01\16• ,.J ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ~Lf 1.,.J/ t'CI/C w~P 0 ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE/KANAB RESOURCE AREA

PARIA CANYONNERMILION CLIFFS WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA-AZ-01 0-97-16 I. INTRODUCTION

The Paria Canyon - Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area contains 112,500 acres (92,500 acres in Coconino County, Arizona and 20,000 acres in Kane County, Utah) of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The area is approximately 10 to 30 miles west of Page, Arizona. Included are 35 miles of the Paria river Canyon, 15 miles of the Buckskin Gulch, Coyote Buttes, and the Vermilion Cliffs from Lee's Ferry to House Rock Valley (Map 1).

The Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch, Wire Pass, and the Coyote Buttes Special Management Area are part of the larger Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, designated in August 1984 (Map 2). Existing management plan guidance is to protect primitive, natural conditions and the many outstanding opportunities for hiking, backpacking, photographing, or viewing in the seven different highly scenic geologic formations from which the canyons and buttes are carved. Visitor use in Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch, and Coyote Buttes has increased from 2,400 visits in Fiscal Year (FY) 1986 to nearly 10,000 visits in FY96-a 375% increase in use over 10 years. This increased use, combined with the narrow nature of the canyons, small camping terraces, and changing visitor use patterns, is impacting the wilderness character of these areas. Human waste, overcrowding, and public safety have become important issues. c 1rpose and Need -.Jandates within the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 require BLM to preserve the combination of wilderness values for which the area was designated at or near the level at which they existed at designation. The purpose of this amendment to the Paria CanyonNermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan (PCVC WMP) is to establish guidelines and implement management actions related to recreational use of the Paria CanyonNermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area. Various studies conducted over the past 10 years by BLM and NAU have shown a steady deterioration of opportunities for solitude and in the quality of campsite conditions. An increase in the amount of recreational use in the wilderness has increased degradation of sensitive resources. On page 8 the plan states that BLM will "initiate a system to regulate recreation use if monitoring demonstrates a need to limit user numbers. A study of alternative affocation techniques, including fees, will be prepared and analyzed in an environmental assessment involving public participation. Until there is a determination that a permit system is needed, BLM will continue to utilize the present registration system.•

The purpose ofthis EA is to analyze the effects of implementing the proposed action or one of the alternatives.

Scope

The scope of this plan is management of recreation within the Paria CanyonNerrnilion Cliffs Wilderness Area for the life of the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan (1992), which is expected to be in effect for 20 years.

Conformance with Land Use Plan

The proposed action and alternatives are in conformance with the Arizona Strip RMP (1992) as amended, and the Kanab Management Framework Plan (1981). There are several RMP decisions that are pertinent to this proposal: 0 wilderness areas on the Strip are to be managed in accordance with their wilderness management plan O the Paria is suitable for designation as a wild & scenic river; management must protect outstanding remarkable values EA-AZ-0 I 0-97-16 Page 4 C camping at any particular location is limited to no more than 14 days o recreation management activities will protect cultural values

o institute visitor limits, regulation, or restriction only when monitoring of resource and social conditions indicates a trend toward unacceptable change to desired recreation settings brought about by such use

O restrict Bureau-permitted activities within known/occupied nesting and other crucial use areas of threatened or endangered raptors or other special status species

o all ongoing or proposed uses of the public lands will be managed to ensure protection of riparian areas

The Kanab MFP was finalized prior to the designation of the PCVC Wilderness; there are two MFP decisions that are pertinent to this proposal:

O provide for the physical protection, interpretation, and public use of sightseeing resources, including historical, archeological, geological, and botanical features

O increase sightseeing opportunities for archaeological resources through protective development and interpretation

Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Other Plans

The proposed action and alternatives are consistent with various activity-level plans for the area, including the Paria/Kanab Creek Habitat Management Plan (1983), the Paria Canyon Cultural Resource Management Plan, and those allotment management plans for the grazing allotments within the wilderness area (PCVC WMP Appendix C, Table 5).

( lis area is within the 227,000 acre Canyons/Plateaus of the Paria Resource Conservation Area. This resource ·conservation area has cultural, recreation, scenic, wilderness, and wildlife values that are protected by management prescriptions designed to minimize impacts from human activities.

The proposal is to amend the existing Paria CanyonNermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan (1986). Pertinent decisions from the wilderness plan include:

o Monitoring will determine if there is a need to regulate recreation use numbers. (p. 8)

O Nonconforming uses covered by special provision in Section 4(d) of the Wilderness Act will be administered for minimum impact on wilderness values. However, such administration shall not negate the intent of Congress as expressed in the Act concerning these uses. (p. 8)

O An inventory of Coyote Buttes and a map of fragile areas requiring special management attention will be done. (p. 8)

o Various visitor management methods will be utilized in wilderness when necessary ta preserve wilderness resources and the visitor wilderness experience and opportunities. Management of visitor use will be the minimum necessary to preserve wilderness character. (p. 10)

D Camping will be temporarily restricted or eliminated at specific locations when necessary for protection of wilderness resources or visitor experiences. Any permanent restrictions will involve public participation. (p. 10)

o Private use of horses/pack animals will not be allowed on the fragile areas in Coyote Buttes. Horse/pack animal use will be allowed in other areas of the wilderness to accommodate hunting and other recreational use. (p. 10) 0 The numbers of groups and group size may be modified based upon data obtained through monitoring. (p. 1O) O A lack of fuel and adverse impacts to the environment requires the prohibition of campfires in Paria Canyon and EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page5 C Coyote Buttes area. Visitors in these areas will be required to use campstoves for cooking. Campfires will not be restricted in the remainder of the wilderness. (p. 10)

a Continue to emphasize visitor safety and monitoring of life-threatening flash floods in the canyon. (p. 11)

a Signs will be developed to inform hikers that use of Coyote Buttes requires prior contact with the ranger. These signs will not promote or provoke people to use the area. (p. 10)

CJ Inform users, especially organizations that regularly visit the wilderness, about wilderness etiquette, conduct, and minimum impact camping. (p. 11)

CJ Continue good public relations through personal contact with visitors. (p. 11)

a Develop an audio-visual environmental education program to inform hikers about low impact camping and the fragile nature of areas within the wilderness, principally Coyote Buttes. (p. 11)

CJ Commercial services may be authorized for activities that are appropriate to realize recreational or other wilderness purposes of the area. (p. 12)

CJ Prohibit commercial use of horses/pack animals on the fragile areas in Coyote Buttes Special Management Area or in the Paria Canyon above Bush Head Canyon. (p. 12)

CJ Establish monitoring to determine effects of horse/packstock use on camping areas and canyon vegetation. Establish use limits on horses if monitoring studies indicate site deterioration is occurring. (p. 12)

Inform outfitters and guides in the wilderness about permit requirements and restrictions. (p. 12) Q Permanent interpretive and regulatory signs will be place outside the wilderness boundary. (p. 13)

CJ Springs will be periodically monitored for contamination and pollution. Special emphasis will be placed on those springs that are used by recreationists. (p. 14)

CJ Spring sites will be monitored to protect from overuse and prevent erosion and riparian degradation. (p. 14)

CJ Riparian areas will be managed to maintain or improve their condition. Any action proposed to improve conditions through habitat manipulation will be a result of monitoring and consideration of alternate methods. (p. 15)

0 Selected riparian communities will be identified for monitoring. Monitoring will determine what, if any, future management actions are necessary to prevent deterioration or improve existing conditions. (p. 16)

0 Visitor use could be excluded from portions of Coyote Buttes if necessary to prevent irreversible degradation of wilderness values (p. 5)

The proposed action is consistent with the Wilderness Act (1964), the Arizona Wilderness Act (1984), and the Wild and Scenic River Act (1968).

Issues

Issues related to the PCVC wilderness area were raised by BLM personnel and the public during the development of the Arizona Strip RMP, the Arizona Wild & Scenic River EIS, the PCVC WMP, through trailhead registers, letters, and from two udies conducted by Northern Arizona University on the physical impacts from recreation and on perceptions of visitors to C,e canyons and Coyotes Buttes. In August of 1997, BLM sent a letter announcing the development of this EA to interested individuals, groups, and agencies, seeking issues and alternatives. Twenty-four respondents requested that BLM provide them with a copy of the EA for their review, while six comments were received and incorporated into the EA. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 6

C ,dividuals, groups, and/or agency personnel had concerns about:

0 Opportunities for Solitude

O Campsite Conditions

O Human and Animal Waste

O Impacts on/from Special Recreation Permits/Commercial Guiding

O Impacts on Vegetation

O Impacts on Wildlife

O Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics (Primitive, Natural Conditions)

0 Impacts on Outstanding Remarkable Values of Paria Wild and Scenic River Study Area

o Impacts of Increased Management on Visitors

O Impacts on Cultural Resources

O Impacts on Scenic/Geologic Resources

0 Impacts on the Many Outstanding Recreation Opportunities

O sues Considered but not Addressed

o Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Recreation

The issue of livestock grazing impacts on recreation has been raised repeatedly by visitors. This issue is outside of the scope of this environmental assessment. This proposed plan amendment is for management of recreation, not management of livestock grazing. Livestock grazing in the area was analyzed in the Vermilion Grazing EIS, the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan, and the PCVC WMP. Grazing is an acceptable, non-conforming use pursuant to the Wilderness Act and Arizona Wilderness Act. See the PCVC WMP, page 17, for further information on grazing.

II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Considered but Rejected

During the initial public comment period one individual suggested that "the Bureau tum the canyon and visitor station over to a concessionaire. The concessionaire could ration the use through pricing and also decide, using price as the gauge, how much solitude was required for individual parties. The Bureau would set the standard for sanitation and safety and let the rest i.e, solitude, wilderness experience be decided by an entrance fee determined by the concessionaire."

As part of the Paria Fee Demonstration Project BLM has entered into a three-year partnership with the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association and Northern Arizona University for the operation of the fee collection and reservation system. At the end of that three year period BLM would reevaluate the mode of operation. Alternatives could include privatization, continuation of the current system, agency management, or others. Therefore this alternative is rejected at this time; however, it would reconsidered at the end of the pilot project. 0 part of the adaptive management provision of the Proposed Action, BLM could authorize management through a concessionaire without further environmental review. Management discretion for determining levels of visitor use would not be delegated to a concessionaire under any circumstances. The amount of visitor use would be dependent on the O sults of monitoring wilderness conditions.

