) participants attended the scoping open house meetings.

Public comments were submitted specific to the celebration park area and focused on how user created route proliferation is leading to resource degradation. Comments came from interest groups, which included a recreational aviation group, OHV groups, equestrian associations, and local landowners and/or ranchers. The majority of comments focused on recreation (particularly motorized recreation and aviation), the range of alternatives, implementation, protection of natural resources and fish and wildlife species. The Public Scoping Summary Report (Appendix B) contains additional detail on all of the comments received.

Public involvement activities undertaken for the NCA West Travel Management Area (which included the Celebration Park area at the time) included distribution of a scoping letter, postcard, public outreach through

a project website, press release, and a series of three public scoping meetings. The BLM used the scoping process to solicit meaningful participation in the development of the Recreation Site Improvement Plan EA. A full summary of the scoping process is provided in Appendix B of the EA. Comments on the Celebration Park Recreation Site Improvement Plan Preliminary Environmental Assessment were also solicited for 30 days by posting the EA on the BLM’s eplanning website. Approximately 12 comments were received. One comment pointed out that this project was not travel management but should be considered a recreation site improvement. This was noted and the EA was adjusted accordingly.

Information received during the scoping process helps identify potential environmental and social issues and aids in the development of a range of management alternatives, as well as, measures to mitigate impacts associated with the planning for the analysis area. The scoping process provides a mechanism for focusing and clarifying the issues so that the CPRSIP EA can address and analyze the primary areas of concern.

The BLM Interdisciplinary Team analyzed the potential consequences of the plan and alternatives during route evaluations and meetings held throughout development of the CPRSIP EA. Through this process the BLM ID team determined the potentially impacted resources. Each resource that was determined to be potentially impacted is addressed and analyzed in Section 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.

Table 1-2 Resources Considered in Analysis

Resource Resource Status EA Section Soils PI See Section 3.3.1 Upland Vegetation PI See Section 3.4.1 Special Status Plant Species PI See Section 3.4.2 Invasive, Non-Native Species PI See Section 3.4.3 Dismissed from detailed analysis. No threat to human safety, life, Floodplains NP welfare, and property would result from implementing any of the alternatives. Dismissed from detailed analysis. Establishment of the travel network Surface Water and Water Quality NI would not impact water quality within the analysis area. Dismissed from detailed analysis. Establishment of the travel network Wetlands and Riparian Zones NI would not impact wetlands and riparian zones within the analysis area. Wildlife, Terrestrial PI See Section 3.4.4 Migratory Birds PI See Section 3.4.4 Dismissed from detailed analysis. Wildlife, Aquatic NP No aquatic wildlife habitat present in the analysis area. Special Status Animal Species PI See Section 3.4.4 Cultural Resources PI See Section 3.5.1 Dismissed from detailed analysis. Establishment of the travel network Paleontological Resources NI would not impact paleontological resources within the analysis area. See Section 5.0 Consultation and Native American Concerns PI Coordination

Resource Resource Status EA Section Dismissed from detailed analysis. Access for any range activity is described and approved in grazing Range Resources NI plans or leases. There would be no impact to livestock operations from any of the alternatives. Recreation PI See Section 3.5.2 Fuels/Fire Management PI See Section 3.5.3 Dismissed from detailed analysis. Both minority and low income populations are dispersed throughout Canyon county, Environmental Justice NI therefore no minority or low income populations would suffer disproportionately high and adverse effects as a result of any of the alternatives. *Determination: NP = Not present in the area impacted by the Proposed Action or Alternatives; NI = Present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required; PI = Present with potential for impact analyzed in detail in the EA. 2 Alternatives

The No Action and the Proposed Action are the two alternatives considered in this analysis. The Proposed Action alternative meets the Purpose and Need as described in Section 1.3 above. The Proposed Action would result in a net reduction in routes and developed parking area as compared to the current conditions (No Action, Alternative A). The alternatives were developed based on an interdisciplinary planning effort and issues raised by the public and other agencies during project scoping efforts. The No Action Alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline for comparing the impacts of the action alternative.

In some cases, impacts in this EA are analyzed qualitatively, but when possible, quantitative impacts are evaluated. Evaluation focuses on direct and indirect effects on specific resources where they occur and cumulative impacts when applicable. For this EA, the data collected was through the BLM Boise District Office. GIS databases were used for mapping, and calculating mileage and acreage. Table 2-1 provides a comparison of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. A detailed description of each alternative follows.

Table 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives

Recreation Site Improvement Type Alternative A Alternative B Open 1.95 miles 1.15 miles Route Designation Closed 0.00 miles 0.80 miles Total Route Change 1.95 miles 1.95 miles Parking Area Equestrian Trailer Parking 0 acres 0.9 acres

2.1 Route Designations

As part of the recreation site improvement plan, the BLM ID team staff evaluated routes with regard to safe ingress and egress from Celebration Park. As stated in 43 CFR 8342.1, federal land management agencies have a responsibility to minimize impacts to resources and conflicts with other uses as part of the decision- making process that leads to route designation. The guidance outlined in 43 CFR 8342.1 was followed for route designation in addition to the criteria outlined in section 2.1.1.

The alternatives were developed after receiving input from BLM ID team staff, management, and the public (as part of the scoping process). Similarly, proposed route designations were modified throughout the evaluation process following input from the BLM ID team and the public.

2.1.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development

HIGH PRIORITY RESOURCES

Routes that occur in close proximity to resources identified as a priority for protection, or protected by federal law, were reviewed for potential closure, seasonal closure, or other limited designation, including:

 raptor breeding areas  cultural or historic resources  special status plant species’ occurrence

PRIORITY RESOURCES

Other important resources were considered in determining route designations of closed or limited. Route proximity to these resources, either alone or in combination, could trigger a more restrictive or closed designation of a route:  highly erosive soils  crossing of ephemeral waterways and washes  perennial water, wetlands and fisheries  big sagebrush and other native shrub habitat  redundant routes

HIGH PRIORITY ACCESS

Routes that provide primary or sole access to other land ownership, range improvements, popular recreation areas, facilities or ROWs remained open or limited. If resource concerns were identified, mitigation measures or minimization criteria were identified:  high use and/or improved routes  routes to livestock facilities that require frequent access  routes that access military facilities and sites  routes that access recreation sites

PRIORITY ACCESS

Maintaining access for the various activities that occur within the project area was also considered when developing the action alternative. In general, routes would not be designated as limited or closed on the following:

 routes commonly used for recreation by one or more use types  routes used for livestock operations  routes that access unique landscape features or scenic overlooks  routes that provide sole access to large tracts of contiguous public land

2.1.2 Route Types

This EA uses three different route types to describe the intended use designation. The route type describes the physical conditions of the route and the extent of physical and/or vehicular access each type may support. The designations also provide guidance on maintenance requirements. Route nomenclature is

consistent with current BLM guidance (BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report 2006), utilizing the terms “road,” formerly called a two-wheel drive road; and “primitive road,” formerly called four-wheel drive road, and four-wheel drive technical road.

As defined in the BLM Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (BLM 2012):

 Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles, which have four or more wheels, and are maintained for regular and continuous use.  Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high-clearance vehicles. These routes do not customarily meet any BLM road design standards. Unless specifically prohibited, primitive roads can also include other uses such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding.  Transportation Linear Disturbance: Routes that are not part of the BLM’s designated transportation network are identified as “Transportation Linear Disturbances.” These human-made linear features may include engineered (planned) as well as unplanned single and two-track linear features that are not part of the BLM’s transportation system. These routes will usually be identified in a plan for decommissioning and rehabilitating unauthorized routes – a product of the planning process.

2.1.3 Designation Types

The alternatives being analyzed herein include two specific route designation types. The route designation type describes the kind of user that can utilize the route, how the use can occur, and when access to the route is allowed.

 Open: Routes where all types of motorized and mechanized vehicle use is permitted at all times, and subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.  Closed: Routes closed to motorized and mechanized use due to resource concerns or conflicts. The routes may be available for foot and equestrian travel. Closed routes will not be included on maps provided to the public. These routes may involve physical closure structures with the ultimate goal of being restored to a vegetated condition. 2.2 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would maintain existing conditions and management as inventoried. This alternative represents the current management condition, as described in the RMP, and this EA uses it for baseline comparative purposes. Travel is currently allowed on existing roads, primitive roads, and trails (Appendix A - Figure 2). There is not currently a designated parking area, which has caused conflicts between users. However, the site is currently used unofficially. The route designations under this alternative are displayed in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Miles of Routes Associated with Alternative A

Miles Percent (%) Road – Open 0.61 31 Primitive Road – Open 1.34 69 Transportation Linear Disturbance – Closed 0.00 0 Total 1.95 100

2.3 Alternative B (Proposed Action)

This alternative is designed to balance motorized access while protecting the area’s natural, scenic, and cultural resources. Opportunities for public recreation would be improved by providing a more efficient route network and additional user information. Alternative B would increase public safety, reduce route redundancy, and offer protection of sensitive resources, in part, through the closure of 0.8 miles of existing primitive roads. Routes designated to be closed would be decommissioned and become transportation linear disturbances as defined above. This could involve signage, barricades, and site-specific restoration (see Section 4.2). A summary of the route designations and associated miles for Alternative B is provided in Table 2-3. Section 4 – Implementation provides additional information on the implementation of Alternative B.

Table 2-3 Miles of Routes Associated with Alternative B

Miles Percent (%) Road – Open 0.61 31 Primitive Road – Open 0.54 28 Transportation Linear Disturbance – Closed 0.80 41 Total 1.95 100

The proposed route system has been designed to create direct access to Celebration Park and provide a loop from Sinker Road to Victory Lane. The loop would provide evacuation safety. The route system would also provide access to approximately 10 miles of already designated non-motorized trails within the Halverson Bar NCA along the river to the east of the analysis area. The proposed action would close user-proliferated routes and provide one clear, accessible and passable road (Appendix A – Figure 3). Only routes on BLM- administered lands are addressed and designated through this CPRSIP process.

Alternative B would include the development of a parking area for equestrians and other recreationalists (located in an already disturbed location where the public is currently parking) (Appendix A - Figure 3). The parking area and improved access to the parking area would entail the addition of gravel to approximately 0.9 acres and installation of signs and parking space demarcation.

2.4 Alternatives Considered, but not Carried Forward

Recreation users proposed the development of a corral for recreational equestrian use, adjacent to the parking area. However, such development would not meet the purpose and need to manage motorized recreational access to the NCA. The proposed corral would also be located in an area strewn with boulders. As such, this development would also likely cause unnecessary effects to the natural and cultural resources of the area. Therefore, this proposal was not carried forward for further analysis or consideration.

3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the affected environment and provides an analysis of the impacts (environmental consequences) that would result from the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. An environmental impact or consequence is generally considered as a modification or change in the existing environment resulting from an action that is being taken. Impacts can be direct or indirect, short term, long term, or permanent.

In order to complete an analysis of the effects of the alternatives, the following assumptions were made:

1. Non-motorized and motorized recreational uses would continue to increase in the area as population in Idaho and the surrounding region increase. 2. For the purpose of NEPA and the analysis herein, it is assumed that the public will comply with the route designations. Management under all alternatives would require signs, barricades, maps, kiosks, and public education efforts to direct users to appropriate routes available for motorized travel. In addition, routes designated as available for motorized travel would be monitored to ensure compliance with the goals and objectives of the 2008 Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area RMP and other applicable laws, regulations, and policy. 3. Direct and indirect impact indicators vary by resource, but usually include mileages of routes open or closed, route densities, or other special considerations. These indicators are described for each resource. 4. Alternative B (as described in Chapter 2) would result in a net reduction in routes for motorized and mechanized use, as compared to the current conditions (No Action, Alternative A).

The amount of change, or reduction in mileage and open routes, varies by alternative. No new route construction would occur under any alternative however, minor realignments may occur under Alternative B. For the majority of resources and resource uses analyzed in this chapter, route closures and use restrictions would result in a spectrum of beneficial impacts. 3.2 Analysis Area

The analysis area is defined as the lands within the boundaries of the Recreation Site Improvement Plan area (Appendix A – Figure 1). 3.3 Cumulative Effects

The interdisciplinary team reviewed the analysis area for any reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to the effects of the proposed action. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those for which there are existing decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable, based on known opportunities or trends. It was determined that no reasonably foreseeable future actions would overlap both geographically and temporally within the analysis area. Therefore, cumulative effects of each alternative would be as described within the environmental consequences section which describes all expected effects combined with past and present actions occurring within the analysis area. 3.4 Physical Resources

3.4.1 Soils

3.4.1.1 Affected Environment

The project area is located within the Columbia Plateaus Province of the Intermontane Plateaus. Soil resources within the analysis area have formed within the Snake River Plains Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) (NRCS 2006).

