BLM

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2011-0002-EA

Bruneau Field Office Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Boise District Bruneau Field Office 3948 Development Ave. Boise, ID 83705

CANYONLANDS EAST TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared for

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Boise District Bruneau Field Office 3948 Development Avenue Boise, Idaho 83705

Prepared by

SWCA Environmental Consultants 3033 North Central Avenue, Suite 145 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 www.swca.com

SWCA Project No. 33720.02

November 2016

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ...... 2 1.3.1 Purpose...... 2 1.3.2 Need ...... 5 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 5 1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS AND REGULATIONS ...... 5 1.5.1 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009...... 5 1.5.2 Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment ...... 5 1.5.3 Bruneau Management Framework Plan ...... 6 1.5.4 Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Final Management Plan ...... 6 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER PLANS ...... 6 1.7 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 9 1.7.1 Route Inventory and Evaluation ...... 9 1.7.2 Travel Management Planning ...... 9 1.8 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ...... 10

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 13 2.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING DESIGNATIONS ...... 13 2.1.1 Route Types ...... 13 2.1.2 Designation Types ...... 14 2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...... 14 2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 17 2.3.1 Criteria and Actions Common to All Alternatives...... 17 2.3.1.1 Adaptive Management ...... 17 2.3.1.2 Monitoring ...... 18 2.3.1.3 Desired Future Conditions and Route Management Objectives ...... 18 2.3.1.4 Application of Minimization Criteria ...... 22 2.3.1.5 Signage, Education and Enforcement ...... 22 2.3.1.6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation ...... 23 2.3.1.7 OHV Management ...... 24 2.3.1.8 Criteria for Alternatives Development...... 25 2.3.2 Alternative B ...... 26 2.3.2.1 Route Management Objectives ...... 26 2.3.3 Alternative C ...... 26 2.3.3.1 Route Management Objectives ...... 26 2.3.4 Alternative D ...... 29 2.3.4.1 Route Management Objectives ...... 29 2.4 SUMMARY OF ROUTE MILEAGE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES ...... 33 2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE ...... 33

November 2016 i Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...... 33

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 45 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 45 3.1.1 General Setting ...... 45 3.1.2 Resources Considered in this Analysis ...... 45 3.2 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND VALUES ...... 47 3.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 47 3.2.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 49 3.2.2.1 Soils ...... 49 3.2.2.2 Hydrology ...... 51 3.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 53 3.2.4 Vegetation ...... 54 3.2.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 55 3.2.4.2 BLM Special Status Species ...... 55 3.2.4.3 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants ...... 57 3.2.5 Wildlife ...... 58 3.2.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 59 3.2.5.2 Migratory Birds...... 59 3.2.5.3 BLM Special Status Species ...... 59 3.2.5.4 Big Game ...... 63 3.2.5.5 Fisheries ...... 63 3.2.5.6 Bats ...... 64 3.2.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 64 3.2.6.1 The Existing Route System ...... 65 3.2.6.2 Designated Recreation Sites ...... 65 3.2.6.3 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...... 65 3.2.6.4 Hunting and Trapping ...... 66 3.2.6.5 Social Values ...... 66 3.2.7 Visual Resources ...... 66 3.2.8 Range Resources ...... 69 3.2.9 Special Designations ...... 69 3.2.9.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ...... 69 3.2.9.2 National Landscape Conservation System ...... 69 3.2.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 73 3.2.11 Economics ...... 74 3.2.12 Environmental Justice ...... 74

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 77 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 77 4.1.1 Analysis Area ...... 77 4.1.2 Analysis Understanding ...... 77 4.1.2.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) ...... 78 4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS ...... 80 4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ...... 80 4.2.1.1 Cultural Resources ...... 81 4.2.1.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 82 4.2.1.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 85 4.2.1.4 Vegetation ...... 86 4.2.1.5 Wildlife ...... 89

November 2016 ii Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.2.1.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 98 4.2.1.7 Visual Resources...... 99 4.2.1.8 Range Resources ...... 100 4.2.1.9 Special Designations ...... 101 4.2.1.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 101 4.2.1.11 Impact Summary of No Action Alternative ...... 101 4.2.2 Alternative B ...... 102 4.2.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 102 4.2.2.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 103 4.2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 105 4.2.2.4 Vegetation ...... 106 4.2.2.5 Wildlife ...... 109 4.2.2.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 113 4.2.2.7 Visual Resources...... 115 4.2.2.8 Range Resources ...... 115 4.2.2.9 Special Designations ...... 116 4.2.2.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 116 4.2.2.11 Impact Summary of Alternative B ...... 117 4.2.3 Alternative C ...... 117 4.2.3.1 Cultural Resources ...... 117 4.2.3.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 118 4.2.3.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 121 4.2.3.4 Vegetation ...... 121 4.2.3.5 Wildlife ...... 124 4.2.3.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 128 4.2.3.7 Visual Resources...... 129 4.2.3.8 Range Resources ...... 130 4.2.3.9 Special Designations ...... 130 4.2.3.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 130 4.2.3.11 Impact Summary of Alternative C ...... 131 4.2.4 Alternative D ...... 131 4.2.4.1 Cultural Resources ...... 132 4.2.4.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 132 4.2.4.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 135 4.2.4.4 Vegetation ...... 135 4.2.4.5 Wildlife ...... 138 4.2.4.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 142 4.2.4.7 Visual Resources...... 144 4.2.4.8 Range Resources ...... 144 4.2.4.9 Special Designations ...... 145 4.2.4.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 145 4.2.4.11 Impact Summary of Alternative D ...... 146 4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 146 4.3.1 Analysis Parameters ...... 146 4.3.2 Methodology ...... 151 4.3.2.1 BLM Idaho Travel Management Planning ...... 152 4.3.3 Cumulative Effects by Resource ...... 152 4.3.3.1 Cultural Resources ...... 152 4.3.3.2 Soils and Hydrology ...... 153 4.3.3.3 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 153

November 2016 iii Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.3.3.4 Vegetation ...... 154 4.3.3.5 Wildlife ...... 155 4.3.3.6 Recreation and Social Values ...... 158 4.3.3.7 Visual Resources...... 159 4.3.3.8 Range Resources ...... 159 4.3.3.9 Special Designations ...... 160 4.3.3.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 160 4.3.3.11 Economics ...... 160

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 161 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 161 5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 161 5.3 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED...... 162 5.3.1 Tribal Consultation ...... 162 5.3.1.1 Cultural Resource Laws and Executive Orders ...... 162 5.3.2 Public Participation ...... 163

6. LITERATURE CITED ...... 165

Figures

Figure 1-1. TMAs in Owyhee County, Idaho...... 3 Figure 1-2. Canyonlands East TMA...... 4 Figure 2-1. Canyonlands East TMP Alternative A...... 15 Figure 2-2. Canyonlands East TMP Alternative B...... 27 Figure 2-3. Canyonlands East TMP Alternative C...... 28 Figure 2-4. Canyonlands East TMP Alternative D...... 31 Figure 3-1. NCA TMA boundary, extended analysis area, and land ownership...... 46 Figure 3-2. Canyonlands East TMA VRM...... 68 Figure 4-1. Canyonlands East CEAA and cumulative actions...... 147 Figure 4-2. Canyonlands East CEAA for Greater sage-grouse...... 156

Tables

Table 1.1. Key Management Issues ...... 10 Table 2.1. Route Designations – Alternative A (No Action) ...... 17 Table 2.2. General Maintenance Levels ...... 24 Table 2.3. Route Designations – Alternative B ...... 26 Table 2.4. Route Designations – Alternative C ...... 29 Table 2.5. Route Designations – Alternative D ...... 29 Table 2.6. Route Mileage Summary, by Alternative ...... 33 Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative ...... 35

November 2016 iv Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1. Resources Considered in this Analysis in this EA ...... 47 Table 3.2. Cultural Resources Sites Identified within the Canyonlands East TMA ...... 48 Table 3.3. Dominant Soil Units in the TMA ...... 49 Table 3.4. Waterbodies within the Canyonlands East TMA ...... 52 Table 3.5. Fire 5,000 Acres and Greater between 1999 and 2015 ...... 53 Table 3.6. General Vegetation Cover Types of the Canyonlands East TMA ...... 54 Table 3.7. Known Special Status Plant Species in the TMA Analysis Area and Rankings ...... 55 Table 3.8. Noxious Weed Distribution for the TMA Analysis Area ...... 57 Table 3.9. Common Invasive Plant Species ...... 57 Table 3.10. Special Status Animal Species and Occurrence within TMA Analysis Area ...... 59 Table 3.11. Canyonlands East TMA ROS Acreages ...... 66 Table 3.12. Canyonlands East TMA VRM Acreages ...... 67 Table 3.13. Permitted Use Summary by Allotment and Range Improvements within TMA ...... 70 Table 3.14. Canyonlands East TMA ACEC Acreages ...... 72 Table 3.15. Wild and Scenic Rivers in the TMA Analysis Area ...... 73 Table 3.16. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the TMA Analysis Area ...... 73 Table 3.17. Demographic Data for Environmental Justice ...... 75 Table 4.1. Route Designations – Alternative A (No Action) ...... 81 Table 4.2. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative A (No Action) ...... 81 Table 4.3. Miles of Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative A...... 82 Table 4.4. Current Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative A ...... 84 Table 4.5. Alternative A Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA ...... 86 Table 4.6. Alternative A Motorized Routes and Special Status Species ...... 88 Table 4.7. Alternative A Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types ...... 93 Table 4.8. Alternative A Miles within ROS Classes ...... 99 Table 4.9. Alternative A Miles and Route Density of VRM Classes ...... 100 Table 4.10. Alternative A Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites ...... 100 Table 4.11. Route Designations – Alternative B ...... 102 Table 4.12. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative B ...... 102 Table 4.13. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative B ...... 103 Table 4.14. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative B ...... 104 Table 4.15. Alternative B Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA ...... 106 Table 4.16. Alternative B Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species ...... 107 Table 4.17. Alternative B Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types ...... 110 Table 4.18. Alternative B Mileage Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Classes ...... 114 Table 4.19. Alternative B Mileages and Route Density of VRM Classes...... 115 Table 4.20. Alternative B Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites ...... 115 Table 4.21. Route Designations – Alternative C ...... 117

November 2016 v Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.22. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative C ...... 118 Table 4.23. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative C ...... 118 Table 4.24. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative C ...... 120 Table 4.25. Alternative C Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA ...... 121 Table 4.26. Alternative C Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species ...... 122 Table 4.27. Alternative C Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types ...... 125 Table 4.28. Alternative C Miles Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Categories ...... 129 Table 4.29. Alternative C Mileages and Route Density of VRM Classes...... 130 Table 4.30. Alternative C Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites ...... 130 Table 4.31. Route Designations – Alternative D ...... 131 Table 4.32. Known Non-Linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative D ...... 132 Table 4.33. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative D ...... 133 Table 4.34. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative D ...... 134 Table 4.35. Alternative D Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA ...... 136 Table 4.36. Alternative D Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species ...... 137 Table 4.37. Alternative D Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types ...... 139 Table 4.38. Alternative D Miles Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Classes ...... 144 Table 4.39. Alternative D Miles and Route Density of VRM Classes ...... 144 Table 4.40. Alternative D Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites ...... 145 Table 4.41. List of Projects (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future) Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 148 Table 5.1. Preparers of the Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan ...... 161 Table 5.2. Bruneau Field Office Government-To-Government Section 106 Consultation Activity...... 163

November 2016 vi Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARMPA Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act AUM animal unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEAA cumulative effects analysis area CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GHMA General Habitat Management Areas

HR House Rule HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game IFWIS Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System IHMA Important Habitat Management Areas kV kilovolt

LWC Lands with Wilderness Characteristics LWG Local Working Group m meters mi/mi2 miles of routes per square miles of a given area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MD Management Direction MFP Management Framework Plan

November 2016 vii Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

MLRA Major Land Resource Area

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NCA National Conservation Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHV off-highway vehicle OPLMA Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ORV Off Road Vehicle

PHMA Priority Habitat Management Areas PA Programmatic Agreement PL Public Law

RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

S/THPO State/Tribal Historic Preservation Office SFA Sagebrush Focal Area SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

TMA Travel Management Area TMP Travel Management Plan

USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM visual resource management

WMP Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management Plan WSRA National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

November 2016 viii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the no action and action alternatives.

The document is organized into five parts:

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: The chapter includes information on the project area, the history of the project, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the BLM informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the No Action and Action Alternatives; the Action Alternatives describe various methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on an interdisciplinary planning effort and issues raised by the public and other agencies during project scoping efforts. Finally, this chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment: This chapter describes the affected environment of the Travel Management Area (TMA), organized by resource or land use.

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. The effects of the No Action Alternative are described first, and provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives. Cumulative effects are also described in this chapter.

Chapter 5 – Consultation, Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and persons and agencies consulted during the development of the EA.

Chapter 6 – Literature Cited.

1.2 BACKGROUND

Comprehensive travel management planning has become one of the top priorities for federal land management agencies over the past decade. Increasing population throughout the western United States, shifts in demographics (age and mobility, amount of available leisure time, proximity of population centers to public lands, etc.) and technological advances in motorized and mechanized transportation (size, power, stability, and ease of control) have outpaced conventional agency transportation planning. From 1982 to 2001, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, as a type of recreation, increased more than 100% across the United States, estimated at 40 million participants, or 1 in 5 people (Cordell et al. 2005). Although many public lands have traditionally been open to cross country travel without restriction, these new pressures have necessitated a nation-wide change from passive to active transportation management.

November 2016 1 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Travel management planning is the proactive management of public access to protect and preserve natural/cultural resources in compliance with travel-related regulations and in accordance with the best land use management principles. It involves a comprehensive approach that considers various aspects of road and trail system planning and management, specifically natural resource management; road and trail design and maintenance; and recreational and non-recreational uses of roads and trails. Within these contexts, access to and within public lands is evaluated according to the effects of motorized and non- motorized travel on public lands and resources and on the people who use them.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 directs the BLM to complete a Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan for public lands in Owyhee County within 3 years. The Boise District Office has split the portion of Owyhee County located within its boundaries into five subregions: Canyonlands East, Canyonlands West, National Conservation Area (NCA), Grandview, and Silver City. The existing routes in all of the subregions were inventoried beginning in 2004. The route inventory was completed with public involvement and BLM validation in 2011 and 2012. This Travel Management Plan (TMP) is specific to the Canyonlands East Travel Management Area (TMA). The Canyonlands East TMA is a subregion within the Bruneau Field Office (Figure 1-1).

The Canyonlands East TMA encompasses approximately 663,000 acres of public land administered by the Bruneau Field Office within Owyhee County, located east of the northwest pipeline, west of the Bruneau River, and north of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and the Idaho/Nevada state line (Figure 1-2). This area contains a variety of landscapes, ranging from high desert to remote rivers in deep canyons, and is characterized by its remoteness. It hosts vegetative zones ranging from sagebrush to high- elevation aspen, and supports a variety of wildlife, including the Greater sage-grouse. Many types of recreation occur in the area, including whitewater rafting, hunting, and OHV activities. There is one current mining operation occurring within the TMA boundaries, as well as active grazing allotments.

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

1.3.1 Purpose The purpose of this TMP is to 1) identify an appropriate network of motorized routes for use within the Canyonlands East TMA subregion; and 2) to establish criteria for considering future changes to the road and trail system, in conformance with the Bruneau Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1983) and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

Development of this plan would meet Recreation Management Objective #1 outlined in the Bruneau MFP, and would be in compliance with the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 2015a) Management Direction (MD) TTM 1, “limit off-highway vehicle travel within Idaho BLM Field Offices to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails in areas where travel management planning has not been completed or is in progress,” and MD TTM 4, “during subsequent travel management planning design and designate a travel system to minimize adverse effects on Greater Sage-grouse.”

November 2016 2 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-1. TMAs in Owyhee County, Idaho.

November 2016 3 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-2. Canyonlands East TMA.

November 2016 4 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1.3.2 Need The need is based on the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (123 Stat. 991; Public Law [PL] 111–11; hereafter referred to as OPLMA), which directs the BLM to complete a Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan for public lands in Owyhee County. The Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan will designate a motorized route system that complies with the BLM’s national direction in light of increasing OHV use and demand, in addition to balancing protections for natural and cultural resources with the demands for travel on BLM lands. There is a need to reduce the potential for proliferation of user-created routes or the use of routes that have not been evaluated and designated by the BLM for motorized travel.

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE As stated in Section F of the OPLMA, a TMP is to be completed for all public lands in Owyhee County, Idaho. The TMP will identify a system of all motorized and mechanized access within the Canyonlands East TMA. All decisions in the TMP will apply only to federal lands within the TMA. This TMP would ensure that users were aware that motorized travel would only be allowed to occur on routes designated by the BLM for such purpose.

1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS AND REGULATIONS

1.5.1 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111–11; HR 146) is an Act by Congress to designated certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. Among other things, Subtitle F, Section 1507 of the OPLMA directed the BLM to update the existing route inventories and establish TMPs for public lands in Owyhee County, Idaho.

1.5.2 Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Travel management planning complies with the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA; BLM 2015a) directives, MD TTM 1, “limit off-highway vehicle travel within Idaho BLM Field Offices to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails in areas where travel management planning has not been completed or is in progress,” and MD TTM 4, “during subsequent travel management planning design and designate a travel system to minimize adverse effects on Greater Sage-grouse.” Route evaluations were performed prior to the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the ARMPA in 2015, and therefore did not take into consideration additional recommendations described within the ARMPA. The alternatives included in this Canyonlands East TMP have been determined to be in conformance with the terms and conditions of the ARMPA as required by 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.5.

November 2016 5 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1.5.3 Bruneau Management Framework Plan Development of a TMP would meet Recreation Management Objective #1 of the Bruneau MFP (BLM 1983:161):

“Provide high quality recreation opportunities commensurate with present and future demand. Manage public lands to provide varied opportunities for recreation experiences in mostly undisturbed settings. Emphasis will be placed in managing the area for dispersed-type recreation opportunities. Recreation sites and facilities will be developed as needed to control visitors, protect resources, and accommodate public use. Existing developed and undeveloped recreation sites will be managed to provide maximum benefit to the user and to assure availability for future recreation developments.”

Additionally, in the MFP’s Multiple use Recommendation R-1.2(5), “Maintain or improve Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Opportunities,” subsection c states, “As demand and funding substantially increase and as consistent with other uses, develop a trail network for ORVs and provide areas for parking, loading ramps, and rest stops along the trails.” The OPLMA specifies that, until travel management plans are completed, all travel within Owyhee County is limited to existing routes; thus, there are currently no areas within the Bruneau MFP planning area that are “open” for motorized use.

The alternatives included in this Canyonlands East TMP have been determined to be in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Bruneau MFP as required by 43 CFR 1610.5.

1.5.4 Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Final Management Plan

As required by the 2009 OPLMA, this plan provides the management framework for the portions of the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness, Little Jacks Creek Wilderness, Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness, Owyhee River Wilderness, and the eight designated or eligible sections of Wild and Scenic Rivers that are located within or adjacent to the Canyonlands East TMA (BLM 2015b). Discussed in Section 3.2.9.

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER PLANS National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, PL 91-190, 42 United States Code (USC) 4321-4370(e), as amended. NEPA requires federal agencies to take into consideration the environmental consequences of proposed actions as well as input from state and local governments, Indian tribes, the public, and other federal agencies during their decision-making process. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established under NEPA to ensure that all environmental, economic, and technical considerations are given appropriate consideration in this process. This EA complies with NEPA statutes and regulations and the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) (BLM 2008).

Title 43 CFR 8342, Designation of Areas and Trails. The authority for TMP designations is located in the CFR. Designations of areas and trails open, closed or limited to motorized use is required and authorized under 43 CFR 8342, “Designation of Areas and Trails.” Future route-specific changes in designation would require compliance with the rules, regulations, and policy set forth in NEPA.

Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 8, 1972), as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977). The purpose of the order is to establish policies and procedures to ensure the use of OHVs on public lands is controlled

November 2016 6 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

and directed to protect the resources, to promote the safety of all users, and to minimize the conflicts among various users of the public lands.

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), Appendix C. The BLM land use planning handbook advises, “Comprehensive travel management planning should address all resource use aspects (such as recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, and educational) and accompanying modes and conditions of travel on public lands, not just motorized or off-highway vehicle activities.” The handbook further advises, “for areas classified as limited consider a full range of possibilities, including travel that will be limited to types of modes of travel, such as foot, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized; limited to time or season of use; limited to certain types of vehicles such as OHVs, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and high clearance.” The handbook also instructs BLM to “establish a process to identify specific areas, roads and/or trails that will be available for public use, and specify limitations placed on use.”

BLM Travel and Transportation Handbook (H-8342). This Handbook provides specific guidance for preparing, amending, revising, maintaining, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating BLM land use and travel management plans. It provides further guidance related to the objectives, authorities, responsibilities, and policy considerations outlined in Manual 1626.

BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual (M-1626). This Manual provides detailed policy, direction, and guidance for the comprehensive management of travel and transportation on BLM- administered lands and related waters.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, Section 7, as amended. The ESA outlines the procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Section 7(a) (2) states that “each federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their habitats.” Discussed in Section 3.2.5.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. This act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle . . . [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Discussed in Section 3.2.5.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA was passed to put an end to the commercial trade in birds and their feathers that, by the early years of the twentieth century, had severely impacted the populations of many native birds. The MBTA protects all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers). The MBTA is a domestic law that enforces treaties between the United States, Mexico, and Canada for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. EO 13186, enacted in 2001, requires federal agencies to consider the effect of projects on migratory birds with emphasis on species of concern. Species of concern are described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Birds of Conservation Concern (2008). Land administered by the BLM Bruneau Field Office occurs within either the Great Basin or Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Regions. Discussed in Section 3.2.5.

Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy. This was implemented by the BLM in 1995 and is known as INFISH (U.S. Forest Service 1995). INFISH provides Riparian Management Objectives and Standards and Guidelines for managing riparian resources that influence bull trout habitats. Discussed in Section 3.2.5.

Idaho Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy. In April 2013, the Owyhee County Sage-grouse Local Working Group (LWG) completed a conservation plan specific to Owyhee County. The Owyhee County

November 2016 7 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

LWG plan will work in concert with the 2006 statewide comprehensive strategy issued by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). Discussed in Section 3.2.5.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). Federal undertakings must comply with Section 106 of NHPA, which mandates that potential effects on historic properties be considered prior to approval of such undertakings. Historic properties are defined as sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Consideration of these resources is to be made in consultation with the State/Tribal Historic Preservation Office (S/THPO) and other interested agencies and parties. Discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Programmatic Agreement (PA). The PA executed by the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers on March 26, 1997, legally replaces 36 CFR Part 800, the ACHP’s government-wide regulations, as the procedural basis for BLM managers to meet their responsibilities under NHPA Sections 106, 110(f), and 111(a). An implementing PA between Idaho BLM and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office signed in June 1997 further stipulates how cultural resources under Idaho BLM’s jurisdiction will be identified, evaluated, and managed.

Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (15 Stat. 673). This treaty guarantees the rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to exercise gathering rights and ceremonial practices on the ‘unoccupied lands of the United States. The federal government has a trust obligation to manage federal lands to provide for the continued exercise of tribal treaty rights, consistent with management policies, on all unoccupied lands, within their jurisdiction. Federal trust responsibility is a unique concept because it does not entail the traditional notion of a common law trust. The BLM has obligations under statute, EOs, and case law to honor treaty rights in a manner that benefits the tribes and manage lands under their jurisdiction to preserve and protect treaty rights and resources of the tribes. The BLM further recognizes that the exercise of treaty rights is a longstanding obligation of the federal government that is incorporated into every decision rendered that affects tribal rights. As part of the federal trust responsibility, the BLM is required to conduct formal government-to-government consultation with affected tribes, when their management decisions may impact the reserved rights of tribes. The BLM will make efforts to provide mechanisms that allow for consistent uses by the tribes to guarantee the continued exercise of reserved treaty rights on federal lands.

EO 11593. This EO requires federal agencies to treat all properties determined eligible for listing on the NRHP as if they are already included on the National Register. The TMA contains eligible properties, and under this guidance, these properties will be treated appropriately in this EA.

EO 13175. This EO mandates federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Indian tribal governments. The BLM consulted with effected tribes (Shoshone Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall and Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley) in development of this EA.

EO 13007. This EO requires federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites and avoid adverse effects to the physical integrity of sacred sites. Sacred sites are analyzed in the Cultural Resources sections of Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA.

Antiquities Act of 1906. This Act prohibits the unauthorized excavation, removal, or defacement of objects of antiquity on public lands. Discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA). The ARPA prohibits the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands. Discussed in Section 3.2.1.

November 2016 8 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). The AIRFA protects the rights of Indian people to practice traditional religions. Discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA requires federal agencies to repatriate back to American Indian tribes sacred objects, funerary items, and items of cultural patrimony. NAGPRA also regulates excavation of human remain and associated items and provides for a minimum 30-day stop work order on ground-disturbing activities that cause inadvertent discovery. Discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (123 Stat. 991; PL 111–11). See Section 1.5.1 of this EA.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The FLPMA was enacted in 1976 for the purposes of establishing a unified, comprehensive, and systematic approach to managing and preserving public lands. The FLPMA requires the BLM to implement principles of multiple use of public lands and manage in a manner that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.

1.7 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement for the travel management planning process is considered during route evaluation as well as during development of the TMP itself (considered herein).