Alternatives Considered

There are four alternatives for managing recreation that are analyzed in this EA: the Proposed Action, Alternative A, Alternative B, and the No Action Alternative. These represent a reasonable range of management alternatives from which to choose. In addition, there are three alternatives for managing commercial guide service permits.

Under the Proposed Action, BLM would continue management in accordance with the PCVC WMP, with the exception that Visitor Use Limits would be established, fees would be collected, and reservations would be mandatory, with a limited number of permits issued. BLM could change those Visitor Use Limits or make other changes where necessary to meet the goals of the WMP, without further NEPA compliance, by joint decision of the Arizona Strip Field Manager and the Kanab Resource Area Manager. Temporary closures could be imposed to protect sensitive resources.

Alternative A is similar to the Proposed Action, except that BLM would not change those Visitor Use Limits or make other changes in management without further NEPA compliance.

Under Alternative B, BLM would continue management in accordance with the PCVC WMP, but more aggressively and intensively than any of the other alternatives. Visitor Use Limits would be established, fees would be collected, temporary closures could be imposed to protect sensitive resources, and reservations would be mandatory, with a limited number of permits issued. The limits would be more restrictive than under Alternative A. BLM would not change those Visitor Use Limits or make other changes in management without further NEPA compliance. BLM would install structures where necessary to meet the goals of the WMP.

Under the No Action Alternative, BLM would continue management in accordance with the PCVC WMP. No Visitor Use fits would be established, no reservations or permits would be required, and no structures would be developed. Fees C:>uld continue to be collected. Temporary closures could be imposed to protect sensitive resources. Management of pet dogs and commercial guiding are also addressed through a reasonable range of alternatives.

For commercial guide permits, there are three alternatives; one that allocates permits to commercial guides (with a reduction in the number of available non-commercial permits), another that provides no commercial guide permits but allow permit-holders to utilize guides, and the current system where commercial guides can compete for permits with non­ commercial users on a first-come, first-served basis. The selection of any of these three alternatives is independent of the alternatives listed above ( in other words, these guide permit systems are not tied to the Proposed Action, Alternatives A or B, or the No Action Alternative.

Table 1a lists management actions in the PCVC WMP that would continue to be implemented under any of the four alternatives. The fees collection system and rates currently in place would remain unchanged under any of the four alternatives. Tables 1b and 1c list management actions that differ between the alternatives.

0 EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 8

C able 1a Proposed Action and Alternatives MANAGEMENT PROPOSED ACTION IALTERNATIVE A IALTERNATIVE B NOACTION ACTION / ISSUE IALTERNATIVE MOTORIZED OR The wilderness Is closed to molor vehicles, motorized equipment, or other forms of mechanical transport, including bicycles MECHANIZED and hang gliders. EQUIPMENT

MANAGEMENT BLMwould: COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Inform users about wilderness constraints on motorized equipment use

Monitor OHV problem areas and prevent OHV use in wilderness

Inform wilderness users of location of official boundary

Inform outfitters and guides about permit requirements and restrictions

Write temporary camping restrictions as needed

Visitor use could be excluded from portions of Coyote Buttes if necessary lo prevent irreversible degradation of wilderness values

Prohibit campfires In the canyons and Coyote Buttes Special Management Area (SMA)

Develop environmental education program and signs

Place interpretive and regulatory signs at the entrance station and access points and as fulure use patterns demonstrate a need

Study abandoned ways as possible hiking routes Into the Vermilion Cliffs portion of the wilderness C Maximum stay limit in the wilderness is 14 days BLM would continue to enforce the following rules In Parla Canyon/Buckskin Gulch/Wire Pass:

Party or group size Is limited to 10 persons

A special recreation permit Is ~ for all proposed. commercial uses such as outfitters or guided trips where profit from client fees is sought

Private use of horses, burros, llamas, and goats Is allowed in Paria Canyon, however, these animals must stay in lhe "shoreline terrace" areas and not be taken onto "wooded terraces"

Prohibit commercial use of horses/pack animals In Coyote Buttes SMA and in the Parla Canyon above Bush Head Canyon

Visitors staying one or more nights In the canyons must camp only In existing campsites or, if necessary and safe, on shoreline terraces

All camps and latrines must be at least 100 feet from springs and pack stock restraint areas 200 feel from springs

Cutting of trees, limbs, or other plants to make camp "improvements" Is prohibited

Camping Is not allowed on or adjacent to any archaeological site

All trash associated with an Individual or group trip, Including used toilet paper, must be packed out of the canyons by that individual or group 0,------'------' \°able 1 b. Proposed Action an d AternaI f 1ves ( AANAGEMENT PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B NO ACTION ACTION

MANAGEMENT Under this alternative, BLM would Under this alternative, Under this alternative, Under this alternative, STRATEGY continue management in BLM would continue BLM would continue BLM would continue accordance with the PCVC WMP, management in management In management in with the following exceptions: accordance with the accordance with the accordance with the PCVC WMP, with the PCVC WMP, with the PCVCWMP. Visitor Use Limits would be following exceptions: following exceptions: established; No Visitor Use Limits Visitor Use limits would Visitor Use limits would would be established, no Fees would be collected; be established; be established: Fees reservations or permits would be collected; would be required, and no Reservations would be Fees would be collected; structures would be mandatory, with a limited number Reservations would be developed. of permits issued Reservations would be mandatory, with a limited mandatory, with a limited number of permits issued Fees would be collected. BLM could change those Visitor number of permits Issued Use limits or make other changes BLM would not change where necessary to meet the BLM would not change Visitor Use Limits or make goals of tile WMP, without further those Visitor Use limits or other changes without NEPA compliance. make other changes in further NEPA compliance. management without Changes In management would further NEPA compliance. BLM would Install be made by Joint decision of the structures where Arizona Strip Field Manager and necessary to meet the the Kanab Area Manager. goals of the WMP.

VISITOR USE Implement Visitor Use limits in Implement Visitor Use Restrict visitor use in Restrict visitor use in LIMITS the canyons and Coyote Buttes. limits in the canyons and Coyote Buttes SMA to ten Coyote Buttes SMA to two Coyote Buttes. or fewer per day, day use groups of no more than New dally visitor allocations would only. No restriction on the four persons each per day; be defined based on resource I nitlally restrict visitor use number of groups. day use only, conditions supported by current in the Northern Coyote monitoring. Buttes SMA to ten or Restrict visitor use in the Party or group size is C·1 fewer visitors per day canyons to no more than limited to 10 persons In Initially restrict visitor use in the 30 entries per day. the canyons. Northern Coyote Buttes SMA to I nitlally restrict visitor use ten or fewer visitors per day in the Southern Coyote Party or group size Is Buttes SMA to ten or limited to 10 persons In I Initially restrict visitor use In the fewer visitors per day the canyons. Southern Coyote Buttes SMA to ten or fewer visitors per day Restrict overnight use in Future changes in Visitor the canyons to no more Use limits could only be Initially restrict overnight use in than 20 entries per day. made through the the canyons to no more than 20 No restrictions on day use NEPA/public participation entries per day. lnlllally no of the canyons. process, requiring BLM to restrictions on day use in the prepare an EA for future canyons. Party or group size Is modifications. limited to 10 persons In Initially, group size is limited to 10 the canyons. persons In the canyons. Future changes In Visitor Future changes in Visitor Use Use Limits could only be Limits could be made to address made through the Issues. Changes (Increases or NEPA/public participation decreases In visitor use) could be process, requiring BLM to made based on monitoring, in prepare an EA for future accordance with the PCVC WMP. modifications.

DOGS Charge a $5.00 per day fee for all Charge a $5.00 per day Prohibit dogs in the No fee for dogs. Dogs dogs. Require that owners be fee for all dogs. Require canyons and Coyote must be kept under control informed of rules and restrictions that owners be Informed of Buttes. at all times (lo prevent and agree to the following: dogs and agree to the following: harassment of wildlife and must be kept under control at all dogs must be kept visitors) times (lo prevent harassment of leashed at all times and C wildlife and visitors) and dog dog waste be disposed of waste be disposed of In a manner In a manner similar to ? : similar to human waste human waste Table 1c Proposed Action and Alternatives .IAANAGEMENT PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B NOACTION C ACTION FEES Contfnue the fee system for the Peria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch and Coyote Buttes. The revised fee schedule would be:

White House Trailhead Campground - S5. 00 per site/per day; Paris Canyon/Buckskin Gulch - $5.00 per person/day Coyote Buttes - $5. 00 per person/per day.

REGISTRATION Mandatory reservations for all overnight use Mandatory Mandatory Visitors must register at in the canyons, and any use at Coyote reservations for use reservations for all one of the four designated Buttes at Coyote Buttes and use Ira II heads overnight use In canyons

DEVELOPMENT None proposed in wilderness. Install waste None proposed as Install waste disposal No development within the disposal structures, signs, fencing, or other part of this structures at the wilderness would occur structure if monitoring indicated a need, in alternative. Future Confluence Camp under this alternative accordance with the PCVC WMP. proposals analyzed and Big Spring Camp through the NEPA/public particlpation process.

VISITOR BLM could close areas to protect sensitive BLM could temporarily or permanently close No additional restrictions RESTRICTIONS - resources such as cultural resources, areas of Coyote Buttes or the canyons in order would be implemented as CLOSURES threatened or endangered plants or wildlife to protect sensitive resources such as cultural a result of the no action species, or other sensitive wilderness resources, threatened or endangered plants or alternative (The limits resources. wildlife species, or other sensitive wilderness proposed under resources. BLM could write temporary any alternative are Closures would apply to only the minimum camping restrictions in the authorized by 43 area for the minimum duration to accomplish Closures would apply to only the minimum canyons, or visitor use CFR 8560.1-1, resource preservation goals. area for the minimum duration to accomplish could be excluded from prohiblted acts are resource preservation goals. portions of Coyote Buttes defined under 43 Temporary closures could be made by joint if necessary to prevent CFR 8560.1-2, and decision of the Arizona Strip Field Manager Closures could be made only through the irreversible degradation of Oviolations of any and the Kanab Area Manager without further NEPA/ public process. wilderness values limits authorized NEPA compliance. Any permanent are subject to restrictions would involve public participation Any permanent restrictions penalties found In would involve public 43 CFR 8560.5) participation

HUNTERS AND Visitor use limits for Coyote Buttes and the canyons would not apply to: OTHER USERS livestock grazing permittees working in those areas hunters, during hunting season, in possession of a valid state license and permit/tag for those areas employees, contractors, and volunteers working for a slate or federal agency within those areas

These Individuals would not be required to pay any fees. These Individuals would be subject to any closure or other restriction Implemented to protect sensitive resources

MONITORING Continue interdisciplinary monitoring of visitor perceptions, recreation Impacts, archeological resources, plants and wildlife species, waler quality, range conditlons, and other resources.