Within this MLRA, some of the major streams have cut deep, steep-walled canyons in the basalt flows and terraces. Alluvial fans, terraces, and bottom lands are gently sloping or moderately sloping. Floods from a breach of glacial Lake Bonneville formed the valley of the Snake River Plain. The present-day Snake River cut through the glacial outwash, lacustrine deposits, and river alluvium and into the lava plain on the valley floor, leaving broad terraces along the river.

Soil Characteristics

The Recreation Site Improvement Plan area is approximately 117 acres in size. The soils within the project area have been largely disturbed by human presence and recreation. Many braided user created routes have disturbed the soils and denuded vegetation. The soils are primarily very deep on the west side of the analysis area and became shallow to moderately deep near the bluff. Table 3-1 provides a detailed description of the soil types in the analysis area.

Table 3-1 Soil Types Found Within the Analysis Area Percent of NRCS Soil Type Surface Texture Acres Analysis Area Cencove-Vanderhoff Complex Fine Sandy Loam 83.4 71.6 Cencove Fine Sandy Loam Fine Sandy Loam 12.1 10.4 Rock Outcrop Bedrock 11.5 9.9 Trevino-Rock Outcrop Complex Silt Loam 7.0 6.0 Cencove Fine Sandy Loam Fine Sandy Loam 2.1 1.8 Turbyfill Fine Sandy Loam Fine Sandy Loam 0.3 0.3 Source: NRCS SSURGO 2017

Water erosion is the detachment and movement of soil by water. Natural erosion rates depend on inherent soil properties such as slope, soil cover, and climate. The water erosion hazard from unsurfaced roads and trails is based on soil factors such as slope, rock fragment content, and the K factor (soil erosion factor). The soils within the project area have moderate erosion potential (K factor of 0.2) (NRCS 2017). Steep slopes can increase the potential for water erosion within the area. Approximately 33 acres within the area have slopes greater than 10 percent. Slopes increase as you move east within the CPRSIP area.

Wind erosion is the physical wearing of the earth’s surface by wind. Wind erosion removes and redistributes soil. Small blowout areas may be associated with adjacent areas of deposition at the base of plants or behind obstacles, such as rocks, shrubs, fence rows, and roadbanks. The entire project area is characterized as wind erodible.

3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Alternative A would maintain the current conditions and management of the project area. Approximately 1.95 miles of routes located on highly wind erodible soils would remain open under this alternative with no restrictions. Roughly 0.5 miles of open routes are located on slopes over 10 percent under Alternative B, which could accelerate water erosion. The soils would continue to be impacted by continued use of redundant and braided routes. Continued soil compaction would increase precipitation runoff and water erosion. Wind erosion would be more prevalent under this alternative compared to the proposed action due to lack of soil cover and continued disturbance. Without improvement to the parking area (0.9 acres), such erosion would continue unabated.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative B would balance motorized access while protecting soil resources. User proliferated routes would be closed and signs would be posted designating a clear and safe route system. Alternative B would provide a beneficial impact to soils through the closure of 0.8 miles of routes, allowing the soils to passively restore over time in the tracks of the closed routes. Adjacent vegetation would eventually start to return and compaction and wind erosion would gradually decrease on the 0.8 miles of closed routes. Over time the closed routes would experience a decrease in runoff and erosion, specifically on the 0.4 miles of routes that would be closed on slopes over 10 percent under Alternative B. Additionally, Alternative B would result in a reduction in off route travel and disturbance due to physical barriers and signage preventing off-route

travel. Soils within the 0.9 acre parking area would be adversely affected due to compaction and change in texture. However, erosion would be reduced over these acres as a result of improvements and maintenance. 3.5 Biological Resources

3.5.1 Upland Vegetation

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation is a vital component to the landscape because it provides habitat for a diverse assemblage of wildlife (cover, browse, nesting), protects soils from water and wind erosion, regulates stream flows, filters sediment and maintains healthy watersheds. The analysis area is within the Snake River Plain ecoregion and dominated by greasewood and big sagebrush shrubland plant community types (EPA 2018; LANDFIRE 2015). Riparian vegetation is confined to the banks of the Snake River. Non-native annual grasses are common in disturbed areas, particularly along roadsides (See Section 3.4.3, Invasive Non- Native Species). Table 3-2 provides a detailed description of the vegetation composition in the area and is also used to determine wildlife suitability.

Table 3-2 Vegetation Types Found Within the Analysis Area Percent of Vegetation Type Acres Analysis Area Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 12.5 10.8 Developed 18.2 15.6 Greasewood Shrubland 70.5 60.5 Introduced Annual Grassland 11.8 10.2 Salt Desert Scrub 2.3 2.0 Other 1.2 < 0.1 Source: USGS LANDFIRE 2015 *Vegetation types with less than 1 acre in the analysis area are grouped as ‘Other’ 3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences

The analysis of effects to vegetation communities was conducted by calculating and evaluating the miles of open and closed routes within each vegetation type for both alternatives. Travel on roads/trails could increase route width and the area of disturbance to soils and vegetation; resulting in increased mortality of adjacent native vegetation, compaction, rutting, surface runoff and subsequent erosion. Impacts would be greatest in areas of concentrated use that are not maintained or improved. Ruts created by OHVs could disrupt hydrologic flow by providing a channel for concentrated flow, and alter habitat conditions for native plant species. Damage to or loss of individual plants could affect community structure, which in turn would affect habitat suitability for plants and wildlife.

Table 3-3 Miles of Open Routes Within Each Vegetation Type in the Analysis Area Alternative A Alternative B Vegetation Type (miles) (miles) Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 0.05 0.05 Developed 1.02 0.65 Greasewood Shrubland 0.84 0.42 Introduced Annual Grassland 0.01 0.01 Salt Desert Scrub 0.02 0.02 Other 0.01 0.01 Source: USGS LANDFIRE 2015

Table 3-4 Miles of Closed Routes Within Each Vegetation Type in the Analysis Area Alternative A Alternative B Vegetation Type (miles) (miles) Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 0.00 0.00 Developed 0.00 0.37 Greasewood Shrubland 0.00 0.43 Introduced Annual Grassland 0.00 0.00 Salt Desert Scrub 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 Source: USGS LANDFIRE 2015

Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, all existing routes would remain open without change in use or designation. OHV use would not be restricted further, and vegetation communities would continue to be impacted by travel routes in the same manner and degree as existing conditions. Alternative A would have the highest level of adverse impacts on vegetation since vegetative communities would not have the opportunity to reestablish on closed routes.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under this alternative approximately 0.8 route miles would be closed (Table 3-3). The greasewood shrubland community would experience the most benefit from route closures, with 54 percent of the total mileage located in this vegetation type. As soil and site conditions improve over time through the removal of vehicle disturbance, it is anticipated that vegetation communities along closed routes would gradually disperse into these areas, reestablishing with native species adapted to the site. Additionally, the route closures would help to reduce off-route travel and reduce disturbance to soils and vegetation. Development of the 0.9 acre parking area would adversely affect vegetation by altering site conditions and causing mortality to any species that would be covered by gravel.

3.5.2 Special Status Plant Species

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment

BLM special status plants are species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act. One BLM type 4 special status plant has the potential to occur in the analysis area. Snake River milkvetch (Astragalus purshii var. ophiogenes) is a low-growing perennial forb native to Oregon and Idaho’s arid shrub-steppe habitat along the Snake River (IDFG 2018).

Table 3-5 Special Status and BLM Sensitive Plants

Common Name Scientific Name State Rank Global Rank

Snake River milkvetch Astragalus purshii var. ophiogenes S3 G5T3 Source: 2014 BLM Idaho Special Status Plant List *S3 State Rank – Rare or uncommon but not imperiled *G5T3 Global Rank – Species is widespread and secure rangewide, but this particular subspecies is rare

3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences

Potential effects to Snake River milkvetch were analyzed in terms of impact to potentially suitable habitat supporting the species.

Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, existing routes would remain unchanged. Unrestricted access within potential Snake River milkvetch habitat would continue. Travel on user created routes by passenger vehicles or OHVs would continue to compact soils and change habitat conditions under which the rare plant species survives which could result in mortality and a reduction in recruitment.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative B would close 0.8 miles of routes within habitat that has the potential to support Snake River milkvetch. The benefits of these closures (Section 3.3.2, Upland Vegetation) would improve opportunities for rare plant dispersal where routes have been decommissioned. The addition of the parking area would have adverse impacts to potential Snake River milkvetch habitat by altering conditions to be unsuitable for the species to survive on approximately 0.9 acres in the analysis area.

3.5.3 Invasive, Non-Native Species

3.5.3.1 Affected Environment

Invasive species and noxious weeds are highly competitive and can often out-compete native vegetation, especially on recently disturbed sites. The spread of noxious weeds on public lands poses risks to wildlife and rangeland animals, threatens biodiversity, and creates economic problems. Idaho has identified 51 species as noxious weeds, including eight that are listed for early detection rapid response (weeds shall be eradicated during same growing season as identified), four classified as statewide prohibited genera (prohibited in Idaho), 24 classified for containment (concentration of weeds where control and/or eradication may be possible), and 19 classified for control (reduce or eliminate new or expanding weed populations).

User created routes in the analysis area have increased the amount of disturbed area, altering conditions to be more conducive to invasive species establishment and unfavorable for natives to compete. Common invasive species of concern found in the analysis area include whitetop, scotch thistle and perennial pepperweed (BLM 2018).

3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Travel by vehicles, horses, and hikers can contribute to the spread of noxious and invasive weed seeds from vehicles, shoes, clothing and recreational equipment. Due to the heavy visitation Celebration Park receives, routes designated as open have a high likelihood of introducing new populations of non-native species. Routes designated as closed will be susceptible to non-native species establishment initially but become more favorable to natives over time as soils and site conditions improve (Section 3.3.2, Upland Vegetation).

Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, no route closures are proposed within the project area. Travel by OHVs and other means would continue to pose a risk of distributing seed and plant parts. Alternative A would not result in changes in use within the analysis area and current interactions with noxious weed infestations and spread to adjacent areas would continue.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative B would close 0.8 miles of existing routes. While route closure does not necessarily equate to improvements in noxious weed conditions, over time it is anticipated that the 0.8 miles of closed routes would return to a more natural condition and some diminishment of weed concentrations would occur. Active monitoring and treatment efforts on the 0.8 miles of transportation linear disturbance would further decrease noxious weed persistence on closed routes. The 0.9 acre parking area would be susceptible to

noxious weed establishment due to a change in soil conditions and disturbance associated with vehicle parking.

3.5.4 Wildlife

3.5.4.1 Affected Environment

Terrestrial Wildlife

A variety of terrestrial wildlife species has potential to inhabit the analysis area, including big game, small game, and nongame species. These species include mammals, migratory birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Some wildlife species are year-long residents, while others are migrants. Upland shrubland and riparian communities constitute important habitat for small mammal species that serve as prey for raptors and other predators. Greater species diversity typically occurs in areas with greater vegetation structure, soil moisture, and open water, such as wetlands and riparian areas. See Appendix E for a list of terrestrial wildlife species with the potential to occur in the analysis area.

Migratory Birds

The majority of bird species that occur in Idaho are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Migratory bird species that are identified as special status species are addressed, below. Celebration Park is designated as a birding hotspot on the eBird website. Over 120 species have been recorded there over the past 10 years (eBird 2018). Species guilds reported in eBird include waterfowl, upland game birds, waterbirds, raptors, and passerines.

The NCA is a unique habitat for raptors because the cliffs of the Snake River Canyon provide nesting habitat and the surrounding upland plateau supports unusually large populations of small mammal prey species (BLM 2008). Migratory birds use the vegetation communities and landforms throughout the analysis area for breeding, migration, and winter habitats. Upland shrubland and riparian communities constitute important habitat for small mammal species that serve as prey for raptors and other predators. Greater species diversity typically occurs in areas with greater vegetation structure, soil moisture, and open water, such as wetlands and riparian areas. See Appendix E for a list of migratory bird species with the potential to occur in the analysis area.

Special Status Species

Special status species are those for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and species designated as sensitive by the BLM. Other designations include Idaho state special status (Rangewide/Globally Imperiled, Regional/State Imperiled, Idaho Watch List), and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Two federally listed species occur within the NCA, these are the endangered Snake River physa snail (Physa natricina) and the threatened western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Neither of these species’ habitat occur in the project area and thus a “No Effect” Determination for each species was made.

Special status species with potential to occur in the analysis area include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates (See Appendix E for a list of special status animal species with the potential to occur in the analysis area). A total of 14 avian species designated as special status have been reported in the analysis area, including bald and golden eagles (eBird 2018). Twelve special status bat species and nine special status amphibian and reptile species have potential to occur in the analysis area. Sources for this information include: Bat Conservation International (2018), Birds of North America online (2018), BLM (2015, 2008), IDFG (2018b, 2016, 2015, 1994), Rosenberg et al. (2016), and USFWS (2018, 2008).