1.7.1 Route Inventory and Evaluation

Through a series of meetings, aerial imagery analysis, and field data collection efforts between 2004 and 2012, the Bruneau Field Office staff and a contractors completed the route inventory of approximately 1,521 miles. Route evaluation of inventoried routes located in the Canyonlands East TMA occurred in 2014 and 2015. Recommended route designations for four alternative route networks were completed and are analyzed within this EA. Beginning with public meetings in 2010, the public was encouraged to participate and comment on both the process and the designations through a number of outreach efforts including public scoping meetings, face-to-face meetings, and field visits. Public scoping meetings took place December 10 and 11, 2015, and an internal scoping meeting by BLM was completed on October 29, 2015. The Bruneau Field Office accepted comments throughout the entire planning process. The types of comments received included identifying mistakes in the inventory; describing the kind of travel system that best suits their needs; administrative access needs; areas of concern; and areas with high recreation values.

1.7.2 Travel Management Planning

The purpose of the public participation (scoping) process for the TMP is to provide an opportunity for members of the public to learn about the proposed project and to share any concerns or comments they may have about the networks of routes being considered and potential impacts of those route networks. The scoping process helps identify any issues that are not considered major and that can therefore be eliminated from detailed analysis in the EA. The list of stakeholders and other interested parties is also updated during the scoping process. In developing the Canyonlands East TMA, the BLM met with a wide range of individuals, organizations and interest groups, including motorcycle, ATV, 4×4, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, and private landowners.

The BLM conducted internal, agency, and public scoping to solicit input and to identify the environmental concerns and issues associated with the Canyonlands East TMP. Internal scoping was

November 2016 9 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

performed by the BLM on October 29, 2015. The BLM prepared scoping information materials and provided copies to federal, state, and local agencies; Native American tribes; and members of the general public on December 7, 2015.

Two scoping meetings were held in the Owyhee County vicinity on December 10 and 11, 2015. The public meetings were advertised via the Internet, newspapers, and BLM mailing lists. A scoping comment period was provided to allow the public to submit written comments related to the proposed project’s potential for environmental issues. Members of the public were given comment forms, a telephone number, and an email address. The scoping period lasted from December 7, 2015, to January 15, 2016. The scoping meetings provided opportunities for comments to be submitted in person at the meetings, through the mail, and via email. A total of 66 individuals and organizations submitted comments during the scoping period, and BLM continued to accept public comments after the scoping period ended.

1.8 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

As a result of the scoping process, a number of issues to be analyzed were identified and served as the basis for the analysis in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA. A summary of the key management issues that should be addressed in the EA were identified during both internal and public scoping processes is provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Key Management Issues

Where Analyzed Issue Statement Resource in EA Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted scoping comments with Air Quality Analysis can be information about applicable standards for air quality in the state. The U.S. Environmental found in the Protection Agency has determined that OHV emissions (from diesel and gasoline engines) project record. are significant contributors to ozone and carbon monoxide, and the operation of motorized vehicles on unpaved routes can contribute to fugitive dust emissions and cause issues with visibility. This resource is not included for analysis in this EA because the implementation of the alternatives would not result in the production of vehicle or equipment emission or particulate matter above incidental levels as required by the Clean Air Act, as amended. This resource is not included for analysis in this EA because implementation of the Noise Analysis can be alternatives would not result in changes to impacts from noise, as noise would remain found in the consistent and would only shift in location and intensity between alternatives. project record. Comments submitted by the public indicated concern regarding both the protection of, and Cultural Chapter 4 access to, cultural resources. The TMA contains a multitude of cultural resources, including Resources numerous Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), and because of the richness of this resource in the TMA, it is included for analysis in this EA. Comments submitted by the public indicated concerns regarding motorized vehicle use and Soils Chapter 4 associated impacts on soil resources. Some types of soils are more prone to erosion than others, and because these types occur within the TMA and exposure to agents of disturbance, such as OHVs, can cause significant damage to soil stability and watershed health, it is included for analysis in this EA. Issues related to hydrology were developed internally by the BLM. This TMA contains Hydrology Chapter 4 portions of multiple watersheds, rivers, perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands, and because many of these waterbodies are impaired and due to the potential impacts to these water resources by motorized vehicles, it is included for analysis in this EA. Comments submitted by the public expressed concerns regarding fire access and fire risks Fire and Fuels Chapter 4 related to the spread of non-native plant species. The TMA has a history of large fires, and Management because access for firefighting and suppression activities are of management concern, it is included for analysis in this EA. Non-native species are addressed in Section 3.2.4 Vegetation.

November 2016 10 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 1.1. Key Management Issues (Continued)

Where Analyzed Issue Statement Resource in EA Comments submitted by the public expressed concerns regarding vegetation resources, Vegetation Chapter 4 particularly non-native and special status species. The TMA contains populations of rare endemic BLM Special Status Species, and because of the potential impacts to these resources by motorized vehicle use and proximity of routes to populations, vegetation resources are included for analysis in this EA. Comments submitted by the public and Idaho Department of Fish and Game expressed Wildlife Chapter 4 concerns regarding impacts to wildlife, particularly to golden eagles and the Greater sage- grouse. The TMA contains important breeding habitat for special status species, and because productivity of these species are impacted by human disturbance, wildlife is included for analysis in the EA. Comments submitted by the public and Idaho Parks and Recreation expressed concerns Recreation and Chapter 4 related to preservation of access for recreation, particularly single-track trails. Routes provide Social Values the most direct access for recreating within the TMA, and because changes to the motorized route system will impact the accessibility of some of these resources and the availability of routes for motorized and mechanized recreation, recreation is included for analysis in this EA. Issues related to visual resources were developed internally by the BLM. The Federal Land Visual Chapter 4 Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that BLM manage public lands under its Resources jurisdiction in a manner that would protect their scenic values, and because changes to the landscape via designation of a motorized route system may change the scenic quality of the landscape, it is included for analysis in this EA. Issues related to land use were developed internally by the BLM. FLPMA requires that BLM Land Use Analysis can be manage public lands for multiple use, including those discussed in other sections of this found in the document (see Recreation and Social Values Section 3.2.6 and Range Resources Section project record. 3.2.8). This resource is not included for analysis in this EA because the actions proposed under the alternatives would not affect access for existing land uses, and if valid land use claims and necessary access are missed in route evaluation and designation, route designation would be amended per methods outlined in Section 2.3.1.1 Adaptive Management. Any proposals for new uses would be subject to agency review, which would address access. Comments submitted by the public expressed concerns regarding access for maintenance of Range Chapter 4 facilities and animal husbandry activities. FLPMA requires that BLM manage public lands for Resources multiple use, including those discussed in other sections of this document (see Recreation and Social Values Section 3.2.6 and Special Designations Section 3.2.9), and because changes to the route network would impact access for some of these uses, it is included for analysis in this EA. Issues related to minerals and geology were developed internally by the BLM, in addition to Minerals and Analysis can be public comments received regarding preservation of access to rockhounding sites. FLPMA Geology found in the requires that BLM manage public lands for multiple use, including those discussed in other project record. sections of this document (see Recreation and Social Values Section 3.2.6 and Range Resources Section 3.2.8). This resource is not included for analysis in this EA because none of the actions proposed under the alternatives would affect Minerals or Geology. Any proposals for mineral development would be subject to existing mining laws, which would address access to the resource. Issues related to special designations were developed internally by the BLM, in addition to Special Chapter 4 public comments expressing concerns about wilderness areas. This TMA contains portions Designations of three designation types (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern [ACECs], Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic Rivers), and because each special designation has differing management goals that may impact route designation, it is included for analysis in this EA. Issues related to Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) were developed internally by Lands with Chapter 4 the BLM. This TMA contains portions of eight identified LWCs and because BLM is required Wilderness to consider these during land management planning and changes in route designation may Characteristics impact these lands, it is included for analysis in this EA. Comments submitted by the Idaho Recreation Council expressed concerns regarding the Economics Chapter 4 economic value of access to public lands. Motorized recreation on public lands has increased greatly in recent years, and because the human population of surrounding communities is projected to increase significantly by 2030, the economic impacts of designating a motorized route system were included for analysis in this EA.

November 2016 11 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 12 Chapter 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This chapter provides a detailed description of the No Action and Action Alternatives; the Action Alternatives are methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on an interdisciplinary planning effort and issues raised by the public and other agencies during project scoping efforts. Finally, this chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative; these impacts are described in detail in Chapter 4.

2.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING DESIGNATIONS

A BLM interdisciplinary team explored and evaluated alternatives in order to provide a range of travel management options that would meet the underlying need for the action, as presented in Section 1.3 of this EA. This EA addresses the No Action (Alternative A) and three action alternatives: Alternatives B, C, and D. The No Action Alternative is analyzed to provide a baseline for comparing the impacts of the action alternatives.

This TMP includes elements of inventory, route designation, transportation system planning, and implementation decisions. The route system proposed under each alternative has been designed to create a range of access opportunities, by both motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized means, while protecting important resources. To meet this objective, some routes identified during the route inventory are proposed to be closed, others are reserved for administrative or authorized access only, and the rest would remain open for public, of which some would be subject to seasonal closures. All of the alternatives, except Alternative A (No Action), would close some routes to motorized vehicles. Segments of certain routes cross state and private land; the BLM acknowledges that it only has jurisdiction over routes on BLM-administered land. Thus, only routes on BLM-administered lands are addressed and will be designated in this TMP.

The alternatives were developed after receiving input from the staff, management, cooperating agencies and the public (as part of the scoping process). Similarly, proposed route designations were modified throughout the evaluation process following input from the staff, management, cooperating agencies, and the public. Route inventory solicited public review and input during public scoping; however, BLM only met with the county and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes during route evaluation.

2.1.1 Route Types This EA uses three different route types to describe the intended use designation. The route type is the description of the physical conditions of the route, and describes the extent of physical and/or vehicular access each type may support, as well as lending guidance to maintenance requirements. Route nomenclature would be consistent with current BLM guidance (BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report 2006), utilizing the terms “road,” formerly called a two-wheel drive road; “primitive road,” formerly called four-wheel drive road and four-wheel drive technical road; and “trail,” formerly called ATV route or restricted access. This language would replace the nomenclature used in the Bruneau MFP.

November 2016 13 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

As defined in the BLM Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (BLM 2016): • Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles which have four or more wheels, and are maintained for regular and continuous use. • Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high-clearance vehicles. These routes do not customarily meet any BLM road design standards. Unless specifically prohibited, primitive roads can also include other uses such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding. • Trail: A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or OHV forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally maintained or managed for use by four- wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

2.1.2 Designation Types The alternatives being analyzed herein include a variety of route designation types. The route designation type describes the kind of user that can utilize the route, how the use can occur, and when access to the route is allowed. Area and route designations, with the exception of designated wilderness areas, do not apply to vehicles being used by members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes or Shoshone-Paiute Tribes to access traditional use areas of importance to the tribes or to vehicles being used by members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to exercise their tribally reserved treaty rights. • Open: Routes where all types of motorized and mechanized vehicle use is permitted at all times, and subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342. • Seasonal Closure: Routes that are closed to public motorized and mechanized use during certain seasons or times. Within the Canyonlands East TMA, seasonal closures would be implemented to protect three resources: ◦ Greater sage-grouse lekking: March 25–May 15, from 5:00 a.m.–9:00 a.m. ◦ Bighorn sheep lambing: April 15–June 15, 24 hours ◦ Sensitive plant species: March 15–October 15, 24 hours • OHV <50 inches: Routes that are restricted to use by non-motorized, motorcycle, or OHVs with a wheelbase <50 inches. • Authorized use only: These routes are available to the public for non-motorized travel only. Routes designated for authorized motorized use only. This authorized use, often termed “administrative access,” is for motorized travel for purposes specifically related to completing Bureau work or specific work completed by a permittee associated with an approved BLM right- of-way or permit. Authorizations may be granted on a case-by-case basis with written approval from the BLM authorized officer with the exception of valid existing rights including Rights-of- Way, current easements, and access to active mining claims. Routes designated as authorized use only are also subject to seasonal closures, vehicle size class restrictions and ongoing monitoring. • Non-motorized: Routes limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. • Closed: Routes closed to motorized and mechanized use due to resource concerns or conflicts. The routes may be available for foot and equestrian travel. These routes will not be signed and will not be included on maps provided to the public. These routes may involve physical closure structures with the ultimate goal of being restored to a vegetated condition.

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE This alternative represents the current management condition, as described in the Bruneau MFP, and this EA uses it for baseline comparative purposes. Travel is currently allowed on existing roads, primitive roads, and trails (Figure 2-1). The route designations under this alternative are displayed in Table 2.1.

November 2016 14 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. TMP

Canyonlands East

. 1 -

2 Figure

November 2016 15 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 16 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.1. Route Designations – Alternative A (No Action)

Designation Mileage Definition

Highway 70 Open 1,451 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 0 Closed to public motorized use during seasons or times OHV <50 inches 0 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 0 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 0 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 0 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

This alternative would postpone changes to the management of motorized and non-motorized recreation use on the Canyonlands East TMA until the Bruneau MFP is either amended or revised. Approximately 1,521 miles of routes would continue to be available for motorized recreation in this alternative. Any proposed closures or restrictions of existing routes to prevent resource damage or user conflicts would be reviewed and implemented subject to special rules provided under 43 CFR 8340. Formal proposals for new roads or trails would be evaluated in a site-specific EA. Cross-country travel on foot and horseback would continue to be allowed.

2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

2.3.1 Criteria and Actions Common to All Alternatives 2.3.1.1 Adaptive Management

In developing this TMP, BLM used the best information available, including scientific research, agency monitoring reports, public information received from trail users, local residents, special interest groups and government officials. However, the agency’s knowledge may change as local environmental conditions change, as new management techniques are learned, and as science and technology advances. In the future, some of the management decisions reached in this document may need revision or modification as a result of new information or changes in legal status. This transportation plan would use an adaptive management approach to modify management actions by incorporating new information and/or technology gained over time.

The term adaptive management can be described as a systematic approach for improving management of natural resources, with an emphasis on using outcomes of current management and incorporating results into ongoing and future management. To illustrate how BLM would apply the adaptive management strategy, this plan would use data collected in periodic BLM monitoring efforts (described below) and information and observations provided to the BLM from the public, permittees, and government officials to make decisions about ongoing management of the route system. For example, if it was determined that a particular route was depicted in the wrong spatial location on the route map, it would be adjusted, or if a previously evaluated route was erroneously designated, it would be rectified on the map. Additionally, while some trails may be designated exclusively for non-motorized and non-mechanized use, cross- country use by non-motorized, non-mechanized methods would not be restricted unless site-specific monitoring determined that resource degradation was occurring, at which time mitigation measures would be considered and initiated for the affected area(s).

November 2016 17 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

As these situations are discovered during the implementation process, the routes would be evaluated based on the planning criteria (see Section 2.3.1.8), and management actions implemented as appropriate. It is also likely that new routes and trails may be proposed to provide for better management and to meet management objectives. Adaptive measures that require construction of a new route will require amendment of the TMP. TMP amendments would undergo a public review process, and appropriate documentation for compliance with the NEPA and other applicable laws and regulations.

2.3.1.2 Monitoring

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

Monitoring has three purposes: • Tracking the implementation of actions adopted in the TMP. • Determining the effectiveness of management actions. • Identifying where actions may need to be adjusted.

The monitoring plan utilizes two scales of monitoring:

Long-term monitoring: Are resource conditions and user experiences in the Canyonlands East TMA improving, staying the same, or declining over time?

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

The key indicators for monitoring travel routes include: • Traffic volume, type of use, geographic distribution, temporal patterns; • Roadway condition, drainage, and erosion issues; • Impacts or damage caused by illegal cross-country motorized or mechanized use, soil, vegetation, other damage or destruction of cultural resources; • Violations of route and area designations; incursions on routes designated ‘closed’, cross-country motorized or mechanized tracks, widening of parking areas and turn-outs; Known sensitive resource areas in the TMA will be given priority for monitoring frequency and follow up. Monitoring results will be used to schedule needed road maintenance or repair work, to evaluate implementation progress, to assess the effectiveness of the plan in achieving desired conditions, to identify adaptive measures, and to respond to changing conditions, access and management needs.

2.3.1.3 Desired Future Conditions and Route Management Objectives

The BLM applies the management recommendations and Desired Future Conditions for Transportation Planning as specified in the 2009 OPLMA and the ARMPA. The decisions for Transportation Planning from the 2009 OPLMA and 2015 ARMPA replace some of those from the 1983 Bruneau MFP; some management prescriptions from the 1983 Bruneau MFP are still applicable and are described below. These Desired Future Conditions provide the objective for road/primitive road/trail management within the Canyonlands East TMA. Detailed information for each road/primitive road/trail can be found in the

November 2016 18 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

route reports in the project record. Progress in meeting these objectives will be determined through monitoring (see Section 2.3.1.2, Monitoring).

As stated in Section 1507(d)(1) of the OPLMA:

“Until the date on which the Secretary completes the plan, all recreational motorized and mechanized off-highway vehicle use shall be limited to roads and trails lawfully in existence on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.”

As stated in the ARMPA:

TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION

MD TTM 1: Limit off-highway vehicle travel within Idaho BLM Field Offices to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails in areas where travel management planning has not been completed or is in progress. This excludes areas previously designated as open through a land use plan decision or currently under review for designation as open, currently being analyzed in ongoing Resource Management Plant (RMP) revision efforts in the Four Rivers, Jarbidge and Upper Snake Field Offices.

MD TTM 2: In PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use) and other applicable law and policy.

MD TTM 3: Develop Travel Management Plans for each Field Office as described in the BLM Travel Management Handbook 8342.1 and according to the travel management planning guidelines (Appendix L of Sage-Grouse RMP Final Environmental Impact Statement).

MD TTM 4: During subsequent travel management planning design and designate a travel system to minimize adverse effects on GRSG. Locate areas and trails to minimize disturbance of GRSG and/or to have a neutral or positive effect on GRSG habitat and populations. Give special attention to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. Allow for route upgrade, closure of existing routes, timing restrictions, seasonal closures, and creation of new routes to help protect habitat and meet user group needs, thereby reducing the potential for pioneering unauthorized routes. The emphasis of the comprehensive travel and transportation planning within PHMA will be placed on having a neutral or positive effect on GRSG habitat. Individual route designations will occur during subsequent travel management planning efforts.

MD TTM 5: Conduct road construction, upgrades, and maintenance activities to avoid disturbance during the lekking season – see Appendix C.

As stated in the Bruneau MFP:

RANGE MANAGEMENT

RM-1.3 Reduce conflicts with ORVs by scheduling most races outside of identified allotments during certain listed times. Develop a motorcycle race plan.

RM-1.4 Develop livestock management facilities needed for the implementation of AMPs and/or grazing systems.

(2) No roads should be constructed into any proposed range improvement site within bighorn sheep habitat or wilderness areas, unless clearly shown to not impact either.

November 2016 19 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

(7) Leave gates at likely ORV race trails and/or modify on an as needed basis.

WILDLIFE

Objective WL-1: Protect and/or improve endangered species habitat within the Bruneau Planning Unit. b. Allow road improvement and construction if consistent with the general decision above.

Objective WL-2: Manage sensitive species habitat in the BPU to maintain or increase existing and potential populations. WL-2.4 Protect known ferruginous hawk nest sites and adjacent hunting habitat from inconsistent land uses. c. When possible, avoid locating any new roads within ¼ mile of nest sites. Mitigate the loss if avoidance is not possible. d. Avoid alignment of courses for organized ORV events within ¼ mile of active nest sites between April 1 and June 30.

Objective WL-3: Manage 1,143,000 acres of big game habitat in the BPU to obtain good ecological condition. WL-3.1 Manage 359,650 acres of mule deer winter and early spring range in the BPU, within IMP guidelines where applicable, so there is adequate food, cover, and water for 2,255 animals. d. Avoid road construction within or adjacent to riparian habitats. (6) On critical deer winter range restrict/close roads to vehicular travel if necessary during critical time periods (generally 12/15-4/15) (7) Avoid new road construction in areas identified as mule deer crucial winter range (Overlay URA IV, #W/L-t11). If new road construction is absolutely necessary, permanently close and rehabilitate at least an equivalent amount of roads in the same vicinity. WL-3.3 Manage 1,079,000 acres in the BPU as pronghorn habitat including those areas under Wilderness IMP classification and within IMP management guidelines to provide sufficient forage, water, cover, and space for 1,175 animals by 1990. Specifically: (2) Refer to and address the "Guidelines for the Management of Pronghorn Antelope'' when making management decisions which may affect antelope. Significant among these are: a. If off-road vehicular traffic causes harassment of wintering/spring pronghorn, restrict/close wintering area vehicular use to existing roads annually from approximately December 15 through March 1. Minimize off-road travel on antelope spring ranges from March 1 to June 15.

Objective WL-4: Manage upland game and waterfowl habitats in the BPU to increase populations of the highly desired species. WL-4.4 Manage 520,000 acres of sage grouse range in the BPU including those areas under Wilderness IMP classification and within IMP management guidelines to improve nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats. Specifically: (2) When making management decisions affecting areas used by sage grouse in the BPU, refer to and address to the "Guidelines for Habitat Protection in Sage Grouse Range" as published by the Western States Sage Grouse Committee, June, 1974. Significant among these are: g. Restrict during March-May any intensive disturbance activities such as gravel pit operation or ORV races within 2 miles of sage grouse strutting grounds and avoid the establishment of major roads within 1/2 mile. h. Restrict vehicular traffic to existing roads from November 1 to February 28, 2016 28 in sage grouse wintering habitats.

November 2016 20 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Objective WL-5: Maintain and/or enhance unique or special habitats to retain and/or improve their character and value for wildlife, research, and human enjoyment. Protect habitats supporting other species of nongame wildlife with high public and/or biological interest. WL-5.1 Protect known and suspected nests of birds of prey in the resource area. Manage the adjacent vegetative cover to provide adequate food and cover for the birds' major prey species. Specifically: (1) Within a one half mile radius of any active nest or eyrie, consider authorization of construction, ORV events, or site occupancy on a case-by-case basis between March 1 and August 151.

RECREATION MANAGEMENT

Objective R-1: Provide high quality recreation opportunities commensurate with present and future demand. Manage public lands to provide varied opportunities for recreation experiences in mostly undisturbed settings. Emphasis will be placed in managing the area for dispersed-type recreation opportunities.

Recreation sites and facilities will be developed as needed to control visitors, protect resources, and accommodate public use. Existing developed and undeveloped recreation sites will be managed to provide maximum benefit to the user and to assure availability for future recreation developments. R-1.1(1) Oregon National Historic Trail e. Allow no motorized access over the trail and within the corridor unless specifically authorized. Designate these areas as “limited” to ORV use. R-1.1(4) Provide opportunities for Primitive, and Semi-Primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation as indicated below… R-1.2 Land not included in special restriction management area or WSAs will be extensive recreation areas where recreation management will be minimal and implemented though the Bureau’s basic stewardship responsibilities. R-1.2(5) Maintain or improve ORV opportunities: b. Allow organized cross-country motorcycle races on a case-by-case basis, consistent with other resource values. Also see RM-1.3. c. As demand and funding substantially increase and as consistent with other uses, develop a trail network for ORVs and provide areas for parking, loading ramps, and rest stops along the trails. d. Allow casual unorganized snowmobile use in the Summit Springs/Mud Flat Area until the use reaches a point where other resource uses and values are significantly adversely affected.

WILDERNESS

Objective W-1: Recommend as suitable for wilderness all public lands that have wilderness characteristics and can be effectively managed to preserve those values. W-1.1 (4) Boundary roads, "cherry-stem" roads, and ways will not be closed prior to wilderness designation unless they are degrading wilderness values. If the area is designated wilderness by Congress, then road and way closures will be evaluated in the Wilderness Management Plan. In the event Congress declares these lands "non-suitable" for wilderness, they will be managed as follows: (4) ORV use will be limited to designated roads and trails.

1 Subject to IDIB2010-039; which imposes updated restrictions for activities relative to some wildlife, including species-specific buffers and dates for raptors.

November 2016 21 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The BLM’s route management objectives, as provided in the BLM Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (BLM 2011), are as follows: • Provide access for a wide variety of recreational activities on public lands. • Provide administrative, commercial, and private land access where necessary. • Discourage and reduce trespass on adjacent private lands. • Protect and restore resource values and prevent the creation of new, unauthorized routes, especially in the Wilderness Study Area. • Provide clear information to facilitate compliance with route designations. • Identify future planning needs and opportunities related to travel management.

2.3.1.4 Application of Minimization Criteria

Federal land management agencies have a responsibility to minimize impacts to resources and conflicts with other uses as part of the decision-making process that leads to route designation. This guidance is contained in 43 CFR § 8342.1, as follows:

“The authorized officer shall designate all public lands as either open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following criteria: a. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. b. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. c. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors. d. Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are established.”

2.3.1.5 Signage, Education and Enforcement

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

November 2016 22 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

exception of emergencies and valid existing rights, and appropriate mitigation measures would be required.

Signage: All open and limited use routes would be signed for navigational purposes; signs would include assigned route numbers and would be installed where at major intersections. Routes proposed as closed would not be signed.

Education: Maps would be developed and published for general public use. These maps would depict routes available for motorized and non-motorized use. Closed routes would not be depicted. Routes limited to administrative and/or permitted motorized use would not be depicted on these maps. Displaying these routes would create confusion and much greater workload during implementation. Each route would be assigned a number to enhance public navigability. Maps would be available at the BLM Boise District Office, on the internet, and displayed in informational kiosks located throughout the TMA.