Commercial Guide HUNT SYSTEM: Authorized commercial ALLOCATIONS: BLM would allocate NO ACTION: The system would Services guides would depend on visitors who permits to commercial guide services. remain as. No allocations of permits successfully acquired an individual/group BLM would allocate eight of the twenty to guides. Guides could compete (Independent of permit for use to contact them for their dally overnight camping permits In the with non-commercial visitors for Alternatives for services. All authorized guides would be canyons , and ten of the twenty day-use permits on a first-come, first-served other actions) listed with the information sent to the permits for Coyote Buttes to basis. Visitors who successfully successful permit holders. Commercial commercial guide services. These acquired an individual/group permit guides would be able to advertise their commercial permits would be allocated for use could hire a guide, but the availability as guides, but not possess based on a system designed to ensure guide would count against the permit ..... user days themselves. Additionally, as that any reputable guide service in the total. guides are retained for their services, the area would have an opportunity lo I guides would not count against the total compete for permits. C- I visitor limit for the given day. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 11

O oposed Action - Adaptive/Responsive Management

Management would continue in accordance with the PCVC WMP, with the following exceptions:

O Visitor Use Limits would be established;

 BLM could change those Visitor Use Limits or make other changes in management where necessary to meet the goals of the WMP, without further NEPA compliance. Changes (increases or decreases in visitor use) could be made based on monitoring, in accordance with the PCVC WMP. The Proposed Action Alternative would continue a year-round fee/permit and reservation system for the Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch and Coyote Buttes portions of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. Daily visitor limits would be based on the availability of hardened campsites within the first twelve miles of Paria Canyon from the beginning of the wilderness.

 Reservations would be mandatory, with a limited number of permits issued

 New daily visitor allocations would be defined based on resource conditions supported by monitoring information.

o Initially restrict visitor use in the Southern Coyote Buttes SMA to ten or fewer visitors per day, day use only (Map 3)

 Initially restrict visitor use in the Northern Coyote Buttes SMA to ten or fewer visitors per day, day use only

 Initially restrict overnight use in the canyons to no more than 20 entries per day

 Initially no restrictions on day use of the canyons

BLM could temporarily or permanently close areas of Coyote Buttes or the canyons in order to protect sensitive resources such as cultural resources, threatened or endangered plants or wildlife species, or other sensitive 0 wilderness resources. Closures would apply to only the minimum area for the minimum duration to accomplish resource preservation goals. Closures could be made by joint decision of the Arizona Strip Field Manager and the Kanab Resource Area Manager

O No developments currently proposed. BLM could take actions such as installing waste disposal structures, signs, fencing/barriers, or other similar structure if monitoring indicated a need

O Charge a $5.00 per day fee for all dogs. Require that owners be informed of rules and restrictions and agree to the following: dogs must be kept under control at all times (to prevent harassment of wildlife and visitors) and dog waste be disposed of in a manner similar to human waste

0 Fees would be collected; the implementation of a fee system for the Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch and Coyote Buttes portions of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is part of a federal pilot demonstration fee project that will allow the BLM to retain 100% of the fees collected to be utilized for the management of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. The fee system would be administered through a partnership with Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association (ASIA) starting May 15, 1997. Visitors deposit fees at self serve fee stations located at White House, Buckskin, and Wire Pass trailheads. Fees would be charged for both day and overnight use. The fee schedule is as follows:

o White House Trailhead Campground - $5.00 per site/per day

 Paria Canyon/Buckskin Gulch Day Use - $5.00 per person  Paria Canyon/Buckskin Gulch Overnight Use-$5.00 per person/per day. C  Coyote Buttes - $5.00 per person (day use only, reservation and permit required. ('- EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 12

\ (he Fee Demonstration Project provides an opportunity to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of user fees, and to deal with resource degradation. The project would also fund trailhead and campground enhancements, improved visitor services, and allow increased monitoring of wilderness conditions and visitor feedback.

BLM would continue interdisciplinary (and interagency, where applicable) monitoring of visitor perceptions, recreation impacts, archeological resources, plant and wildlife species, water quality, range conditions, and other resources. This information would be used to adjust management of the area, and to evaluate the success of management techniques.

BLM could impose seasonal limitations or restrictions, assign campsites, limit the direction of travel of visitors in the canyons, limit the number of entries per trailhead, temporarily close campsites, install structures, harden/improve campsites, limit/restrict packstock, or authorize access into Coyote Buttes only through guided trips. Changes could be made based on monitoring, in accordance with the PCVC WMP. Changes would be made only where necessary, and would be required to impose the minimum impact on users necessary to accomplish the PCVC WMP goals.

Alternative A - Visitor Use Limits

Alternative A is similar to the Proposed Action with the exceptions that: BLM would not change the Visitor Use Limits or make other changes in management without further NEPA compliance; and dogs would be required to be leashed at all times. No developments proposed as part of this alternative. Future proposals would be analyzed through the NEPA/public participation process.

BLM would contrnue interdisciplinary (and interagency, where applicable) monitoring of visitor perceptions, recreation impacts, archeological resources, plant and wildlife species, water quality, range conditions, and other resources.

Alternative B - More Intensive Management

O nder Alternatrve B, BLM would continue management in accordance with the PCVC WMP, but more aggressively and intensively than any of the other alternatives. Visitor Use Limits would be established. The limits would be more restrictive than the initial levels set by the Proposed Action or under implementation of Alternative A. Under Alternative B:

0 Fees would be collected

O Reservations would be mandatory, with a limited number of permits issued

0 Restrict visitor use in Coyote Buttes SMA to ten or fewer per day, day use only. Group size limited to six.

0 Restrict visitor use in the canyons to no more than 30 entries per day

0 Party or group size is limited to 10 persons in the canyons

0 BLM would install structures where necessary to meet the goats of the WMP

0 Future changes in Visitor Use Limits could only be made through the NEPA/public participation process, requiring BLM to prepare an EA for future modifications

0 BLM would prohibit dogs in the canyons and Coyote Buttes

O BLM would continue interdisciplinary (and interagency, where applicable} monitoring of visitor perceptions, recreation impacts, archeological resources, plant and wildlife species, water quality, range conditions, and other resources. 0 10 Action Alternative The proposed action would not occur. Existing management as described in the Paria CanyonNermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan would continue. The wilderness is closed to motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or other forms of EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 13

C .iechanical transport, including bicycles and hang gliders. The Bureau of Land Management would:

a Inform users about wilderness constraints on motorized equipment use

o Monitor OHV problem areas and prevent OHV use in wilderness

o Inform wilderness users of location of official boundary

a Inform outfitters and guides about permit requirements and restrictions

a Write temporary camping restrictions as needed

a Maximum stay limit in the wilderness is 14 days

a Visitor use could be excluded from portions of Coyote Buttes if necessary to prevent irreversible degradation of wilderness values

O Prohibit campfires in the canyons and Coyote Buttes Special Management Area (SMA)

0 Restrict visitor use in Coyote Buttes SMA to two groups of no more than four persons each per day

0 Prohibit private use of horses/pack animals in Coyote Buttes SMA

O Prohibit commercial use of horses/pack animals in Coyote Buttes SMA and in the Paria above Bush Head Canyon

Develop environmental education program and signs

Place interpretive and regulatory signs at the entrance station and access points

0 Study abandoned ways as possible hiking routes into the Vermilion Cliffs portion of the wilderness

0 Not charge a fee for dogs, but would require that dogs be kept under control at all times (to prevent harassment of wildlife and visitors)

a Continue implementation of a fee system for the Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch and Coyote Buttes portions of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. The fee system is administered through a partnership with Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association (ASIA). Visitors to the area deposit fees at self serve fee stations located at White House, Buckskin, and Wire Pass trailheads. The fee schedule is:

White House Trailhead Campground - $5.00 per site/per day

Paria Canyon/Buckskin Gulch Day Use - $5.00 per person

Paria Canyon/Buckskin Gulch Overnight Use - $5.00 per person/per day.

Coyote Buttes - $5.00 per person (day use only, reservation and permit required.

0 SLM would continue interdisciplinary (and interagency, where applicable) monitoring of visitor perceptions, recreation impacts, archeological resources, plant and wildlife species, water quality, range conditions, and other resources.

O M would continue to enforce the following rules in Paria Canyon/Buckskin Gulch/Wire Pass:

a Party or group size is limited to 10 persons (groups larger than 10 would be required to split into groups of 10 or less and begin hiking on separate days) EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 14 0 A special recreation permit is required for all proposed, commercial uses such as outfitters or guided trips where profit from client fees is sought

0 Private use of horses, burros, llamas, and goats is allowed in Paria Canyon, however, these animals must stay in the "shoreline terrace" areas and not be taken onto ''wooded terraces"

o Visitors entering Paria Canyon, Buckskin Gulch, or Wire Pass must register at one of the four designated trailheads; White House, Buckskin, Wire Pass, or Lees Ferry (This does not constitute a formal permit or reservation system.)

O Visitors staying in the canyons must camp only in existing campsites or, if necessary and safe, on shoreline terraces

 All camp and latrine areas must be at least 100 feet from springs and pack stock restraint areas 200 feet from springs

 Cutting of trees, limbs, or other plants to make camp "improvements" is prohibited

 Camping is not allowed on or adjacent to any archaeological site

 Disturbing or defacing prehistoric or historic ruins, sites, artifacts, or rock art panels is prohibited by law (this includes removal of broken pieces of pottery, bone, or stone artifacts from the surface of any site)

 All trash, including used toilet paper, must be packed out by the individual or group that brought it

BLM would continue to enforce the following rules in the Coyote Buttes Special Management Area:

 Day use only 0 Maximum group size limited to four o No more than two groups in the area per day

O Mandatory registration

O No campfires

0 No private or commercial use of horses/pack animals in the fragile areas

Commercial Guide Services

There are three alternatives for addressing the issue of commercial guide permits. These are independent of the four alternatives for management of recreation. The three alternatives are: Specific Guide Service Permit Allocations, No Guide Service Permit Allocations, and No Action (first-come, first-served).