3.5.4.2 Environmental Consequences

The CPRSIP can reduce the level of disturbance that a travel network has on wildlife species and habitats through closure and restoration of routes and management of uses. The types of potential impacts associated with a travel network and common to both alternatives include the following:

 Injury or mortality from collisions with vehicles or by crushing of nests and burrows,  Habitat degradation and fragmentation caused by travel routes,  Reduction in breeding productivity, and  Avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat due to disturbance from noise and human activity. Wildlife responses to human disturbance vary according to a number of factors, including habitat type and species.

The types of adverse effects to wildlife species and habitats would occur under both alternatives, but to differing degrees. Disturbance to vegetation communities that provide wildlife habitat is discussed in Section 3.3.2, Upland Vegetation.

Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, route access and designation would remain as they currently exist. Route use by pedestrians, bicycles, passenger vehicle, OHV, or equestrian use within wildlife habitats would continue and potentially increase. Alternative A does not change any of the route designations within the analysis area and would therefore have a higher level of adverse effects on wildlife species and habitats than Alternative B.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under Alternative B, approximately 0.8 mile of routes would be closed. This closure would reduce route redundancy, habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, and human disturbance to wildlife species. Passive restoration would occur on the 0.8 miles of closed routes, which would provide the beneficial effects provided below to wildlife species and habitats. The approximately 1.2 miles of remaining routes within wildlife habitats would continue to have a low level of disturbance.

The beneficial effects of the 0.8 miles of route closures to terrestrial wildlife, migratory birds and special status wildlife include:

 Decreased injury or mortality from collisions with vehicles or by crushing of nests and burrows,  Decreased noise and human activity, which cause behavioral changes for wildlife species,  Improved breeding productivity,  Improved habitat connectivity,  Permanent route closures would potentially encourage wildlife species to return to previously abandoned habitats,  Increased suitable habitat in areas where routes are closed and revegetated, and increased ecosystem resiliency from other natural and anthropogenic disturbances.

The approximately 0.9 acres of disturbance associated with the development of a parking area would have adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitats in the analysis area. However, these impacts would be minor since the location where the parking area is planned to be developed is already disturbed and connected to an existing route commonly used by motor vehicles under existing conditions.

3.6 Heritage Resources and the Human Environment

3.6.1 Cultural Resources

3.6.1.1 Affected Environment

Approximately 49 acres, or 42% of the analysis area, is located within the Guffey Butte – Black Butte Archaeological District (GBBBD). The GBBBD was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of the high number of prehistoric sites located along the Snake River within the canyon. Many of the recorded sites are considered to be “contributing elements” to the NRHP.

Cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the area for a variety of reasons since 1958. At least six surveys have been recorded within about 0.5 miles of Celebration Park.

The Sinker Road that provides access to Celebration Park from the west was surveyed in 2005. BLM conducted extra surveys along the eastern access roads in 2018. Four petroglyph sites and two open camp sites have been recorded on BLM lands in the CPRSIP area.

Several sites have been recorded on the Celebration Park property, including petroglyph sites and prehistoric camp sites. The Celebration Park property was excavated by Boise State University (BSU) in 1969 and 1970. The area had also been dug by the property owner prior to the excavation conducted by BSU.

The analysis area is a landscape that has been inhabited for arguably the last 10,000 years, as evidenced by petroglyphs located on Bonneville Flood basalt boulders. However, most of the sites found near or in the analysis area contain assemblages that date to the Late Archaic (1,000-250 B.P) and exhibit a common pattern of relatively mobile foragers using resources as encountered (Plew 2005). In general, the Late Archaic is characterized by significant changes in material culture, which include the adoption of the bow and arrow and the introduction of ceramics, and by greater economic diversity and a more extensive use of the Snake River corridor (Plew 2000). This is evidenced at Celebration Park, which is nestled next to the Snake River.

The Guffey railroad bridge, located on the Snake River near the analysis area and built in 1897, was used to carry gold and silver ore from Silver City in the Owyhee Mountains to locations on the northern side of the Snake River. The bridge was abandoned in 1947 and was almost demolished in the 1970s. As Idaho’s only Parker-Through-Truss Railroad Bridge, it was placed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1978.

3.6.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Table 3-6 Miles of Open Routes Within the GBBBD in the Analysis Area Alternative A Alternative B Cultural Resource (miles) (miles) Guffey Butte Black Butte Archaeological District 1.33 0.53

Table 3-7 Miles of Closed Routes Within the GBBBD in the Analysis Area Alternative A Alternative B Cultural Resource (miles) (miles) Guffey Butte Black Butte Archaeological District 0.00 0.80

Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. Continued use of existing routes would be likely to result in vehicle traffic with the potential to affect known historic properties. Under the

No Action Alternative, 1.33 miles of open routes would remain in use within the Guffey Butte Black Butte Archaeological District. The existing routes would continue to provide public access to Celebration Park and BLM lands.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, 0.8 miles of user created routes within the Guffey Butte Black Butte Archaeological District would be closed to vehicle traffic (Table 3-7). This would result in decreased traffic and reduced erosion near these historic properties. The existing routes would continue to provide public access to Celebration Park and BLM Lands. The 0.9 acre graveled parking area were intensively surveyed for cultural resources (Class III) in the summer of 2018. The parking lot would not result in impacts to historic properties.

3.6.2 Recreation

3.6.2.1 Affected Environment

Recreation is a key part of the multiple use management in the analysis area. Celebration Park is popular for a variety of recreational experiences, including recreational OHV use, hiking, horseback riding, camping, picnicking, bird watching, mountain biking, and fishing. The existing travel routes within the project area provide access to these recreational activities; as well as to Canyon County facilities including restrooms, developed campsites, and sheltered picnic tables at Celebration Park.

A non-motorized trail along the north bank of the Snake River provides access upstream to Halverson Lake, a small pond nestled along the canyon wall. Other non-motorized trails lead through boulders scattered by the Bonneville Flood across Halverson Bar. These trails converge into one trail and can be followed up stream approximately 10 miles toward Swan Falls Dam. This trail becomes open to motorized use about halfway to the dam. Guffey Bridge, located at the downstream edge of Celebration Park, provides one of the few crossings over the Snake River. The one-time railroad bridge built in 1897 has been restored for non-motorized use and provides access to primitive trails on the south side of the river (BLM 2018).

Management issues identified during scoping include the proliferation of user created routes, along with the desire to maintain a balanced motorized, non-motorized and non-mechanized access within the project area.

3.6.2.2 Environmental Consequences

It is assumed that non-motorized and motorized recreational uses will continue to increase as the population in Idaho and the surrounding region increase. In addition, outdoor recreation is an important industry to the economic health of Idaho and the travel and tourism continues to increase in the area (Idaho Parks 2013).

The amount of change, or reduction in mileage and open routes, varies by alternative. All current recreational activities would still be allowed throughout the analysis area. However, the types of recreational experiences may be altered in some areas.

Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would maintain the current existing condition of 1.95 miles of routes for recreation users of Celebration Park, including continued use of user proliferated and redundant routes. Alternative A would not include implementation measures such as monitoring, mitigation, and signage.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

This alternative would close 0.8 mile of routes. Routes closed in this alternative do not add to the recreational experience and primarily consist of redundant routes or routes located in areas with sensitive resources. A looped access to the area would be provided in order to enhance evacuation safety in cases of emergency, such as wildfires. The addition of a 0.9 acre parking area under this alternative would provide beneficial impacts for recreation in the analysis area by granting users the opportunity to park trailers, vehicles and tie up horses.

3.6.3 Fire & Fuels Management

3.6.3.1 Affected Environment

Fire management and suppression in the Celebration Park vicinity is essential to protecting its natural and cultural resources. Route condition and accessibility play a significant role in fire suppression. Sinker Road and Victory Lane provide suitable access and act as potential fire breaks within the project area. The close proximity to the Snake River also provides an immediate water supply for fire containment.

Travel on open routes in the analysis area removes vegetation and reduces fuel loads, therefore serving as potential fire breaks. The probability of ignition is increased on open routes due to motor vehicle tailpipes and other hot engine parts.

Access to and within the analysis area is complicated by a braided network of user created and redundant routes. There is safety and evacuation concerns associated the current route network due to the number of parallel unmanaged routes and lack of a clear evacuation path in the event of a wildfire.

3.6.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not close any routes in the project area and access for fire suppression, fuels management and evacuation would remain the same as current conditions. Fuel loads and the chance of a human caused fire would remain a concern on the 1.95 miles of existing routes.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative B would close 0.8 miles of user created routes and provide a more clear evacuation path in the event of fire by reducing redundancy and improving signing. Safety and evacuation from the analysis area, and adjacent Canyon County Celebration Park, would be improved compared to current conditions by simplifying the user created travel network and providing one clear open route for access and egress. Fuel loads would increase as vegetative communities reestablish on the 0.8 miles of closed routes (See Section 3.2 Upland Vegetation). The potential for human caused fire associated with motor vehicle use would be reduced on the 0.8 miles of closed routes due to the removal of motorized vehicles. 4 Implementation 4.1 Signage, Education, Enforcement and Travel Variation

Signage: Open routes will be signed for navigational purposes; signs would include assigned route numbers and would be installed at major intersections and other appropriate locations.

Education: Maps would be developed and published for general public use. These maps would depict routes available for motorized and non-motorized use. Closed routes would not be depicted. Each route would be assigned a number to enhance public navigability. Maps would be available at the BLM Boise District Office and on the Internet.

The following are three target messages or themes for this educational effort:  Tread Lightly (www.treadlightly.org)  Leave No Trace (www.lnt.org)  Respect the rights of private landowners and other public land users

In order to foster appreciation of the area’s natural and cultural resources, educational material would be displayed in kiosks throughout the project area.

Enforcement: The BLM would try to educate the public about the specifics of the regulations. However, law enforcement officers can issue a notice of violation any time after the designation is publicly available. The CPRSIP would be enforced by implementing the signage and maps described above. Routes not shown on the BLM maps would not be open to public motor vehicle travel. Routes designated for motorized use may not always be signed on the ground but would be identified on BLM maps. It would be the public's responsibility to reference the BLM maps and information to stay on designated routes for motor vehicle use. The BLM would then enforce any activity not consistent with designation and identified on either maps or signage. Activities in violation of the rules would include off designated route, wrong vehicle type, or outside of use season.

Travel Variation: Access for permittees holding a valid grazing permit or others with an existing authorization would be authorized to access administrative only routes within areas, handled within the permitting process, in accordance with any other restrictions, such as seasonal closures. The Authorized Officer may issue a written travel variance or other written authorization for motorized travel off designated routes. Travel variances for use of existing roads can be issued for extended periods of time, or for specific types of uses (e.g., permittees may receive written authorization to drive on existing roads to access range improvements during their season of operation). Travel variances for cross-country travel would be considered on a case-by-case basis with written approval by the authorized officer, with the exception of emergencies and valid existing rights, and appropriate mitigation measures would be required.

This plan is not intended to provide evidence, bearing on, or address the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process that is entirely independent of the BLM's planning process. Consequently, this improvement plan did not take into consideration R.S. 2477 evidence. The BLM bases planning on purpose and need related to resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters given consideration to the relevant resources. At such time as a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM will adjust its travel routes accordingly.

4.2 Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation: A variety of closure methods would be available, depending on site-specific circumstances. In general, the minimum closure techniques that support resource needs would be used. Methods of closure might include one or more of the following: signing, natural or active rehabilitation, obscuring the road entrance; or blocking the road entrance.

If active rehabilitation methods are used, appropriate and applicable project-related clearances and consultation processes (such as NHPA Section 106 cultural resources survey, mitigation and consultation with Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and affected Native American Tribes) would be completed prior to any undertaking.

Maintenance: Motorized routes designated as open could receive periodic maintenance including smoothing of tread, removal of rocks or other obstacles, installation of drainage structures (i.e., culverts,

rolling dips, water bars, etc.), and repair of gullies and rills. Maintenance of full-sized, motorized routes may require mechanized equipment.

All primitive roads designated as open in this plan are classified as maintenance level 3. Maintenance level 3 routes are designated for OHV use and moderately maintained for low-volume traffic (Table 4-1). All roads designated as open in this plan are classified as maintenance level 5. Maintenance level 5 roads are designated for full size vehicle use and maintained for high-volume traffic year-round.

Table 4-1 General Maintenance Levels Maintenance Description Route Type Type of Access Level* Non-motorized and non- 0 No planned annual maintenance Closed routes mechanized Minimal maintenance as required for protection High-clearance vehicle 1 Minor routes of adjacent lands and resources. (4x4, OHV) Moderate maintenance for low-volume traffic. 3 Major routes Passenger car May not provide for year-round access. High maintenance for high-volume, year-round Paved and Gravel 5 Passenger car use. Roads * Maintenance Levels 2 and 4 are reserved for future use, and are not in use at the publishing of this document, and therefore are not described in this table.