The Idaho OHV Public Education Project (www.stayontrails.com) is a statewide campaign, developed by five state and federal agencies to help raise OHV awareness and encourage the public to use designated routes. This program will help to educate the public on ethical OHV use, local natural and cultural resources, and multiple trail use guidelines within Canyonlands East TMA.

The following are four target messages or themes for this educational effort: • Stay on Trails (www.stayontrails.com) • Tread Lightly (www.treadlightly.org) • Leave No Trace (www.lnt.org) • Respect the rights of private landowners and other public land users

In order to foster appreciation of the area’s natural and cultural resources, educational material would be displayed in kiosks throughout the TMA. Additionally, the Bruneau Field Office would work with local OHV users to establish an Idaho OHV Ambassador Program in the Boise District. This program would assist BLM in outreach efforts through direct contact with various OHV users, as well as completing monitoring and maintenance activities.

2.3.1.6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation: A variety of closure methods would be available, depending on site-specific circumstances. In general, the minimum closure techniques that support resource needs would be used. Methods of closure might include one or more of the following: signing, natural rehabilitation, obscuring the road entrance; or blocking the road entrance. Where designation changes are proposed to restrict use to certain use types (such as OHV, single-track, non-motorized), minimum techniques required to achieve resource goals would be used. Methods of restriction might include one or more of the following: signage, engineered physical restrictions such as bollards or boulders, or natural reclamation down to the prescribed width, or other appropriate methods.

Appropriate and applicable project-related clearances and consultation processes (such as NHPA Section 106 cultural resources survey, mitigation and consultation with Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and affected Native American Tribes) would be completed prior to any undertaking, including ground- disturbing activities, re-routes, new routes, physical route closures, etc.

Maintenance: Both motorized and non-motorized road and/or trail segments could receive periodic maintenance including smoothing of tread, removal of rocks or other obstacles, installation of drainage

November 2016 23 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

structures (i.e., culverts, rolling dips, water bars, etc.), cleanout of drainage structures, and repair of gullies and rills. Maintenance of full-sized, motorized routes may require mechanized equipment.

The type of route (road, primitive road, or trail) also informs the type of access that would be facilitated by maintenance level. For example, a maintenance level 3 route that would be designated for OHV use would be moderately maintained for low volume traffic by OHVs, not passenger cars, while a route designated as open to the public and assigned a maintenance level of 5 would receive the appropriate maintenance to allow year-round use by passenger cars.

Additionally, the maintenance level of routes can be used to estimate the type of route (major versus minor) and intensity of use (frequent versus light) in analysis. Maintenance levels are described below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. General Maintenance Levels

Maintenance Description Route Type Type of Access Level*

0 No planned annual maintenance Closed routes Non-motorized and non-mechanized 1 Minimal maintenance as required for protection Minor routes High clearance vehicle (4x4, OHV) of adjacent lands and resources. 3 Moderate maintenance for low volume traffic. Major routes Passenger car May not provide for year-round access. 5 High maintenance for high volume year-round Paved roads/highways Passenger car use.

* Maintenance Levels 2 and 4 are reserved for future use, and are not in use at the publishing of this document, and therefore are not described in this table

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

2.3.1.7 OHV Management

In accordance with 43 CFR 8340.0-5, an OHV refers to any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on land or water, but excludes military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicles being used for emergency purposes; vehicles whose use are expressly authorized by the Authorized Officer (permitted/authorized use); and vehicles in official use. This permitted or authorized use, often termed “administrative access” is for motorized travel for purposes specifically related to completing Bureau work or specific work completed by a permittee associated with an approved BLM permit.

As stated in the ARMPA:

MD TTM 1: Limit OHV travel within Idaho BLM Field Offices to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails in areas where travel management planning has not been completed or is in progress. This excludes areas previously designated as open through a land use plan decision or currently under review for

November 2016 24 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

designation as open, currently being analyzed in ongoing RMP revision efforts in the Four Rivers, Jarbidge, and Upper Snake Field Offices.

2.3.1.8 Criteria for Alternatives Development

HIGH-PRIORITY RESOURCES

Routes that would be closed or limited to authorized use across all action alternatives are those that occur in proximity to habitats critical to survival of wildlife species, including: • sage-grouse leks • bighorn sheep lambing areas • pronghorn winter habitat

PRIORITY RESOURCES

Other important resources were considered in proposing closed or limited route designations for each action alternative. Route proximity to these resources, either alone or in combination, would trigger a more restrictive or closed route designation: • cultural or historic resources • sensitive plant species’ occurrence • redundant routes • highly erosive soils • multiple crossings of ephemeral waterways and washes • perennial water and fisheries

PRIORITY ACCESS

Maintaining access for the multitude of activities that occur within the TMA was also considered when developing the action alternatives, and in these cases, there would be a tendency not to designate routes as limited or closed: • High use and/or improved routes. • Cherry-stem and boundary routes that provide access to wilderness areas. • Routes that provide access to remote reservoirs. • Routes that access military facilities and sites. • Routes to livestock facilities that require frequent access. • Routes used for livestock operations, such as trailing or salting. • Routes that access active mineral and mining locations. • Proposed fuel break routes. • Connecting routes with similar designations.

November 2016 25 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

2.3.2 Alternative B This alternative is designed to provide maximum protection to natural, scenic and cultural values while still providing reasonable access. This alternative would provide the least amount of designated travel routes within the planning area (Figure 2-2). The alternative protects access to valid existing rights, allows for necessary OHV access for specific users, and for administrative purposes, such as maintenance of authorized utilities/facilities, range improvements and mining claims. A summary of the route designations and associated mileage for Alternative B is described in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Route Designations – Alternative B

Designation Mileage* Definition

Highway 70

Open 303 Open to public motorized use.

Seasonal Closure 174 Closed to public motorized use during certain seasons or times

OHV 3 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches.

Non-motorized 29 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking.

Authorized Only 325 Limited to administrative motorized use.

Closed 617 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited.

Total 1,521

*total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

2.3.2.1 Route Management Objectives

The primary management emphasis would be the protection and enhancement of natural resource values through a substantial reduction in the travel routes available for motorized or mechanized use. This alternative reduces the potential for human uses and influences resulting from the presence and use of routes to affect known sensitive resources. Reclamation of closed routes would be prioritized based on wildlife habitat productivity, soil loss potential, cultural resource impacts, or other resource protection needs.

2.3.3 Alternative C

This alternative is designed to balance motorized access with the protection of the area’s natural, scenic, and cultural resources (Figure 2-3). This alternative protects access to valid existing rights and allows for necessary OHV access for specific users for administrative purposes, such as maintenance of authorized utilities/facilities, range improvements and mining claims. A summary of the route designations and associated mileage for Alternative C is described in Table 2.4.

2.3.3.1 Route Management Objectives

The primary management emphasis is to provide the public with motorized opportunities while protecting, among other things, critical soils, scenic resources, crucial wildlife habitat, sensitive plants, cultural and historic resources, and authorized mining activities. It balances resource protection with ongoing human uses and their influences, which could impact sensitive resources from the presence or use of routes.

November 2016 26 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

. Alternative B

nlands East TMP Canyo

. 2 -

2 Figure

November 2016 27 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

C. TMP Alternative

Canyonlands East

. 3 -

2 Figure

November 2016 28 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.4. Route Designations – Alternative C

Designation Mileage* Definition

Highway 70 Open 526 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 297 Closed to public motorized use during certain seasons or times OHV 31 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 24 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 260 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 312 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

*total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

2.3.4 Alternative D

This alternative is designed to be the least restrictive to motorized public access while providing reasonable protection to priority and high priority natural, scenic, and cultural values. Of the action alternatives, this alternative would provide the maximum amount of designated travel routes within the planning area (Figure 2-4). A summary of the route designations and associated mileage for Alternative D is described in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Route Designations – Alternative D

Designation Mileage* Definition

Highway 70 Open 953 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 145 Closed to public motorized use during certain seasons or times OHV 70 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 15 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 62 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 205 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

*total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

2.3.4.1 Route Management Objectives

The emphasis for this alternative would be to provide for continued vehicular access while maintaining the integrity of existing vegetation, and while improving resource conditions through route closures in areas exhibiting existing resource damage or serious visitor conflict. Reclamation of closed routes would be prioritized based on wildlife habitat productivity, soil loss potential, cultural resource impacts, or other resource protection needs. The total number of routes available to the public for motorized use would be reduced by 13%, compared with the No Action Alternative.

November 2016 29 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 30 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

D. TMP Alternative

Canyonlands East

. 4 -

2 Figure

November 2016 31 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 32 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

2.4 SUMMARY OF ROUTE MILEAGE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES

Table 2.6 includes a summary of the route mileage of the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives described above, providing a comparison of miles of routes that would be designated under each of the alternatives.

Table 2.6. Route Mileage Summary, by Alternative

Designation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Highway 70 70 70 70 Open 1,451 303 526 953 Seasonal Closure 0 174 297 145 OHV <50 inches 0 3 31 70 Non-motorized 0 29 24 15 Authorized Only 0 325 260 62 Campground Use 0 0 0 0 Closed 0 617 312 205 Total 1,521 1,521 1,521 1,521

2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

A summary of the potential impacts for each resource are provided in terms of how the alternative may or may not change the impact indicators. Impact indicators are a consistent way to measure parameters that describe the quality, intensity, and duration of a change in the resource condition. Working from an established existing condition (i.e., the baseline conditions described in Chapter 3), one or more indicators are used to predict or detect change in a resource related to potential impacts of the alternative being described. In the following table, each resource being analyzed includes a summary of the overall impact in the first row, followed by a summary of the impacts according to the impact indicator(s) for the resource. Table 2.7 includes a summary of impacts to resources by alternative.

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL R.S. 2477 Alternative. Numerous public comments have discussed issues surrounding Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 assertions, and as such, the BLM considered an alternative that designates all R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 is a repealed section of the Mining Act of 1866 that granted the right-of-way to the State for construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public uses. It was repealed by FLPMA in 1976. The extent and nature of the rights-of-way granted by R.S. 2477 and the access routes that qualify as highways for the grant are in dispute. Some members of the public regard R.S. 2477 rights- of-way as important components of state and local infrastructure, and as essential to the economic growth and social well-being of western communities. Others are concerned that recognition of extensive R.S. 2477 rights-of-way would interfere with the BLM’s ability to protect and manage wilderness values and other resources on public lands.

November 2016 33 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

No regulations to either assert or recognize R.S. 2477 rights-of-way currently exist. Courts may ultimately determine the validity of R.S. 2477 assertions. While thousands of R.S. 2477 claims have been asserted in Owyhee County, it is beyond the scope of this EA to either validate or reject R.S. 2477 assertions, and this issue is not addressed further. Nothing in this EA is intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertion. When future decisions are made regarding specific R.S. 2477 assertions, BLM will adjust its travel management decisions accordingly, if needed.

Complete Route Closure Alternative. The BLM considered an alternative that would not designate any routes available for motorized recreational use. Although this alternative would provide the maximum protection of natural resources in the “limited” OHV category area, it would be at the expense of the motorized recreating public. The Bruneau MFP’s management for OHV use was amended by the OPLMA, which directs that all existing routes be managed in a “limited to designated roads and trails” OHV category until travel management planning is completed for the affected area(s). This category allows for OHV use on certain routes that have been designated for that use. Closing all routes to such use would not be in conformance with the OPLMA. In effect, the “limited” OHV area would become a de facto “closed” OHV area and would require a land use plan amendment to implement this alternative in its entirety. In addition, it would not meet the purpose and need of this TMP. Furthermore, closing all routes in the “limited” area would block access to other areas that remain “open” to OHV use. For these reasons, this alternative is not a viable alternative to carry forward for detailed analysis.

November 2016 34 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Percentage of Route 0% 45% 29% 13% Closures per overall Route Network Cultural Resources No reduction in direct and indirect Highest reduction in direct and Would result in fewer impacts than Would result in fewer impacts than No effects to cultural resources. indirect effects to cultural resources Alternative D and No Action, but more Action, but more than Alternatives B compared to No Action. than Alternative B. and C. Sites intersected by Routes which are designated as Routes designated as open would not Routes designated as open would Routes designated as open would routes open to public open to public motorized use adversely impact any National adversely impact 1 National Register- adversely impact 4 National Register- motorized use currently impact 6 National Register Register-listed or eligible sites; eligible site, and limited-use routes eligible sites, and limited-use routes eligible, and 1 unevaluated site; limited-use routes would adversely would impact 3 eligible sites. would impact 1 eligible site. routes designated as limited use are impact 1 eligible sites. currently not impacting any known sites. Sites within 0.25 mile of Indirect impacts from open and Indirect impacts may affect 226 Indirect impacts may affect 347 Indirect impacts may affect 392 routes open to public limited-use routes may affect 500 archaeological sites. archaeological sites. archaeological sites. motorized use archaeological sites. Soils and Hydrology Direct impacts to soils and hydrology Highest reduction of impacts to soils Would result in fewer impacts than Would result in fewer impacts than No due to localized soil erosion, soil and hydrology. Alternative D and No Action, but more Action, but more than Alternatives B compaction, and sedimentation. than Alternative B. and C. Change in mileage of No change. 617 miles of routes would be 312 miles of routes would be 205 miles of routes would be motorized routes across designated as closed. designated as closed designated as closed TMA Mileage of routes in high 598 364 473 522 erosion potential soils Number of routes in high 263 84 156 187 erosion potential soils Number of route 893 465 663 773 crossings: perennial and intermittent waterways Number of route 97 55 75 84 crossings: 303(d)-listed waterways

November 2016 35 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Change in mileage of No change. 327 miles of routes Closure of 151 miles (46%) of routes Closure of 78 miles (24%) of routes Closure of 37 miles (13%) of routes routes within riparian occur within 300 feet of perennial within riparian habitat. within riparian habitat. within riparian habitat. habitat (300 feet of and intermittent streams, perennial and waterbodies, and springs. intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs) Change in mileage of No change. 40 miles of routes occur Closure of 17 miles (41%) of routes Closure of 9 miles (22%) of routes Closure of 6 miles (15%) of routes routes within riparian within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed habitat of 303(d)-listed streams. streams. streams. streams. waterways (300 feet) Route density in riparian 1.72 mi/mi2 0.93 mi/mi2 1.31 mi/mi2 1.53 mi/mi2 areas Fire and Fuels Management Human-caused fire risk factors would Human-caused fire risk factors would Human-caused fire risk factors would be reduced the most with this be fewer than Alternative D and No be fewer than No Action, but more alternative. Action, but more than Alternative B. than Alternative B and C. Change in mileage of No impact. Human-caused fire risk Access for fire suppression would be Access for fire suppression would be Access for fire suppression would be maintained routes factors would remain unchanged. moderately reduced with 44 miles of reduced, with 10 miles of closures reduced, with 10 miles of closures across the TMA 70 miles of paved routes. 171 miles closures along fuel breaks (11%), 167 along fuel breaks (3%), but retained along fuel breaks (3%), but retained of fuel breaks along ML3 routes. miles of retained routes along fuel ML3 routes along fuel breaks would ML3 routes along fuel breaks would breaks. be the same as No Action. be the same as No Action. Change in total mileage No change. Closure of 646 miles (42%) of routes Closure of 336 miles (22%) of routes Closure of 220 miles (14%) of routes of routes within the route open to public motorized use. open to public motorized use. open to public motorized use. network

November 2016 36 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Vegetation Adverse impacts on native plant Greatest reduction of adverse impacts Fewer adverse impacts compared to Fewer adverse impacts compared to communities due to fugitive dust to plant communities compared to No Alternative D and No Action, but No Action, but more than Alternatives and encroachment of non-native Action and Alternatives C, and D. more than Alternative B. B and C. and invasive plant species. Change in mileage of No Change. routes within general Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change vegetative cover types Vegetation in Mileage from in Mileage from in Mileage from Mileage* Mileage* Mileage* Mileage* Cover Type No Action No Action No Action Alternative Alternative Alternative Big Sage 549 277 -50% 393 -28% 444 -19% Low Sage 284 177 -38% 239 -16% 255 -10% Mountain Big 195 126 -35% 161 -17% 173 -11% Sage Bunchgrass 121 74 -39% 102 -16% 108 -11% Seeding 115 69 -40% 93 -19% 100 -13% Rabbitbrush 51 26 -49% 40 -22% 44 -14% Salt Desert 90 53 -41% 67 -25% 78 -13% Shrub Exotic Annuals 17 9 -47% 12 -20% 14 -18% Wet Meadow 11 7 -36% 10 -9% 10 -9% Aspen 14 8 -47% 13 -13% 13 -13% Big Sage Mix 10 4 -60% 6 -40% 7 -30% Mountain Shrub 4 3 -25% 3 -25% 4 0% Sparse 22 12 -45% 16 -27% 18 -18% Vegetation Greasewood 10 4 -60% 6 -40% 8 -20% Total 1,493 849 1,161 1,276 * Does not include non-motorized and closed route mileages, total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding and did not account for mileage of Highway 51 on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation.

November 2016 37 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Route density within Vegetation Route Density Route Density Route Density Route Density general vegetation types Cover Type (mi/mi2) mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Big Sage 1.16 0.59 0.83 0.94 Low Sage 1.10 0.68 0.92 0.99 Mountain Big 0.97 0.63 0.80 0.86 Sage Bunchgrass 0.98 0.60 0.82 0.87 Seeding 2.02 1.21 1.64 1.76 Rabbitbrush 1.33 0.68 1.04 1.15 Salt Desert 2.46 1.45 1.83 2.13 Shrub Exotic Annuals 0.93 0.49 0.65 0.76 Wet Meadow 0.67 0.43 0.61 0.61 Aspen 0.88 0.50 0.82 0.82 Big Sage Mix 1.12 0.45 0.67 0.78 Mountain Shrub 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.45 Sparse 2.99 1.63 2.17 2.45 Vegetation Greasewood 3.02 1.21 1.81 2.42 Total 1.18** 0.67** 0.92** 1.01** ** Total route density across all general vegetation cover types. Number of motorized 70 28 50 56 routes intersecting populations of special status plants Change in mileage within No Change. 9 miles of routes occur 6 miles of routes occur directly within 7 miles of routes occur directly within 8 miles of routes occur directly within known (recorded within directly within known populations of known populations of special status known populations of special status known populations of special status the last 20 years) special status plants. plants. plants. plants. populations of special status plants Number of motorized 99 34 54 72 routes within 0.25 mile of populations of special status plants

November 2016 38 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Number of populations of 350 166 315 341 recorded populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants within 300 feet of routes Change in mileage of No Change. 1,521 routes open Closure of 617 miles of routes Closure of 312 miles of routes Closure of 205 miles of routes motorized routes Wildlife Adverse impacts on wildlife due to Alternative B would have fewer Alternative C would have fewer Alternative D would have fewer noise, barriers to movement, and adverse impacts on wildlife than No impacts on wildlife than Alternative D impacts on wildlife than No Action, but habitat fragmentation. Action and Alternatives C, and D. and No Action, but more than more than Alternatives B and C. Alternative B. General wildlife, migratory birds, and birds of prey Change in mileage of 1,521 miles Closure of 617 miles of routes Closure of 312 miles of routes Closure of 205 miles of routes motorized routes Density of motorized 1.18 mi/mi2 0.67 mi/mi2 0.92 mi/mi2 1.01 mi/mi2 routes within habitat Special Status Species Change in mileage of Greater sage-grouse: 1,061 miles Greater sage-grouse: 621 miles of Greater sage-grouse: 847 miles of Greater sage-grouse: 909 miles of motorized routes in habitat of routes occur in key habitat routes occur in key habitat routes occur in key habitat routes occur in key habitat types (including seasonal closures) Pygmy Rabbit: 189 miles of routes Pygmy Rabbit: 130 miles of routes Pygmy Rabbit: 155 miles of routes Pygmy Rabbit: 169 miles of routes occur in habitat. occur in habitat. occur in habitat. occur in habitat.

Columbia spotted frog: 1 mile of Columbia spotted frog: 0.25 mile of Columbia spotted frog: 0.37 mile of Columbia spotted frog: 0.59 mile of routes within 300 feet of Columbia routes within 300 feet of Columbia routes within 300 feet of Columbia routes within 300 feet of Columbia spotted frog occurrence records. spotted frog occurrence records. spotted frog occurrence records. spotted frog occurrence records. Density of motorized Greater sage-grouse (leks): 1.21 Greater sage-grouse (leks): 0.46 Greater sage-grouse (leks): 0.49 Greater sage-grouse (leks): 0.65 routes in habitat types mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 (including seasonal closures) Greater sage-grouse (key): 1.11 Greater sage-grouse (key): 0.48 Greater sage-grouse (key): 0.61 Greater sage-grouse (key): 0.82 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2

Greater sage-grouse (SFA): 1.42 Greater sage-grouse (SFA): 0.60 Greater sage-grouse (SFA): 0.77 Greater sage-grouse (SFA): 1.04 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 mi/mi2

Pygmy Rabbit: 1.19 mi/mi2 Pygmy Rabbit: 0.82 mi/mi2 Pygmy Rabbit: 0.97 mi/mi2 Pygmy Rabbit: 1.06 mi/mi2

November 2016 39 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Big Game Change in mileage of Bighorn sheep: 219 miles of Bighorn sheep: 74 miles of routes Bighorn sheep: 135 miles of routes Bighorn sheep: 190 miles of routes motorized routes in habitat routes within habitat. No change. within habitat. within habitat. within habitat. types Pronghorn antelope: 323 miles of Pronghorn antelope: 103 miles of Pronghorn antelope: 211 miles of Pronghorn antelope: 259 miles of routes occur within winter habitat. routes occur within winter habitat. routes occur within winter habitat. routes occur within winter habitat. No change. Density of motorized Bighorn sheep: 1.38 mi/mi2 Bighorn sheep: 0.47 mi/mi2 Bighorn sheep: 0.86 mi/mi2 Bighorn sheep: 1.20 mi/mi2 routes in general habitat 2 2 2 2 types Pronghorn antelope: 1.18 mi/mi Pronghorn antelope: 0.42 mi/mi within Pronghorn antelope: 0.86 mi/mi Pronghorn antelope: 1.05 mi/mi within winter habitat. winter habitat. within winter habitat. within winter habitat. Fisheries Number of stream 3 0 1 1 crossings in redband trout habitat Change in mileage of 4 miles of routes occur within 300 Fewer than 3 miles of routes would 3 miles of routes would occur within 4 miles of routes would occur within motorized routes within feet of redband trout habitat occur within 300 feet of redband trout 300 feet of redband trout habitat. 300 feet of redband trout habitat. 300 feet of redband trout habitat. habitat Change in mileage of No Change Closure of 151 miles of routes within Closure of 78 miles of routes within Closure of 37 miles of routes within motorized routes within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent 300 feet of perennial and intermittent 300 feet of perennial and intermittent 300 feet of riparian habitat streams. streams. streams. Bats Change in mileage of 265 miles of routes overlap 174 miles of routes would be retained 211 miles of routes would be retained 242 miles of routes would be retained motorized routes in habitat identified bat habitat. as open to public motorized use that as open to public motorized use that as open to public motorized use that overlap identified bat habitat. overlap identified bat habitat. overlap identified bat habitat. Recreation and Social Values No impact to motorized Highest amount of adverse impacts to Fewer adverse impacts to motorized Fewer adverse impacts to motorized recreation, dispersed recreational motorized recreation. recreation compared to Alternative B, recreation compared to Alternative B, activities or social values. but more than Alternative D and No but more than Alternative C and No Highest amount of beneficial impacts to Action. Action. non-motorized dispersed recreation. Direct adverse impacts to general Direct adverse impacts to general Direct adverse impacts to general motorized recreation while directly motorized recreation while directly motorized recreation while directly benefiting dispersed, non-motorized benefiting dispersed, non-motorized benefiting dispersed, non-motorized recreation activities. recreation activities. recreation activities. Adverse impact to social values would Adverse impact to social values would Highest adverse impact to social be less than Alternative B, but greater be less than Alternatives B and C, but values. than Alternative D and No Action. greater than No Action.

November 2016 40 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Changes in total miles of No change. Approximately 617 miles of routes Approximately 312 miles of routes Approximately 205 miles of routes the existing route system would be designated as closed, in would be designated as closed, in would be closed to all uses under (i.e., miles of specific addition to 325 miles of routes that addition to 260 miles of routes that Alternative D, in addition to 62 miles of designations) would be designated as limited to would be designated as limited to routes that would be designated as authorized use only, and 29 miles that authorized use only, and 24 miles limited to authorized use only, and 15 would be designated as limited to non- that would be designated as limited miles that would be designated as motorized use. to non-motorized use. limited to non-motorized use. Changes in access to No change. Open routes would continue to provide Open routes would continue to Open routes would continue to provide designated recreation access to two designated recreation provide access to two designated access to two designated recreation sites sites within the TMA—Parker Trailhead recreation sites within the TMA— sites within the TMA—Parker Trailhead and Roberson Trailhead West. Parker Trailhead and Roberson and Roberson Trailhead West. Trailhead West. Miles of routes closed to None. 971 miles. 596 miles. 282 miles. public motorized recreational use Changes in the overall No change. 64% reduction in the miles of routes 39% reduction in the miles of routes 19% reduction in the miles of routes mileage of routes available for public motorized use. available for public motorized use. available for public motorized use. available for recreational public use (e.g., rockhounding, spiritual visitor, vehicle exploring, sightseeing, hunting, and trapping) Changes in mileage of No change. Roaded Natural: 233 miles Roaded Natural: 297 miles Roaded Natural: 349 miles routes open to public Semi-primitive/Motorized: 288 miles Semi-primitive/Motorized: 578 miles Semi-primitive/Motorized: 829 miles motorized use within ROS Semi-primitive/Non-motorized: 45 miles Semi-primitive/Non-motorized: 26 Semi-primitive/Non-motorized: 36 miles classifications miles Visual Resources Adverse impacts on visual Highest beneficial impact on visual Route proliferation would be Route proliferation would be reduced in resources resulting from route quality, as route proliferation would be reduced across all visual resource some VRM classes. proliferation. significantly reduced compared to No management (VRM) classes. Action. Greater beneficial impact compared to Greater beneficial impact compared No Action, but less than Alternatives B to Alternative D and No Action, but and C. less than Alternative B. Change in mileage within No change. VRM Class I: 3 miles; VRM Class II: VRM Class I: 3 miles; VRM Class II: VRM Class I: 3 miles; VRM Class II: VRM classes 174 miles; VRM Class III: 310 miles; 174 miles; VRM Class III: 418 miles; 257 miles; VRM Class III: 463 miles; VRM Class IV: 397 miles. VRM Class IV: 528 miles. VRM Class IV: 571 miles.