SPECIFIC GUIDE SERVICE PERMIT ALLOCATIONS

Under this alternative BLM would allocate permits to commercial guide services. BLM would allocate eight of the twenty daily overnight camping permits in the canyons, and ten of the twenty day-use permits for Coyote Buttes to commercial guide services. These commercial permits would be allocated based on a system designed to ensure that any reputable guide service in the area would have an opportunity to compete for permits.

HUNTLIKE/NO GUIDE SERVICE PERMIT ALLOCATIONS

. O otential commercial guides would be screened using standard Special Recreation Permit (SRP) requirements (insurance coverage, fees paid in advance, approved operations plan}, and supplementary requirements such as first aid training, communications capability, Leave No Trace training, and years of experience. There would be no limit on the number of EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 15

C ommercial guide permits available.

Authorized commercial guides would depend on visitors who successfully acquired an individual/group permit for use to contact them for their services. All authorized guides with address information would be listed with the information sent to the successful permit holders. Commercial guides would be able to advertise their availability as guides, but not possess user days themselves. Additionally, as guides are retained for their services, the guides themselves would not count against the total visitor limit for the given day.

NO ACTION

The system would remain as. No allocations of permits to guides. Guides could compete with non-commercial visitors for permits on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors who successfully acquired an individual/group permit for use could hire a guide, but the guide would count against the permit total.

Ill. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

For a more detailed description of the affected environment refer to the Kanab Resource Area Management Framework Plan, the Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, the Paria Canyon­ Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan, the Paria-Kanab Creek Habitat Management Plan, the Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, and the Vermillion Grazing EIS.

The following critical elements of the human environment are not present or are not affected by the proposed action or alternatives in this EA: Air Quality, ACECs, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Native American Religious Concerns, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, and Environmental Justice.

Q ecreatlon

The Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan (1983) contains detailed recreation information.

THE CANYONS

The steep-walled, narrow canyons of the Paria include Wire Pass, Buckskin Gulch, the Paria River, and several other side canyons such as Wrather and Bushhead. Access into these canyons is limited to a few trailheads. There is a combination of day use and overnight (including multi-night) use. Table 2 contains information on visitors to the canyons from 1992 through 1996, while Table 3 contains month-by-month visitor use data from 1996. Use is highest during the spring of each year, with a secondary peak during the fall.

The canyons provide opportunities for a primitive experience and solitude. The area is generally natural and undisturbed, while current management consists of low levels of rules, regulations, signing, and ranger presence. Recreational typically includes hiking, backpacking, and some horseback riding. River rafting or floating is generally not done due to low water and hazards. The river is not used for sport fishing.

The most concentrated use is from the White House Trailhead south to below the confluence of the Paria and Buckskin, and through the Buckskin. Visitors hike from Wire Pass or the Buckskin Trailhead through the Buckskin Gulch to the confluence with the Paria, and then out to the White House Trailhead. Many do this 22 mile trek in one day, while others camp overnight, either climbing out of the Buckskin at the Middle Trail, on one of a few terraces near the confluence of the 1 Buckskin and Paria, or simply staying •on the beach • "

Another common use pattern is for visitors to enter at the White House Trailhead and hike 38 miles downstream through

C 1 The safe practice is to camp at one of the terraces that provide protection from flooding. There is only one area In the Buckskin with terraces, and that is just above the Paria confluence. During dry periods, it Is possible to simply lay down in the very narrow Buckskin, although this can be quite dangerous should the Gulch flood. Users may do this when exhausted. In the Paria, some users sleep on small beaches that would be inundated by a flood event. Users may do this when tired and all avaUable terrace campsites are occupied. (' EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 16

\. tiria Canyon and exit at Lee's Ferry, camping along the way. Some of these visitors also take side trips up the Buckskin or other canyons. This trip is commonly done in three, four, or five days.

An increasing number of users hike in from the White House Trailhead to just below the Buckskin, and then return to White House. This is done either in a day, overnight, or in three days and two nights. This pattern of use concentrates visitors near the Pana-Buckskin confluence.

Although there is usually some water flowing in the Paria, visitors generally prefer to obtain drinking water from one of the springs. This concentrates use on terraces near springs. The terrace across from Big Spring is the classic example.

During peak use periods there may be more campers than campsites, and during these periods new campsites are pioneered. Additional trails up onto terraces and between campsites are created, since the best and most obvious sites are taken. Areas are cleared and leveled, and brush, trees, and grasses are removed. Although group size is limited to ten, frequently users ignore this rule and register separately, only to bunch up at night. This has a similar effect in that many campsites are created on one terrace.

During these periods the number of encounters between visitors increase. The walls of the canyon reflect sounds, amplifying the noise. During the night, campsites may be within a few feet of each other. The feeling of solitude is lost.

There are no developed waste disposal facilities within the wilderness. Individuals are advised to defecate in shallow holes and bury the waste, and to urinate either in the river or on the wet banks. High use areas, particularly those near the confluence and at Big Spring, are littered with waste and at times reek of the smell of urine.

While some users practice Mleave no trace", others exhibit behaviors that degrade wilderness resources. These include constructing campfire rings or pits, breaking tree limbs for fuel or other uses, leaving trash, improperly disposing of human l ste, disturbing wildlife, defacing archeological or geological resources, and disturbing other users. (able 2. Visitor Use of Buckskin Gulch, Wire Pass, and Paria Canyon

VISITOR USE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VISITORS WHO REGISTERED AT CANYON TRAILHEADS BUCKSKIN AND PARIA CANYON 1992 1993 11194 1995 1996

January 22 26 121 44 185 February 57 39 66 175 219 March 281 164 807 498 966 April 941 705 1,145 990 1,737 May 1,001 1,170 1,548 1,545 2,110 June 860 974 1,066 1,212 1,281 July 361 410 364 647 491 August 232 306 255 386 446 September 357 611 550 913 843 October 660 407 694 1,258 1,016 November 246 235 191 449 403 December 42 79 118 217 222 10TAL VISITORS/YEAR 5060 5126 6925 8334 9919 ,Yo CHANGE FROM 1992 1% 35% 65% 96% EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 17

C ata from the Recreation Management Information System indicates there were 5,000 recreation visits to the wilderness area in 1993 totaling 244,800 visitor hours. There were three Special Recreation Permits issued in 1993 that resulted in 158 visits totaling 10,500 visitor hours (Arizona Highways photography class, Sierra Club hikes, and Elderhostel tours).

COYOTE BUTTES

Recreational use of the Coyote Buttes SMA is currently limited to day hiking. Up to two groups of up to four persons are permitted daily. The majority of users start at the Wire Pass Trailhead, a few from various unimproved roads on the Paria Plateau. The majority of visitors are seeking the Wave, a sandstone feature of international reputation, or other scenery. Table 3 contains information on the number of visitors to Coyote Buttes during 1996.

TABLE 3 1996 MONTHLY PAR1A CANYON-VERMILION CLIFFS WILDERNESS VISITOR USE (TRAILHEAD REGISTERS) 1996 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

BUCKSKIN 15 20 80 115 110 92 48 43 62 93 16 26 720

COYOTE BUTTES 65 46 115 146 128 68 48 60 95 149 113 48 1081

LEES FERRY 5 6 55 59 24 5 11 17 14 14 15 6 231

MIDDLE ROUTE 10 0 11 60 82 20 1:.2 0 12 29 7 0 243

VHITE HOUSE C) 24 47 340 704 831 339 11E 110 278 286 80 34 3189 WIRE PASS 66 100 365 653 935 757 25E 216 382 445 172 108 4455

SUB-TOTAL 185 219 966 1737 2110 1281 491 441 843 1016 403 222 9919

ONGOING 185 YEARLY TOTAL 404 1370 3107 5217 6491 6989 7435 8278 9294 9697 9919

There are changing patterns of visitor use in the wilderness. Visitors are: staying fewer days, with more day use and less overnight use; spending more time in the Buckskin and Paria Narrows; setting up base camps rather than moving each night; not "hiking through" as much; more weekend use than weekday use. There is an increase in use by larger groups.

There has been a shift in the type of visitors to the wilderness. Many visitors lack knowledge of backcountry ethics and skills. They are focusing more on the attraction and less on solitude. There has been an increased promotion of the area, combined with a slot canyon mania.

There are increases in numbers of users. Trends indicate that at current rates of increase, there would be more than 10,000 visitors per year (up 325% from 1985). The average visits/day to Paria Canyon have increased from 95 in 1988 to 264 in 1995. No month saw less than a 100% increase in the average visits/day since 1988. Traditional low use months like August and December saw average visits/day increase 5 fold since 1988. In 1995, there were 1,212 visits during May.

Due to an increase in the amount of human waste, combined with sometimes improper disposal, there has been an increase in the number of visitor complaints. Due to the small size of the terraces and the failure of the material to break (_ iwn biologically, combined with increases in group sizes and peak period use, human waste is more apparent to visitors.

Appendix 1 is The 1996-1997 Paria Canyon User Study; Final Results by Pam Foti and Michael Parma of Northern Arizona University. See the affected environment sections on Soil, Water & Air, and Vegetation for further information on EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 18

C e relationship between recreation use and the canyon environment.

Visual Resources

The wilderness is designated as Visual Resources Class 1. Management objectives in Class 1 allow for only natural changes. In the narrow canyons, the steep walls provide spectacular views. At Coyote Buttes, the geologic formations and scenic vistas attract recreationists from around the world.

Human waste has become increasingly more observable in the canyons.

Cultural

Cultural resources in the wilderness are managed in accordance with the Paria Canyon Cultural Resource Management Plan. The most common features are petroglyphs.

Although shoreline development is non-existent, evidence of human occupation and use occurs along the river. The area contains the remains of a ranch site, several deteriorating roads constructed for uranium exploration in the 1950s, a small corral, an abandoned water pump, old fences, rock shelters, and rock art on boulders and along the steep canyon walls.