The route inventory, route evaluation, and environmental assessment are intended to identify the existing condition and the resource impacts associated with each route. While information related to a maintenance level may be implied, it is expected that route designations would result in the development of management objectives for each route. The maintenance level assigned during the planning process may change as a result of a change in use patterns, better route condition estimates, or management objectives. Therefore, the BLM will adapt by increasing maintenance and/or assigned maintenance levels wherever necessary to address and prevent undue impacts to the road infrastructure and/or adjacent resources.

4.3 Monitoring

Based on availability and funding, BLM staff will monitor the CPRSIP’s routes throughout the year to estimate public use and visitation, effects on natural resources, and to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness in achieving desired resource protection objectives. Monitoring will be used to identify issues and focus management to areas most needing attention. Route designations may be adjusted if deemed necessary based on monitoring information.

Monitoring has three purposes:  Tracking the implementation of actions adopted in the CPRSIP;  Determining the effectiveness of management actions; and  Identifying where actions may need to be adjusted.

The monitoring plan utilizes two scales of monitoring:

Long-term monitoring: Are resource conditions and user experiences in the Recreation Site Improvement Plan area improving, staying the same, or declining over time?

Project-level monitoring: How well have specific management actions been implemented on the ground? Are they effective?

The key indicators for monitoring travel routes include:

 Traffic volume, type of use, geographic distribution, temporal patterns;  Roadway condition, drainage, and erosion issues;  Impacts or damage caused by illegal cross-country motorized or mechanized use to soil, vegetation; other damage or destruction of cultural resources; and  Violations of route and area designations; incursions on routes designated “closed,” cross-country motorized or mechanized tracks, widening of parking areas and turn-outs.

Known sensitive resource areas in the CPRSIP will be given priority for monitoring frequency and follow up. Monitoring results will be used to schedule needed road maintenance or repair work, to evaluate implementation progress, to assess the effectiveness of the plan in achieving desired conditions, to identify adaptive measures, and to respond to changing conditions, access, and management needs.

5 Consultation and Coordination

5.1.1 Cultural Resource Laws and Executive Orders

BLM is required to consult with Native American tribes to “help assure (1) that federally recognized tribal governments and Native American individuals, whose traditional uses of public land might be affected by a proposed action, will have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the decision, and (2) that the decision maker will give tribal concerns proper consideration” (U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM Manual Handbook H-8120-1). Tribal coordination and consultation responsibilities are implemented under laws and executive orders that are specific to cultural resources which are referred to as “cultural resource authorities,” and under regulations that are not specific which are termed “general authorities.” Cultural resource authorities include: the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA); the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as amended (NAGPRA). General authorities include: the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979 (AIRFA); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); and Executive Order 13007-Indian Sacred Sites. The proposed action is in compliance with the aforementioned authorities.

Southwest Idaho is the homeland of two culturally and linguistically related tribes: the Northern Shoshone and the Northern Paiute. In the latter half of the 19th century, a reservation was established at Duck Valley on the Nevada/Idaho border west of the Bruneau River. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes residing on the Duck Valley Reservation today actively practice their culture and retain aboriginal rights and/or interests in this area. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes assert aboriginal rights to their traditional homelands as their treaties with the United States, the Boise Valley Treaty of 1864 and the Bruneau Valley Treaty of 1866, which would have extinguished aboriginal title to the lands now federally administered, were never ratified.

Other tribes that have ties to southwest Idaho include the Bannock Tribe and the Nez Perce Tribe. Southeast Idaho is the homeland of the Northern Shoshone Tribe and the Bannock Tribe. In 1867 a reservation was established at Fort Hall in southeastern Idaho. The Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 applies to BLM’s relationship with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The northern part of the BLM’s Boise District was also inhabited by the Nez Perce Tribe. The Nez Perce signed treaties in 1855, 1863 and 1868. BLM considers off-reservation treaty-reserved fishing, hunting, gathering, and similar rights of access and resource use on the public lands it administers for all tribes that may be affected by a proposed action.

5.1.2 Tribal Consultation

The BLM Boise District Office conducted consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley. Consultation was conducted with the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes of Fort Hall on June 17 and October 6, 2016; May 17 and December 7, 2017; and June 14 and October 11, 2018. Consultation was conducted with the Shoshone- Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley on May 21, 2016; January 19, February 16, and March 15, 2017; and April 19, May 17, June 21, and July 31, 2018.

5.1.3 State Historical Preservation Office Consultation

BLM conducted consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. Native American concerns were carefully considered during route evaluations and route designations attempt to avoid and/or mitigate impacts. Where the parking area would be constructed, compliance with Section 106 was fulfilled through appropriate government-to-government consultation and an intensive Class III inventory.

5.1.4 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Canyon County U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation

6 List of Preparers

The following lists of individuals show the ID team that contributed to the compilation of this document. BLM specialists and Logan Simpson (a contractor to the BLM) prepared this CPRSIP EA together.

BLM Staff Role BLM Staff Role Jared Fluckiger Project Inspector / Amanda Hoffman Morley Nelson Birds of Outdoor Recreation Prey NCA Field Manager Planner James Tarter Four Rivers Field Joe Weldon Wildlife Biologist Manager Kara Kirkpatrick- Boise District NEPA Mark Steiger Botanist Kreitinger Specialist Matt Hamilton GIS Specialist Dean Shaw Archaeologist Sarah Garcia Rangeland Management Joe Sirotnak Ecologist Specialist Logan Simpson Staff Role Logan Simpson Staff Role Bruce Meighen Contract Manager David Balthrop Environmental Planner Tom Keith Senior NEPA Specialist Kristina Kachur Environmental Planner Erin Bibeau Senior Environmental Julie Capp Wildlife Biologist/ Planner Environmental Planner Casey Smith Environmental Planner/ Terra Mascarenas Senior Environmental GIS Planner Brian Taylor GIS Jessica Dougherty Archaeologist

Appendix A - Figures Figure 1 Celebration Park Recreation Site Improvement Plan

Figure 2 Alternative A

Figure 3 Alternative B

Appendix B – Public Scoping Summary

PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area West Travel Management Plan/Environmental Assessment and Celebration Park /Environmental Assessment

Bureau of Land Management Boise District Office Boise, Idaho

This page intentionally left blank. INTRODUCTION

Project Description The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) manages approximately 485,000 acres of wildlife habitat supporting one of the world’s densest concentrations of nesting birds of prey, including about 800 pairs of falcons, eagles, hawks, and owls that arrive each spring to mate and raise their young. Established by congress in 1993, Morley Nelson is one of sixteen NCAs designated to conserve, protect, enhance and manage public lands for their exceptional scientific, cultural, ecological, historical, and recreational values. Located 35 miles south of Boise, Idaho, the NCA offers a variety of recreational opportunities beyond bird and wildlife viewing such as hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, camping, hunting, fishing, scenic driving, and boating. The NCA West Travel Management Area (TMA) is a sub-region of the NCA (analysis area) and encompasses approximately 195,000 acres north of the Snake River.

The travel management plan (TMP) and environmental assessment (EA) will aid in the development of a travel network that is logical and sustainable, as well as meets the increasingly diverse transportation, access and recreational needs of the public. Overall, the TMP process seeks to identify and understand the use of existing transportation features (roads, primitive roads, and trails), incorporate the existing and future needs for transportation, access, and recreational opportunities, and use an interdisciplinary planning process to develop appropriate travel networks and recreational opportunities that reflect the environmental concerns and legal requirements of the 2008 Snake River Birds of Prey Resource Management Plan (RMP). The EA will analyze the proposed travel management plan and alternatives considered during the planning process.

PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS

The TMP/EA process involves extensive public input. The BLM will closely consider public comments in developing a range of management alternatives. Throughout the planning process, the objective of public involvement is to increase awareness, understanding, and support regarding the TMP/EA with the general public, constituent groups, cooperators, partners, media, Native American tribes, and state and federal legislators; engage the public in a discussion about future management decisions in the planning area; and facilitate effective participation in the planning process.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to solicit input from the public and interested federal, state, and local agencies, and Native American tribes. Information received during the scoping process helps identify potential environmental and social issues and aids in the development of measures to mitigate impacts associated with the travel planning for the analysis area. The scoping process provides a mechanism for focusing and clarifying the issues so that the TMP/EA can address and analyze the primary areas of concern. The objectives of the public scoping meeting activities were to:

1. Discuss recreational opportunities and identify key issues. 2. Provide input on criteria to evaluate new and existing routes. 3. Learn more about how to contribute to this collaborative effort.

Public involvement activities undertaken during scoping included public outreach through a project website and postcard, online comment response, and three public scoping meetings. Each of these is described in more detail below.

Notification A variety of media outlets including a website, media press release, and contact lists announced the public scoping meetings.

Public announcements, project updates, project documents, background, and contact information is posted to the project website. The website is updated as additional information becomes available. BLM maintains a project website at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projec tId=73758&dctmId=0b0003e880e60f08.

A postcard (Appendix A) was distributed to a mailing list of approximately 600 people.

Comments & Online Questionnaire Comments were encouraged to be provided via an online comment form that was available on the website. Written comments were also submitted through regular mail at 3948 S. Development Ave., Boise, Idaho 83705; via email at [email protected]; or via fax at 208-384-3489. A paper hard-copy comment questionnaire was made available at the public meetings and BLM offices. The comment form is included as Error! Reference source not found..

Scoping Meetings The public was invited to a series of meetings to engage in a conversation on travel and transportation management planning. Public scoping meetings were held in in four locations. Thirty-four people signed in at the meetings (Appendix C).

Location Date Venue Public Sign-In Boise March 14 BLM District Office 12 Nampa March 15 Nampa Civic Center 11 Kuna March 16 Kuna Senior Center 11 Total 34

Open-house format meetings were held from 4 p.m. – 7 p.m. each night. BLM staff members, resource specialists, and staff from Logan Simpson (BLM’s travel management consultant) were present at the scoping meetings to respond to public comments and answer questions. Comment forms were provided to collect comments.

Materials included the following topics: Meeting purpose and objections; Project, NEPA, and travel management planning overview and schedule; Route inventory and evaluation process; and Types of transportation.

The meeting asked for feedback on: Creating a useful and environmentally responsible travel system; Issues for consideration; and RMP resources.

The public meeting display boards are included as Appendix D. A large map identifying land management, BLM routes, and management areas was displayed for participants to provide route specific comments (Appendix E).

SCOPING COMMENTS Comment Letters Received A total of seventy-one (71) individuals, agencies, and organizations provided written comments through email or mail and at the public meetings. Comments were delineated and categorized in an Access database.

The majority of comments (57) came from interest groups, which included a recreational aviation group, OHV groups, equestrian associations, and local landowners and/or ranchers (See Table 1). One form letter was received from The Recreation Aviation Foundation. Fifty-one (51) letters were received and forty-eight (48) of those were form letters with no unique text.

Table 1. Commenter Affiliation Affiliation Type Count Interest Group 57 Business 4 County or City Government 2 State Agency 1 Other 3 No Affiliation Indicated 4 Total 71

Summary of Comments The following section summarizes the results of the scoping meetings and scoping period, including issues for consideration, additional data to consider, and potential alternative considerations. The comment summary is organized by category and location. Seventy-one (71) unique comments were identified.

By Category Comments were categorized by process and regulations, background information, resources, route network, alternatives, and implementation topics. Subcategories were provided for resources, route network, and implementation topics. The following provides a summary of each of the comment categories, along with a count of those comments. The total of comments by category does not equal the total unique comments as a comment may have related to multiple categorizes. For example, the following comment was identified as both Vegetation/Special Status Species/Noxious Weeds and Alternatives: “Given the seemingly excessive route density in the NCA West and the strong correlation between roads and noxious weeds, the BLM should incorporate significant route closures with all alternatives, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas.”

The majority of comments relate to recreation (particularly motorized recreation and aviation), the range of alternatives, implementation, and fish and wildlife species.