November 2016 41 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Density of routes within VRM Class I: 0.60 mi/mi2; VRM VRM Class I: 0.45 mi/mi2; VRM Class VRM Class I: 0.45 mi/mi2; VRM VRM Class I: 0.45 mi/mi2; VRM Class VRM classes Class II: 1.13 mi/mi2; VRM Class II: 0.67 mi/mi2; VRM Class III: 0.72 Class II: 0.92 mi/mi2; VRM Class III: II: 0.99 mi/mi2; VRM Class III: 1.08 III: 1.29 mi/mi2; VRM Class IV: mi/mi2; VRM Class IV: 0.69 mi/mi2. 0.97 mi/mi2; VRM Class IV: 0.92 mi/mi2; VRM Class IV: 0.99 mi/mi2. 1.13 mi/mi2. mi/mi2. Range Resources No impact to livestock grazing or Access would be reasonable for Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B access for livestock management livestock management. activities. Closure of routes would slightly benefit Current use has slight adverse forage availability and composition. impact on forage availability and composition. Change in mileage of No change (1,451 miles of routes 303 miles of routes open to public 526 miles of routes open to public 953 miles of routes open to public routes available as open open to public motorized use; no motorized use; 325 authorized use only motorized use; 260 authorized only motorized use; 62 authorized use only to public motorized or authorized use only routes). routes. routes. routes. authorized only use Change in number of No change (870 individual routes 244 routes. 413 routes 529 routes. routes used for livestock used for known livestock management activities management activities). available as open to public motorizes or authorized only use Special Designations National Land No impacts to wilderness. All routes within designated Wilderness All routes within designated All routes within designated Wilderness Conservation System: are designated as closed to motorized Wilderness are designated as are designated as closed to motorized Wilderness and mechanized use under all closed to motorized and mechanized and mechanized use under all alternatives. use under all alternatives. alternatives. National Land No impacts to Wild and Scenic No impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers. No impacts to Wild and Scenic No impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers. Conservation System: Rivers. Rivers. Wild and Scenic Rivers Areas of Critical No change; 2 miles of routes 1.5 miles of routes would be 1.5 miles of routes would be 2 miles of routes would be designated Environmental Concern: occur within the Owyhee designated within the Owyhee designated within the Owyhee within the Owyhee River/Bighorn River/Bighorn ACEC. River/Bighorn ACEC. River/Bighorn ACEC. ACEC.

November 2016 42 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 2.7. Summary of Impacts by Alternative (Continued)

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Impact Indicator Lands with Wilderness Characteristics None of the eight wilderness The wilderness characteristic inventory The wilderness characteristic The wilderness characteristic inventory inventory units would change. units of Buncel Basin, Henry Lake, and inventory units of Buncel Basin, and units of Buncel Basin, and Henry Lake Yatahoney Creek would be affected. Henry Lake would be affected. would be affected. Change in overall route No change. All 72 miles would be Approximately 33 miles that occur Approximately 53 miles that occur Approximately 58 miles that occur mileage within lands with designated as open to public within lands with characteristics would within lands with characteristics within lands with characteristics would wilderness characteristics. motorized use. be designated as open to public would be designated as open to be designated as open to public motorized use, 13 miles would be public motorized use, 6 miles would motorized use, 5 miles would be limited limited to authorized use only and 25 be limited to authorized use only and to authorized use only and 8 miles of miles of routes would be designated as 12 miles of routes would be routes would be designated as closed. closed. designated as closed. Economics No impact to economics. No impact to economic values. No impact to economic values. No impact to economic values. Increased intensity compared to No Increased intensity compared to Increased intensity compared to No Action as a result of reduction of open No Action as a result of reduction of Action as a result of reduction of open routes may have an adverse impact on open routes may have an adverse routes may have an adverse impact on user experience. impact on user experience. user experience. Environmental Justice No impact to environmental justice communities.

November 2016 43 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 44

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 General Setting

The Canyonlands East TMA (CE TMA) planning area is located in southwest Idaho and encompasses 796,065 acres. The planning area is a mixture of land management jurisdiction and includes lands managed by the BLM, the State of Idaho, the Department of Defense, and private landowners. The landscape includes the Bruneau River Canyon and Valley on the eastern edge of the TMA, as well as the Big Jacks Creek Canyon near the western edge of the TMA. Basin and Range characteristic landscapes of hills and valley dominate the TMA. The Blackstone Desert is located in the southeastern portion of the TMA. Wildernesses designated in 2009 occur directly adjacent to the TMA, and include Big Jacks Creek, Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers, and Little Jacks Creek Wilderness Areas.

The CE TMA planning area is characterized as sparsely populated; despite the low population, an extensive route network enables public and private access to a variety of lands, though use is generally low and related to access for hunting, trapping and river floating. The elevation of the TMA varies from approximately 7,500 feet near the Nevada state line to under 3,000 feet at the northern boundary of the TMA.

The existing transportation system within the CE TMA planning area includes a state highway, county roads, private routes, and approximately 1,451 miles of BLM-administered roads, which are identified as routes. The major road in the planning area is Idaho State Highway 51, which runs north to south through the CE TMA (Figure 3-1) for approximately 70 miles. There are no cities or towns in the CE TMA planning area; numerous private ranches are located throughout the CE TMA.

For the purpose of analysis, areas outside the TMA planning area are included in analysis and referred to in the document as the TMA analysis area. This was determined to be necessary as the route network extends outside of the TMA planning area, and therefore the area of analysis was extended as well.

3.1.2 Resources Considered in this Analysis Based on internal and external (public) scoping and issue identification, a number of issues and concerns were identified for analysis in this EA (see Chapter 1, Section 1.7). In order to analyze and respond to the issues and concerns, the resource values and uses of the affected environment must be identified and described. For this EA analysis, the following resources and uses are brought forward for analysis (Table 3.1) and are presented in this chapter.

November 2016 45 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-1. NCA TMA boundary, extended analysis area, and land ownership.

November 2016 46 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1. Resources Considered in this Analysis in this EA

Resource Resource Status EA Chapter 3 Section

Air Quality Present, Not Affected Dismissed from detailed analysis. Noise Present, Not Affected Dismissed from detailed analysis. Cultural Resources Present, Affected Section 3.2.1 Soils and Hydrology Present, Affected Section 3.2.2 Fire and Fuels Management Present, Affected Section 3.2.3 Forest Resources Not Present Dismissed from detailed analysis. Vegetation Present, Affected Section 3.2.4 Wildlife Present, Affected Section 3.2.5 Recreation and Social Values Present, Affected Section 3.2.6 Visual Resources Present, Affected Section 3.2.7 Land Use Present, Not Affected Dismissed from detailed analysis. Range Resources Present, Affected Section 3.2.8 Paleontological Resources Present, Not Affected Dismissed from detailed analysis. Minerals and Geology Present, Not Affected Dismissed from detailed analysis. Special Designations Present, Affected Section 3.2.9 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Present, Affected Section 3.2.10 Economics Present, Affected Section 3.2.11 Wild Horses and Burros Not Present Dismissed from detailed analysis.

3.2 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND VALUES

This chapter describes the affected environment (resources that are affected by the alternatives). The CE TMA consists of approximately 796,065 acres. The analysis area for the affected environment includes the CE TMA, as well as routes that extend beyond the TMA boundary; these routes are considered in this analysis for connectivity and continuity. Therefore, the analysis area for the affected environment consists of the CE TMA and buffered routes being considered in this EA and TMP; the total area is 815,677 acres, and will be referred to within this document as the TMA analysis area.

3.2.1 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as specific locations of human activity, occupation, or traditional use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, and architectural sites and structures, as well as places with traditional cultural or religious importance within a social or cultural group. Relevant laws, ordinances, EOs, policies, regulations and agreements other than NEPA include the American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431–433); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.); EO 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (May 13, 1971); American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 469: 42 USC 1996); Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa–470mm); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001–3013); and EO 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (May 24, 1996) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (90 Stat. 2743; 43 USC 1701).

November 2016 47 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The most relevant direction in terms of considering the effects of the proposed project on cultural resources is the NHPA. In February of 2012, the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers executed a programmatic agreement that regulates the BLM’s compliance with the NHPA which replaces a programmatic agreement executed in 1997. The 2012 Programmatic Agreement guides the BLM’s implementation of 36 CFR Part 800, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s government-wide regulations, and serves as the procedural basis for BLM managers to meet their responsibilities under Sections 106, 110(f) and 111(a) of the NHPA. The BLM 8100-8170 Manuals provide further guidance and policy direction on the identification, evaluation, management, and protection of cultural resources, as well as tribal consultation. An implementing Protocol Agreement between Idaho BLM and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office was signed in 2014 to stipulate how cultural resources under Idaho BLM’s jurisdiction would be managed.

The NHPA, among other things, requires federal agencies to consider the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, and established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) of the NHPA define historic properties as “…any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.” The term “historic properties” also includes properties of traditional religious or cultural importance to Native Americans.

The TMA analysis area, as identified in this document, is a landscape that has been associated with humans for thousands of years. The land provided aboriginal peoples, including the Northern Shoshone and the Northern Paiute peoples, and later Euro-American settlers the opportunity to construct suitable dwellings, acquire needed natural resources and maintain an adequate subsistence. This TMA contains approximately 796,065 surface acres. Class III cultural resource surveys through 2016 have inventoried an estimated 41,530 acres (5%) for cultural resources.

These surveys, although representing a small percentage of the total land base contained within the TMA analysis area, have identified approximately 808 cultural resources (archaeological sites and historic structures) located within the TMA analysis area. Of these 813 resources, one is listed on the NRHP (site number 10OE3043), 56 are eligible for the NRHP, 207 are not eligible for the NRHP, and 544 are unevaluated or of unknown NRHP-status.

In 2015 and 2016, class III cultural resource surveys of targeted areas were conducted for cultural resources on 80 miles of current travel routes in the TMA, as well as approximately 188 acres in 5-acre block surveys around known sites (Burillo and Hansen 2016). This survey identified an additional 38 sites: seven eligible and 31 not eligible. As seen in Table 3.2, a total of 851 known cultural resources are found within the TMA analysis area.

Table 3.2. Cultural Resources Sites Identified within the Canyonlands East TMA

NRHP NRHP NRHP NRHP Pedestrian Surveys Unevaluated Total Listed Eligible Not eligible or Unknown

Surveys prior to 2015 1 56 207 544 808 (including Owyhee Land Exchange) 2015 TMA Survey 0 5 24 0 29 2016 TMA Survey 0 2 7 0 9 Total 1 63 238 544 846

November 2016 48 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

No known historic trails or NRHP-listed archaeological districts are found in the TMA analysis area.

3.2.2 Soils and Hydrology

Soils and watersheds in the TMA analysis area are managed to provide for proper infiltration, retention, and release of water to provide for nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy flow. Soil and watershed conditions in the project area are variable but generally stable. Live vegetative cover, organic matter mass, and levels of bare ground are generally adequate to protect and stabilize soils and promote watershed function.

3.2.2.1 Soils

Indicators of soil instability and watershed dysfunction include low amounts and distributions of ground cover, evidence of accelerated erosion, and physical soil crust/surface sealing. Soils that would be affected by the action alternatives can be classified into two distinct types: 1) gravel and sandy loams and 2) clay and silt loams. Generally, gravel and sandy loams occur in the Snake River Plains Major Land Resource Area (MLRA), while clay and silt loams are primarily located in the Owyhee High Plateau MLRA within the project area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides maps and full descriptions of both these MLRAs (NRCS 2006). The dominant soil orders in the Owyhee High Plateau MLRA are Aridisols and Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic or frigid soil temperature regime, an aridic or xeric soil moisture regime, and mixed or smectitic2 mineralogy. They generally are well drained, clayey or loamy, and shallow or moderately deep.

The NRCS Soil Survey of Owyhee County Area, Idaho (NRCS 2016) describes the occurrence and characteristics of these soil types in detail. Compaction of soils has the potential to reduce soil porosity and permeability, and soil types that are most susceptible to compaction are loamy sands and gravelly soils with a wide range of particle sizes (Webb and Wilshire 1983). Erosive soils are more susceptible to accelerated erosion than other soils because they are inherently less stable. Soils in the TMA with the highest potential for erosion include types of soils with sandy loam or gravelly surface textures (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). Roughly 8% of soils in the TMA analysis area have a surface texture with high erosion potential.

The soils in the planning area are extremely diverse, resulting from the variability in parent materials, slope, aspect, elevation, climate, and vegetative communities. Fourteen soil units compose over 60% of the soils in the TMA, briefly described in Table 3.3. Soils information for the planning area was obtained from the NRCS soil surveys for Owyhee County (NRCS 2016).

Table 3.3. Dominant Soil Units in the TMA

Percent Map Unit (Map Unit Number) Description of TMA

Wickahoney-Monasterio-Yatahoney Well-drained, shallow and moderately deep soils formed in residuum and 9% association, 1 to 20 percent slopes alluvium derived from welded rhyolitic tuff, breccia, and basalt on summits, (204) side slopes, and footslopes. Wickahoney-Zecanyon complex, Well drained, shallow and moderately deep soils formed in residuum and 6% 3 to 45 percent slopes (207) colluvium formed in extrusive rock and volcanic ash on summits and side slopes.

2 Soils with smectic minerology are generally clay-based soils that are capable of absorbing water, and thus have a tendency to change volume in the presence or absence of moisture.

November 2016 49 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.3. Dominant Soil Units in the TMA (Continued)

Percent Map Unit (Map Unit Number) Description of TMA Willhill-Cottle association, Well-drained, shallow and moderately deep soils formed in slope alluvium 6% 3 to 35 percent slopes (210) and residuum derived from welded rhyolitic tuff on foothills. Monasterio-Wickahoney complex, Well-drained, shallow and moderately deep soils formed in residuum and 5% 1 to 20 percent slopes (107) alluvium derived from vitric tuff, breccia, and volcanic ash on foothills. Deunah-Yatahoney-Lostvalley Well drained, moderately deep soils formed in alluvium and loess derived 5% complex, 1 to 10 percent slopes (45) from basalt and volcanic ash on tablelands. Bruncan-Hardtrigger-Buncelvoir Well drained, moderately deep soils formed in alluvium and loess derived 4% complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes (27) from basalt and volcanic rock on tablelands and calderas. Troughs-Sugarcreek association, 2 to Well drained, shallow to moderately deep soils formed in residuum and 4% 15 percent slopes (182) colluvium from vitric tuff and breccia and/or extrusive igneous rocks and volcanic ash on sideslopes and summits of structural benches and plateaus. Troughs-Jenor-Laped association, Well-drained, shallow to a duripan soils formed in residuum, alluvium and 4% 1 to 10 percent slopes (180) loess derived from extrusive igneous rocks and mixed rock sources with a component of loess and/or volcanic ash on calderas, structural benches, and plateaus. Wickahoney-Blackleg-Thacker Well drained, shallow to moderately deep soils formed in residuum and 4% association, 2 to 30 percent slopes colluvium derived from extrusive rocks and volcanic ash and/or mixed (201) alluvium on foothills, fan terraces, and tablelands. Wickahoney-Wagonbox-Rubble land Well-drained, shallow soils formed in alluvium, residuum, and colluvium 3% complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes (206) derived from extrusive rocks and volcanic ash and/or basalt, vitric tuff, and volcanic breccia on tablelands, plateaus and structural benches. Troughs-Owsel complex, 1 to 10 Well-drained, shallow to very deep soils formed in residuum, alluvium and 3% percent slopes (181) loess derived from extrusive igneous rocks and volcanic ash. The Troughs soils are on calderas, structural benches, and sideslopes. Mollic Haploxeralfs-Pachic Argixerolls Well drained,moderately deep soils that formed in material weathered from 3% complex, steep (103) ultrabasic rocks with a large amount of serpentinitic minerals on mountains. Bruncan-Troughs very stony loams, Well drained, shallow to a duripan soils formed in mixed silty alluvium and 3% 1 to 10 percent slopes (32) loess from basalt and volcanic ash on tablelands, calderas, structural benches, plains and buttes. Alzola silt loam, 1 to 10 percent Well drained, very deep soils with moderately slow permeability formed in 2% slopes (2) mixed alluvium from extrusive rocks and volcanic ash on outwash terraces. Total 61%

Important components of many of the soils within the TMA analysis area are biological soil crusts. These organisms play a particularly important role in the lower elevation sedimentary derived soils where they protect the interspatial areas from various forms of erosion. Occupying the interspatial area between plants, crusts play a vital role in soil stability, soil moisture retention, and site fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and contributing organic matter. Crusts also limit germination and establishment of exotic species, including invasive annual grasses. Crust cover is often inversely related to the amount of bare ground, suggesting that a decline in crust cover produces an increase in bare ground, rather than an increase in vascular plants with the exception of invasive annuals. The USDA National Range and Pasture Handbook (USDA 2003) identifies biologic soil crusts as a measurable and critical indicator of rangeland health. The development and existence of biological soil crusts are sensitive to soil disturbance, such as from livestock and OHVs, and therefore serve as an early indicator of ecological site decline. A decrease in soils covered with biological soil crusts increases the risk of erosion.

November 2016 50 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Areas in a degraded ecological condition are subject to increased erosion and impaired watershed health. As vegetative cover is depleted and species composition is altered, the productivity of a site is reduced through erosion and lack of biological diversity (Blackburn et al. 1986). Mechanical disturbance to the soil surface results in compaction and structural breakdown, which affects watershed health. Trampling by livestock, OHVs and other recreational use, and road /trail building are major factors leading to erosion. Accelerated erosion results when connected areas of bare soil are exposed to forces of rain, wind, and shearing events such as hoof or tire impacts. Overland erosion from water occurs in the form of sheet run off and forms rills and gullies. In the TMA analysis area, human related influences of accelerated erosion are mainly associated with livestock grazing (both current and historic) and OHV use.

3.2.2.2 Hydrology

The TMA analysis area is within the Middle Snake-Boise hydrologic basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 170501) (HUC 2), and includes parts of two hydrologic subbasins (HUC 4s): Upper Owyhee (HUC 17050104), and Bruneau (HUC 17050102). The majority of streams are classified as intermittent with only a few perennial streams (based on National Hydrologic Database data). Some perennial streams contain intermittent or ephemeral reaches, depending on the geologic features of the stream network. The general fluvial geomorphology of many of the streams along the front range of the Owyhee Mountains is low-sinuosity, high-gradient, V-shaped channels. When the streams flow into the lower- gradient plains, they typically increase in sinuosity (though in some areas access to the lower plains has been lost, and these channels have straightened) and become chisel-shaped channels. Under deteriorating conditions, width to depth ratios increase, eroded banks become evident, and streams can become severely entrenched. In some cases, natural stream channels are developing within the entrenched channels.

There are approximately 1,256 named and unnamed perennial and intermittent streams, and 380 perennial and intermittent waterbodies, within the TMA analysis area Of the 132 perennial waterbodies within the TMA, seven are named, and include Bybee Reservoir, Big Blue Creek Reservoir, Little Blue Creek Reservoir, Buckhorn Reservoir, Payne Creek Reservoir, White Lake, and Hole in the Rock Lake. The National Hydrologic Database was used to analyze hydrology of the TMA, which does not differentiate between intermittent and ephemeral streams. These data differ in detail from the analysis performed during route evaluation, in which BLM differentiated the two with imagery and professional knowledge of the specific hydrologic system. Additionally, there are 201 springs, both developed and natural, across the TMA. Table 3.4 provides the names of streams within the TMA analysis area, and the number of tributaries contributing to each waterbody.

Surface water quality varies throughout the TMA analysis area, and is dependent on geology, soils, land uses, riparian and wetland vegetation, and water discharge. The majority of the streams in the TMA analysis area have not been assessed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ); however, all streams have general beneficial use designations for secondary contact recreation, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics (IDEQ 2002). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act establishes requirements for States to identify and prioritize waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards. Some streams within the TMA analysis area are on the §303(d) list for excess sediment and temperature, biota/habitat assessments, and for flow alterations. There are approximately 241 miles of §303(d)-listed streams in the analysis area. Table 3.4 identifies streams with §303(d)-listed reaches.

November 2016 51 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.4. Waterbodies within the Canyonlands East TMA

Number of Perennial Miles of Hydrologic Basin Waterbody Name Portion of Waterbody and Intermittent §303(d)-Listed Waters* Streams Streams

Upper Owyhee 427 Battle Creek Entire 24 29.76 Blue Creek Blue Creek Reservoir 49 57.30 Dam to mouth Blue Creek source to Blue Creek 56 63.98 Reservoir Dam Harris Creek Entire 55 54.76 Little Blue Creek Entire 61 - Little Blue Creek 53.31 Owyhee River Idaho/Nevada state 10 14.16 line to Juniper Creek Owyhee River Juniper Creek to South 6 4.80 Fork Owyhee River Payne Creek Entire 41 49.38 Shoofly Creek Entire 59 - Shoefly Reservoir 79.12 Squaw Creek Entire 31 38.97 Unnamed Tributary Entire (T15S, R01W, 7 4.85 Sec. 01) Yatahoney Creek Entire 28 42.86 Bruneau 829 Bruneau River TMA boundary to 9 7.18 Idaho/Nevada state line Bruneau River Idaho/Nevada state 50 66.69 line to Jarbidge River Bruneau River Jarbidge River to 6 3.72 Clover Creek (East Fork Bruneau River) Bruneau River Clover Creek (East 16 24.76 Fork Bruneau River) to Hot Creek Big Jacks Creek Entire 102 - Big Jacks Creek 110.54 Bull Creek Entire 40 - Bull Creek 40.65 - East Fork Bull Creek - West Fork Bull Creek - Unnamed tributaries Cat Creek Idaho/Nevada state 10 - Cat Creek 21.23 line to mouth - Unnamed tributaries Cottonwood Creek Entire 10 15.85 Duncan Creek Entire 18 15.85 Hot Creek Entire 18 35.00 Jacks Creek confluence of Little and 62 - Jacks Creek 97.79 Big Jacks Creeks to C.J. Strike Reservoir Little Jacks Creek – Entire 18 12.59 source to mouth Louse Creek Entire 101 - Grasmere Reservoir 121.79

November 2016 52 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.4. Waterbodies within the Canyonlands East TMA (Continued)

Number of Perennial Miles of Hydrologic Basin Waterbody Name Portion of Waterbody and Intermittent §303(d)-Listed Waters* Streams Streams Marys Creek Entire 105 - Heifer Springs Creek 134.75 - Marys Creek - Meadow Creek - Rattlesnake Creek - Snow Creek - Trout Creek - Unnamed tributaries McDonald Creek Entire 8 15.59 Miller Water Entire 39 93.12 Pole Creek Idaho/Nevada state 17 - Alder Creek 37.04 line to mouth - Black Leg Creek - Cottonwood Creek - Pole Creek - Unnamed tributaries Sheep Creek Idaho/Nevada state 83 - Sheep Creek 133.29 line to mouth Sugar Valley Creek Entire 49 64.97 Wickahoney Creek Entire 68 92.15 Total 1,256 3,371

*All or a portion of the stream is 303(d) listed. Source: Idaho 2012 Integrated Report (IDEQ 2014)

3.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management Route condition and accessibility play a significant role in fire suppression in the TMA analysis area. Remoteness and lack of maintained vehicle routes can make wildfire suppression difficult, particularly when combined with fuels that can exhibit fast rates of spread. Routes can also act as fuel breaks, which are used to control and slow the spread of a fire.

The fire history from 1999 to 2013 provides a picture of the fire situation which exists in the TMA analysis area. During this time, there were 45 fires that burned a total of 148,687acres within the TMA analysis area. The number of fires per year is approximately two fires burning an average of approximately 7,400 acres, which indicates the propensity for fires to grow.

The majority of the fires are large: 24.4% of the fires have been over 5,000 acres and another 24.4% between 1,000 and 5,000 acres. Table 3.5 shows the major fires that have occurred in the TMA analysis area over the past 20 years for which there are data.