Isolated artifacts and significant sites, both archaeologic and historic in nature, are present throughout the action area. Some of these may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rangeland

The area contains several SLM-administered allotments used for livestock grazing (cattle and horses) (PCVC WMP ~pendix C, Table 5). Livestock grazing occurs on the lower 6.5 miles of the Paria Canyon and throughout the Coyote (_ ittes SMA.

Cattle grazing occurs on the Lee's Ferry Allotment, which is managed in accordance with the Soap Creek Allotment Management Plan. Grazing occurs two years out of three, from November 1 to January 31, in one pasture, and from February 1 to April 15 in a second pasture. The third year the canyon is rested from grazing. The river is the base water source for this operation.

Wilderness

The wilderness, designated in 1984, extends north four miles into Utah along the Paria River and west nine miles along Buckskin Gulch, a tributary of the Paria. The wilderness also includes the Coyote Buttes area on the Paria Plateau. The wilderness is managed in accordance with the Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliff Wilderness Management Plan. The goals of wilderness management are stated on page 3 of the plan, and are summarized here:

O The first and dominant goal is to provide for the long term protection and preservation of the area's wilderness character under a principle of nondegradation

CJ The second goal is to manage for use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that will leave the area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness

o The third goal is to manage the area using the minimum tool, equipment, or structure necessary

O Management will seek to preserve spontaneity of use and as much freedom from regulation as possible

The plan is clear that the wilderness resource will be dominant in all management decisions where a choice must be 0 made between preservation of wilderness character and visitor use The wilderness is classified as Recreation Opportunity Class I, the most pristine of three classes. Areas classified as EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 19

O creation Opportunity Class I:

o are essentially an unmodified environment

CJ contain ecosystems that are healthy and natural processes operate essentially free of human-induced controls CJ have few visitor impacts, typically consisting of minor, permanent disturbance of soils and vegetation in camp areas and along popular hiking routes

CJ have subtle disturbances that do not dominate the landscape

CJ have rare to nonexistent, temporary, and unnoticeable impacts from other resource users

CJ provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and isolation from other users; encounters with other visitors are rare in the off-season and occasional during peak periods of use

O provide opportunities to utilize primitive outdoor skills and experience challenge, self-reliance, and risk

WIid & Scenic River Study Areas

The Paria River was determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System because it meets the definition of a free-flowing stream from above the Utah-Arizona State line to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Based on the suitability determination in the Arizona Strip RMP, the Arizona portion of the Paria, as well as four miles in Utah immediately north of the state line is suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Paria River was classified as Wild, being free of impoundments, generally inaccessible except by trail, with essentially primitive c ~orelines, and with unpolluted waters.

/4e Arizona Strip RMP concluded that the river has several outstandingly remarkable values: scenic, recreational, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and geologic. The outstandingly remarkable fish habitat value only exists on the National Park Service portion of the river near the confluence of the Paria River with the Colorado River. Riparian vegetation is an outstandingly remarkable value for the BLM portion, and riparian vegetation is habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. These habitat values are inextricably related to the fish and wildlife species that use this habitat.

The outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values are associated with the river's rugged and often narrow canyon. Walls are up to 600 feet high, then gradually open to 2.5 miles wide and 2,600 feet deep. The river cuts through an area of significant geologic uplift and associated faulting, exposing numerous layers of the earth's crust and providing spectacular scenery.

The Paria River study area has outstandingly remarkable recreational values. Access is possible only by foot or horseback from trailheads outside the wilderness. Recreational use of the river typically includes hiking, backpacking, and some horseback riding. River rafting and floating are generally not done due to low water and hazards.

Outstandingly remarkable riparian/fish and wildlife values exist in the area. The shoreline consists primarily of narrow strips of sandy, wooded terraces, although in the upper canyon the shorelines are sheer canyon walls. Riparian vegetation such as salt cedar (Tamarix m.), willow(~ m.), box elder(~ negundo), and cottonwood (Populus Fremontii) grows along the shoreline and is important wildlife habitat.

Although shoreline development is non-existent, evidence of human occupation and use occurs along the river. The area contains the remains of a ranch site, several deteriorating roads constructed for uranium exploration in the 1950s, a small corral, an abandoned water pump, old fences, rock shelters, and rock art on boulders and along the steep canyon walls. o lldllfe

The area is managed in accordance with the Paria/Kanab Creek Habitat Management Plan (1983), a cooperative EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 20 C ocument between the BLM and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Wildlife in the Utah portion is managed by BLM and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Wildlife, particularly bighorn sheep ~ canadensis) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemjonus), contribute to outstanding values of the area. Other wildlife species found in the canyon include: red-spotted toads, tree lizards, whiptail lizards, desert spiny lizards, gopher snakes, western rattlesnakes, ravens, canyon wrens, rock wrens, white-throated swifts, violet­ green swallows, Say's phoebes, western kingbirds, flycatchers, owls, mourning doves, turkey vultures, black-chinned hummingbirds, rock squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, western pipistrelles and other bats. The lower end of the canyon has occasional beaver (~canadensjs). Many other species of invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals live all or part of the year in the study area. For further information refer to the Paria-Kanab Creek Habitat Management Plan.

Special Status Species

According to information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Paria Canyon provides habitat for the peregrine falcon (~ peregrinus anatum). bald eagle (HaHaeetus Jeucocephalus). humpback chub (~ ~). razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), the Mexican spotted owl (film< occidentalis I~), and the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empjdonax traifili extjmus), each federally listed as endangered,. The Paria River/Colorado River confluence on the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is proposed as critical habitat for the razorback sucker.

The Paria River is home to small populations of speckled dace (Rhjnichthyis osculus), bluehead mountain sucker (Pantosteus delphinus), and the flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis). all of which are native fish species. These species are either restricted to or are most common on National Park Service administered portions of the Paria River near its confluence with the Colorado River.

Other sensitive species that may be in the area are the Marble Canyon kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps leucotis). -t:r rruginous hawk (IDtlgQ regm), loggerhead shrike (.!..smiu.s ludovicianus), and chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus obesus).

C~ecently released along the Vermilion cliffs, California condors have been seen in Coyote Buttes and above the canyons. These birds were released as part of a reintroduction program, and are considered to be an experimental, non-essential population under the Endangered Species Act.

Walsh's milkweed (Asclepjas Welshjj), listed as threatened, occurs within areas of dune sand in the Paria Canyon, Coyote Buttes, and on the north and east sides of the Paria Plateau within the wilderness. The recovery plan for this plant states that trampling is considered a threat. In the canyons, the plant does not occur within the hiking/camping corridor. Studies indicate that there have been no impacts from hiking and camping.

Soil, Water, Air

The Paria River is considered a perennial stream, even though portions can be dry during the hottest summer months. High flows typically occur during a late winter/spring runoff period and as a result of floods from summer thunderstorms occurring upstream along the drainage system. Frequent scouring of the river canyon as a result of high flows constantly affects channel morphology and the condition of riparian vegetation.

The Paria River generally contains poor water quality as a result of high turbidity and salinity. The water appears muddy for most of the year. Dissolved salt and sediment loads are high, reducing the feasibility and success of impoundments on the river. Impoundments have been considered for the purpose of reducing salt and silt entering the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry. There is generally light to moderate algal growth in pools during periods of low water.

Springs rising in the canyon at the Arizona-Utah state line (and also about ¼ mile up Buckskin Gulch above its confluence with the Paria River) generally provide year round flow even when the upstream portion in Utah is dry due to diversion or c;ought. Other springs along the canyon below the confluence add to this flow.

rhe Paria River has been determined by the State of Arizona to be non-navigable, which means that the riverbed is owned by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 21

O reau of Land Management has not filed an application for an instream flow water right with the State of Arizona. Any water rights within the river are associated with livestock grazing. There are no known water wells or diversions in the study area.

Upstream in Utah, water rights have been obtained for agricultural and domestic uses. Agricultural, commercial, and residential development in Utah could reduce water quality and stream flows in the future.

Downstream from the study area on the Colorado River, water is used for recreational purposes through the Grand Canyon (some water is pumped out of the Grand Canyon to the South Rim for domestic uses) and for electric generation at Hoover Dam.

Air quality in the region is generally good due to the lack of major pollution sources. The wilderness is defined as a Class I airshed. The major local nonpoint sources of air emissions are vehicles on the highways and roads, which emit carbon monoxide and create fugitive dust on the dirt roads.

An increasing number of visitors in the Paria has increased the number of terrace trails. Some of these are directly linked to the creation of new campsites, while others are created to connect tent spaces. Many new terrace access trails are being formed. These steep trails through soft sand are prone to erosion.

Vegetation, Including Wetlands and Riparian Zones

The Paria shoreline consists primarily of narrow strips of sandy, wooded terraces, although in the upper canyon the shorelines are sheer canyon walls. Riparian vegetation such as willow, box elder, and cottonwood grows along the shoreline. Exotic species such as Russian olive and salt cedar have become established. Upland vegetation is typical of the Great Basin Desert, consisting primarily of sand sage (Artemjsia filifQ!@) and other shrubs, grasses, and forbs. 1sgetation at Coyote Buttes is typical sagebrush desert.

CJettie and people have trampled the streambank in some locations, but the overall streambank condition is good. Historic livestock grazing may have had an adverse impact on riparian vegetation, but changes in management have improved conditions. Representatives of different species and age classes are present.

On the terraces in the Paria, increased numbers of users, many without minimum impact camping skills, are expanding perennial plant loss through the creation of new trails, toilets, and tent sites in previously undisturbed areas. Trees are damaged, during the creation of new campsites, and for firewood.

Wild Horses and Burros

There are no wild horses or burros in the area, nor is any Herd Management Area affected by any of the alternatives.

Minerals

The entire area is within a federally designated wilderness area that has been withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposal and closed to oil and gas leasing and development. There are no existing claims or operations within the area.

Lands and Realty

The entire area is in a wilderness area with no state or private inholdings. No rights-of-ways or special use permits would be affected by any of the alternatives. l ~ oclo/Economfc !'he economic base of the Arizona Strip is mainly ranching with a few gypsum/selenite mines and uranium operations. Nearby communities are supported by tourism (including outdoor recreation), construction and light industry. The social EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page22

~ spect involves remote, unpopulated settings with moderate to high opportunities for solitude.

IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION

Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no impact on Air Quality, ACECs, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Native American Religious Concerns, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, Rangeland, Wild Horses and Burros, Minerals, Socio/Economic or Environmental Justice.

Opportunities for Solitude

In Coyote Buttes, the opportunity for solitude would be decreased from the current level initially as BLM increased the allowable entries from a maximum of eight per day to twenty per day. If monitoring indicated that this new level was unacceptable, BLM could increase or decrease the Visitor Use Limit. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

In the canyons, the opportunity for solitude during peak periods would increase as BLM limited the number of new overnight entries to 20 or less per day. There could be a loss of opportunity for solitude as off-season visitation increases. Off-season visitation is anticipated to increase simply due to the increasing popularity of the area, but also because of the Visitor Use Limits imposed by BLM. For example, if a party cannot get a permit during April, they may reschedule during August.

The Paria and Buckskin contain approximately 45 to 50 river miles. The average hike through the canyons takes four or five days. This means that on average, there would be approximately 100 overnight visitors in 50 linear miles. If onitoring indicated this new level was unacceptable, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit. Opportunities for solitude O,ould continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas. Campsite Conditions

There are a number of existing campsites on the terraces through the Paria. The creation of new campsites is related to the availability of sites during peak use. With limits of 20 entries per day for overnight use, the existing campsites would be sufficient to handle the amount of visitors needing space each night. If monitoring indicated that campsites were continuing to deteriorate/and or expand, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit or make other changes that would stabilize campsite conditions.

Human and Animal Waste

The total amount of human waste in Coyote Buttes would increase as Visitor Use Limits are raised. If monitoring indicated this new level was unacceptable, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit, install waste disposal structures, or make other changes in management. The issue of human waste in the Coyote Buttes area has not been raised as an important impact on the visitor experience, and the increase is not expected to create strong negative impacts on users.

Under implementation of the Proposed Action the total amount of human and animal waste in the canyons would be reduced through Visitor Use limits and increased education of visitors. If monitoring indicated this new level was unacceptable, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit, install waste disposal structures, or make other changes in management. Waste would still be visible in certain locations.

Impacts on Visitor Safety

71e Proposed Action would improve visitor safety in the canyons by limiting the number of visitors remaining overnight at C,. hy one time, thereby reducing competition for safe campsites and reducing the need for visitors to camp in less-than- ~ desirable areas. The Proposed Action would reduce visitor safety if individuals who were unable to acquire a permit during peak season attempted to travel through the canyons during periods of increased flood hazard. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 23

C ,1eclal Recreation Permits/Commercial Guiding

The Proposed Action contains no management prescriptions that specifically change any rules regarding commercial guiding or the issuance of special recreation permits. There would be an increased opportunity to acquire a permit for the Coyote Buttes SMA (an increase from two groups of no more than four visitors per day to up to ten visitors in the northern and ten visitors in the southern SMA per day). It may be more difficult for a commercial guide to obtain a permit for the canyons during peak use periods (these permits are limited to twenty entries per day). Commercial guides would have the same opportunity to reserve a permit as non-commercial users through a first-come/first-served procedure.

The recreational experience in the canyons that commercial guides could provide their customers would be enhanced under the Proposed Action. There would be increased opportunities for solitude and a generally more pristine, natural wilderness experience.

Future changes in management could be made that would impact commercial guides. Further reductions in permits, based on monitoring, could be made by BLM, in accordance with the goals of the PCVC WMP. A reduction in permit numbers would increase competition for permits by non-commercial visitors and commercial guides. Wilderness characteristics would be maintained or improved, providing an improved wilderness experience. An increase in permits could only be made in wilderness conditions were stable and monitoring indicated that the increase would impact the goals of the PCVC WMP. An increase in permits would reduce competition for permits.

Future changes in other management, such as the development of waste disposal structures or temporary closures, would impact commercial guides in a variety of ways. Temporary closures of areas to camping would limit where commercial guides could camp. The development of waste disposal structures or other developments would reduce the naturalness of the area, but would afso reduce impacts from human activities.

··,-.pacts to Vegetation

Ct~ere would be a reduction in the amount of trees and other vegetation damaged during new campsite construction, trail creation, and for campfires. If monitoring indicated this new level was unacceptable, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit, impose temporary closures or other restrictions, or make other changes in management.

There would be no impact on Welsh's milkweed.

Impacts on WIidiife

There would be a reduction in the impacts on wildlife. In addition to reduced numbers of visitors creating less disturbance, there would be less habitat damaged during new campsite construction. Species particularly sensitive to human presence, or those that require undisturbed use of the terraces would continue to be impacted. Some species may be favored by human presence and activities, and these species would increase or maintain level populations.

If monitoring indicated the impacts on wildlife species and/or their habitat was unacceptable, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit, impose temporary closures or other restrictions, or make other changes in management. For example, if nesting owls or hawks were determined to be adversely impacts by camping in the canyon below their nest, a temporary closure to camping could be imposed until after the young had fledged.

There would be no effect to any listed wildlife species from implementation of the Proposed Action.

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics (Primitive, Natural Conditions)

There would be a reduction in impacts to wilderness characteristics. Reduced numbers of visitors would create less ·;sturbance: fewer campsites; those campsites that do remain would be more pristine; fewer trails, less trash, less human ) ste, more solitude, and less noise. If monitoring indicated unacceptable impacts to wilderness characteristics, BLM Ccould modify Visitor Use Limits, impose temporary closures or other restrictions, or make other changes in management. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 24

C mpacts on Outstanding Remarkable Values of Paria Wild and Scenic River Study Area

The river has several outstandingly remarkable values: recreational, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, scenic and geologic.

The outstandingly remarkable fish habitat value only exists on the National Park Service portion of the river near the confluence of the Paria River with the Colorado River. Riparian vegetation is an outstandingly remarkable value for the SLM portion, and riparian vegetation is habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. These habitat values are inextricably related to the fish and wildlife species that use this habitat. Reduced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the riparian vegetation and the fish and wildlife habitat.

The outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values are associated with the river's rugged and often narrow canyon. Reduced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the scenic resources. There would be fewer campsites visible to visitors, with decreased impacts to terraces.

Although some visitors would not be allowed in the canyons during peak use periods, those who received permits would have a quality visitor experience undiminished by large crowds or numerous impacts to the environment.

The would be no change to the outstandingly remarkable cultural values in the canyon.

Impacts of Increased Management on Visitors

Initially, there would be little or no change to visitors to Coyote Buttes. If as a result of monitoring, BLM imposed tighter Visitor Use Limits, temporary closures or restrictions, or other requirements (such as the requirement that parties to the special management area be accompanied by a concessionaire guide), visitors could feel the effect of increased ,ianagement.

C1~ the canyons visitors would be required to acquire a permit prior to remaining overnight. This permit would be acquired through a reservation system similar to the Coyote Buttes reservation system now in place. Initially, there would be little or no change to visitors to the canyons. If as a result of monitoring, BLM imposed tighter Visitor Use Limits, temporary closures or restrictions, or other requirements (such as the requirement that parties haul out all waste), visitors could feel the effect of increased management.

Impacts on Cultural Resources

The Proposed Action would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the canyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact structures or other artifacts on the ground. There would be a reduced impact on petroglyphs from vandalism as a result of an increased education and awareness program.

Impacts on Scenic/Geologic Resources

The Proposed Action would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the canyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact soils and other geologic features. In Coyote Buttes, an increase in visitation could lead to an increased rate of erosion and other damage to sensitive rock formations.

Impacts on the Many Outstanding Recreation Opportunities (Wild & Scenic Rivers)

The opportunity for visitors to have an outstanding recreation opportunity in the Paria Wild and Scenic River Study Area •rould improve, although visitors may not always be able to enjoy that opportunity at their discretion. However, visitors (_ ould have the opportunity to reschedule their trip, and would assured of a high quality experience. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 25

O PACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

Implementation of Alternative A would have no impact on Air Quality, ACECs, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Native American Religious Concerns, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, Rangeland, Wild Horses and Burros, Minerals, Socio/Economic or Environmental Justice.

Opportunities for Solitude

In Coyote Buttes, the opportunity for solitude would be decreased from the current level initially as BLM increased the allowable entries from a maximum of eight per day to twenty per day. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

In the canyons, the opportunity for solitude during peak periods would increase as BLM limited the number of new entries to 20 or less per day. There could be a loss of opportunity for solitude as off-season visitation increases. Off-season visitation is anticipated to increase simply due to the increasing popularity of the area, but also because of the Visitor Use Limits imposed by BLM. For example, if a party cannot get a permit during April, they may reschedule during August.

The Paria and Buckskin contain approximately 45 to 50 river miles. The average hike through the canyons takes four or five days. This means that on average, there would be approximately 100 overnight visitors in 50 linear miles. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

Campsite Conditions

There are a number of existing campsites on the terraces through the Paria. The creation of new campsites is related to the availability of sites during peak use. With limits of 20 entries per day for overnight use, the existing campsites would be fficient to handle the amount of visitors needing space each night. If monitoring indicated that campsites were ntinuing to deteriorate/and or expand, BLM could modify the Visitor Use Limit or make other changes that would stabilize ecampsite conditions.

Human and Animal Waste

The total amount of human waste in Coyote Buttes would increase as Visitor Use Limits are raised. The issue of human waste in the Coyote Buttes area has not been raised as an important impact on the visitor experience, and the increase is not expected to create strong negative impacts on users.

Under implementation of the Proposed Action the total amount of human and animal waste in the canyons would be reduced through Visitor Use limits and increased education of visitors. Waste would still be visible in certain locations.

Impacts on Visitor Safety

Alternative A would improve visitor safety in the canyons by limiting the number of visitors remaining overnight at any one time, thereby reducing competition for safe campsites and reducing the need for visitors to camp in less-than-desirable areas. Alternative A would reduce visitor safety if individuals who were unable to acquire a permit during peak season attempted to travel through the canyons during periods of increased flood hazard.