Topic Subtopic No. Comment Summary Out of Scope General 2 Comments referenced other on-going TMP projects in the Boise District Office. Process and General 1 Adequate analysis should be completed to justify an Regulations alternative to enhance existing motorized recreational opportunities. Updated data should be easily accessible to the public. Consultation and 4 Commenters requested the BLM coordinate with Coordination recreationalist, permittees, and state and federal agencies including Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, Canyon County ATV, the aviation community, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Farm Bureau, and the Northwest Pipeline LLC. Consistency with 3 The TMP needs to be developed in accordance with the Other State, legislation authorizing the Snake River Birds of Prey NCA. County, or Local The TMP should be consistent with the Ada County Plans Comprehensive Plan by develop and increase access to non- motorized trails and waterways. Recreation General 10 General recreation concerns included minimizing recreational conflicts and damage to resources, providing connectivity to adjacent public property and trail systems, and continuing to provide a range of recreational opportunities and access. 4.15.1.Motorized 8 Comments were provided on both spectrums of motorized recreation including the desire to provide more motorized recreation and the desire to reduce impacts caused by

motorized recreation. The BLM should working with local groups on education and management of motorized recreation. Analysis should be adequate to develop reasonable alternatives. 4.15.3.Non- 3 Additional hiking and horseback riding opportunities were Motorized requested. 4.15.5.Hunting/Fis 1 Continuing to allow recreational shooting was desired. hing 4.15.6.Aviation 10 Comments on backcountry aviation noted the importance of the historical context of backcountry airstrips and the requirements to address all modes of travel, along with the minimal impacts caused and congressional support for aviation. 4.Resources Soils 1 Soil composition should be taken into consideration to reduce impacts on natural resources. Soil damage should be minimized. Surface Water, 2 Rivers play an important role in recreation and habitat Wetlands, and within the analysis area. Riparian Areas Vegetation/Specia 3 The spread of noxious weeds should be taken into l Status consideration, especially to protect ecologically sensitive Plants/Noxious areas. Equestrian use should not be eliminated. Weeds Fish and 8 The BLM should consider hunting, nesting, and breeding Wildlife/Special habitat for big horn sheep, reptiles, golden eagles, birds of Status Wildlife prey and their prey species. Seasonal and authorized use only designations should be considered in areas that affect these species. Direct and indirect impacts should be considered. Cultural/Paleo/Ind 2 Historic and cultural resources should be protected and ian Assets avoided, especially within Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological District. Petroglyphs and historic remains exist throughout the area. Resources should be interpreted. Lands and Realty 2 Facilities and access associated with permittees (pipelines, grazing allotments, etc.) should not be impacted by the TMP. Grazing 3 Routes should be left open for traditional grazing uses. Minerals and 1 Routes should be left open for mining and energy corridors. Energy 5.Network & General 5 Reduce redundant and unnecessary routes that are creating Routes resource damage. Roads should be limited in ecologically intact areas. A clear and accessible network should be mapped. Dead-end routes should be eliminated. Designations 2 To reduce conflicts, non-motorized and non-mechanized trails should be designated. Access 4 Access should be maintained at existing levels. Commenters are concerned about recent efforts to transfer federal land to other entities. Loops 1 Loop access should be provided to the canyon.

6.Alternatives General 12 Commenters desired a range of alternatives from a resource sensitive alternative to pro-recreation alternative. Routes should connect to travel networks on adjacent public lands. 7.Implementati General 8 General implementation concerns included creating map of on trail networks, closure of routes with resource damage and rehabilitation of closed routes, change of values, education, and removal of trash/clean up days. 7.2.Enforcement 2 Enforcement should be increased along with a citizen- reporting program. 7.3.Signage 2 Signage should be increased for seasonal closures for wet trails, trail and gate etiquette, and network of routes kiosks. 7.5.Education 2 Printed materials should be provided for trail etiquette and natural resource protection. Utilization of additional venues (recreation groups, OHV registrations) for education should be increased. 8.Mapping General 4 Provide clear mapping for route designations and trail mapping for the public. Exclude isolated parcels from the map. Show designations on Bureau of Reclamation lands.

By Location The following section provides comments by specific locations when noted by the commenter. Comments that did include a location often referenced a general location within the analysis area. A few comments reference specific route numbers. If not noted specifically, the comment applied to the entire analysis area.

Location Comment Topic Snake River I am mainly interested in areas around the Snake River Canyon for 4.6.Cultural/Paleo/Indi Canyon, Swan hiking and horseback riding. Idaho Power has recently added an an Assets, equestrian facility at Swan Falls, and several years ago they 4.15.0.Recreation, Falls, installed a horse friendly gate that allows access to the area 4.15.3.Non-Motorized Celebration upstream of the boat ramp on the reservoir. Our BCH Chapter Park, Wees works with Idaho Power on cleanup projects and has packed tires Bar out of Celebration Park. In addition to the Birds of Prey, there is a lot of history in a 10 mile stretch of the river. Most of it I found on the internet or by accident over the years. I hope you will consider the history of the area and include plans to identify areas of historical interest. The Celebration Park staff has educated a lot of young Scouts, but there is so much more available. I learned much of the area's history through tours at Swan Falls Dam and with Scouts at Celebration Park. There are also interesting stories about the Oregon Trail, Guffey Bridge, the old stage line to Murphy, Silver City, China Ditch, the rock houses in Celebration Park, and remains of the Bonneville flood. There are outstanding petro glyphs at Weis [sic] Bar and some remains of the old Priest Ranch. I also heard about a moonshine still in that area and a river ferry. Some friends visiting from the Midwest were intrigued by the irrigation pipes in the Canyon and disappointed that we couldn't ride horses to Weis [sic] Bar. The Canyon is close to most of the

Treasure Valley population and would make a great recreation & educational attraction. Guffey Bridge, Your Travel Plan excludes the Birds of Prey Area South of the 4.15.0.Recreation Wees Bar, Snake River. There is a trail that crosses Guffey Bridge and follows the river bank around to a pumping station and road. From that Priest Ranch, point, I don't believe there is a trail that continues east toward Swan Falls Weis [sic] Bar, Priest Ranch, and on to the trails near Swan Falls Dam. There are some roads in the area, and I was told the best route crosses private land. I believe the public would benefit from a designated trail on the South side of the Snake River from Guffey Bridge to Weis [sic] Bar, Priest Ranch, and Swan Falls Dam. On the internet you can find descriptions of a trail to Weis [sic] Bar that starts by crossing Swan Falls Dam. Unfortunately, the walkway over the dam is not horse friendly. A trail on the South side from Celebration Park would add miles of access. I would prefer to keep the area non-motorized. Deer Flat The description of the Plan mentioned minimizing the spread of 4.4.Vegetation/Special National noxious weeds. Several years ago the Deer Flat National Wildlife Status Plants/Noxious Refuge published a plan that prohibited horseback riding on the Weeds Wildlife premise that horse manure spreads weeds. Based on material that Refuge I presented, the Planners reversed the decision and included horseback riding on the Refuge. According to research studies that I found, noxious weeds are spread by birds, rodents, the wind, and human activity. Weed seeds in horse manure have less than a 4% germination rate and a very low chance of survival on a packed trail. I can forward that information if necessary. South of the I don't use parts of the NCA North of the Snake River very much, 4.15.0.Recreation, Transmission except for target shooting just south of the transmission line. You 7.Implementation probably know the area. Twenty years ago I could pick up most of Line the trash, but it has gotten out of hand. And the road is terrible. I would recommend closing the road, but the problem would just relocate. I would help with cleanup if that would keep the area open to shooting. But I hope you will address the problem. Bureau of The TMP maps should show roads on private and BOR lands. Maps 6.0.Alternatives, Reclamation should show route designations on BOR lands. Consider authorized 8.0.Mapping use designations on otherwise closed routes. Lands Idaho Power The only ATV trails marked in green are able to be ridden on. The 4.15.1.Motorized Towers to others are old tank tracks and during the summer months they are 1 foot deep in dust. Our group only rides the roads from the Idaho Bigfoot Power Mirco Wave Towers to Bigfoot Bar and back. Deer Flat The BLM should consider coordinating with the US Fish and 2.2.Consultation and National Wildlife Service and providing connectivity with trails at the Deer Coordination, Flat National Wildlife Refuge. 4.15.0.Recreation Wildlife Refuge Orchard Areas that are relatively intact ecologically such as portions of the 5.0.Network & Routes, Combat NCA near the Orchard Combat Training Area [sic] should be 6.0.Alternatives targeted for maximum road and trail decommissioning. Roads are Training closely associated with human-caused fire starts. The BLM should Center retain a sufficient network of roads on the perimeter of ecologically intact areas or restoration sites, however, to serve as anchors for fuel breaks for wildfire fighting purposes.

Victory Lane The following comments and recommendations are specific to the 5.0.Network & Routes BLM roads to the east of Celebration Park, commonly known as 'Victory Lane' and designated as numbers 1934, 1686, 809 on the route map. At the site where Victor [sic] Lane changes from asphalt to dirt road recreationists of all kinds have created a complex maze of braided roads and trails between Celebration Park, the canyon cliffs and BLM land. These routes are degraded, eroded, and full of large potholes that often lead to vehicles becoming stuck, especially when the ground is wet. The redundancy and chaos of routes has unnecessarily damaged the environment and destroyed wildlife habitat. It sends a signal to users that this type of destructive and detrimental land use is acceptable. Victory Lane Several of these routes butt up against and bisect known cultural 4.6.Cultural/Paleo/Indi resources. This area is within the Guffey Butte-Black Butte an Assets Archaeological District where protection of cultural resources needs to be a priority. Victory Lane Improvements would provide a loop access to the canyon via 5.4.Loops, Sinker Road and Victory Lane and added evacuation routes in 6.0.Alternatives emergencies such as wildfire. Attached you will find alternate routes that would improve access and egress by canyon visitors. [Commenter provided two exhibits of routes from Victory Lane to Celebration Park] South of the The TMA contains critical breeding habitat for golden eagles, 4.5.Fish and Big Baja Road particularly along the southern border of the TMA in the Snake Wildlife/Special Status River canyon. At least 12 eagle territories exist along this southern Wildlife, border, and 10 of those are located within the river canyon itself. 6.0.Alternatives All of these territories contain multiple nest locations, and some have as many as 14 documented nests. For this reason, we recommend the current trails and roads along the southern edge of the TMA be assessed specifically for their potential impact on nesting eagles. For example, south of the Big Baja Road there are many smaller tributary trails that allow OHV and pedestrian traffic direct access to the canyon rim, sometimes bringing them within feet of eagle nests. Many of these trails should be closed completely, and all of them should be closed seasonally to protect eagles during the breeding season (A closure of January 15th to July 31st is optimal). It is critical that access to these sensitive areas remain open for research efforts, and for that reason we encourage the BLM to use “administrative access only” restrictions in these areas. Pleasant I am in support of the bridle path and horse park on BLM land 4.15.3.Non-Motorized, Valley Road south of the Union Pacific RR at Pleasant Valley Road. It will be 5.1.Designations away from the motor vehicle traffic. [See commenter provided: "Horse Park Petition" for additional names] Pleasant Please keep me on the mailing list for this project. I have quite a 2.2.Consultation and Valley Road bit of knowledge of the planning area since I used to live off South Coordination Pleasant Valley Road (south of Kuna- Mora Road). Pickle Butte, I noticed on the map, that some isolated parcels need to be 8.0.Mapping Ten Mile Road excluded from the travel plan. Pickle Butte is managed by Canyon County Parks and Waterways. Another BLM parcel off Ten Mile Road is current a gravel pit.

Boise and The Boise Foothills, Boise and Snake rivers, Dry Creek Valley and a 4.3.Surface Water, Snake River, variety of other locations in the County offer a broad mix of Wetlands, and opportunities, including hiking, bicycling, rafting, bird watching, Riparian Areas , Dry Creek equestrian use, picnicking and organized recreational programs 4.15.0.Recreation Valley and facilities. Waterways (including the Boise and Snake Rivers and Lucky Peak Reservoir) play a significant role in Ada County’s overall park and recreation system. The Snake River, located on Ada County’s southwestern border, is one of the wildest rivers in the United States. The section of the river on the County’s border is relatively undeveloped, although informal networks of trails can be found near the river. The Snake River provides many fishing, boating, and swimming areas as well as historical sites; however, none of these are owned or operated by the county. Ada County Many of the park and recreation facilities along Ada County’s 4.3.Surface Water, waterways (including the Boise and Snake Rivers and Lucky Peak Wetlands, and Reservoir) are owned and operated by jurisdictions other than the Riparian Areas , county. For example, Eagle Island State Park along the Boise River 4.15.0.Recreation and Lucky Peak State Park (at Lucky Peak Reservoir) are owned and operated by the State of Idaho. The property adjacent to the Snake river is held primarily in private ownership with some areas being owned by the federal government. The Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, is an example. Multiple federal, state and local jurisdictions (e.g., BLM, BR, USFS, IFPL, IFG, ISP, Boise, Eagle, Kuna and the local land trust) to a varying degree provide open space facilities. An example is the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which is the county’s largest recreation and conservation area with a total of 482,000 acres (approximately 192,000 of these are within Ada County). Located south of Kuna along the banks of the Snake River, the reserve provides opportunities for active and passive recreation, including hiking, boating, fishing and bird watching. Highest The proposed level of service standard is 0.46 acres per thousand, 2.3.Consistency with Priorities (not which would translate into a need for approximately 185 acres of Other State, County, existing land. This standard is based on the assumption that the or Local Plans, in any specific County would provide a system of linear corridors that would be 4.15.0.Recreation order, except inter-connected and encircle or “loop” through the County, as noted) - roughly 61 miles of linear park would be needed. At an average Boise River width of 25 feet, an additional 112 acres of additional land would Greenway be needed over the next 20 years. This standard is similar to that used by other service providers surveyed as part of this effort. The (unincorporat costs to meet this standard and priority opportunity areas are ed areas)— identified below. Priority Locations Highest Priorities (not in any highest specific order, except as noted) - Boise River Greenway priority - Lucky (unincorporated areas)—highest priority - Lucky Peak Reservoir Peak Reservoir Loop Trail - Boise Foothills - North Foothills Secondary Priorities (not in any specific order) - Southwestern Ada County - Central Loop Trail - Foothills - Snake River - Southeastern Ada County Boise Foothills - North Foothills Secondary