Table 3.5. Fire 5,000 Acres and Greater between 1999 and 2015

Fire Year Fire Name Total Acres Acres in TMA

1999 Broke Wagon 5,027 5,026 1999 Shoofly 7,502 7,496 2000 Flat Broke 5,780 1,623 2000 McDonald 10,396 8,627 2001 Mp 47 Hwy 51 5,930 5,928

November 2016 53 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.5. Fire 5,000 Acres and Greater between 1999 and 2015 (Continued)

Fire Year Fire Name Total Acres Acres in TMA 2007 Murphy Complex 217,512 8,751 2010 Crowbar 29,517 5,021 2011 Big Hill 67,082 66,580 2012 Jacks 48,924 12,013 2012 Mustang 19,835 3,366 2012 Kinyon Road 210,827 49 Total 628,332 124,480

Fires with the conditions and propensity to grow large are often controlled using an indirect method, which usually means the use of the route network as an “anchor point” or barrier. However, not all routes are suitable for suppression actions due to narrowness, driving condition, and amount of fuel located in the route. Larger fires require more equipment such as engines, dozers, transports, and water tenders, which, because of their size and weight, either cannot be transported along some routes, or tend to degrade the routes on which they are transported.

3.2.4 Vegetation

Vegetation is the most important biotic component of the landscape because it stabilizes watersheds and provides cover, browse, nesting, and rearing habitat for a diverse assemblage of wildlife and multiple uses. Vegetation also aids in maintaining healthy watersheds and streams by protecting soils, regulating stream flows, and filtering sediments from water. Distinct vegetation communities within the TMA analysis area are influenced by characteristics such as soil depth, texture, and chemistry; climate variables, particularly temperature, total and seasonal distribution of precipitation and wind; and topographic features, most importantly elevation, aspect, and slope. Plant communities respond to other environmental influences, such as wildlife and livestock foraging, rodent burrowing, and fire. Plants themselves also influence soil chemistry and soil resistance to wind and water erosion.

The TMA is located in a semi-arid steppe climate with little annual rainfall and wide variation in temperatures throughout the year. Topology consists of tablelands, dissected lava plains, valleys, alluvial fans, and scattered mountains. Basins and hills are generally dominated by big sagebrush and grasses. Sagebrush species may include Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.), black sagebrush (A. nova), and mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata var. vaseyana) and low sagebrush (A. abuscula), and common grasses are Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), Sandburg bluegrass (Poa secunda) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). At higher elevations, aspen and mountain shrubs are more abundant. Riparian areas are vegetated with emergent vegetation types; the transition zone at the edge of the riparian area is often dominated by sagebrush. Table 3.6 provides vegetation classification and proportions for the TMA analysis area.

Table 3.6. General Vegetation Cover Types of the Canyonlands East TMA

Vegetation Cover Type Ecological System Acres Percent of TMA

Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 302,149 37% Low Sagebrush Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 165,620 20% Mountain Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 128,114 16%

November 2016 54 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6. General Vegetation Cover Types of the Canyonlands East TMA (Continued)

Vegetation Cover Type Ecological System Acres Percent of TMA Bunchgrass Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 79,137 10% Seeding Unidentified 36,399 4% Rabbitbrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 24,580 3% Salt Desert Shrub Salt Brush Scrub 23,457 3% Exotic Annuals Semi-Natural Herbaceous Rangeland 11,727 1% Wet Meadow Palustrine Emergent 10,467 1% Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 10,197 1% Big Sagebrush Mix Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 5,729 <1% Mountain Shrub Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 5,703 <1% Sparse Veg Sparse Vegetation & Natural Barren Areas 4,708 <1% Greasewood Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,116 <1%

3.2.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

Presently, there are no proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species known to occur within the TMA analysis area (USFWS 2016).

3.2.4.2 BLM Special Status Species

Special status plants are sensitive species considered by the BLM to be rare in terms of global and/or state distribution. Each special status plant is ranked according to its rangewide and state rarity based on the Natural Heritage Program (ID F&G Conservation Data Center), and assigned a ‘type’ number by the BLM. Special status plant species occur in a variety of plant communities and physical habitats, many of which have distinctive soil types, and several often occur together. The general habitat types that support special status plants are lake-bed sediments, sagebrush steppe, sandy soils, lithic soils, and wetland areas including playas and hot springs.

Table 3.7 provides a list of all special status plants known to occur in the TMA analysis area, along with their current status and habitat requirements. Several endemic taxa are also found here, including one of Idaho BLM’s most imperiled species, Mulford’s milkvetch (Astragalus mulfordiae). A portion of the affected environment of the TMA analysis area is in Nevada. The BLM Sensitive Species list for Nevada differs from the Idaho list. However, there are currently no known special status plants in the portion that occurs in Nevada. Mulford’s milkvetch is the only Type 2 plant currently known in the TMA analysis area. There are 6 Type 3 plant species and 10 Type 4 species.

Table 3.7. Known Special Status Plant Species in the TMA Analysis Area and Rankings

Occurs Scientific Name Common Name General Habitat Type BLM Rank within TMA Astragalus mulfordiae Mulford’s milkvetch South-facing sandy slopes and ridges with needle- Y Type 2 and-thread grass, Indian ricegrass, and bitterbrush (650-850 meters [m]) Astragalus newberryi Newberry's Foothills, bluffs, and badlands within sagebrush Y Type 4 var. castoreus milkvetch and pinyon-juniper communities (1250-2400 m) Astragalus purshii var. Snake River Loosely aggregated, moving sand and gravelly Y Type 4 ophiogenes milkvetch sand deposits on bluffs, talus, dunes, and volcanic ash among salt-desert shrub communities (700- 1,075 m)

November 2016 55 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.7. Known Special Status Plant Species in the TMA Analysis Area and Rankings (Continued)

Occurs Scientific Name Common Name General Habitat Type BLM Rank within TMA Astragalus yoder- Mud Flat milkvetch Flat to very gentle slopes, predominately in swale Y Type 3 williamsii positions supporting healthy mountain big sagebrush dominated communities (1575-2225 m) Chaenactis stevioides desert pincushion Open, sandy sites in salt desert shrub communities Y Type 4 (0-1,900 m) Cleomella alkali cleomella Wet alkaline meadows, greasewood flats, thermal Y Type 3 plocasperma springs (800-1400 m) Damasonium star waterplantain Pond or reservoir margins, Riparian/Wetland Y Type 4 californicum Dimersia howellii doublet Dry parts of mountains on rocky, cinder or gravelly Y Type 3 soils (1,100-2,900 m) Downingia bacigalupii Bacigalupi's calico- Pond or reservoir margins, Riparian/Wetland Y Type 4 flower Eatonella nivea white eatonella Sandy or volcanic soils often with sagebrush (763- Y Type 4 1,900 m) Eriogonum shockleyi Shockley's matted Oolitic limestone outcrops, sandy loess over basalt, Y Type 4 var. shockleyi buckwheat and cobbly desert pavement over deep sandy-loam in shadscale, mixed desert shrub and sagebrush Communities (760-1300 m) Glyptopleura white-margined wax Sandy-gravelly or loose ash soils in salt desert Y Type 4 marginata plant shrub communities (800-1,200 m) Pyrrocoma linearis thinleaf goldenhead Grassy springs, Streambanks, Meadows Y Type 3 Ipomopsis polycladon spreading gilia Dry, open areas on sandy to silty soils; desert Y Type 3 shrub communities of shadscale and sagebrush (800 to 1500 m) Lepidium davisii Davis peppergrass Barren, internally drained, vernally wet with Y Type 3 standing water, hard-bottomed playas (800 and 1600 m) Leptodactylon Bruneau River Vertical or under-hanging rhyolitic canyon walls, Y Type 3 glabrum prickly phlox rock ledges and cliffs (864-1444 m) Lupinus uncialis inch-high lupine Sagebrush-grassland Y Type 4

Nemadacladus rigidus rigid threadbush Sandy or cindery soils in the desert shrub zone Y Type 4 (800-1,200 m) Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s hedgehog Rocky or sandy benches and canyon rims in low Y Type 4 cactus sagebrush and bud sagebrush communities (900- 1,800 m) Penstemon janishiae Janish's penstemon Clay soils derived from volcanic rock in sagebrush, Y Type 3 juniper, and pinyon-juniper communities (800-1300 m) Peteria thompsoniae spine-noded Barren areas with thin cinder soils in salt Y Type 4 milkvetch desert shrub and sagebrush communities (840- 1300 m) Psathyrotes annua turtleback Sandy, well drained soils in salt desert shrub Y Type 3 communities (730-1,200 m) Description/explanation of BLM Special Status Plant rankings Type 1: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species. These species are listed as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS, or they are Proposed or Candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Type 2: Rangewide/Globally Imperiled Species – High Endangerment. These species have a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to global rarity and significant endangerment factors. Type 3: Rangewide/Globally Imperiled Species – Moderate Endangerment. These species are globally rare with moderate endangerment factors. Global rarity and inherent risks associated with rarity make these species imperiled. Type 4: Species of Concern. These species are generally rare in Idaho with small populations or localized distribution with currently low threat levels. Due to small populations and habitat area, certain future land uses in close proximity could significantly jeopardize these species. Type 5: Watch List. Watch list species are not considered BLM sensitive species and sensitive species policy guidance does not apply. These species may be added to the sensitive species list depending on new information concerning threats and species biology or statewide trends.

November 2016 56 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Mulford’s milkvetch (Astragalus mulfordiae)—Endemic to the western Snake River Plain in Idaho, and portions of eastern Oregon, within the Owyhee Uplands section of the Colombia Plateau. Its habitat is characterized by loose, sandy substrates derived from lacustrine and alluvial sediments, predominantly on southerly to west-facing slopes (Mancuso 1997a) that are often prone to high rates of erosion. It is closely associated with open mix desert shrub species and big sagebrush. Several populations are known to occur within the TMA analysis area.

3.2.4.3 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

“Noxious weed” is a legal designation made by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture about invasive nonnative plants 1) that are potentially more harmful than beneficial, 2) whose adverse impacts exceed the cost of control, and 3) that have the potential of being eradicated. Most of the TMA analysis area consists of native plant communities with few, scattered noxious weed populations, consisting of approximately 1% of vegetative cover species (see Table 3.6).

Eleven plant species identified by the State of Idaho as noxious weeds are known to occur within the TMA analysis area; Table 3.8 provides a list of the noxious weeds known to occur, along with an estimation of their distribution within the TMA analysis area.

Table 3.8. Noxious Weed Distribution for the TMA Analysis Area

Scientific Name Common Name Distribution within TMA

Hyoscyamus niger Black henbane limited Cirsium arvense Canada thistle scattered Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed limited Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed scattered Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed limited Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed scattered Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive* limited Tamarix spp. Saltcedar limited Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle scattered Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed limited Cardaria draba Whitetop/Hoary Cress scattered

* Not a noxious weed but included because it is a high priority for control within the Boise District.

In addition to the State-listed noxious weeds, seven common invasive plant species occur in the TMA analysis area (Table 3.9). An example is exotic annual grasses, such as cheatgrass, that are common to dominant in many lower-elevation areas (especially the northern part of the TMA), often replacing native species, such as sagebrush. The following invasive species list is not exhaustive, but addresses the most common invasive plant species that occur within the TMA analysis area.

Table 3.9. Common Invasive Plant Species

Scientific Name Common Name

Ceratocephalus testiculatus bur buttercup Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Xanthium strumarium cocklebur

November 2016 57 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.9. Common Invasive Plant Species (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name Halogeton glomeratus halogeton Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead Salsola tragus Russian thistle Sisymbrium altissimum tumblemustard

Cheatgrass is an invasive, exotic, annual grass that is found throughout the TMA analysis area in the shrub understory, and can be the dominant species in some areas, especially in disturbed areas and adjacent to existing trails. Oftentimes, it can become established in an area after existing native vegetation is disturbed by fire or mechanical activities. Years with average and above-average precipitation result in increased cheatgrass production, particularly when concentrated in the late winter and early to mid-spring. Cheatgrass are much more flammable than the native species they replace when cured out. Locations of cheatgrass and other weeds have been documented during past treatment activities. The majority of treatments have occurred following wildfires. Treatment data show that many invasive species infestations tend to follow route corridors, as vehicles readily spread weed seed along the disturbed route corridors. Exotic annual communities vary greatly with soil type, former vegetation community composition, and history of disturbance.

3.2.5 Wildlife The TMA analysis area contains expanses of desert plains, deep canyons, and mountains in essentially natural condition, which provide habitat for a variety of native wildlife. General habitat within the TMA analysis area includes shrub-covered plateaus and foothills, deep rocky canyons, and variably sized creeks and wet meadows. The area is quite open, with the main form of cover for larger animals being topographic, which is abundant due to the many ravines, rocky outcrops, and drainages. Vegetative habitat types for wildlife within the TMA analysis area are made up primarily of sagebrush steppe, salt desert scrub, and aspen communities, which are restricted to higher elevations, in addition to riparian ecosystems along the river canyons and perennial streams. Several riparian areas provide quality habitat, water, and cover for the majority of wildlife species in the area, although some streams and riparian areas are in a degraded condition and have established, invasive vegetation populations (see Section 3.2.2.2 Hydrology); e.g., cheatgrass is present throughout the TMA analysis area.

Sagebrush steppe is found in upland habitats, in addition to along watercourses through salt desert shrub habitat. Sagebrush supports rabbit species, migratory birds such as the Greater sage-grouse, and various small mammals, such as kangaroo rats, in addition to several species of reptiles. Grassland is found where shrub-grasslands have been disturbed by fire, and also supports some migratory bird species and small mammals, as well as foraging habitat for raptor species. Rock outcrops, canyon walls, and talus are attractive to many animals, such as raptors, reptiles, and bats, for breeding, food, and cover.

General wildlife species likely to occur in the area include Greater sage-grouse, mountain lion, bobcat, badger, coyote, black-tailed jack rabbit, cottontail rabbit, gopher snake, western rattlesnakes, and several bird and small mammal species. The TMA analysis area also contains important habitat for raptor species that use the area for foraging and/or nesting activities.

November 2016 58 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

3.2.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

The only listed Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species that may occur within the TMA analysis area is the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (USFWS 2016). This species is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.5.5 Fisheries.

3.2.5.2 Migratory Birds

The TMA analysis area likely provides suitable habitat for several migratory bird species, which were formerly referred to as neo-tropical birds. While some birds are habitat specific, there is generally some overlap of use between habitat types. The common species of open grass-dominated habitats that may be found within the TMA analysis area are vesper sparrow, meadowlark, and horned lark. Common bird species of sagebrush shrubland habitats likely to be found in the TMA analysis area include sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, sagebrush sparrow, and lark sparrow. There is little mountain shrubland in the TMA analysis area, but where it becomes dense, species such as northern flicker, western and mountain bluebird, and warbler species may be common. Riparian habitat made up of willows, dogwood, cottonwood, and mountain alder, usually host a unique group of species including yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, western kingfisher, and flycatcher species. The riparian bird community is normally more distinct from surrounding upland communities.

3.2.5.3 BLM Special Status Species

BLM special status species are those species federally identified as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, and species identified by the State of Idaho as sensitive species. Table 3.10 contains a list of BLM Type 1 and Type 2 Special Status Species thought to occur within the Bruneau Field Office boundaries, though because the Bruneau Field Office contains land outside of the TMA analysis area, only some species are assumed to occur within the TMA analysis area.

Table 3.10. Special Status Animal Species and Occurrence within TMA Analysis Area

Occurs Common Name Scientific Name Type in TMA* Amphibians Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris 2 Y Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens 2 N Woodhouse’s toad Anaxyrus woodhousii 2 Y Western toad Anaxyrus boreas 2 Y Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 N Black tern Chlidonias niger 2 N Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata 2 Y Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 2 Y Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 2 Y Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 2 Y Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 2 Y Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 2 N Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 2 Y Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus 2 Y

November 2016 59 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10. Special Status Animal Species and Occurrence within TMA Analysis Area (Continued)

Occurs Common Name Scientific Name Type in TMA* Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 2 Y Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 2 Y Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 2 Y Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 2 N Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 2 N Sagebrush sparrow Amphispiza belli 2 Y Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 2 Y Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 2 Y Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator 3 N Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 2 Y Fish Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus 1 Y Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri 2 Y Invertebrates Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola 1 N Bruneau hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis 1 N Snake River physa Haitia [Physa] natricina 1 N California floater Anodonta californiensis 2 Y Mammals Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 2 Y Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis spp. 2 Y Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus 2 Y Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes 2 N Kit fox Vulpes macrotis 2 Y Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 2 Y Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis 2 Y Long-legged myotis Myotis volans 2 N Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus 2 Y Piute ground squirrel Urocitellus mollis 2 Y Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis 2 Y Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 2 N Spotted bat Euderma maculatum 2 Y Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii 2 Y Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum 2 Y Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis 2 Y Reptiles Great Basin black-collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores 2 Y Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei 2 N Ground snake Sonora semiannulata 2 N

* Occurrence within the TMA was verified by BLM specialists or IFWIS (IFWIS 2015)

November 2016 60 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) – In March of 2010, the sage-grouse was determined by the USFWS to warrant protection under the ESA but was precluded from listing due to other species of higher listing priority. Subsequently, ARMPA policy on conservation policies and objectives were published to facilitate identifying, maintaining, and restoring habitat for sage-grouse with the intention of ensuring the persistence of the species. In September of 2015, USFWS determined that listing of the Greater sage-grouse under the ESA was not warranted, due to this and other landscape-scale conservation efforts.

The TMA analysis area falls within the Great Basin Core population of sage-grouse, and contains over 609,093 acres of key habitat for this species, with approximately 275,702 acres identified as winter habitat. Additionally, approximately 126,923 acres have been identified as perennial grassland with a high potential for restoration. The TMA analysis area contains some of the largest, unburned intact sagebrush habitat remaining within Idaho, as well as the largest area with a high density of leks.

Within the TMA analysis area, there are 667,897 acres of Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs), which are areas that have been identified as having the highest value to maintaining the species and its habitat. PHMAs inform land use measures that are designed to minimize or avoid habitat disturbance. Within PHMAs, specific areas have been identified as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs), which are important landscape blocks with high breeding population densities of sage-grouse and existing high- quality sagebrush. There are 469,156 acres of SFAs within the TMA. Additionally, Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMAs), which consist of BLM-administered land that provide management buffers and connect areas of PHMAs, consist of areas that contain habitat of moderate to high value and/or populations that are outside PHMAs. After the Soda Fire, 45,541 acres of IHMAs within the TMA were converted to PHMAs. Finally, there are also General Habitat Management Areas (GHMAs), consisting of habitat that is occupied seasonally or year-round and located outside of PHMAs and IHMAs, and provides greater flexibility for land use activities. There are 92,502 acres of GHMAs within the TMA. These habitat designations were established by the ARMPA, discussed in more detail in Section 1.5.

In 2014, there were 103 occupied leks documented inside or within 1 mile of the TMA analysis area, 74 of which were identified as active. Lekking habitat consists of low sagebrush flats, openings in vegetation, burned areas, and some types of cropland. Lek attendance is determined by counting the occurrence of male birds, and often demonstrates fluctuations from year to year. The leks within the TMA analysis area are generally located throughout the southern half of the TMA. Sage-grouse spend winter at lower elevations or in windswept areas where snow depths do not preclude access to sagebrush. Data indicate hens may move their broods higher up the mountains and/or to more moist areas where forbs remain more succulent later into the summer.

Sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush throughout the year, for both food and cover. Important winter habitat is composed of vegetation such as mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and/or low sagebrush communities, of which portions of the sagebrush extrudes from snow accumulation and provides important forage. Sage-grouse are completely dependent on sagebrush during late fall and winter (Connelly et al. 2000). During the nesting season, sage-grouse require sagebrush for cover and food, grasses for nesting cover, and forbs for food and nesting cover. In later summer and fall, as the vegetation dries, riparian areas, springs, moist meadows, and higher elevations where green forbs to eat can be found are used (Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2004). Range-wide population decline of this species is associated with loss of sagebrush habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and preservation of remaining habitat is important for persistence.

Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) – The pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush obligate that has been found from 2,900 feet to over 6,000 feet in elevation in southwestern Idaho. The pygmy rabbit is the smallest rabbit in North America. This species prefers dense big sagebrush habitat, utilizing sagebrush for both

November 2016 61 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

food and cover. Recent research indicates that large areas of habitat may be needed to conserve pygmy rabbits to accommodate seasonal, regional, and potentially annual variation in resource availability and to maintain linkages among populations (Sanchez and Rachlow 2008). As one of two rabbit species in North America that dig their own burrows, pygmy rabbits are usually only found where there are deep loamy or sandy loam soils. This secretive species is likely sensitive to motorized recreation and high levels of use likely may lead to local extirpations. Recent surveys indicate that pygmy rabbits are sparsely distributed across southwestern Idaho, though within the TMA analysis area there is nearly 102,000 acres of modeled suitable habitat. Recent research has shown that pygmy rabbits are capable of dispersing long distances and that conservation of this species will require large tracts of suitable habitat (Estes-Zumpf and Rachlow 2009).

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) – Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended in 1990. BLM manages golden eagles under Executive Order 13186 Sec. 3, which directs federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. Golden eagles are found throughout the northern hemisphere, though in the United States they are primarily found west of Texas, favoring habitats that consist of open terrain cut by canyons with upward drafts help with takeoff and soaring. Nests are generally located in open or semi-open habitats such as cliffs, trees, or human-made structures that are close to hunting areas. Golden eagles prey on a variety of species but the majority of the diet in this portion of their range consists of jackrabbits and squirrels (Kochert 1972), and reproductive success of this species is closely tied with availability of this prey species (Murphy 1975, Steenhof and Kochert 2012. Golden eagles are known to be very sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season, particularly during incubation (Snow 1973).

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) – The ferruginous hawk is a species considered a sensitive species by the BLM. A relatively uncommon species, ferruginous hawks are unique among raptors that occur within the TMA in that they forage and nest selectively in grassland habitats (Lehman et al. 1996). They are an open-country species that inhabits grasslands, shrub-steppes, and deserts of the Snake River Plain in Idaho (Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System [IFWIS] 2005), and appear to avoid narrow canyons, high elevations, and forest interiors. They nest in trees and shrubs, on cliffs, pinnacles, rock outcrops, buttes, banks, slopes, and utility structures. In the TMA and nearby, they also nest on military towers and artificial nest platforms. This species is very sensitive to human disturbance during the nesting season, and may even abandon a nest during the pre-egg laying period and incubation period due to a single disturbance (Clark et al. 1989). They feed primarily on small mammals, such as jackrabbits and ground squirrels, though they often have a larger prey base than other raptors (DeGraaf et al. 1991), and productivity is closely linked to prey abundance. The species faces local extinctions in Idaho due to habitat loss caused by agriculture development and urbanization, livestock grazing, reduction in prey populations either through habitat loss or poisoning to control small-mammal populations, illegal shooting, and human disturbance.

Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) – This species of sparrow is a sagebrush obligate and exists in sagebrush shrublands dominated by big sagebrush with perennial bunchgrasses, although it occasionally can be found in other shrub habitats. In the northern Great Basin, sagebrush sparrows use low and tall sagebrush/bunchgrass, juniper/sagebrush, mountain mahogany/shrub, and aspen/sagebrush/bunchgrass communities as primary breeding and feeding habitats (Paige and Ritter 1999). They nest within the TMA analysis area, although they likely avoid areas experiencing moderate to high levels of human disturbance. Impacts to this species are discussed under Migratory Birds in Chapter 4.

Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) – Brewer’s sparrow is considered a sagebrush obligate. It is widespread and highly associated with sagebrush shrublands having abundant, scattered shrubs and short grass. It can also be found in mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush, pinyon-juniper, or bunchgrass grasslands

November 2016 62 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

(Paige and Ritter 1999). Brewer’s sparrows are more likely to occur in sites with high shrub cover and large patch size. The species has been documented in the TMA analysis area and uses the TMA analysis area for nesting and foraging to some degree. Impacts to this species are discussed under Migratory Birds in Chapter 4.

Colombia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) – Generally, Columbia spotted frogs are a widely distributed species, but southern Idaho represents the southern portion of their range, where they reside in isolated patches of suitable habitat. Spotted frogs in southwestern Idaho are within the Great Basin subpopulation (or clade), and genetic analysis suggests that populations have undergone recent declines (Funk et al. 2008). In 1993, this Great Basin subpopulation was determined by the USFWS to warrant protection under the ESA but was precluded from listing due to other species of higher listing priority (USFWS 1993), and in October of 2015 it was removed from the Candidate list due to collaborative conservation efforts significantly reducing threats to the species (USFWS 2015).

This species is most likely to occur near permanent water along the edges of ponds or lakes or in pools along slower-moving streams where algae persists. Historically, beaver ponds were common in low- gradient streams throughout the Owyhee Mountains, but beaver populations were severely reduced in the 1800s as a result of trapping, and therefore frog habitat used to be much more abundant than it is currently. There are modern records of Columbia spotted frogs occurring within the TMA analysis area near Mary’s Creek, Little Blue Creek, and Sheep Creek.

3.2.5.4 Big Game

Pronghorn Antelope: The entire TMA analysis area is classified as American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) general habitat, and antelope are present throughout the year although they are highly mobile and likely avoid areas of human activity when possible. Pronghorn antelope are generally found in shrub steppe and grassland habitats, and of particular importance to populations is the presence of succulent forbs, an essential component of the vegetative community for lactating does. For winter survival, high- quality browse that protrudes above the snow level is crucial (Yoakum 2004). There are approximately 157,379 acres of antelope winter habitat across the TMA analysis area.