Special Recreation Permits/Commercial Guiding

Alternative A contains no management prescriptions that specifically change any rules regarding commercial guiding or the issuance of special recreation permits. There would be an increased opportunity to acquire a permit for the Coyote Buttes SMA (an increase from two groups of no more than four visitors per day to up to ten visitors in the northern and ten visitors the southern SMA per day). It may be more difficult for a commercial guide to obtain a permit for the canyons during C.'ak use periods (these permits are limited to twenty entries per day). Commercial guides would, however, have the same opportunity to reserve a permit as non-commercial users through a first-come/first-served procedure. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 26

C e recreational experience in the canyons that commercial guides could provide their customers would be enhanced under alternative B. There would be increased opportunities for solitude and a generally more pristine, natural wilderness experience.

Impacts to Vegetation

There would be a reduction in the amount of trees and other vegetation damaged during new campsite construction,. trail creation, and for campfires. There would be no impact on Welsh's milkweed.

Impacts on WIidiife

There would be a reduction in the impacts on wildlife. In addition to reduced numbers of visitors creating less disturbance, there would be less habitat damaged during new campsite construction. Species particularly sensitive to human presence, or those that require undisturbed use of the terraces would continue to be impacted. Some species may be favored by" human presence and activities, and these species would increase or maintain level populations.

There would be no effect to any listed wildlife species.

Impacts on WIiderness Characteristics (Primitive, Natural Conditions)

There would be a reduction in the impacts on wilderness characteristics. Reduced numbers of visitors would create less disturbance: fewer campsites; those campsites that do remain would be more pristine; fewer trails, less trash, less human waste, more solitude, and less noise.

Impacts on Outstanding Remarkable Values of Parla Wild and Scenic River Study Area C ne river has several outstandingly remarkable values: recreational. riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural "'resources, scenic and geologic.

The outstandingly remarkable fish habitat value only exists on the National Park Service portion of the river near the confluence of the Paria River with the Colorado River. Riparian vegetation is an outstandingly remarkable value for the BLM portion, and riparian vegetation is habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. These habitat values are inextricably related to the fish and wildlife species that use this habitat. Reduced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the riparian vegetation and the fish and wildlife habitat.

The outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values are associated with the river's rugged and often narrow canyon. Reduced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the scenic resources. There would be fewer campsites visible to visitors, with decreased impacts to terraces.

Although some visitors would not be allowed in the canyons during peak use periods, those who received permits would have a quality visitor experience undiminished by large crowds or numerous impacts to the environment.

The would be no change to the outstandingly remarkable cultural values in the canyon.

Impacts of Increased Managem·ent on Visitors

There would be little or no change to visitors to Coyote Buttes.

In the canyons visitors would be requlred to acquire a permit prior to remaining overnight. This permit would be acquired through a reservation system similar to the Coyote Buttes reservation system now in place. C_.... mpacts on Cultural Resources Alternative A would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 27

('; anyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact structures or other artifacts on the ground. There would be a reduced impact on petroglyphs from vandalism as a result of an increased education and awareness program.

Impacts on Scenic/Geologic Resources

Alternative A would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the canyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact soils and other geologic features. In Coyote Buttes, an increase in visitation could lead to an increased rate of erosion and other damage to sensitive rock formations.

Impacts on the Many Outstanding Recreation Opportunities (WIid & Scenic Rivers)

The opportunity for visitors to have an outstanding recreation opportunity in the Paria Wild and Scenic River Study Area would improve, although visitors may not always be able to enjoy that opportunity at their discretion. However, visitors would have the opportunity to reschedule their trip, and would assured of a high quality experience.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B

Implementation of Alternative B would have no impact on Air Quality, ACECs, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Native American Religious Concerns, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, Rangeland, Wild Horses and Burros, Minerals, Socio/Economic or Environmental Justice.

Opportunities for Solitude

tt' Coyote Buttes, the opportunity for solitude would be decreased from the current level initially as BLM increased the llowable entries from a maximum of eight per day to ten per day. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be high, Cespecially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

In the canyons, the opportunity for solitude during peak periods would increase as BLM limited the number of new entries to 20 or less per day. There could be a loss of opportunity for solitude as off-season visitation increases. Off-season visitation is anticipated to increase simply due to the increasing popularity of the area, but also because of the Visitor Use Limits imposed by BLM. For example, if a party cannot get a permit during April, they may reschedule during August.

The Paria and Buckskin contain approximately 45 to 50 river miles. The average hike through the canyons takes four or five days. This means that on average, there would be approximately 100 overnight visitors in 50 linear miles. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

Campsite Conditions

There are a number of existing campsites on the terraces through the Paria. The creation of new campsites is related to the availability of sites during peak use. With limits of 30 total entries per day, the existing campsites would be sufficient to handle the amount of visitors needing space each night. If monitoring indicated that campsites were continuing to deteriorate/and or expand, BLM could modify Visitor Use Limits or make other changes to stabilize campsite conditions.

Human and Animal Waste

The total amount of human waste in Coyote Buttes would increase as Visitor Use Limits are raised. This increase is anticipated to be less than under the Proposed Action or Alternative A The issue of human waste in the Coyote Buttes area has not been raised as an important impact on the visitor experience, and the increase is not expected to create c· ~rong negative impacts on users. ' Under implementation of the Proposed Action the total amount of human and animal waste in the canyons would be reduced through Visitor Use limits and increased education of visitors. Waste would still be visible in certain locations. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 28 C.._ .ipacts on Visitor Safety

Alternative 8 would improve visitor safety in the canyons by limiting the number of visitors remaining overnight at any one time, thereby reducing competition for safe campsites and reducing the need for visitors to camp in less-than-desirable areas. Alternative B would reduce visitor safety if individuals who were unable to acquire a permit during peak season attempted to travel through the canyons during periods of increased flood hazard.

Special Recreation Permits/Commercial Guiding

Alternative 8 contains no management prescriptions that specifically change any rules regarding commercial guiding or the issuance of special recreation permits. There would be an increased opportunity to acquire a permit for the Coyote Buttes SMA (an increase from two groups of no more than four visitors per day to up to ten visitors in the northern and ten visitors in the southern SMA per day). It may be more difficult for a commercial guide to obtain a permit for the canyons during peak use periods (these permits are limited to twenty entries per day). Commercial guides would, however, have the same opportunity to reserve a permit as non-commercial users through a first-come/first-served procedure.

The recreational experience in the canyons that commercial guides could provide their customers would be enhanced under Alternative 8. There would be increased opportunities for solitude and a generally more pristine, natural wilderness experience.

Impacts to Vegetation

There would be a reduction in the amount of trees and other vegetation damaged during new campsite construction, trail creation, and for campfires. There would be no effect to any listed plant species.

·-,,pacts on Wildlife ( i here would be a reduction in the impacts on wildlife. In addition to reduced numbers of visitors creating less disturbance, there would be less habitat damaged during new campsite construction. Species particularly sensitive to human presence, or those that require undisturbed use of the terraces would continue to be impacted. Some species may be favored by human presence and activities, and these species would increase or maintain level populations. There would be no effect to any listed wildlife species.

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics (Primitive, Natural Conditions)

There would be a reduction in the impacts on wilderness characteristics. Reduced numbers of visitors would create less disturbance: fewer campsites; those campsites that do remain would be more pristine; fewer trails, less trash, less human waste, more solitude, and less noise.

Impacts on Outstanding Remarkable Values of Parla Wild and Scenic River Study Area

The river has several outstandingly remarkable values: recreational, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, scenic and geologic.

The outstandingly remarkable fish habitat value only exists on the National Park Service portion of the river near the confluence of the Paria River with the Colorado River. Riparian vegetation is an outstandingly remarkable value for the BLM portion, and riparian vegetation is habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. These habitat values are inextricably related to the fish and wildlife species that use this habitat. Reduced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the riparian vegetation and the fish and wildlife habitat.

-ie outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values are associated with the river's rugged and often narrow canyon. _)duced Visitor Use Limits would decrease the impacts on the scenic resources. There would be fewer campsites visible ClO visitors, with decreased impacts to terraces. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 29 C~ !though some visitors would not be allowed in the canyons during peak use periods, those who received permits would have a quality visitor experience undiminished by large crowds or numerous impacts to the environment.

The would be no change to the outstandingly remarkable cultural values in the canyon.

Impacts of Increased Management on Visitors

There would be little or no change to visitors to Coyote Buttes.

In the canyons visitors would be required to acquire a permit prior to remaining overnight. This permit would be acquired through a reservation system similar to the Coyote Buttes reservation system now in place.

Impacts on Cultural Resources

Alternative B would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the canyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact structures or other artifacts on the ground. There would be a reduced impact on petroglyphs from vandalism as a result of an increased education and awareness program.

Impacts on Scenic/Geologic Resources

Alternative B would reduce impacts on cultural resources by limiting the number of overnight permits available in the canyons, thereby reducing the need for new campsite development, which could impact soils and other geologic features. In Coyote Buttes, an increase in visitation could lead to an increased rate of erosion and other damage to sensitive rock formations.

O npacts on the Many Outstanding Recreation Opportunities (WIid & Scenic Rivers)

The opportunity for visitors to have an outstanding recreation opportunity in the Paria Wild and Scenic River Study Area would improve, although visitors may not always be able to enjoy that opportunity at their discretion. However, visitors would have the opportunity to reschedule their trip, and would assured of a high quality experience.

IMPACTS OF NO ACTION

Existing situations and conditions would continue under this alternative. None of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would occur.

Continuation of existing management would have no impact on Air Quality, ACECs, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Native American Religious Concerns, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, Rangeland, Wild Horses and Burros, Minerals, Socio/Economic or Environmental Justice.

Opportunities for Solitude

At Coyote Buttes there would be no change in the opportunity for solitude during peak use periods as Visitor Use Limits continued as is. Visitation could only increase during off-peak periods, so that during those periods a decrease in opportunity could occur. Opportunities for solitude at the buttes would continue to be high, especially during off-season periods or in less-visited areas.

In the canyons opportunities for solitude would continue to decrease as visitor use increases. During peak periods, the opportunity for solitude could be lost.

(_ ampslte Conditions

Campsite conditions would continue to deteriorate under the No Action Alternative. Campsites would continue to increase EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 30 0 size and number, and nearby vegetation would continue to be damaged at an inc~eased rate. The n~mbers of trails and waste sites would continue to increase. The proximity of groups at night would continue to create conflicts.