Priorities (not in any specific order) - Southwest Ada County Goal 9.3: Develop and implement a long-range plan for the 2.3.Consistency with acquisition, creation and maintenance of new and existing Other State, County, pathways and trails that form an interconnected system; or Local Plans incorporate recommendations from the Ridge to- Rivers Pathway Plan into the County’s plan, as well as other adopted local, state and federal trails plans. Policy 9.3-3: Coordinate with IDPR, BLM and other agencies in the development of a Snake River Canyon linear pathway plan for non-motorized recreational opportunities that maintains the natural environment. Goal 9.5: To increase access to, safety on and enjoyment of County Waterways through education about safety, rules and laws, and by providing additional facilities and services. Policy 9.5-5: Encourage federal, state, and private water managers to recognize and support recreational boating and fishing on Lucky Peak, Swan Falls and the Snake and Boise rivers. Northwest Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest) owns and operates an 4.7.Lands and Realty, Pipeline interstate natural gas pipeline system which transports natural gas 5.3.Access to markets in throughout the pacific northwest. Northwest Pipeline has been providing transportation services to markets in this region for over 50 years and is committed to operating and maintaining a safe and reliable pipeline system in compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Safety Regulations and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations. To ensure compliance with these standards, Northwest will routinely send integrity tools, or “ pigs” through its pipeline system to evaluate both the internal and external condition of them. During these evaluations, Northwest personnel will need to travel the pipeline right-of-way to be able to monitor the progress of the pigging tools. Northwest also monitors several key facilities along the pipeline corridor several times a year, as well as conduct annual close integral surveys which often times will require our personnel to walk the pipeline right-of way. From 3489 to Needs traffic control (possible motorized closures) and active 4.4.Vegetation/Special the North; treatment of invasive species (pepper grass). Status Plants/Noxious Option to volunteer farm equipment to assist with weed Weeds, From Pleasant treatment 4.15.1.Motorized Valley Road; From 2511 to the South; to the railroad 2898, 2404, Concerns about vehicle traffic in this area, would prefer non- 4.15.3.Non-Motorized 1514, 509, motorized traffic, such as hiking. 6123, 1040, 2361, 5791, 862, 932, 5301, 1475,

5416, 7147, 746 1934,1686, The following comments and recommendations are specific to the 5.0.Network & Routes 809 BLM roads to the east of Celebration Park, commonly known as 'Victory Lane' and designated as numbers 1934, 1686, 809 on the route map. At the site where Victor [sic] Lane changes from asphalt to dirt road recreationists of all kinds have created a complex maze of braided roads and trails between Celebration Park, the canyon cliffs and BLM land. These routes are degraded, eroded, and full of large potholes that often lead to vehicles becoming stuck, especially when the ground is wet. The redundancy and chaos of routes has unnecessarily damaged the environment and destroyed wildlife habitat. It sends a signal to users that this type of destructive and detrimental land use is acceptable. 1934,1686, Several of these routes butt up against and bisect known cultural 4.6.Cultural/Paleo/Indi 809 resources. This area is within the Guffey Butte-Black Butte an Assets Archaeological District where protection of cultural resources needs to be a priority. 1934,1686, Improvements would provide a loop access to the canyon via 5.4.Loops, 809 Sinker Road and Victory Lane and added evacuation routes in 6.0.Alternatives emergencies such as wildfire. Attached you will find alternate routes that would improve access and egress by canyon visitors. [Commenter provided two exhibits of routes from Victory Lane to Celebration Park]

Recommended Planning Approaches and Planning Criteria The following section outlines a range of ways these comments may be addressed through the planning process.

A number of individuals, groups, and agencies submitted comments that outlined similar issues or concerns. The comments will be addressed through the planning process and recommendations for this approach are outlined below and grouped by potential action.

The following is a summary of future planning steps in the TMP/EA process: 1. Coordinate with recreationalist, permittees, and state and federal agencies including Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, Canyon County ATV, the aviation community, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Farm Bureau, and the Northwest Pipeline LLC to collect additional information needed. a. Obtain additional information on access, loops, and desired recreation experiences. b. Complete coordination with collaborating agencies. c. Complete tribal and State Historic Preservation Office consultation. 2. Develop an appropriate purpose and need for the TMP/EA.

3. Conduct the evaluation process in a systematic, data-driven method to identify route networks for all user groups, redundant and resource damaging routes, and route designations. 4. Considering the issues raised, prepare a range of alternatives for review by the public. a. Alternatives will be evaluated in compliance with NEPA, the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey NCA enabling legislation, and all other relevant federal lands and BLM management policies. b. Refine evaluation criteria based on issues raised: i. Consider benefits and impacts of motorized recreation in a methodical manner. ii. Consider cultural and historic resources. iii. Consider sensitive soils, waterways iv. Consider networks connecting to adjacent public lands. v. Consider the purpose of the NCA, particularly direct and indirect impacts to raptors. vi. Consider all modes of transportation including motorized recreation, biking, hiking, horseback riding, fishing, backcountry airstrips, etc. 5. Prepare an implementation plan consistent with existing programs and management actions. 6. Public involvement will be based on the principles described in the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) and the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). a. Alternatives, once developed, will be shared with the public for review and comment. Then the impacts that could result from implementing the alternatives will be analyzed. b. The Draft TMP/EA will incorporate public feedback on the alternatives, environmental consequences, mitigation measures, and an implementation plan. The Draft TMP/EA will be available for public review and comment.

Appendix C - Acronyms & Abbreviations

AIRFA – American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1990

AM - Adaptive Management

AO - Authorized Officer

ARMP - Approved Resource Management Plan

ARPA – Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

ATV - All-Terrain Vehicle

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

BMP - Best Management Practices

CEQ - Council of Environmental Quality

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

CPSIP-Celebration Park Recreation Site Improvement Plan

EA - Environmental Assessment

EO - Executive Order

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

ESA - Endangered Species Act of 1973

FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact

GBBBD - Guffey Butte Black Butte Archeological District

GIS - Geographic Information System

GPS - Global Positioning System

ID - Interdisciplinary

IDFG - Idaho Department of Fish and Game

LUP - Land Use Plan

MBTA - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

NAGPRA – Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

NCA - National Conservation Area NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act of 1996

NRCS - National Resource Conservation Service

OHV - Off-Highway Vehicle

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PL - Public Law

RFFA - Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

RMP - Resource Management Plan

ROD - Record of Decision

ROW - Right-of-Way

TMA - Travel Management Area

TMP - Travel Management Plan

TTM - Travel and Transportation Management

U.S. - United States

U.S.C. - United States Code

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USGS - United States Geological Survey

Appendix D – References

Bat Conservation International. 2018. Species Profiles (various species). Available online at: http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species-profiles. Accessed: March 19, 2018.

Birds of North America online. 2018. Species Profiles (various species). Available online at: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home. Accessed: March 25, 2018.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. January, 2001.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004. General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation (BLM Manual Handbook H-8120-1). December, 2004.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). March, 2005.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report. November, 2006.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. September, 2008.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012. Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342). March 2012.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2014. BLM Idaho Special Status Plant List. December 2014.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. BLM Idaho Special Animal List. October 2015.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2016. BLM Travel and Transportation Manual (MS-1626). September, 2016.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2018. BLM Recreation Web Map – Celebration Park. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/visit/celebration-park. Accessed: March 28, 2018. eBird. 2018. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online at: https://ebird.org/home. Accessed: March 23, 2018.

Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG). 1994. Idaho’s Amphibians and Reptiles: Description, Habitat & Ecology. Nongame Wildlife Leaflet #7. 12 pp.

Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG). 2015. Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Available online at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/list/sgcn. Accessed March 5, 2018.

Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG). 2016. Idaho Classification of Wildlife (IDAPA). Available online at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/list/idapa. Accessed March 6, 2018.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2018. Idaho Species – Snake River Milkvetch. Available online at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/89535. Accessed: February 22, 2018. Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG). 2018b. Explore Idaho’s Plants and Animals. Various species profiles. Available online at: http://idfg.idho.gov/species/taxa. Accessed: March 20, 2018.

Idaho Parks & Recreation. 2013. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP). Available online at: https://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/scortp. Accessed: March 26, 2018.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Available online at: http://soils.usda.gov/mlraexplorer. Accessed: March 07, 2018

Plew, M.G. 2000. The Archaeology of the Snake River Plain. Boise State University.

Plew, M.G. 2005.

Rosenberg, K.V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 119 pp.

United States Congress (USC). 1972. Executive Order Number 11644: Use of off-road vehicles on the public land as amended by Executive Order Number 11989 (1977). Washington, D.C. Available online at: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11644.html. Accessed: March 20, 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv- ecoregions-continental-united-states. Accessed: February 4, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management. December, 2008. 93 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Report. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/PRAOXKST5FAP3G246PSZGT5UNQ/resources#facilities. Accessed March 6, 2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. LANDFIRE Vegetation Data - GIS Raster. Available online at: https://www.landfire.gov/vegetation.php. Accessed: September 12, 2017.

United States Government Printing Office (GPO). 2009. Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 8342- Designation of Areas and Trails, 8342.1 - Designation criteria. Available online at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/8342.1. Accessed: March 11, 2018.

Appendix E – Wildlife Species Lists

Table E-1 Game Species with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area Common Name Scientific Name Big Game Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Migratory and Game Birds American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos California quail Callipepla californica Chukar Alectoris chukar Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Gray partridge Perdix perdix Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata Waterfowl American coot Fulica americana American wigeon Anas americana Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Canada goose Branta canadensis Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Common merganser Mergus merganser Gadwall Anas strepera Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Ross’s goose Chen rossii Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Snow goose Chen caerulescens Wood duck Aix sponsa Mammals American badger Taxidea taxus American marten Martes americana American mink Neovison vison Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Bobcat Lynx rufus Columbian ground squirrel Urocitellus columbianus Coyote Canis latrans Fox squirrel Sciurus niger Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus North American beaver Castor canadensis North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum North American river otter Lontra canadensis Raccoon Procyon lotor Red fox Vulpes vulpes Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris Source: BLM 2008, Boise Parks and Recreation 2015, IGFD 2018

Table E-2 Terrestrial SGCN with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area Common Name Scientific Name State Status Amphibians Columbian spotted frog Rana luteiventris pop. 3 SGCN Tier 1 Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens SGCN Tier 2 Western toad Anaxyrus boreas SGCN Tier 2 Woodhouse’s toad Anaxyrus woodhousii SGCN Tier 2 Reptiles Great Basin collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores SGCN Tier 3 Mammals Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus SGCN Tier 2 Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus SGCN Tier 3 Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans SGCN Tier 2 Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SGCN Tier 3 Sources: IFGD 2016, IUCN Red List 2018