California Bighorn Sheep: California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) have been documented within the TMA where suitable habitat is found. In the southwestern portion of Idaho, bighorn sheep habitat is narrowly defined, consisting of steep rocky canyons. There are several populations within and proximate to the TMA, in steep, rugged, open terrain in proximity to Mary’s Creek and Sheep Creek, the East Fork of the Owyhee River and associated drainages, Big Jacks Creek, Little Jacks Creek, and Shoofly Creek, in addition to the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers. Bighorn sheep generally respond negatively to any type of human disturbance (IDFG 2010). The TMA analysis area contains approximately 101,250 acres of habitat within its boundaries, and 1,200 acres of this habitat is classified as lambing habitat. This species is also considered a BLM special status species in addition to being a hunted trophy animal.

3.2.5.5 Fisheries

The TMA analysis area comprises low-elevation sagebrush desert basins that are part of the mainstem Snake, Bruneau, and Owyhee River watersheds. Much of the area receives less than 12 inches of precipitation annually. Most stream surface flows result from snowmelt at higher elevations, producing peak discharges in the spring. Water from the melting snowpack also recharges groundwater levels. Many of the smaller streams have perennial to intermittent surface flows that originate as flowing springs. The length of streams with perennial surface flow and the length of intermittent streams vary from year to year depending on precipitation levels, particularly the amount of winter snowpack. During years of

November 2016 63 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

greater water availability, redband trout and other fishes are distributed to lower elevations in streams (Zoellick 1999). Extended periods of drought reduce the area over which fish are distributed and also the size of fish populations (Dunham et al. 1997). Streams provide habitat for a variety of both cool-water and cold-water–adapted fish species, including one special status fish species: redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi) and one listed species: bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Cool-water– adapted fish species include members of the minnow and sucker families (Cyprinid and Catostomid fishes). Most of these species can tolerate cool- to warm-water conditions (> approximately 77 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) for limited amounts of time.

Key general indicators of aquatic habitat condition of sagebrush desert streams include: 1) stream shading provided by riparian plant communities, 2) adequate riparian and wetland vegetative cover to stabilize streambanks and channels, and 3) stream substrate composition (≤15% fines – substrate particles the size of sand or smaller).

Bull trout were listed as threatened in 1999, and in October 2010, the Bruneau River from the mouth of the Jarbidge River downstream to the Buckaroo Ditch Dam was designated as critical habitat for bull trout by the USFWS. The Bruneau River makes up much of the eastern edge of the TMA analysis area, and upstream of its confluence with the Jarbidge River, it provides suitable winter habitat for migratory bull trout. Bull trout require cold, clear waters (less than 55°F) and low levels of silt, as well as the ability to migrate throughout river systems for reproduction. Currently, it is unknown if bull trout occur within designated critical habitat located in the Bruneau River downstream of the Jarbidge confluence.

Redband trout are a subspecies of rainbow trout that are native to streams east of the Cascade Mountains (Behnke 1992). They are a BLM special status species and also listed as a species of special concern by the State of Idaho and the American Fisheries Society. Within the TMA analysis area, redband trout are widely distributed and have been documented along approximately 190 miles of streams. Redband trout abundance increases significantly as the aquatic habitat condition rating increases. Increases in stream shade provided by riparian shrubs and trees are a strong predictor of redband trout abundance in southwestern Idaho streams (Zoellick and Cade 2006).

3.2.5.6 Bats

Eight special status species of bats have been recorded within the TMA analysis area (see Table 3.10) and occur in canyon, sagebrush steppe, and riparian habitats. Bat species variably roost in living trees and snags, cracks in cliff faces, large boulder piles, slide rock, talus, caves, or mines. Habitat preferences vary between species but habitat quality is related to roosting and foraging habitats. The canyons and rivers located within and in near proximity to the TMA provide unique and important habitat features for many bat species within a generally dry, desert upland geographic context. The presence of open water is of particular importance, even for arid-adapted species, due to the large surface to volume ratios of these small-bodied mammals and the link between waterbodies and life cycles of many species of bats’ primary prey species—insects.

3.2.6 Recreation and Social Values Recreation opportunities within the TMA are primarily dispersed in nature, meaning the activities are resource dependent where visitor services and recreational developments are minimal. Use is generally low, and primarily revolve around hunting, trapping and access to float boating opportunities. There are few improved and maintained vehicle roads, hiking trails, directional signs, informational kiosks, or other facilities in the project area. The existing route network provides access to numerous recreation opportunities in areas adjacent to the TMA such as Big Jacks Creek, Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers, Little

November 2016 64 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Jacks Creek, and Owyhee River Wilderness areas. Access throughout most of the project area requires a high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle.

Activities common in the TMA include hunting, OHV use, hiking, primitive camping, backpacking, fishing, non-motorized boating, horseback riding, off-road driving for pleasure, sightseeing, and vehicle- dependent camping. Most recreational use occurs from mid-May to early November, with the majority of fall uses associated with hunting. OHV use, hunting, fishing, trapping, and even hiking and camping are interrelated in the TMA; visitors and recreationists often use OHVs to access remote areas. River visitor data suggest use may have declined or stabilized for this area over the last 20 years, even with a growing population. The primary use of vehicle routes remains related to livestock grazing.

The BLM manages a commercial and competitive special recreation permitting program for commercial activities, including but not limited to guided backpacking, outfitted hunting, and river rafting.

3.2.6.1 The Existing Route System

The TMA contains 1,521 miles of routes (Table 2-1; Figure 2-1). These routes are currently utilized by motorized vehicles, including OHVs, jeeps, motorcycles, and/or non-motorized uses including mountain biking, hiking, and equestrian use. For purposes of this analysis, routes are categorized by the maintenance level they receive, ML1 or ML3 (Highway 51 is subject to ML5), which describe the type of access that may be facilitated by the routes (note that ML 2 or ML 4 are reserved and are not currently classified). ML3 routes are generally maintained for frequent use by regular traffic, while ML1 routes receive a minimal amount of maintenance and may only be accessible by high-clearance or 4-wheel drive motorized vehicles.

3.2.6.2 Designated Recreation Sites

There are two designated recreation sites within the TMA analysis area: Parker Trailhead and Roberson Trailhead West. Parker Trailhead provides access into the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. Roberson Trailhead West provides access into the Bruneau-Jarbidge River Wilderness.

3.2.6.3 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

BLM uses an inventory concept known as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to define the type of recreation opportunities and settings available in a planning area based on the proximity of lands to road and trail travel corridors. These opportunities can be expressed in terms of three principal components: activities, setting, and experience. For the purposes of management, the range of possible combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience opportunities has been represented in terms of a spectrum (e.g., a dispersed activity such as hiking ranging to fully developed, motorized uses), providing the framework for defining ROS classes. The TMA analysis area provides a variety of opportunity settings for recreationists, including “Roaded Natural,” “Semi-Primitive Motorized,” and “Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized.” (BLM 2008). The acres of ROS classifications are provided below in Table 3.11.

The Semi-Primitive Motorized and the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized classes are areas that are characterized by a primarily unmodified natural environment. There is evidence of other users in the area; however, management actions encourage limited contacts between users. Semi-Primitive Motorized permits motorized uses within the area, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized does not (USDA 1986).

November 2016 65 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.11. Canyonlands East TMA ROS Acreages

ROS Class Acres*

Roaded Natural 122,602 Semi-primitive Motorized 439,080 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 189,746

*Total acreage does not equal total TMA acreage because ROS classes do not cover the entire geographic area of the TMA.

The Roaded Natural class is an area that is characterized by a generally natural environment with only moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Resource modifications and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment (USDA 1986).

3.2.6.4 Hunting and Trapping

Hunting and trapping are permitted in certain areas of the TMA; the TMA analysis area includes portions of Game Management Units 40 and 41 (IDFG 2016). Hunting opportunities are widespread, including deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, sheep, quail, chukar, dove, gray partridge, sage-grouse, pheasant, rabbit, goose, duck, coot, and snipe (IDFG 2016). Trapping is also widespread and has historically occurred throughout the TMA, and includes wildlife such as beaver, badger, bobcat, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and otter.

The hunting season for most big game, including California bighorn sheep, is August through October. Several hundred pronghorn antelope tags are issued each year in the project area, with the majority issued for mid-August through mid-September hunts. Trapping season can vary by species, but for most species consists of either year-round opportunity or November to March. Hunting and trapping in the TMA is considered an exceptional recreation opportunity because of the abundant high-quality habitat for these species in combination with the large quantity of available public lands.

3.2.6.5 Social Values

The social environment of the surrounding communities has been in transition from traditional extractive associations with natural resources (i.e., logging, ranching, and mining) to more tourism- and amenity- based economies and lifestyles. Although these traditional values have evolved, the lifestyles associated with them (e.g., maximum access to public lands) continue to be important to local residents.

Common social trends within and surrounding the TMA include rapidly growing urban populations, increased concern over loss of access, increasingly transformed landscapes, continued and increasing loss of sensitive habitat, increased pressures for uses of all types (in particular, strong trends in recreational uses, such as hiking, biking, OHV and sport utility vehicle [SUV] use, camping, picnicking, etc.), pressures for preservation and conservation, and increased feelings of loss associated with public and private lands, including lost access to public lands and recreation.

3.2.7 Visual Resources The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that public lands be managed in a manner that would maintain their scenic values. To protect visual quality, all public lands are assigned a visual resource management (VRM) classification based upon an inventory and evaluation of scenic quality, distance zones, and public sensitivity towards scenic quality. VRM classes serve two purposes: 1) as an

November 2016 66 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

inventory tool that portrays the relative value of visual resources in the area, and 2) as a management tool that provides and objective for managing visual resources.

BLM utilizes four VRM classifications in their land use planning efforts: Class I, II, III, and IV. VRM Class I areas are generally areas most publicly sensitive to landscape change while Class IV areas are generally the least sensitive to manmade disturbance. VRM sensitivity ratings may be closely related to distance from public use areas and developed areas.

The Class I VRM objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

The Class II VRM objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

The Class III VRM objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the landscape. Changes caused by management activities may be evident and begin to attract attention, but these changes should remain subordinate to the existing landscape.

The Class IV VRM objective is to allow for management activities that involve major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of contrast can be high—dominating the landscape and the focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of the characteristic landscape (BLM 1986).

The TMA analysis area VRM management classifications and acreages are provided below in Table 3.12 (BLM 1983) and illustrated on Figure 3-2. Unclassified lands indicate private lands, urban areas, or other areas closed to public use.

Table 3.12. Canyonlands East TMA VRM Acreages

VRM Classification Acres Class I 4,296 Class II 165,906 Class III 275,306 Class IV 367,919

The characteristic landscape of the TMA analysis area varies greatly, but is dominated by expansive views of plateaus and ridges, intersected by valleys and canyons. Visually dominant features include human-made features such as roads and fences as well as natural features such as cliffs and rivers. Patches of taller vegetation, which is dark in appearance (trees and shrubs) contrast with the lighter, smoother grasses and dirt.

November 2016 67 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-2. Canyonlands East TMA VRM.

November 2016 68 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

3.2.8 Range Resources The TMA analysis area encompasses all or portions of 29 grazing allotments. The associated grazing allotments include year-long livestock grazing use. Livestock water sources vary from streams, pipelines, reservoirs, and spring developments throughout each allotment. Annually, approximately 82,330 active animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing use are authorized by the BLM within the allotments, though some allotments do not occur entirely within the TMA boundaries. Table 3.13 is a summary of permitted livestock grazing in each allotment, as well as range improvements found in the TMA analysis area.

3.2.9 Special Designations 3.2.9.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Bruneau Management Framework Plan (MFP) designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the TMA in order to highlight the following resources for management and protection: unique plant communities, petrified trees, fragile soils, crucial bighorn sheep or elk habitat, geological areas of interest, unique riparian/recreation areas, fisheries habitat, roadless, primitive and scenic values, and unique cultural resources. Owyhee River/Bighorn Sheep, Upper Bruneau Canyon, and Triplet Butte ACECs are located within the TMA. The acreages are provided below in Table 3.14. Triplet Butte ACEC is also a Research Natural Area.

3.2.9.2 National Landscape Conservation System

The TMP analysis area does not contain designated national monuments, national conservation areas, nor national scenic or historic trails. It does contain designated wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, which are discussed below.

WILDERNESS

Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. This wilderness area was designated by Congress in 2009, and is 52,684 acres. The Big Jacks Creek Wilderness, in the Big Jacks Creek Basin, consists of rugged canyons, streams and plateaus that provide habitat for redband trout, mountain quail, and bighorn sheep, as well as two sensitive plant species. The basin ranges in elevation from 2,800 to 5,875 feet and drains a sagebrush- covered plateau dissected by rugged, sheer-walled canyons that are as much as 600 feet deep. Big Jacks Creek flows north into the Bruneau River, a tributary of the Snake River.

Little Jacks Creek Wilderness. The Little Jacks Creek Wilderness was designated in 2009, and includes a basalt dome covered by sagebrush and grass. One-thousand-foot canyons tower over meandering creeks that provide outstanding high-desert scenery, solitude, and many recreational opportunities best enjoyed from September through mid-November. The perennial streams and dense riparian vegetation attracts mule deer, sage-grouse, and mountain quail in this 51,491-acre wilderness.

Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness. This wilderness area was designated by Congress in 2009. The entire area (89,996 acres) is bounded by the TMA. The Jarbidge-Bruneau Rivers Wilderness has some of the best Class V whitewater that Idaho has to offer. The Jarbidge River offers a remote and challenging 29-mile float trip taking boaters through a maze of spectacular canyons, “hoo-doo” rock spires, junipers, and red volcanic cliffs. The Bruneau River flows north from headwaters in the northern Nevada mountains and is known for its sheer-walled, rocky canyons and whitewater boating opportunities.

November 2016 69 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.13. Permitted Use Summary by Allotment and Range Improvements within TMA

Total Acres of Allotment Public Total BLM Number of Miles of Allotment Name Permitted Acres Season of Use Active AUMs Land (BLM) State, Acres in Water Sources Fencing within and Number AUMs within TMA Private and other Allotment within TMA TMA Federal Land

Alzola (940) 03/01 – 02/28 (horse) 4,446 4,446 55,979 48,853 55,248 55 72 03/01 – 06/30 (cattle) 09/01 – 02/28 (cattle) Antelope Field (858) 04/01 – 06/03 (cattle) 1,112 1,112 16,970 15,670 18,096 15 20 09/23 – 12/30 (cattle) Blackleg/Bull Creek Trap 06/01 – 07/05 (cattle) 1,831 1,831 16,270 12,200 20,270 59 25 (863) 09/01 – 11/30 (cattle) Blackstone (941) 03/01 – 02/28 (cattle) 2,669 2,669 77,677 72,397 67,316 22 55 Bruneau Canyon (857)3 01/01 – 03/31 (cattle) 868 868 13,642 11,043 5,162 1 2 Buckhorn (859) 07/17 – 07/26 (cattle) 444 444 6,780 3,280 7,575 6 21 10/05 – 11/24 (cattle) Bull Creek (861) 06/01 – 10/15 (cattle) 1,072 1,072 9,485 7,465 8,918 25 16 Center (809) 11/01 – 05/31 (cattle) 3,868 3,868 67,624 64,038 52,816 48 45 China Creek (883) 05/01 – 11/30 (cattle) 1,458 1,458 36,890 33,450 37,290 24 53 Crab Creek (841) 03/15 – 04/20 (cattle) 223 223 7,568 7,242 7,568 4 18 East Canyon View (869) 11/01 – 03/31 (cattle) 1,081 1,081 4,283 4,283 2,304 8 5 Highway Field (848) 12/01 – 01/10 (cattle) 871 871 15,518 12,868 14,757 8 28 04/01 – 05/30 (cattle) Louse Creek (842) 03/01 – 04/20 (cattle) 796 796 14,800 12,878 14,800 3 21 01/01 – 02/28 (cattle) Louse Creek Individual 04/16 – 06/15 (cattle) 84 84 3,320 1,040 3,716 5 12 (884) 10/15 – 12/15 (cattle) Miller Table Seeding (812) 11/16 – 02/24 (cattle) 740 740 6,158 6,158 604 1 1 North Sheep Creek 09/25 – 12/31 (cattle) 1,029 1,029 5,135 4,380 4,272 10 9 Seeding (852) 04/01 – 06/30 (cattle) 12/01 – 02/28 (horse) Northwest (808) 03/01 – 02/28 (cattle) 13,780 13,780 272,230 240,039 99,951 60 68 Owens (1348) 06/01 – 09/30 (cattle) 1,533 1,533 24,035 22,475 2 0 0

3 Route designation was not completed for the east side of the Bruneau River to the canyon rim (Bruneau Canyon allotment boundary).

November 2016 70 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.13. Permitted Use Summary by Allotment and Range Improvements within TMA (Continued)

Total Acres of Allotment Public Total BLM Number of Miles of Allotment Name Permitted Acres Season of Use Active AUMs Land (BLM) State, Acres in Water Sources Fencing within and Number AUMs within TMA Private and other Allotment within TMA TMA Federal Land Riddle (805) 04/01 – 12/31 (cattle) 23,088 27,199 243,490 183,330 214,511 188 208 Scott Table (810) 05/01 – 06/30 (cattle) 555 555 9,233 8,597 8,963 5 3 10/15 – 12/31 (cattle) Sheep Creek SE (898) 11/01 – 06/30 (cattle) 8,220 8,220 90,730 85,007 78,285 41 49 Simplot Field (867) 09/15 – 11/15 (cattle) 125 125 1,668 923 1,637 2 8 South Grasmere Seeding 03/15 – 05/15 (cattle) 779 779 4,468 4,080 4,468 5 14 (846) 12/01 – 02/15 (cattle) Table Butte (839) 03/01 – 05/15 (cattle) 2,848 2,848 32,866 30,976 32,866 19 45 11/15 – 12/31 (cattle) Tindall Reservoir Field 03/01 – 02/20 (horse) 2,076 2,076 20,158 18,213 21,178 34 39 (851) 04/01 – 07/15 (cattle) 11/01 – 12/31 (cattle) Trout Creek (850) 03/01 – 02/28 (cattle) 821 821 16,716 6,980 16,718 6 38 West Bull Creek (860) 10/15 – 12/01 (cattle) 402 402 3,630 2,790 3,036 1 15 05/15 – 06/30 (cattle) West Canyon View (811) 11/01 – 04/30 (cattle) 1,200 1,200 4,623 3,353 2,878 7 10 Wickahoney (885) 03/01 – 02/28 (cattle) 200 200 6,500 2,800 6,189 6 19

Total 78,219 82,330 1,088,446 926,808 811,394 668 919

November 2016 71 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.14. Canyonlands East TMA ACEC Acreages

ACEC Total Acres Acres within TMA* Owyhee River/Bighorn Sheep 141,796 457 Upper Bruneau Canyon 18,000 4 Triplet Butte 322 309

* Acres are approximate and are not additive of the total CE TMA.

The 50-mile-long Bruneau River begins at the confluence of the Jarbidge River and the West Fork Bruneau River. In the wilderness, plateaus are divided by deep, winding river canyons and provide habitats for sensitive species including bighorn sheep and redband trout, and designated critical habitat for bull trout, bobcat, and river otter.

Owyhee River Wilderness. Only a small portion of the 267,328-acre Owyhee River Wilderness is located within the TMA. The Owyhee River Wilderness is centered on the Owyhee River and its tributaries near the southwest corner of the TMA, and was designated in 2009. The wilderness is characterized by rivers, steep canyons, high desert, and sagebrush plateaus. There are no designated trails and only rough roads to gain access. The recreation setting includes fields of lupine, stark bitterroot flowers, cougars, bighorn lambs, prairie falcons, and pronghorn antelope. River enthusiasts come from around the country to challenge the famous whitewater rapids of these rivers (Wilderness.net 2015).

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) (PL 90-542; 16 USC 1271 et seq.) was created by Congress in 1968, with the intention of preserving rivers and associated tributaries with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in free-flowing condition. The WSRA safeguards the special characteristics of rivers, while encouraging river management. Designation of wild and scenic rivers may be performed though Congressional action or by the Secretary of the Interior. Boundaries of these designations are generally 0.25 mile on either bank to protect river-related values (BLM 2012b). Currently, less than 0.25 percent of the rivers of the United States and Puerto Rico are protected under the WSRA.

Rivers and their tributaries can be classified as either wild, scenic, or recreational:

Wild—Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

Scenic—Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. None of the wild and scenic river segments in Owyhee County are designated as “scenic.”

Recreational—Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

The TMA occurs in close proximity to multiple designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers, including those of the Bruneau River, the Owyhee River, Sheep Creek, Big Jacks Creek, and Juniper Creek. The TMA analysis area contains portions of these designated and eligible rivers and/or their corridors, detailed in Table 3.15.

November 2016 72 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3.15. Wild and Scenic Rivers in the TMA Analysis Area

Acres of Corridor Acres within Name Designation Status Designation Area TMA Analysis Area

Bruneau River Designated- Recreational 170 1 Bruneau River Designated- Wild 12,157 1,014 Owyhee River Designated- Wild 19,570 132 Sheep Creek Designated- Wild 7,692 1,418 Big Jacks Creek Designated- Wild 9,705 319 Cottonwood Creek Designated- Wild 793 71 Duncan Creek Designated- Wild 299 47 Duncan Creek Eligible- Wild 3,566 440 Wickahoney Creek Designated- Wild 434 14 Juniper Creek Eligible- Wild 906 195

All designated wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers within the TMA analysis area are managed in accordance with the decisions contained in the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management Plan (WMP) (BLM 2015b). Specific to travel management, all designated routes within these areas are non-motorized. The WMP specifies: “cherrystem routes (motorized) are non- wilderness, and as such, their use and management will be addressed by the Boise and Twin Falls Districts as they individually prepare Travel Management Plans for non-wilderness public lands in their respective areas, in accordance with Section 1507 of the OPLMA” (BLM 2015b).

3.2.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The TMA analysis area includes portions of eight identified Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs), listed in Table 3.16 below. Of the eight LWCs, three occur wholly within the Canyonlands East TMA. In accordance with Section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM is required to maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and identify within that inventory lands with wilderness characteristics that are outside the areas designated wilderness and wilderness study areas.

Table 3.16. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the TMA Analysis Area

Acres within Name Acres of LWC Area TMA Analysis Area

Buncel Basin 15,962 15,962 Henry Lake 11,748 11,748 Hole in the Ground 15,841 1 Long Draw 27,160 2 Meridian 15,493 261 Roberson Trail 4,444 4 Wildhorse Spring 17,487 289 Yatahoney Creek 17,331 17,331

Total 45,598

November 2016 73 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

A wilderness characteristics inventory is the process of determining the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics based on existing conditions. The inventory evaluates wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and incorporated in FLPMA. For an area to qualify as Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, it must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and supplemental values that may occur, such as geological, archeological, historical, ecological, scenic, or other features (BLM 2012a). LWCs must also have roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres or be contiguous with a Wilderness Area or Wilderness Study Area.

3.2.11 Economics

Idahoans are enthusiastic participants in a variety of outdoor recreation activities that require access and use of public lands. Often, this use requires purchase of expensive, specialized equipment, as well as purchase of other associated services such as gas, lodging, food, etc. As populations have soared in the region, so have the number of recreation participants. For this reason, recreation is a powerful and growing contributor to the regional economy of southwest Idaho. For example, registration of OHVs (ATVs and off-road motorcycles) grew 65% in southwestern Idaho between 2002 and 2006 (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 2007). Recreational use of the TMA is very low and dispersed, generally associated with hunting and trapping in the fall months.

OHV use and camping (both dispersed and developed), along with hunting and fishing, stimulate the regional economy through direct local expenditures on motorized vehicles, trailers, equipment and accessories, and insurance and maintenance costs. Recreation and tourism are important contributors to the economic stability of the area; economic benefits are derived from direct spending on food, gas, lodging, etc., but also from sales tax generated from visitor spending. Local and sales tax revenue is extremely important in rural (or non-urban) areas. This is because tourism often forms a larger proportion of the economic activity in these areas, and also because special excise taxes on tourists and visitors (i.e., from food, lodging, auto rentals, etc.) are more heavily paid by visitors rather than residents (Runyan 2008).

Despite the powerful contribution that recreation makes to regional economies, according to a 2003 regional economic impact model for Owyhee County, Idaho (Darden, et al. 2003), relatively few purchases are made in Owyhee County as a direct result of OHV or other recreational activities that occur there, even though recreation use of the County by non-County residents has grown steadily.

The population of southwestern Idaho is projected to double from about 500,000 people at present, to about 1 million people in the next 20 to 25 years (COMPASS 2006), and much of this growth would occur in currently undeveloped rural areas of western and southern Treasure Valley, often close to the Snake River. This projected growth would place a substantial new population within a driving distance of the Canyonlands East TMA, and increase recreational use of the area.

3.2.12 Environmental Justice Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice directs that programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on minority and low-income populations.

November 2016 74 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The TMA is located entirely within Census Tract 9502. The most recent data available for Census Tract 9502 are from U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. No towns, cities, or other populated areas that have their own U.S. Census data subset are located within the CE TMA. Table 3.17 provides 2014 demographic data for Census Tract 9502, including data on populations protected by Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice. Census data are also provided for Owyhee County and the State of Idaho for comparative purposes.

Table 3.17. Demographic Data for Environmental Justice

Census Tract 9502 Owyhee County Idaho

Total Population 3,927 11,412 1,599,464 Percent below poverty level 36.8% 35.5% 19.4% Percent minority 28.5% 32.5% 17.7% Percent over age 65 17.6% 15.4% 13.3%

Source: U.S. Census, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

As shown in Table 3.17, populations protected by Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice are located within the TMA. Census Tract 9502 has higher percentages of the population that are living below poverty level, have a minority status, and/or are over the age of 65 compared to the overall percentages of the State of Idaho.