Human and Animal Waste

The total amount of human waste in Coyote Buttes would remain the same. The issue of human waste in the Coyote Buttes are has not been raised as an important impact on the visitor experience, and the increase is not expected to create strong negative impacts on users.

The total amount of human and animal waste in the canyons would increase through increased visitor use. An increase in the education of visitors could reduce human waste impacts. Waste would be increasingly visible in certain locations and new waste disposal areas would be created.

Impacts on Visitor Safety

There would be no impact on visitor safety.

Special Recreation Permits/Commercial Guiding

The No Action Alternative contains no changes to management prescriptions that specifically change any rules regarding commercial guiding or the issuance of special recreation permits. The recreational experience in the canyons that commercial guides could provide their customers would gradually deteriorate under the No Action Alternative. There would be no change to the opportunity to acquire a special recreation permit, but there would be decreased opportunities for solitude and a generally less pristine, less natural wilderness experience.

pacts to Vegetation

C(h ere would be an increase in the amount of trees and other vegetation damaged during new campsite construction, trail creation, and for campfires. There would be no effect to any listed plant species.

Impacts on Wildlife

There would be an increase in the impacts on wildlife from increase visitation and use. In addition to increased numbers of visitors creating more disturbance, there would be more habitat damaged during new campsite construction. Species particularly sensitive to human presence, or those that require undisturbed use of the terraces would continue to be impacted, perhaps at a faster rate. Some species may be favored by human presence and activities, and these species would increase or maintain level populations. There would be no effect to any listed wildlife species.

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics (Primitive, Natural Conditions}

There would be an increase in the impacts on wilderness characteristics. Increased numbers of visitors would create more disturbance: more campsites that are less pristine; more trails, more trash, more human waste, less solitude, and more noise.

Impacts on Outstanding Remarkable Values of Parla Wild and Scenic River Study Area

The river has several outstandingly remarkable values: recreational, riparian vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, scenic and geologic.

The outstandingly remarkable fish habitat value only exists on the National Park Service portion of the river near the -influence of the Paria River with the Colorado River. Riparian vegetation is an outstandingly remarkable value for the ( ) M portion, and riparian vegetation is habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. These habitat values are inextricably related to the fish and wildlife species that use this habitat. Increased visitor use would increase the impacts on the riparian vegetation and the fish and wildlife habitat. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 31

(',he outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values are associated with the river's rugged and often narrow canyon. Increased visitor use would increase the impacts on the scenic resources. There would be more campsites visible to visitors, with increased impacts to terraces.

The would be no change to the outstandingly remarkable cultural values in the canyon.

Impacts of Increased Management on Visitors

In the absence of Visitor Use limits and other changes in management contained in the Proposed Action, BLM would attempt to minimize human impacts, in accordance with the PCVC WMP, through increased education of visitors at the trailheads and through increased enforcement of existing regulations in Coyote Buttes and the canyons.

There would be little or no change to visitors to the area from implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Impacts on Cultural Resources

There would be no change in the impacts to cultural resources.

Impacts on Scenic/Geologic Resources

There would be no change in the impacts to geologic resources.

Impacts on the Many Outstanding Recreation Opportunities

There would be no change to the opportunity for outstanding recreation experience in the canyons.

Q uMULATIVE IMPACTS

A cumulative significant effect can occur when minor incremental effects of various related or unrelated actions combine to create a significant aggregate effect. These effects can be additive or synergistic and can trigger the need to prepare an EIS. Cumulative impacts are defined as the consequences of implementing the Proposed Action, in combination with the impacts of all other past, present, and reasonably-foreseeable future private, state, and federal actions. Cumulative impacts would not be significant for the following: Air Quality, ACECs, Cultural Resources, Prime or Unique Farmlands, Floodplains, Native American Religious Concerns, Environmental Justice, T&E Species, Hazardous or Solid Wastes, Drinking and Ground Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian Zones, Wild & Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness.

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This EA was prepared by the Kanab Resource Area and the Arizona Strip Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. The following individuals contributed to the preparation of the EA:

Thomas Folks - Wilderness Specialist/Outdoor Recreation Planner, Arizona Strip/Project Lead

Janaye Byergo - Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Kanab

Timothy Duck - Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Arizona Strip

Mike Salamacha - Paria Wilderness Ranger

Mary Dewitz - Recreation Specialist, Kanab

,,like Small - Wildlife Biologist, Arizona Strip

On August 11, 1997, BLM mailed a letter (Attachment 1) seeking comments on the EA to the individuals in Appendix 1. EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 32

C JLM also issued a news release to newspapers, radio and TV stations in Arizona and Utah. BLM received 24 responses from 19 persons, one agency (Glen Canyon NRA) and four groups. BLM responded to three of those with letters answering specific questions. BLM incorporated comments and suggestions into the EA.

BLM met with various interest groups in Page, Kanab, St. George, and Fredonia, Utah, during the fall of 1997 in order to solicit issues and concerns.

On November 4, 1997, BLM mailed a letter (Attachment 2) seeking comments on the EA to the individuals who responded to the initial mailing in August. The public review and comment period was open through December 5, 1997.

BLM received four letters during the public comment period on the EA. One commenter voted for the selection of the No Action Alternative and disagreed, based on personal observation, with the rationale for the Proposed Action. BLM responded with a letter answering specific questions. BLM incorporated some comments and suggestions into the EA. Two commenters focused on the management of cultural resources, and proposed restricting dogs. One of these two was opposed to the adaptive management provisions of the Proposed Action, specifically related to development of facilities. A fourth commenter favored Alternative B, preferring not to develop facilities within the wilderness.

BLM relied heavily on comments collected on registration sheets from trailheads in the Paria, and on the results of visitor surveys from the NAU study. BLM relied on comments presented by visitors to staff working at the Paria Ranger Station. The information from these comments was used to gauge public opinion and concerns about management of the area.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ased on the analysis completed in the Environmental Assessment (EA AZ-010-97-16), the Proposed Action will not result C1a significant impact to any resource. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for this action.

Date

0 EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 33 0 REFERENCES Arizona Strip District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1990. Arizona Strip District BLM. St. George, Utah.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P .L. 94-579).

Kanab - Escalante Resource Management Plan (in prep). Cedar City District BLM. Kanab, Utah.

Soap Creek Allotment Management Plan. Arizona Strip District SLM, St. George, Utah.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190).

Paria - Kanab Creek Habitat Management Plan. 1983. Arizona Strip District SLM, St. George, Utah .

Paria Canyon -Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan. 1986. Arizona Strip SLM. St. George, Utah.

Vermilion Resource Area Resource Management Plan Implementation Plan. 1992. Arizona Strip District BLM, St. George, Utah .

Vermilion Grazing Environmental Impact Statement. 1979. Arizona Strip BLM. St. George, Utah.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542). 0

0 EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 34 r \PPENDIX 1 Ron Adkison Stephen Finucane 5920 Hwy 41 5724 Utah Ave., NW Whitehall, MT 59759 Washington, DC 20015

Mrs. Geneal Anderson, Chairperson Dr. Pam Foti Paiute Tribes of Utah Northern Arizona University 600 North 100 East PO Box 15018 Cedar City, UT 84720 Flagstaff, AZ. 86011

Arizona Game and Fish Department Region II Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 3500 South Lake Mary Road PO Box 1507 Flagstaff, AZ. 86001 Page, AZ. 86040-1507

Arizona Wildlife Federation Mr. & Mrs. Harold C. Hodges 644 N. Country Club Drive, Suite E 519 S. Vine Street #A Mesa, AZ. 85201 Harrison, AR 72601-5113

D. Berlin Hopi Tribe PO Box6213 PO Box 123 Marble Canyon, AZ. 86036 Kykotsmovi, AZ. 86039 Attention: Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma Gerry Bourke 557 E. Benbow St. President Evelyn James Murray, UT 84107 San Juan Paiute PO Box 3273 Q ayBoman Tuba City, AZ. 86045 554 Northridge Avenue St. George, UT 84770 Morgan Jensen 136 North 100 East Chairwoman Carmen M. Bradley St. George, UT 84770 Kaibab Paiute Tribe HC 65 Box 2 Michael Kelsey Pipe Spring, AZ. 86022 456 E. 100 N. Provo UT 84606 Destiny Adventures Terry Allen Rudi Lambrechtse PO Box 1711 8511 N. 11th Ave. Page, AZ. 86040 Phoenix, AZ. 85021

Wallace Duncan R.S. Macpherson 910 Turquoise Drive 3660 Valencia Hills Flagstaff, AZ. 86001 Riverside, CA 92507

EarthSpirit Adventure Paul McDonough PO Box 534 PO Box 197 Kanab, UT 84741 Lakeside, CA 92040

Phil Eisenhauer Johnathan Meyers 2119 N. Hawthorne 2722 Santa Clara SE Albuquerque, NM 87106-3041 c__--edarCity, UT 84720 Robert Mossman 4344 E. Hayhurst Tucson, AZ. 85712 EA-AZ-010-97-16 Page 35

~ avajo Nation ATTN: Ms. Rena Martin Gene I. Wendt Historic Preservation Office Wrong Mt. Wildlife Preserve PO Box4950 PO Box 326 Window Rock, AZ 86515 Vail, AZ 85641-0326

Michael Nelson RR1 Box 585 Willcox, AZ 85643-9705

Kevin O'Brien 3715 Sudley Ford SL Fairfax, VA 22033-1218

Joe Pleggenkuhle 3309 W. Acoma Drive Phoenix, AZ 85023-5618

Cliff Roper 1673 S. Buckskin 343-2 Kanab, UT 84741

Owen Severance PO Box 1015 Monticello, UT 84535

~linton Smith ( .,.o. Box 1761 - Mendocino, CA 95460

Southwest Resource Council Jane Whalen PO Box 1182 Hurricane, UT 84737

Tamerisk Enterprises Maggie Sacher HC 67, Box 1 Marble Canyon, AZ 86036

Robert Traficanti 4540 Calle Del Pantera Tucson, AZ 85718

Postelle Vaughan 6340 N. Camino Arco Tucson, AZ 85718

Nancy Wahl 325 Oro Valley Drive Tucson, AZ 85737

O aulWeaver 641 Los Alamitos St. George, UT 84770