Table E-3 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Season of Occurrence Birds American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus MBTA, BCC, Breeding and Regional/State Imperiled migration American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos MBTA, SGCN Tier 2, Migration Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, MBTA, BLM, Resident SGCN Tier 2, BCC Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica MBTA, Idaho Watch List Nonbreeding Black tern Chlidonias niger MBTA, SGCN Tier 2, Breeding Regional/State Imperiled Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata MBTA, BLM Breeding Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus MBTA, Idaho Watch List Resident Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, Regional/State Imperiled Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, Idaho Watch List Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope MBTA, BCC, Breeding and Regional/State Imperiled migration Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii MBTA, PIF, Idaho Watch Resident List Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Idaho Watch List Breeding Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Resident 2, BCC, Regional/State Imperiled Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, MBTA, BLM, Resident SGCN Tier 2, BCC Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 3, Idaho Watch List Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus MBTA, BLM, BCC, Idaho Breeding Watch List Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, PIF, Regional/State Imperiled Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus MBTA, BLM, BCC, Breeding Regional/State Imperiled Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, Idaho Watch List Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Resident 1, Regional/State Imperiled Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, PIF, Regional/State Imperiled Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus MBTA, SGCN Tier 2, Resident BCC, Regional/State Imperiled Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis MBTA, Idaho Watch List Breeding Sagebrush sparrow Artemisiospiza nevadensis MBTA, BLM, BCC, Breeding SGCN Tier 2, Regional/State Imperiled Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, Idaho Watch List Short-eared owl Asio flammeus MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Resident 3, Idaho Watch List Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni MBTA, SGCN Tier 2, Breeding Idaho Watch List Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Nonbreeding 2 Virginia’s warbler Oreothlypis virginiae MBTA, BLM, SGCN Tier Breeding 2, BCC, PIF Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii MBTA, BLM, BCC, Breeding Regional/State imperiled Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor MBTA, Idaho Watch List Breeding Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Status Season of Occurrence Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus BLM Resident Canyon bat (formerly Parastrellus hesperus BLM, Idaho Watch List Resident western pipistrelle) Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM, SGCN Tier 1 Primarily breeding season Kit fox Vulpes macrotis BLM Resident Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus BLM, SGCN Tier 3 Resident Long-eared myotis Myotisevotis BLM Resident Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BLM Resident Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus BLM Resident Piute ground squirrel Urocitellus mollis BLM, Regional/State Resident Imperiled Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis BLM, SGCN Tier 2, Resident Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans BLM, SGCN Tier 2 Resident Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BLM, Regional/State Resident Imperiled Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii BLM, SGCN Tier 3 Resident Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum BLM, SGCN Tier 3, Idaho Resident Watch List Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis BLM, Idaho Watch List Resident Reptiles and Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name Other Status Habitat Boreal toad Anaxyrus boreas BLM Permanent ponds, swamps, and marshes. Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Regional/State Imperiled Various habitats, often near water. Ground snake Sonora semiannulata Regional/State Imperiled Desert habitat with loose or sandy soil. Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Regional/State Imperiled Deserts, grasslands, and rocky canyons Mojave black-collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores SGCN Tier 3, Arid, rocky canyons Regional/State Imperiled with sparse vegetation. Night snake Hypsiglena torquata Idaho Watch List Arid, rocky outcrops. Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens BLM, SGCN Tier 2 Marshes and wet meadows. Breeds in waters with vegetation present. Western toad Bufo boreas SGCN Tier 2, Varies, including Regional/State Imperiled aquatic, sagebrush desert, mountain meadow. Breeds in quiet waters. Woodhouse’s toad Anaxyrus woodhousii SGCN Tier 2, BLM, Lower elevation Regional/State Imperiled habitats including agricultural land, sagebrush desert, grassland, and woodland. Breeds in quiet waters. Sources: Bat Conservation International 2018, Birds of North America 2018, BLM 2015, BLM 2008, IDFG 2018, IDFG 2016, IDFG 2015, IDFG 1994, Rosenberg et al. 2016, USFWS 2018, and USFWS 2008 *BCC: USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; *BLM: BLM Sensitive Species, Boise District Office; *BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; *PIF: Partners in Flight Species of Continental Concern; *MBTA: Migratory Bird Treaty Act; *Range-wide/Globally Imperiled, Regional/State Imperiled, and Idaho Watch List. Species identified in the NCA RMP, in order of conservation concern; *SGCN: Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need, Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Tiers are determined by conservation priority with Tier 1 being highest.

Table E-4 BCC, PIF, and SGCN Migratory Bird Species with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status USFWS PIF Status Season of BCC Occurrence Status Black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata MBTA SGCN Tier 2 BCC PIF Resident Black swift Cypseloides niger MBTA SGCN Tier 2 BCC PIF Nonbreeding Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii MBTA SGCN Tier 2 BCC - Breeding Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes MBTA - BCC - Migration Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus MBTA SGCN Tier 2 BCC - Breeding Long-eared owl Asio otus MBTA - - PIF Resident Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa MBTA - BCC - Breeding Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis MBTA SGCN Tier 2 - - Breeding Willet Tringa semipalmata MBTA - BCC - Breeding Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus MBTA - BCC - Breeding Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii MBTA - BCC - Breeding Sources: Birds of North America 2018, IDFG 2016, Rosenberg et al. 2016, USFWS 2018 *SGCN: Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need, Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Tiers are determined by conservation priority with Tier 1 being highest *PIF: Partners in Flight Species of Continental Concern *BCC: USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern *MBTA: Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Individual Go ahead and close it all, after that maybe people will wake up and standup to Thank you for your comment. public land being the land of zero use. This is the same old same old just substitute Forest service or BLM in any closures.

Individual I have no specific recommendations as to how to move forward with the park Thank you for your comment. The proposed action seeks to and surrounding lands/access except to say two things; strike a balance between public access and protection of natural 1. The site is very valuable for the public on many levels; outdoor access, and cultural resources. historical experience and education, photographic, wildlife, astronomical, and other potential exposures. 2. With the growth in the region and area, such places deserve greatly increased long-term planning and protection. Thank you for your efforts on achieving these goals, and others you have identified. This is a very valuable resource to protect.

Canyon County Canyon County Parks, Cultural and Natural Resources is in support of BLM Thank you for your comment. The proposed action seeks to Parks, Cultural Celebration Park Travel Management Action Plan B as proposed in the strike a balance between public access and protection of natural and Natural Preliminary Environmental Assessment of August 2018. Action Plan B and cultural resources. The proposed action would reduce route Resources proposes a net reduction in redundant and unnecessary routes along what is redundancy. commonly known as ‘Victory Lane’, the eastern entrance into Celebration Park. There currently exists a maze of braided roads and trails that are degraded, eroded, and full of large potholes that often lead to vehicles becoming stuck, especially when the ground is wet. The redundancy and chaos of routes has unnecessarily damaged the environment and destroyed wildlife habitat. Several of these routes butt up against and bisect known cultural resources. This area is within the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological District where protection of cultural resources needs to be a priority. Providing one clear, accessible and passable road would allow for habitat restoration, protected cultural and natural resources and send a clear signal to recreationists of the acceptable use of the land. The existing road conditions are by far the number one complaint of visitors to the Celebration Park area. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Canyon County Action Plan B will provide a significantly safer looped access to the canyon via Thank you for your comment. The proposed action seeks to Parks, Cultural Sinker Road and Victory lane while solidifying clear and accessible evacuation strike a balance between public access and protection of natural and Natural routes in emergencies such as wildfires, and improve access for emergency, and cultural resources. The proposed action would reduce route Resources fire, and law enforcement vehicles. It will have a positive resounding effect on redundancy. a myriad of user groups from hikers, bikers, anglers, sportsmen, outdoor enthusiasts, birders, and etcetera. The closure of redundant and unnecessary routes does not limit a visitor’s recreational access or potential to this amazing area. In fact, the addition of an equestrian parking area with amenities in an already disturbed area spreads out the existing user groups in the canyon and relieves pressure off of county facilities, while also providing an improved recreational experience for all.

Canyon County Canyon County Parks supports Action Plan B as opposed to No Action in Thank you for your comment. Parks, Cultural theCelebration Park TMP on behalf of its visitors and recreation enthusiasts. and Natural Resources Boise State I strongly support Action B as a means to avoid continuing damage to this Thank you for your comment. University incredibly important area...... this will greater restrict access to important archeological resources. College of This email is to advocate for Action Plan B be implemented improving the east Thank you for your comment. Western Idaho entrance to Celebration Park.

Individual Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Thank you for your comment. for Celebration Park Travel Planning. I am commenting as an equestrian and also as someone who has conducted research on raptors in the area for more than 40 years. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Individual I appreciate the fact that Alternative B identifies and designates the area The BLM will continue to work with equestrian groups to discuss whereequestrians currently park for future equestrian use, and I applaud the modifications to the parking area in the best interests of Bureau of Land Management for recognizing horseback riding as an everyone concerned. The tie-offs, horse corral, and parking area appropriate use of the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National are included in the environmental assessment to reflect a Conservation Area. However, I question whether the tie-offs and corrals reasonable range of alternatives. Reference to "corrals" (plural) proposed in the EA will be necessary or useful. I am concerned that these in the document have been corrected to "corral" (singular). structures will reduce the amount of horse trailer parking space, which is currently limited. The existing parking area cannot be expanded due to the large boulders surrounding it. I believe the space occupied by the 0.02-acre horse corral (30x30 foot) would be better used for trailer parking. I question why corrals and tie-offs are necessary when all horse trailers have tie rings. I am not sure what good one corral would be, but other parts of the document reference “corrals” plural. Corrals and tie-offs are appropriate for overnight horse camping, but I question whether BLM should be encouraging overnight horse camping in the area. There aren’t enough trails to support multiple day riding in the Celebration Park Area, and overnight camping could cause safety concerns for people, horses, and raptors. I propose that the parking area be maintained for day use only. I also question whether we really need gravel in the parking area. What is really needed are signs designating the area for “equestrian parking only” so as to limit conflicts with other users and to prevent other users from taking up precious trailer parking space. The BLM also should have contingency plans for when large groups of equestrians meet up to ride in the area. I hope that the BLM will work with equestrian groups to make sure that modifications to the parking area are in the best interests of everyone concerned.

Idaho Department This project area is very small compared to other Travel Management Areas Thank you for your comment. of Parks and like the Grandview Area or Canyonlands East. Our staff sees this more of a Recreation recreation site improvement plan rather than a travel management plan. Idaho Department In the draft EA in Section 4.1, the EA refers to the Idaho OHV Public Education References to the Idaho OHV Education Project have been of Parks and Project (www.stayontrails.com). This project is currently inactive and the removed and will not be included in the Final EA. Recreation website was taken by someone else. This paragraph should be deleted from the final EA. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Hardening sites and directing traffic patterns is very important in Thank you for your comment. We have taken into consideration of Parks and development recreation sites like Celebration Park. The proposed the scope of this project and determined that it more Recreation improvements should provide for a better visitor experience while protecting appropriately fits the description of a recreation site the areas resources. We encourage the BLM to move forward with this improvement plan, and has been adjusted accordingly. environmental analysis. Idaho Department Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for comment. While Thank you for your comment. of Environmental DEQ does not review projects on a project-specific basis, we attempt to Quality provide the best review of the information provided. DEQ encourages agencies to review and utilize the Idaho Environmental Guide to assist in addressing project-specific conditions that may apply. This guide can be found at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/ieg/. The following information does not cover every aspect of this project; however, we have the following general comments to use as appropriate:

Idaho Department Air Quality Thank you for your comment. The TMP will determine which of Environmental Please review IDAPA 58.01.01 for all rules on Air Quality, especially those routes would be open to motorized use but has no authority Quality regarding fugitive dust (58.01.01.651), trade waste burning (58.01.01.600- over the amount of motorized use within the TMA. Impacts to 617), and odor control plans (58.01.01.776). For questions, contact David Luft, air quality are not anticipated and thus this resource was Air Quality Manager, at 373-0550. considered and eliminated from analysis in the EA.

Idaho Department Air Quality Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental IDAPA 58.01.01.201 requires an owner or operator of a facility to obtain an air facilities that would require an air quality permit. BLM will Quality quality permit to construct prior to the commencement of construction or coordinate with DEQ as necessary for any required permits. modification of any facility that will be a source of air pollution in quantities above established levels. DEQ asks that cities and counties require a proposed facility to contact DEQ for an applicability determination on their proposal to ensure they remain in compliance with the rules.

Idaho Department Wastewater and Recycled Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends verifying that there is adequate sewer to serve this project facilities that would require sewer service. BLM will coordinate Quality prior to approval. Please contact the sewer provider for a capacity statement, with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or declining balance report, and willingness to serve this project. approvals. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Wastewater and Recycled WaterIDAPA 58.01.16 and IDAPA 58.01.17 are the Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental sections of Idaho rules regardingwastewater and recycled water. Please facilities that would require wastewater or recycled water Quality review these rules to determine whether this or future projects will require service. BLM will coordinate with DEQ as necessary for any DEQ approval. IDAPA 58.01.03 is the section of Idaho rules regarding required permits and/or approvals. subsurface disposal of wastewater. Please review this rule to determine whether this or future projects will require permitting by the district health department. All projects for construction or modification of wastewater systems require preconstruction approval. Recycled water projects and subsurface disposal projects require separate permits as well.