November 2016 75 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

November 2016 76

Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an analysis of the impacts (environmental consequences) that would result from the implementation of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2. An environmental impact or consequence is generally considered as a modification or change in the existing environment resulting from an action that is being taken. Impacts can be direct or indirect, temporary, long term, or permanent. Cumulative impacts are also discussed at the end of this chapter. Impacts are considered in terms of significance, intensity, and context.

Significance is defined by the CEQ as a measure of the intensity and context of the effects of an action on, or the importance of that action to, the human environment. Intensity refers to the severity or level of magnitude of impact. This EA uses the terms major, moderate, or minor/negligible in describing the intensity of effects. Context means that the effect(s) of an action must be analyzed within a framework or within physical or conceptual limits. Local, regional, national, and both short- and long-term impacts are relevant to the measure of significance.

4.1.1 Analysis Area As described in Chapter 3, the TMA analysis area was used for describing the existing conditions in the planning area. In Chapter 4, the geographic analysis areas for assessing direct impacts are focused on the travel management system and the physical footprint of the routes themselves, but may vary for resource value or use, particularly for indirect effects. The analysis area for each resource value and use is described at the beginning of each resource section. The temporal analysis area for direct and indirect impacts has been established as 30 years. The geographic and temporal analysis areas for assessing cumulative impacts are described below in Section 4.3.

The impact analysis areas that comprise the TMA were defined to ensure adequate coverage of all areas in which direct and indirect impacts could occur, and to characterize the environment of the TMA.

4.1.2 Analysis Understanding This EA has been developed based on available information deemed adequate to characterize expected impacts to the extent that the significance, intensity, and context are understood for each affected resource. In order to complete an analysis of the effects of the alternatives, the following assumptions were made for purposes of this analysis: 1. This analysis applies only to on the designation of a motorized route network on public lands that were identified by the Bruneau MFP and further designated by the 2009 OPLMA, which specified that routes within the Bruneau MFP TMA would be limited to existing routes until a formal travel management plan was completed. 2. Non-motorized and motorized recreational uses would continue to increase in the TMA as surrounding populations increase, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. 3. For the purpose of NEPA and the analysis herein, it is assumed that the public will comply with the route designations. Management under all alternatives would require signs, barricades, maps,

November 2016 77 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

kiosks, and public education efforts to direct users to appropriate routes available for motorized travel. In addition, routes designated as available for motorized travel would be monitored to ensure compliance with the goals and objectives of the Bruneau MFP and other applicable laws, regulations, and policy. 4. Direct and indirect impact indicators vary by resource, and may include mileages of routes, route densities, or general trend; these are described for each resource. 5. In some cases, intensity of use of a route can influence the level of impact on a resource; this is quantified where applicable by maintenance level (see Section 2.3.1.6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation for more detail), where an ML3 route would indicate frequent use and ML1 would indicate light use. 6. Route density (miles of routes per square mile in a given area [mi/mi2]) is used as an indicator for some resources (e.g., vegetation) to describe the level of impacts, such as habitat fragmentation. Wilderness areas and private routes were not included in density calculations, and therefore density values should be considered as an estimate of conditions on the landscape. 7. It is assumed that non-motorized travel across the TMA currently occurs and will continue to occur into the future, and impacts to resources would also continue to occur commensurate with non-motorized use. Because the purpose of this EA is to analyze the impacts of the designation of a motorized and mechanized route system, and non-motorized, non-mechanized cross-country travel will not be directly affected by any of the action alternatives (with the exception described in Section 2.3.1.1 Adaptive Management), potential impacts to resources resulting from this use are not included in this EA.

4.1.2.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

All action alternatives (as described in Chapter 2) would result in a net reduction in routes for motorized and mechanized use, as compared to the current conditions (No Action, Alternative A). The amount of change, or reduction in mileage and open routes, varies by action alternative. No new route construction would occur under any action alternative. The key distinction between action alternatives are the miles and densities of routes available for motorized use within the TMA.

For the majority of resources and resource uses analyzed in the following sections, this would result in a spectrum of beneficial impacts, as the overall footprint of the route system would be reduced, reducing the adverse impacts of the current condition on resources (e.g., cultural resources, soils and hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, dispersed recreation, visual resources, and special designations, and environmental justice).

For other resource sections (e.g., fire and fuels management, vehicle-based recreation, social values, range resources, access to dispersed recreation, and economics), there would be adverse impacts that would result from a reduced motorized route system. These impacts are described for each alternative.

Following is a brief discussion of the impacts common to the action alternatives for Recreation and Social Values, National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) Special Designations, Economics, and Environmental Justice.

RECREATION AND SOCIAL VALUES

Access to designated recreation sites or wilderness cherry-stem routes would not be impacted under any of the action alternatives. Public use for recreational activities described herein was considered and identified during route evaluation, and in the development of the action alternatives. Primary access to designated and developed recreation sites does not change across alternatives. Open routes would

November 2016 78 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

continue to provide access to two designated recreation sites within the TMA—Parker Trailhead and Roberson Trailhead West. Parker Trailhead provides access into the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. Roberson Trailhead West provides access into the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness.

As noted in Achana (2005), public OHV users list permanent closure of routes as being the most important issue of concern. With BLM-managed lands being the most popular federal lands for OHV use (Fisher et al. 2001), closure of routes on BLM lands would likely adversely affect recreation users, recreation activities, and recreation opportunities. In terms of social values, user conflicts typically arise where incompatible uses occur, such as between motorized and non-motorized users (Badaracco 1976). The number of opportunities (mileage of open motorized routes) would decrease for motorized use under all action alternatives. As a result, users are expected to relocate their motorized recreational activities to those routes still open (Graefe and Thapa 2004), which would result in intensified recreational use, potential overcrowding and/or traffic at certain times on the open routes. In other words, motorized users may encounter more and more motorized users on designated routes resulting in higher and more intense OHV use; the result is that in addition to losing opportunities (mileage) for motorized recreation, the quality of their recreational experience may be adversely affected.

The placement of informational, regulatory, educational, and directional signs would result in reductions in unauthorized route creation and trespass problems that may affect permittees or other administrative uses during periods of high recreation use under all alternatives.

Based on the above considerations, public access to designated recreation sites will not be further discussed. Other indicators for recreation and social values (e.g., changes in total miles of the existing route system; miles of routes closed to motorized use, and changes in the overall mileages of routes available for recreational public use) may result in different, discernible impacts according to the Action Alternative. Thus, impacts to recreation and social value that are discernible amongst the action alternatives are analyzed further in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below.

ECONOMICS

Increased use of public land resources would generally degrade the quality of life in the region and increase BLM and local government costs to monitor, regulate, and control the increase in visitors. A consequence of the increase in intensity of use could be the displacement of some users to other locations if the higher levels of use detract from their experience and/or result in a sense of overcrowding.

Although all the action alternatives would result in some degree of reduction of miles available for motorized vehicle use and the potential for diminished recreational experience as noted above, no measurable impact to economics is anticipated. As noted above, recreation users are expected to relocate their motorized recreational activities to those routes still open within the TMA (Graefe and Thapa 2004), therefore there would be no reduction in the economic activity in the TMA or Owyhee County. The No Action Alternative would not result in changes to the number of route miles available. As there would be no change in the current conditions, there would be no changes to economics within the TMA. Thus, economics is not discussed further in the direct/indirect section of this EA (Section 4.2). Potential cumulative effects to economics are considered in Section 4.3.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

As described in Chapter 3, there are three types of special designations within the CE TMA: designated Wilderness Areas, designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Only ACECs would be discernibly impacted across the action alternatives from the designation of a route system; therefore, ACECs are carried forward in direct/indirect and cumulative impact analysis.

November 2016 79 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

National Landscape Conservation System

Wilderness

No motorized routes would occur within designated Wilderness areas under all alternatives. Administratively authorized access on non-motorized routes would be managed as specified in the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers Management Plan (BLM 2015b). Public access to the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness, Little Jacks Creek Wilderness, Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness, and Owyhee River Wilderness via existing cherry-stem routes would be maintained. There would be no discernible difference in direct impacts to wilderness from designating a route system under any action alternative, as all routes currently within designated wilderness areas would be closed or designated as limited to non-motorized and non-mechanized use. Impacts that describe the public’s ability to access recreational opportunities such as wilderness are discussed under Recreation and Social Values. Thus, effects to designated Wilderness are not discussed further in this EA.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Route designations under all alternatives would not affect designated or eligible National Wild and Scenic Rivers. There would be no discernible difference in impacts to wild and scenic rivers from designating a route system under any action alternative. Thus, effects to designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers are not discussed further in this EA.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

As described in Section 3.2.12 of Chapter 3, the TMA is located entirely within Census Tract 9502. Census Tract 9502 has higher percentages of the population living below poverty level, have a minority status, and/or are over the age of 65 compared to the overall percentages of the State of Idaho.

Evaluation of environmental justice effects involves assessment of the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations. The majority of the existing route system is very rural in nature, and while Census Tract 9502 meets the definition of an environmental justice community, there are no towns, villages, or populations centers within the TMA. No impacts to this environmental justice community Census Tract 9502) is anticipated. Thus, impacts (including cumulative impacts) to environmental justice are not discussed further in this EA.

4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

The following analysis describes the impacts of the No Action Alternative (A), as well as the action alternatives (B, C, and D) for each resource described in Chapter 3.

4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative As described in Section 2.2 in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative is the current management condition described in the Bruneau MFP as amended by the 2009 OPLMA.

The system includes all 1,521 miles of inventoried routes, all of which are open to public motorized use, including the 70 miles of highways within the TMA boundaries. The route designations that currently exist within the TMA are displayed in Table 4.1.

November 2016 80 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.1. Route Designations – Alternative A (No Action)

Designation Mileage Definition

Highway 70 Open 1,451 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 0 Closed to public motorized use during seasons or times. OHV <50 inches 0 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 0 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 0 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 0 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

4.2.1.1 Cultural Resources

The analysis area for impacts to cultural resources consists of the footprint of the route network within the TMA. Potential impacts to cultural resources are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Number of sites intersected by routes open to public motorized use • Number of sites within 0.25 mile of routes open to public motorized use

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to management of the routes within the TMA – OHV use has been identified as a major source of damage to archaeological sites and historic properties (Lyneis et al. 1980; Schneider 2005). The 1979 study (Lyneis et al. 1980) noted that damage to archaeological sites by vehicles occurred most frequently when a site was close to a road or campground. Linear and non-linear archaeological sites that are currently being impacted by travel on 1,521 miles of open routes would continue to be impacted. Continued impacts from the No Action Alternative are considered in terms of direct impacts (known archaeological sites that are intersected by the route network) and indirect impacts (sites within a 0.25-mile buffer of the routes).

Six known NRHP-eligible non-linear sites and one unevaluated/unknown non-linear site are intersected by routes open for public motorized use and would continue to be directly impacted (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative A (No Action)

NRHP NRHP Route Designation Total Eligible Unevaluated or Unknown

Open to Public Motorized Use 6 1 7 Limited Access 0 0 0 Total 6 1 7

Of the five existing linear sites, four sites—all historic roads, trails, or highways—are currently being impacted at multiple locations by routes open for public motorized use. The linear sites are crossed 46 times. One of these linear sites is eligible for the NRHP; the other three sites are unevaluated for NRHP eligibility.

Indirect impacts considered for sites within a 0.25-mile buffer would result if individuals leave the designated routes and indirectly impact known sites; impacts could be unintentional or intentional disturbance to a site. A 0.25-mile buffer was selected as a reasonable distance that people may walk off

November 2016 81 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

the designated route. There are approximately 500 known archaeological sites, including those discussed for direct impacts, found within 0.25 mile of the open and limited-use routes. These sites may be adversely impacted if individuals leave the designated routes. Of the 500 known archaeological sites, 334 are listed in or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or their NRHP status is unevaluated or unknown.

In summary, linear and non-linear archaeological sites would continue to be directly and indirectly impacted by continued vehicular use of the 1,521 miles of open routes. Specifically, 334 (eligible or unevaluated/unknown) sites would continue to be adversely impacted by the current management.

4.2.1.2 Soils and Hydrology

SOILS

The analysis area for direct and indirect impacts to soil resources consists of the footprint of the current route network. Potential impacts to soil resources are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in mileage of motorized routes across the TMA • Mileage of routes identified as impacting soils with high erosion potential designated as closed or non-motorized • Number of routes identified as impacting soils with high erosion potential designated as closed or non-motorized

Mechanical disturbance of soils from motorized vehicle activities results in soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, impaired or diminished function of soil stabilizers such as biotic soil crusts and desert pavement, and accelerated erosion rates causing rills and gullying. Soil types that are most susceptible to compaction are loamy sands and gravelly soils with a wide range of particle sizes (Webb and Wilshire 1983). These impacts reduce the ability of vegetation to become established and grow, and the resulting lack of established vegetative cover further increases soil’s susceptibility to erosion (Webb and Wilshire 1983). Contaminants collected in soils from airborne engine emissions can also become dislodged during erosion events (wind, precipitation, and mechanical disturbance) and continue to move through the environment (Havlick 2002). These impacts are greatest in the areas dominated by the sedimentary- derived soils and least in the volcanic (rhyolite and basalt) derived soils, as the areas of sedimentary soils are the most erosive and fragile. Soils in the TMA with the highest potential for erosion include types of soils with sandy loam or gravelly surface textures (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999).

There are currently 263 unpaved, inventoried routes that were identified as occurring on soils that have a high risk for erosion, encompassing 598 total miles, or 39% of the 1,521 miles of the current route system. Table 4.3 describes the miles and percent of identified routes that occur on soil types with erosive surface textures.

Table 4.3. Miles of Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative A

Percent of Route Miles Surface Texture Miles per Texture Class

Silt loam 124 21% Loam 78 13% Stony loam 75 13% Gravelly loam 75 13% Fine sandy loam 46 8%

November 2016 82 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.3. Miles of Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative A (Continued)

Percent of Route Miles Surface Texture Miles per Texture Class Ashy sandy loam 35 6% Cobbly loam 24 4% Very fine sandy loam 24 4% Cobbly silt loam 19 3% Stony silt loam 17 3% Very cobbly loam 16 3% Very gravelly sandy loam 15 3% Sandy loam 12 2% Gravelly fine sandy loam 8 1% Gravelly silt loam 7 1% Loamy sand 4 1% Very gravelly loam 4 1% Bedrock 3 1% Very cobbly sandy loam 3 <1% Stones, boulders 2 <1% Clay 2 <1% Gravelly sandy loam 1 <1% Gravelly loamy sand 1 <1% Total* 595 100%

* Values may not sum to total due to soil texture classes being excluded if mileage is very small.

Increased impacts to soil resources are expected with increased motorized use within the TMA. Existing routes would continue to contribute to continued localized soil erosion due to motorized use across all currently inventoried routes, and result in subsequent loss of site productivity and sediment delivery to hydrologic systems. Dry, powdery soils may be susceptible to wind erosion on routes where vegetation has diminished as a result of vehicle travel. Other impacts include soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, loss of soil stabilizers such as vegetation, and acceleration of erosional rates. Compaction of soils has the potential to reduce soil porosity and permeability, thus decreasing the infiltration of surface water as well as inhibiting the growth of root systems. The precipitation runoff rate increases, further accelerating rates of soil erosion leading to the formation of rills, gullies, and other erosional features on road surfaces. Impacts from motorized use would be more severe on the 595 miles of routes identified as occurring in highly erosive soils, as these soils are more sensitive to disturbance factors than soils that occur elsewhere in the TMA.

HYDROLOGY

The analysis area for direct impacts to hydrological resources consists of the footprint of the current route network, and for indirect impacts, route mileages within 300 feet of perennial or intermittent (which includes ephemeral) streams.

Potential impacts to hydrology are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Number of route crossings of perennial and intermittent waterways

November 2016 83 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

• Number of route crossings of 303(d)-listed waterways • Change in miles of routes within riparian habitat (300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies and springs) • Change in miles of routes within riparian habitat of 303(d)-listed waterways (300 feet) • Route density in riparian areas (defined as 300ft on either side of a perennial or intermittent streams, waterbodies and springs)

Motorized routes have the potential to increase input of sedimentation, turbidity, and pollutants within affected watersheds, reducing stream habitat and adversely affecting water quality and subsequently, riparian and aquatic habitats. Acceleration of surface-water runoff and soil erosion can be caused by compaction of soils, disruption of soil crusts, and reduced vegetation cover. Sediment and other debris that erode from the surfaces of the routes could be flushed into aquatic systems, resulting in increased stream water turbidity. Pollutants associated with deposition of emissions and spills of petroleum products could be absorbed into soils and sediments or dissolved in runoff. Surface water runoff and erosion of contaminated soils could introduce potentially toxic chemicals into aquatic systems. Routes also provide human access, and the activities that accompany this access can magnify the adverse effects on aquatic systems beyond those solely from routes themselves.

Under current conditions, 1,521 miles of existing routes are available for motorized travel and there are 893 crossings of intermittent or perennial streams by motorized routes. Of the 893 stream crossings, 139 occur along ML3 routes, which carry a higher frequency of traffic, and therefore have the highest number of crossings and thus, greater impacts than the remaining 754 crossings that occur along ML1 routes. Ninety-seven crossings occur in 303(d)-listed streams, as described in Table 4.4, and 13 of these crossings occur along ML3 routes. Approximately 40 miles of these routes are within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams, as described in Table 4.4. Of these 40 miles, 1 mile is attributed to Highway 51, while 6 miles are attributed to ML3 routes.

Table 4.4. Current Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative A

Number of Route Mileage Waterbody Name Stream Type Stream Crossings within 300 feet

Trout Creek Intermittent 5 0.79 Rattlesnake Creek Intermittent 6 1.73 Cottonwood Creek Intermittent 1 0.46 Black Leg Creek Intermittent 1 0.13 Black Leg Creek Perennial 1 0.31 Alder Creek Intermittent 1 0.30 Alder Creek Perennial 2 0.27 Mary’s Creek Perennial 0 0.57 Sheep Creek Perennial 0 0.99 Meadow Creek Perennial 0 0.23 Pole Creek Intermittent 0 0.18 Cat Creek Intermittent 0 0.09 unnamed Intermittent 80 33.95 Total 97 40.00

November 2016 84 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Currently, 327 miles of motorized routes occur within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs at a density of 1.72 mi/mi2. Route density can be a useful metric for determining impacts of routes at regional scales. Adverse impacts to watershed condition and aquatic habitats are detectable at even low densities of 0.1 mi/mi2, and are considered to be associated with high degradation at densities of 0.7 mi/mi2 or greater (Lee et al. 1997). Evidence shows that substantial water quality declines, watershed degradation and aquatic species impacts should be expected at road densities of 1 mi/mi2 or greater (Quigley et al. 1996; Ripley et al. 2005).

Presence of routes is correlated with changes in the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that shape aquatic systems and riparian habitat (Gucinski et al. 2001). These changes include severing connections between streams and adjacent floodplain networks, the conversion of subsurface to surface flow by intercepting groundwater flowpaths, and finally, routes can divert flow to streams, which can increase runoff, the likelihood of flash floods and erosion (Forman 2004; Gucinski et al. 2001). Routes in proximity to watercourses tend to increase overland flow sediment transport capacity (Hinckley et al. 1983) by causing changes to the surface that alter patterns of runoff. Vehicle tracks and roads in riparian areas smooth obstructions to overland flow, which in turn increases flow rates, leading to accelerated erosion and increased creation of continuous rills and channels. These rills and gullies can grow into continuous gullies (Heede 1983) over time, which can directly transport sediment and pollutants into waterways. This primary impact would result in continued increases of suspended sediment loads from stream crossings, which occur at higher levels along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic, and soil erosion and its delivery to streams from roads and routes, particularly during precipitation events (Brown 1994). Additionally, contaminants contained in soils from exhaust or spills can be transported into aquatic systems by precipitation events or wind-based erosion (Forman et al. 2003).

Increased impacts to water quality are expected with increased motorized use within the TMA. Existing routes would continue to contribute to an increase of drainage densities of small watersheds, increasing runoff and stream flow during high-flow events, and consequently increased erosion and introduction of more sediment into the stream system (Furniss et al. 2000). Increases in fine sediment impair the growth and survival of aquatic life, including aquatic insects and fish (discussed in Section 4.1.2.5). The overall result of increased sedimentation into stream systems may result in continued failure to meet IDEQ water quality standards for 303(d)-listed streams and potential impairment of new streams, in addition to impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats.

4.2.1.3 Fire and Fuels Management

The analysis area for impacts to fire and fuels management consists of the footprint of the route network.

Potential impacts to fire and fuels management are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of maintained routes across the TMA • Change in total miles of routes within the route network

Under the No Action Alternative, access for fire and fuels management would remain the same. Highways within the TMA provide 70 miles of paved, maintained routes for access, and remain consistent across all alternatives; these routes enable use by nearly all fire-fighting vehicles and equipment, whereas unmaintained routes may hinder certain fire-fighting access. Currently, 409 miles of existing routes are identified as fuel breaks across the TMA, with 171 of those miles occurring along ML3 routes, in addition to 40 miles of Highway 51. There would be no changes to the current route network of 1,521 miles of routes within the route network; routes would continue to be used as a fuel break or for anchor points, and are determined by the conditions on any given year, such as driving condition and amount of fuel located in the route.

November 2016 85 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.2.1.4 Vegetation

The analysis area for direct and indirect impacts to vegetation consists of the footprint of the route network and the area between routes within the TMA.

Potential impacts to vegetation are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of routes within general vegetative cover types • Route density within general vegetative cover types

Route density can be used as an indicator for direct and indirect impacts to vegetation and the ecological landscape to which it contributes. In general, an area with more routes (expressed as higher route density) would have more degraded vegetation than an area with lower route density, if all other factors are equal. A route density of 1.0 mi/mi2 of land area is estimated to directly or indirectly impact approximately 1% of the vegetation within that square mile. A route density value of 1.0 mi/mi2 appears to be the maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape that contains sustained populations of large predators, which act as indicators of ecological health (Forman and Alexander 1998). Table 4.5 describes miles and route densities of general vegetative cover types within the TMA.

Table 4.5. Alternative A Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA

Route Density Vegetation Cover Type Ecological System Miles* 2 (mi/mi )

Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 549 1.16 Low Sagebrush Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 284 1.10 Mountain Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 195 0.97 Bunchgrass Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 121 0.98 Seeding Unidentified 115 2.02 Rabbitbrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 51 1.33 Salt Desert Shrub Salt Brush Scrub 90 2.46 Exotic Annuals Semi-Natural Herbaceous Rangeland 17 0.93 Wet Meadow Palustrine Emergent 11 0.67 Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 14 0.88 Big Sagebrush Mix Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 10 1.12 Mountain Shrub Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 4 0.45 Sparse Vegetation Sparse Vegetation & Natural Barren Areas 22 2.99 Greasewood Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 10 3.02 Total 1,493 1.18**

* Total miles do not equal total route mileage due to rounding and did not account for mileage of Highway 51 on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. ** Total route density across all general vegetation cover types.

Routes generally degrade native vegetation and these effects have been well documented (Forman and Alexander 1998; Jones et al. 2008; Trombulak and Frissell 2008; Walker and Everett 1987). Vegetation degradation ranges from complete destruction on the route surface to impacts on the adjacent plant community. This impact includes erosion and sedimentation associated with routes, introduction of weeds, depressed vegetation vigor due to production and deposition of dust, and destruction or impacts from increased human presence, such as human-caused fires, dumping, and other activities. These off-

November 2016 86 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

route impacts often extend up to many feet on either side of a route in an effect researchers have termed the road influence zone. These impacts would occur wherever there are existing routes, and can occur simultaneously with edge effects described below, depending on conditions

Additionally, the impervious nature of compacted soils along routes and paved road surfaces can increase runoff and generate greater moisture availability immediately along routes (Ouren et al. 2007), creating “edge effects” in which conditions promote increased cover, vigor, and abundance of plant species compared to areas without routes. Networks of routes fragment intact native vegetation, and the resulting edge effects generate conditions that promote the encroachment of non-native and invasive plant species directly adjacent to trails (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). The bare ground created by routes increases the rate of evaporation of available moisture, increases the risk of wind and water erosion, and creates conditions that favor the establishment of invasive plant species (see Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants section below for more detailed discussion).

Other indirect effects include increased amounts of airborne pollutants and dust raised by motorized traffic. Airborne contaminants generated by engines can settle onto plants or soils and function as fertilizers (particularly carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide), which has the potential to alter growth rates and community composition (Bazzaz and Garbutt 1988). Fugitive dust from motorized vehicle traffic adversely affects vegetation in the vicinity of routes. A blanket of dust on plant foliage inhibits plant growth rates, reducing plant size and survival (Ouren et al. 2007). The weakened native vegetation provides an increased opportunity for exotic and invasive species to increase and out-compete native vegetation for soil nutrients and soil moisture.

Currently, eight of the 14 general vegetative cover types are over the 1 mi/mi2 threshold and include big sagebrush, low sagebrush, seeding, rabbitbrush, salt desert shrub, big sagebrush mix, greasewood and sparse vegetation (the “seeding” general vegetative cover type is not a natural system and is a management action that is performed after fire activity). In particular, salt desert shrub, sparse vegetation, and greasewood show route densities that are more than double the threshold for a naturally functioning landscape and are likely heavily fragmented. Overall, route density across vegetative communities within the TMA is at 1.18 mi/mi2, which is also above the threshold for a naturally functioning landscape.