Idaho Department Wastewater and Recycled Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends that projects be served by existing approved wastewater facilities that would require wastewater or recycled water Quality collection systems or a centralized community wastewater system whenever service. BLM will coordinate with DEQ as necessary for any possible. Please contact DEQ to discuss potential for development of a required permits and/or approvals. community treatment system along with best management practices for communities to protect ground water. Idaho Department Wastewater and Recycled Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends that projects be served by existing approved wastewater facilities that would require wastewater service. BLM will Quality collection systems or a centralized community wastewater system whenever coordinate with DEQ as necessary for any required permits possible. Please contact DEQ to discuss potential for development of a and/or approvals. community treatment system along with best management practices for communities to protect ground water. Idaho Department Wastewater and Recycled Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends that cities and counties develop and use a comprehensive facilities that would require wastewater service. BLM will Quality land use management plan, which includes the impacts of present and future coordinate with DEQ as necessary for any required permits wastewater management in this area. Please schedule a meeting with DEQ for and/or approvals. further discussion and recommendations for plan development and implementation. Idaho Department Drinking Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends verifying that there is adequate water to serve this project facilities that would require water service. BLM will coordinate Quality prior to approval. Please contact the water provider for a capacity statement, with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or declining balance report, and willingness to serve this project. approvals. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Drinking Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental IDAPA 58.01.08 is the section of Idaho rules regarding public drinking water facilities that would require water service. BLM will coordinate Quality systems. Please review these rules to determine whether this or future with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or projects will require DEQ approval. All projects for construction or approvals. modification of public drinking water systems require preconstruction approval. Idaho Department Drinking Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends verifying if the current and/or proposed drinking water facilities that would require water service. BLM will coordinate Quality system is a regulated public drinking water system (refer to the DEQ website with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or at approvals. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/drinking-water.aspx). For non- regulated systems, DEQ recommends annual testing for total coliform bacteria, nitrate, and nitrite. Idaho Department Drinking WaterIf any private wells will be included in this project, we Thank you for your comment. There are no private wells of Environmental recommend that they be tested for total coliform bacteria, nitrate, and nitrite included in this project. Quality prior to use and retested annually thereafter.

Idaho Department Drinking Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends using an existing drinking water system whenever possible facilities that would require water service. BLM will coordinate Quality or construction of a new community drinking water system. Please contact with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or DEQ to discuss this project and to explore options to both best serve the approvals. future residents of this development and provide for protection of ground water resources. Idaho Department Drinking Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental DEQ recommends cities and counties develop and use a comprehensive land facilities that would require water service. BLM will coordinate Quality use management plan which addresses the present and future needs of this with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or area for adequate, safe, and sustainable drinking water. Please schedule a approvals. meeting with DEQ for further discussion and recommendations for plan development and implementation. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Surface Water Thank you for your comment. The project will not involve de- of Environmental A DEQ short-term activity exemption (STAE) from this office is required if the watering of groundwater or discharge back into surface water. Quality project will involve de-watering of ground water during excavation and discharge back into surface water, including a description of the water treatment from this process to prevent excessive sediment and turbidity from entering surface water. Idaho Department Surface Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not include any of Environmental Please contact DEQ to determine whether this project will require a National work that would require a NPDES permit. BLM will coordinate Quality Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. If this project disturbs with DEQ as necessary for any required permits and/or more than one acre, a stormwater permit from EPA may be required. approvals. Idaho Department Surface WaterIf this project is near a source of surface water, DEQ requests Thank you for your comment. No work associated with of Environmental that projects incorporate construction best management practices (BMPs) to implementation of the TMP for this TMA would be near a Quality assist in the protection of Idaho’s water resources. Additionally, please source of surface water. BLM will coordinate with DEQ as contact DEQ to identify BMP alternatives and to determine whether this necessary for any required permits and/or approvals. project is in an area with Total Maximum Daily Load stormwater permit conditions. Idaho Department Surface Water Thank you for your comment. The TMP does not propose any of Environmental The Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act requires a permit for most stream stream alterations. Quality channel alterations. Please contact the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), Western Regional Office, at 2735 Airport Way, Boise, or call 208-334- 2190 for more information. Idaho Department Surface Water Thank you for your comment. No dredging in waters of the of Environmental The Federal Clean Water Act requires a permit for filling or dredging in waters United States would occur as part of this project. BLM will Quality of the United States. Please contact the US Army Corps of Engineers, Boise coordinate with US Army Corps of Engineers, Boise Field Office Field Office, at 10095 Emerald Street, Boise, or call 208-345-2155 for more for any necessary permits and/or approvals. information regarding permits. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Hazardous Waste and Ground Water Contamination Thank you for your comment. No hazardous waste would be of Environmental Hazardous Waste. The types and number of requirements that must be generated from implementation of the project. Quality complied with under the federal Resource Conservations and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Idaho Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste (IDAPA 58.01.05) are based on the quantity and type of waste generated. Every business in Idaho is required to track the volume of waste generated, determine whether each type of waste is hazardous, and ensure that all wastes are properly disposed of according to federal, state, and local requirements. Idaho Department Hazardous Waste and Ground Water ContaminationNo trash or other solid Thank you for your comment. BLM will follow proper disposal of Environmental waste shall be buried, burned, or otherwise disposed of at the project site. methods for any solid waste generated as part of Quality These disposal methods are regulated by various state regulations including implementation of the project. Idaho’s Solid Waste Management Regulations and Standards, Rules and Regulations for Hazardous Waste, and Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution. Idaho Department Hazardous Waste and Ground Water Contamination Thank you for your comment. No hazardous waste would be of Environmental Water Quality Standards. Site activities must comply with the Idaho Water generated from implementation of the project. Quality Quality Standards (IDAPA 58.01.02) regarding hazardous and deleterious- materials storage, disposal, or accumulation adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of state waters (IDAPA 58.01.02.800); and the cleanup and reporting of oil-filled electrical equipment (IDAPA 58.01.02.849); hazardous materials (IDAPA 58.01.02.850); and used-oil and petroleum releases (IDAPA 58.01.02.851 and 852). Petroleum releases must be reported to DEQ in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.02.851.01 and 04. Hazardous material releases to state waters, or to land such that there is likelihood that it will enter state waters, must be reported to DEQ in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.02.850. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Department Hazardous Waste and Ground Water Contamination Thank you for your comment. The project will comply with all of Environmental Ground Water Contamination. DEQ requests that this project comply with applicable State rules and regulations as required. Quality Idaho’s Ground Water Quality Rules (IDAPA 58.01.11), which states that “No person shall cause or allow the release, spilling, leaking, emission, discharge, escape, leaching, or disposal of a contaminant into the environment in a manner that causes a ground water quality standard to be exceeded, injures a beneficial use of ground water, or is not in accordance with a permit, consent order or applicable best management practice, best available method or best practical method.” Idaho Department Additional NotesIf an underground storage tank (UST) or an aboveground Thank you for your comment. of Environmental storage tank (AST) isidentified at the site, the site should be evaluated to Quality determine whether the UST is regulated by DEQ. EPA regulates ASTs. UST and AST sites should be assessed to determine whether there is potential soil and ground water contamination. Please call DEQ at 373-0550, or visit the DEQ website (http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmtremediation/storage- tanks.aspx) for assistance.

Idaho Department Additional Notes Thank you for your comment. None of these activities are of Environmental If applicable to this project, DEQ recommends that BMPs be implemented for anticipated as part of the project. BLM will coordinate with DEQ Quality any of the following conditions: wash water from cleaning vehicles, fertilizers as necessary. and pesticides, animal facilities, composted waste, and ponds. Please contact DEQ for more information on any of these conditions. Idaho Department We look forward to working with you in a proactive manner to address Thank you for your comment. of Environmental potential environmental impacts that may be within our regulatory authority. Quality If you have any questions, please contact me, or any our technical staff at 208- 373-0550. Idaho We support the proposed action described in Alternative B and recommend Thank you for your comment. Conservation that the BLM strengthen the public outreach, education and enforcement League efforts. Please see our detailed comments below. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Emergency Egress Thank you for your comment. Conservation We support consolidating multiple routes and improving the maintenance and League signage of the remaining routes in order to facilitate ingress and egress in the event of an emergency. Idaho Implementation Strategy Information on how the proposed action will be implemented is Conservation The BLM also needs to develop an implementation strategy describing the provided in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Assessment. League sequence for officially designating open routes, rehabilitating closed routes, Specific information about educating the public about raptor marking administrative routes, and posting information about routes. The breeding areas and habitat is not within the scope of this BLM should also provide education about raptor breeding areas and habitat to project. ensure minimal disturbance. Idaho Outreach and EducationThe BLM makes a generous assumption in assuming Thank you for your comment. The BLM will implement the Conservation that the public will comply with the route designations:2. For the purpose of education, outreach, and monitoring program described in the League NEPA and the analysis herein, it is assumed that the public will comply with TMP as resources and funding allow. Designating routes through the route designations. Management under all alternatives would require the travel management process allows the BLM to focus signs, barricades, maps, kiosks, and public education efforts to direct users to available resources on these designated areas, including maps, appropriate routes available for motorized travel. In addition, routes signage, and other outreach materials. In addition, efforts will designated as available for motorized travel would be monitored to ensure be made to passively and actively restore closed routes as compliance with the goals and objectives of the 2008 Snake River Birds of resources and funding allow. Prey. EA p. 10.The BLM needs to develop a comprehensive education, outreach, and monitoring program for the Travel Management Plan to be effective. We appreciate the fact that maps will be available at the BLM District Office and on the Internet. We also recommend incorporating the maps into kiosk displays and having paper copies available at kiosks as well. The BLM should plan on increased outreach and education efforts during the first several months of the travel plan. Although the goals of the outreach include Stay on Trails, Tread Lightly, Leave No Trace, and respecting the rights of private landowners, more detail should be considered in explaining how these goals will be specifically met. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Idaho Closed Routes Thank you for your comment. The BLM will implement the Conservation The BLM should provide additional information how newly closed motorized education, outreach, and monitoring program described in the League routes as well as the Transportation Linear Disturbance routes will be TMP as resources and funding allow. The BLM will monitor managed and monitored. Routes proposed for closure should be treated for closed routes. Active and passive restoration techniques will be noxious weeds and erosion concerns as needed before being rehabilitated. used to restore closed routes. The BLM should also plan to conduct some active revegetation along these routes if passive restoration proves to be inadequate. The BLM should also establish a timeline for rehabilitating closed routes.

The BLM should monitor routes closed to motorized travel to ensure that illegal use is not occurring. If closures are not working, the BLM should implement additional measures as needed.

Idaho Parking Lot Size and Demarcation The parking area would be located in an already disturbed Conservation The BLM should designate a parking lot large enough to meet the anticipated location where the public is currently parking. The parking area League public use in the coming years and restore and revegetate the remainder of and improved access to the parking area would include the the user-disturbed unofficial parking area, if any of this area is not anticipated addition of gravel to approximately 0.9 acres and installation of to be needed for parking. The parking lot boundaries should be demarcated signs. The lot is currently demarcated with large rocks and these with large rocks to ensure that the footprint will not expand. will remain. Idaho Special Status WildlifeThe BLM should ensure that no trails and areas are The route evaluation process conducted for this TMA Conservation located in sensitive species habitat. Fourteen special status avian species considered special status wildlife and sensitive species habitat in League which include bald and golden eagles, twelve bat species, and nine amphibian evaluating whether a route should be designated as open, and reptile species have the potential to occur within the project area. closed, or limited. The proposed action seeks to strike a balance Measures should be taken to ensure habitat fragmentation and degradation between public access and protection of natural resources, doesn’t occur, as well as minimal disturbance to these special status species. including special status wildlife. Closure of routes in the TMA contributes to a reduction in habitat fragmentation. Idaho Special Status Plant Species The route evaluation process conducted for this TMA Conservation Snake river milkvetch is located within this project boundary, which is a considered special status plant species in evaluating whether a League known sensitive species. Further action should be taken in order to ensure route should be designated as open, closed, or limited. The minimal disturbance is made to this species such as posted signs indicating the proposed action seeks to strike a balance between public access presence of the species. and protection of natural resources, including special status plants. Appendix – F Comment Period Responses

Organization/ Agency Comment Response Southwest Idaho The Southwest Idaho Trail and Distance Riders (SWIT&DR) is a group of Thank you for your comment. As proposed. the trailer parking Trail and Distance approximately 100 horsemen and horsewomen from southern Idaho and space would not be reduced with implementation of the Riders eastern Oregon who enjoy trail riding and equine distance competitions. We proposed project. The BLM will continue to communicate with commend the Bureau of Land Management for recognizing horseback riding Southwest Idaho Trail and Distance Riders and other user as an appropriate us of the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National groups as the plans for proposed improvements develop. Conservation Area. We appreciate the fact that Alternative B in the Environmental Assessment for Celebration Park Travel Planning identifies and designates the area where equestrians currently park for future equestrian use. We recommend that the parking area be signed to discourage use by non-equestrians to limit conflicts with other users and to ensure that there is adequate parking space for horse trailers. We support improvements such as corrals and tie-offs because they will clearly identify the area’s purpose for horse trailer parking. However, we are aware that the current parking area cannot be expanded, and we are concerned that the improvements might reduce the amount of available trailer parking space. We would like to see more detailed plans for the proposed improvements, and we would like to work with you on developing useful designs that can maximize the amount of parking space. Please feel free to contact me if our club can be of any further assistance in this decision making process Thank you for accepting our comments

Boise Backcountry Verbal discussion with BLM. Allow for physical demarcation of parking spaces in the Horsemen equestrian parking lot. Cover the parking lot with road mix or gravel. Added reference to demarcation to Section 2.3 of the EA: The parking area and improved access to the parking area would entail the addition of gravel to approximately 0.9 acres and installation of signs and parking space demarcation.