The No Action Alternative would continue to have an adverse effect on the native vegetation in the TMA. The road influence zone and edge effects would continue to influence the distribution and species composition of native vegetation along all 1,521 miles of motorized routes across the TMA. If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be additional vegetation affected, and increased severity of impacts to the existing affected area. Increased road influence zone impacts in the form of more dust deposition, the proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, route widening, potentially exacerbate erosion and off- site sedimentation and general human presence impacts could be expected to occur to vegetation where there are existing routes.

Over the long term, populations of existing plants, native and invasive, would decrease as soil is exposed due to continued use of routes. Subsequently, the long-term effects of exposed soil along routes would result in ground moisture rates decreasing, accelerated erosion, and any viable seed reserves in the soil would be lost.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Potential impacts to special status plant species are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Number of motorized routes intersecting populations of special status plants

November 2016 87 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

• Change in miles within known (recorded within the last 20 years) populations of special status plants • Number of motorized routes within 0.25 mile of populations of special status plants

Number of populations of known (recorded within the last 20 years) populations of special-status plants within 0.25 mile of routes. Impacts to special status plant species would be similar to those described for General Vegetation (Section 4.2.1.4). Table 4.6 describes the species and number of populations of special status species directly and indirectly impacted by motorized routes.

Table 4.6. Alternative A Motorized Routes and Special Status Species

Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count 0.25 mile

Astragalus newberryi var. castoreus Newberry’s milkvetch 4 0 2 Astragalus purshii var. ophiogenes Snake River milkvetch 4 1 0 Astragalus yoder-williamsii Mud Flat milkvetch 3 10 18 Damasonium californicum Star waterplantain 4 0 15 Dimersia howellii Doublet 3 0 7 Bacigalupis downingia Bacigalupi's calico-flower 4 7 5 Eatonella nivea White eatonella 4 1 0 Eriogonum shockleyi var. shockleyi Shockley’s matted buckwheat 4 1 0 Glyptopleura marginata White-margined wax plant 4 10 21 Ipomopsis polycladon Spreading gilia 3 1 0 Lepidium davisii Davis peppergrass 3 36 23 Leptodactylon glabrum Bruneau River prickly phlox 3 2 0 Lupinus uncialis Inch-high lupine 4 2 7 Nemadacladus rigidus Rigid threadbush 4 1 0 Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s hedgehog cactus 4 2 17 Penstemon janishiae Janish’s penstemon 3 6 11 Peteria thompsoniae Spine-noded milkvetch 4 7 3 Total 87 129

Currently, 9 miles of routes open to public motorized vehicle use occur directly within existing populations (recorded within the last 20 years) of special status plants. A total of 70 routes intersect populations of special status plants, with the same route, occasionally intersecting multiple populations of various species for a total of 87 intersections across the TMA. Of these 70 routes, five are ML3 routes consisting of 13 intersections with special status plant populations, while the remaining 65 routes are ML1 routes that receive light use. The TMA contains 40 populations of plants identified within the last 20 years within 0.25 mile of the route network, for a total of 99 routes within 0.25 mile of these populations.

Increased road influence zone impacts in the form of more dust deposition, the proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, route widening, potentially exacerbate erosion and off-site sedimentation and general human presence impacts could be expected to occur to vegetation where there are existing routes, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic. Germinating seeds and seedlings of both native vegetation and special status species are sensitive to motorized vehicle use of routes, and can be killed by direct contact with tires or buried by soil compaction and/or soil erosion (CEQ 1979).

November 2016 88 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be additional affects to existing populations of special status species (particularly where motorized routes intersect populations), and increased severity of impacts to the existing affected area. Habitat fragmentation and degradation would continue in those areas where current routes are having adverse impacts on special status plants or suitable habitats. This would indirectly affect species’ productivity, resiliency, diversity, and vigor and their capability to reproduce and sustain natural climatic fluctuations and ecological processes.

NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS

Potential impacts to noxious weeds and invasive plant species are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Number of motorized routes intersecting populations of special status plants • Change in miles of motorized routes • Number of recorded populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants within 300 feet of routes

Routes may be the first point of entry for noxious weeds and invasive plants into a landscape, and the route can serve as a corridor along which the plants are distributed farther into the landscape (Greenberg et al. 1997; Lonsdale and Lane 1994). A single ATV can disperse more than 2,000 invasive noxious knapweed seeds over a 10-mile radius, even when kept on a gravel road (Montana State University Extension Service 1992). In areas of disturbance, direct impacts to vegetation include reduced vegetative cover and reduced growth rates, which increase potential for non-native and pioneering species to become established (Ouren et al. 2007), and increased moisture availability along routes promotes increased vegetative cover of plants that can withstand recurring disturbance. Over the long term, as invasive and non-native species populations increase in size, they would continue to encroach into the native vegetation, out-competing native species, particularly after disturbance events (Adams et al. 1982). Networks of routes fragment intact habitat and create edge habitats, which generate conditions that promote the encroachment of non-native and invasive plant species.

Currently all 1,521 miles of routes are open for public motorized use identified in the inventory, and allow for the continued dispersal of weed species throughout the planning area. Across the TMA, 66 routes were identified to intersect existing populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants, 14 of which are ML3 routes, which are subject to a higher frequency of use and therefore the potential for spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be higher along these routes. More than 350 populations of weeds occurring within 300 feet of these routes have been identified since 2001. Over the long term, as invasive and non-native species populations increase in size, they would continue to encroach into the native vegetation, out-competing native species. This would continue to have adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and biodiversity across the TMA, and these impacts would likely increase in relation to predicted increases in recreation and use of routes.

4.2.1.5 Wildlife

The analysis area for direct and indirect impacts to wildlife consists of the footprint of the route network and area between routes within the TMA. Potential impacts to wildlife are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes • Density of motorized routes within habitat

November 2016 89 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Effects of routes on wildlife occur in three ways: direct effects, such as habitat loss and fragmentation; routes use effects, such as traffic causing avoidance or mortality from roadkill; and additional facilitation effects, such as over-hunting, over-trapping, or increased recreational pressures, which can increase with road access (discussed in more detail in Big Game below). Road density is a useful index of the effect of roads on wildlife populations (Forman et al. 1997). Route density can be used as in indicator of habitat fragmentation and degradation, as well as potential for disturbance. The effects of route density on wildlife vary by species; however, areas with route density greater than 2 mi/mi2 exceed thresholds for many terrestrial wildlife species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Wisdom et al. 2004) and 1.0 mi/mi2 has been determined to be the maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals (Forman and Hersperger 1996). Additionally, evidence shows that substantial water quality declines, watershed degradation and aquatic species impacts should be expected at road densities of 1 mi/mi2 or greater (Quigley et al. 1996; Ripley et al. 2005).

Routes fragment habitats by changing landscape structure and by directly and indirectly affecting species. Habitat effects of roads on the landscape include dissecting vegetation patches, increasing the edge- affected area and decreasing interior area, and increasing the uniformity of patch characteristics, such as shape and size (Reed et al. 1996). Weed invasions are commonly associated with routes and may alter habitat composition, structure, and function (see Section 4.2.1.4 Vegetation for more discussion on impacts to habitat). Routes, ranging from highways to single-track trails, have been identified as significant barriers to animal movement and contribute heavily to habitat fragmentation (Meffe and Carol 1997), reduced population numbers, interruption of life-history events, and cause disturbance from both noise and presence. Road-avoidance behavior is characteristic of large mammals such as elk, bighorn sheep, and bear. Avoidance distances of 100 to 200 m are common for these species (Lyon 1985). Populations can be fragmented into smaller subpopulations causing increased demographic fluctuation, inbreeding, loss of genetic variability, and local population extinctions of less vagile species, such as small mammals or reptiles.

Adverse effects of motorized recreation on wildlife are numerous and well documented. There is little documentation of direct mortality to wildlife from motorized recreation, although physical impairment and stress does occur from hearing loss caused by high-decibel engine noise, escape responses, reduced reproductive output, and disruptions to foraging and estivation activities (Berry 1980). Routes pose a direct mortality hazard to small, slowly moving, migratory animals, such as amphibians, making them highly vulnerable as they cross even narrow routes (Langton 1989). Populations of amphibians with highly restricted home ranges may be reduced to dangerous sizes by road kills.

The No Action Alternative has an adverse effect on wildlife species across the TMA, causing disturbance and habitat fragmentation, as all 1,521 miles of currently inventoried routes are open to motorized travel. Of these routes, 309 miles would be ML3 routes, which carry a larger volume of traffic, while the remaining 1,212 miles would be ML1 routes, and observe light use. As the frequency of use influences the level of impact a route may have on wildlife in the surrounding areas, routes that are ML3 or greater would have greater potential to cause disturbance or direct mortality via vehicle strikes to wildlife species. Current route density of 1.18 mi/mi2, above the 1.0 mi/mi2 maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals, but still below that of the 2.0 mi/mi2 threshold for many individual species. Mode, spatial, temporal, and social variables all determine the degree of impact motorized routes have on a specific species. Impacts on a species may include energetic costs, behavioral changes (feeding, breeding, sheltering), loss of fitness (survival, growth, reproduction rates), site avoidance, and others. Wildlife species would continue to experience the adverse effects of motorized recreation throughout the TMA, and some species, such as small mammals, migratory birds, and amphibians, may show population declines over time as levels of use increase.

November 2016 90 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

As noted in Chapter 3, (Section 3.2.5.1), bull trout (Threatened) is the only listed species with potential to occur within the TMA. The Jarbidge River, upstream of the Bruneau and Jarbidge River confluence, provides suitable winter habitat for migratory bull trout. Currently, it is unknown if bull trout occur within designated critical habitat located in the Bruneau River downstream of the Jarbidge confluence. Impacts to this species are discussed in Fisheries.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

Potential impacts to wildlife are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes • Density of motorized routes within vegetative communities

Routes fragment habitat, and create habitat edge effects, modifying the habitat in favor of species that use edges. In some locations, increased water runoff from routes produces lush vegetation (“edge effects,” discussed in detail in Vegetation Section 4.2.1.4), which attracts birds for breeding, nesting, or foraging activities (Clark and Karr 1979). The attraction of bird species to these edge habitats can lead to greater risk of mortality by collisions with vehicles (Mumme et al. 2000). Surveys of songbirds in two National Forests of northern Minnesota found 24 species of birds more abundant along roads than away from them (Hanowski and Niemi 1995). Close to half these species were associated with edges, including birds like crows and blue jays that use roads as corridors to find food. Increasing edge diversity of birds may negatively affect interior species abundance (Anderson et al. 1977). Vehicular traffic is also a source of noise that has the potential for disturbing wildlife along any type of road or trail (Bowles 1995). Traffic noise has been documented to lead to significant reductions in breeding bird densities (Reijnen et al. 1995).

Disturbance and soil compaction along routes, along with seed dispersal by vehicles, increase the potential for establishment of invasive, non-native, and other early successional plants (Adams et al. 1982; Prose et al. 1987). Weed proliferation decreases the quality of migratory bird habitat by reducing native vegetative cover. Refer to Table 4.5, Alternative A Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA, for route density across specific habitats, used by a variety of migratory bird species.

Sagebrush shrubland habitat, such as big sagebrush, low sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush and big sagebrush mix general vegetative cover types are important habitats for a multitude of sagebrush-obligate songbirds, such as sagebrush sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and Greater sage-grouse (discussed below). A study of sagebrush-obligate passerines in Wyoming indicates a 39%–40% reduction in sagebrush obligates within 100 meters of dirt roads with low traffic volumes (7–10 vehicles per day) (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004), which could result in changes in species composition and decreased fitness. Average route density across these communities within the TMA is currently 1.09 mi/mi2.

Currently, 1,521 miles of inventoried routes occur at a density of 1.18 mi/mi2 across the TMA. The No Action Alternative does not improve current conditions, as habitat would remain fragmented, and disturbance via motorized recreation is expected to increase over time. Areas of refuge would remain the same with this alternative, and there would continue to be net adverse effects to breeding, nesting, and successful fledging. Impacts on migratory bird species would continue to include energetic costs, behavioral changes (feeding, breeding, sheltering), loss of fitness (survival, growth, reproduction rates), site avoidance, and others.

November 2016 91 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Greater Sage-Grouse: The analysis area for direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse includes the footprint of the current route network, and route density within designated habitat types and buffered occupied leks (0.8 mile).

Potential impacts to wildlife are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes in habitat types (including seasonal closures) • Density of motorized routes in habitat types (including seasonal closures)

The greatest impacts to sage-grouse from motorized use of routes would likely occur during breeding and nesting seasons, when sage-grouse are most vulnerable to disturbance. In addition to disturbance of sage- grouse, motorized routes cause mortality from collisions, fragment sage-grouse habitat, may lead to spread of noxious weeds and other invasive plants, and increase the possibility of wildland fires. These actions have reduced the quality and quantity of sage-grouse habitat in the past and continue to occur. Range-wide population declines of this species are associated with loss of sagebrush habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and preservation of remaining habitat is important for persistence.

Disturbance during breeding season may cause sage-grouse to disperse from the lek earlier in the day than normal, interrupt display behavior, cause a decline in male lek attendance, interfere or stop mating, and cause hens to disperse further from the lek for nesting (Lyon and Anderson 2003). Hens from leks with human disturbance traveled greater distances, approximately twice as far, to establish a nest than hens from undisturbed leks. Hens from disturbed leks nested an average of 2.5 miles from the lek and were less likely to initiate a nest than hens from undisturbed leks. Most research on sage-grouse has shown that population declines are related to reduced nesting success (Braun 1998; Schroeder 1997; Schroeder et al. 1999). Disturbance caused by use of motorized vehicles in proximity to leks could alter lekking activities and reduce reproductive success. This impact would likely increase with the frequency of motorized disturbance associated with any given lek.

There are 148 miles of existing routes within buffered 2014 occupied leks, at a density of 1.21 mi/mi2. Of these routes, 40 miles occur along ML3 routes, and 2 miles occur along Highway 51. These routes carry higher volumes of traffic than the remaining ML1 routes, and therefore have a greater potential to disturb sage-grouse during lekking. Lekking habitat consists of low sagebrush flats, openings in vegetation, burned areas and some types of cropland. This alternative would cause adverse effects to sage-grouse from the projected increased use of the area over time, and locations of existing routes near leks and within nesting habitat. Currently, there are no seasonal closures in place for sage-grouse leks or nesting areas and continued motorized use of routes near leks would likely continue to have considerable detrimental effects on reproductive success.

There are 493 miles of existing routes within winter habitat at a density of 1.14 mi/mi2, comprising vegetation such as mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and/or low sagebrush communities of which portions of the sagebrush extrudes from snow accumulation and provides important forage. Sage-grouse are completely dependent on sagebrush during late fall and winter (Connelly et al. 2000). Fragmentation of this habitat and risk of introduction of non-native plants that have the potential to change the species composition of sagebrush vegetative communities would have lasting adverse impacts to sage-grouse winter survival.

There are 14 miles of existing routes at a density of 2.63 mi/mi2 within late brood rearing habitat, which is comprised of a mosaic of upland sagebrush vegetation, intermixed with mountain meadows and spring systems, and are another very important component of sage-grouse habitats. Current route density is high and fragmentation of this habitat and risk of introduction of non-native plants have the potential to change

November 2016 92 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

the species composition of sagebrush vegetative communities, and would adversely impact sage-grouse breeding success.

Motorized route density within key habitat is currently at 1.11 mi/mi2, and sage-grouse would continue to experience disturbance from existing levels of motorized use throughout the year. Motorized route density within Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) is currently 1.42 mi/mi2, which would continue to fragment high- quality sagebrush habitat and disturb breeding activities, in addition to providing opportunities for non- native vegetation to be introduced into the habitat. SFAs are important landscape blocks with high sage- grouse breeding population densities and existing high-quality sagebrush, as identified in the ARMPA (see Section 1.5 for further discussion). Table 4.7 describes miles and densities of routes in important types of sage-grouse habitat, though there is overlap between habitat types.

Table 4.7. Alternative A Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types

Habitat Type Miles Route Density (mi/mi2) Winter 493 1.14 Late Brood Rearing 14 2.63 Occupied Leks (2014) 148 1.21 Key Habitat* 1,061 1.11 Sagebrush Focal Area** 1,039 1.42

* The State of Idaho defines key habitat as: areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year including winter, spring, summer, late brood-rearing, fall, transition sites from winter to spring, spring to summer, summer/fall to winter. Key habitat may or may not provide adequate nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter cover due to elevation, snow depth, lack of early-season forbs, limited herbaceous cover, or small sagebrush patch size. ** Sagebrush Focal Areas are important landscape blocks with high breeding population densities of sage-grouse and existing high-quality sagebrush.

Overall, the current motorized route system does not provide seasonal protection for Greater sage-grouse during critical life stages, and would continue to have adverse impacts on breeding success and winter survival. Additionally, crucial habitat would continue to be impacted by the current route system and existing levels of fragmentation would continue to exist, which creates potential for invasion of non- native species that may alter species composition and increase the risk of wildfire.

Pygmy Rabbit: The analysis area for direct impacts to pygmy rabbits includes the footprint of the current route network. Motorized route densities within modeled habitat of this species quantify indirect impacts.

Potential impacts to pygmy rabbit are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes in modeled habitat • Density of motorized routes in modeled habitat

Potential effects from motorized recreation on pygmy rabbits would include habitat fragmentation and degradation, collision mortality, collapsed burrows, disturbance, and habitat degradation. These types of disturbances may lead to diminished body mass, hearing impairment, reduced productivity, and/or poor survival. Pygmy rabbits have been shown to depend on hearing for predator detection (Bradfield 1974), and this may suggest that noise from motorized vehicles could increase vulnerability to predation. This secretive species is likely sensitive to motorized recreation and high levels of use likely may lead to local extirpations. Currently, 189 miles of motorized routes occur within this ecological system at a density of 1.19 mi/mi2. Of these, 183 routes currently open to motorized use were identified to occur within habitat for this species. This alternative would continue to have adverse effects to pygmy rabbits because there would be no reduction in route density or levels of habitat fragmentation. Motorized recreation would continue throughout the TMA and reduce the availability of areas of refuge, and as motorized traffic

November 2016 93 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

increases over time, there would be less available habitat for this species, which could result in lower reproductive success and a decline in population.

Golden Eagle: The analysis area for impacts to golden eagles includes the footprint of the current route network. Golden eagles generally nest on cliffs or in large trees with unobstructed views, and forage in nearby open habitats. They preferentially prey on jackrabbits and other lagomorphs in North America, and reproductive success of this species is closely tied with availability of this prey species (Murphy 1975). Golden eagles have been shown to be very sensitive to disturbance, including motorized recreation, especially during the incubation period (Snow 1973). Habitat for raptor prey species can be degraded from loss and changes in vegetation and is due to habitat fragmentation by routes (Ouren et al. 2007), and there would be increased disturbance and less prey base over time. The No Action Alternative would continue existing adverse effects to raptor species and prey, and these effects would increase as motorized use of routes increases over time in the TMA. There are no recorded nests within the TMA, but no systematic surveys have occurred. Therefore, motorized use of routes could cause continued disturbances to this species if they are present, but these effects cannot be quantified. Given that impacts to golden eagles could occur, effects are assumed to be commensurate with that of general wildlife and will be described in that section for all action alternatives.

Ferruginous Hawk: The analysis area for impacts to ferruginous hawks includes the footprint of the current route network. Ferruginous hawks will nest in isolated trees, buttes, cliffs, or grasslands, and feed primarily on jackrabbits and ground squirrels, though they often have a larger prey base than other raptors (DeGraaf et al. 1991). The ferruginous hawk is very sensitive to human disturbance during the nesting season, and may even abandon a nest during the pre-egg laying or incubation period due to a single disturbance (Clark et al. 1989). Habitat for raptor prey species can be degraded from loss and changes in vegetation and is attributable to habitat fragmentation by routes (Ouren et al. 2007), and there would be increased disturbance and less prey base over time. The No Action Alternative would continue existing adverse effects to raptor species and prey, and these effects would increase as motorized use of routes increases over time in the TMA. There are no recorded nests within the TMA, but no systematic surveys have occurred. Therefore, motorized use of routes could cause continued disturbances to this species if they are present, but these effects cannot be quantified. Given that impacts to ferruginous hawks could occur, effects are assumed to be commensurate with that of general wildlife and therefore will be described in that section for all action alternatives.

Sagebrush Sparrow: Impacts to this species are discussed in Migratory Birds above.

Brewer’s Sparrow: Impacts to this species are discussed in Migratory Birds above.

Columbia Spotted Frog: The analysis area for direct impacts to Columbia spotted frogs includes the footprint of the current route network, including stream crossings and mileages of routes within 300 feet of recorded occurrences within the TMA. Potential impacts to Columbia spotted frogs are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes in proximity to habitat • Number of stream crossings of motorized routes in proximity to habitat

Columbia spotted frogs are not widely distributed across the TMA, therefore only streams and crossings adjacent to or within areas where frogs have been observed were considered for potential impacts. Currently, there is 1 mile of routes within 300 feet of recorded occurrences of this species, in addition to two crossings of 303d-listed intermittent streams. One of the crossings occurs along a ML3 route, which may contribute greater amounts of sediment and pollutants into the stream it crosses due to the volume of traffic that occur along these routes. Direct and indirect impacts to Columbia spotted frog habitat, such as riparian vegetation and stream channels, would increase as projected increases in motorized use continues

November 2016 94 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

in the TMA. Impacts from these motorized routes include physical disturbance of riparian vegetation, direct mortality from vehicles, and increased suspended sediment loads from erosion. Additionally, increased sediment loads contribute to destabilizing of stream channels and scouring of riparian vegetation during high stream flows (Furniss et al. 2000). Chemicals from emissions and spills associated with vehicles may also be transported into aquatic systems and lower water quality (Ouren et al. 2007). When water quality decreases, habitat quality for amphibians also decreases.

BIG GAME

The analysis area for big-game species consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to wildlife are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes in habitat types • Density of motorized routes in habitat types

Routes disturb big-game species with noise from human motorized recreation, fragment habitat, create barriers to movement, and allow easier access for hunters. High road densities are associated with a variety of negative human effects on several wildlife species (Brocke et al. 1988). Increases in illegal hunting pressure, facilitated by roads, also negatively affects populations. Moose, wolves, caribou, pronghorn, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep have been shown to be particularly vulnerable to this kind of predation (Lyon 1985; Wisdom et al. 2000). The evidence is strong that human predation, either legally in game management programs or illegally, is greatly facilitated by roads, and can significantly affect populations of animals (Cole et al. 1997). Ungulates have been shown to alter their patterns of foraging and spatial use of habitat, and have had diminished reproductive output as a result of disturbance from motorized recreation (Yarmoloy et al. 1988), and this disturbance can be directly related to volume of traffic on routes. Noise and human presence can disturb and displace wintering big-game animals, leading to increased physiological stress during a time when ungulates are often already stressed from low temperatures, deep snow, or food shortages (Canfield et al. 1999). The increased stress can lead to death and reproductive loss. A route density threshold of 1.0 mi/mi2 has been determined to be the maximum for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals (Forman and Hersperger 1996).

Bighorn Sheep: In the southwestern portion of Idaho, bighorn sheep habitat is narrowly defined, consisting of steep, rocky canyons and flat plateaus adjacent to these canyons. One of the major threats to bighorn populations is the recent increase in human recreation in habitat areas, leading to increased levels of disturbance, though specific research into motorized recreation and its effects on bighorn sheep is lacking. Because bighorn sheep generally respond negatively to any type of human disturbance, restrictions on motorized recreation in habitat areas is warranted (IDFG 2010). Currently, 219 miles of routes, occurring at a density of 1.38 mi/mi2, are available for public motorized vehicle use within bighorn sheep habitat in the TMA, 32 of which are ML3 routes. Of those routes, 8 miles occur within lambing habitat identified by Idaho Fish and Game biologists, though additional lambing habitat may exist within the TMA. Route density in general habitat is well over the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold. This may result in continued avoidance of the routes and restricted movement through general habitat, and may result in lowered reproductive potential and high levels of human-caused disturbance. Additionally, motorized routes within habitat subject bighorn sheep to pressures from hunting, both legal and illegal. In a few instances, higher volume routes in the TMA, such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers, causing habitat fragmentation and genetic bottlenecking between populations. Populations of bighorn sheep would continue to be adversely impacted by motorized routes and human disturbance facilitated by access via motorized routes.

November 2016 95 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Pronghorn Antelope: Pronghorn antelope are generally found in shrub steppe and grassland habitats, and of particular importance to populations is the presence of succulent forbs, an essential component of the vegetative community for lactating does. For winter survival, high-quality browse that protrudes above the snow level is crucial (Yoakum 2004). Human motorized recreation in pronghorn habitat adversely impacts habitats and causes disturbance. Approximately 1,502 miles of routes are currently open to public motorized vehicle use across general antelope habitat within the TMA, of which 238 miles are ML3 routes, at a density of 1.18 mi/mi2. Of the routes, 323 miles occur in winter habitat areas, of which 31 miles are ML3 routes, at a density of 1.31 mi/mi2. Route densities in both these habitat types are over the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold. This may result in continued avoidance of the few higher volume routes, and may result in lowered winter survival due to disturbance within winter habitats where routes remain accessible during the wintering period. Routes, particularly higher volume routes such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers and contribute to habitat fragmentation. Additionally, motorized routes within habitat subject pronghorn antelope to pressures from hunting, both legal and illegal. Populations of pronghorn antelope would continue to be adversely impacted by motorized routes and human disturbance facilitated by access via motorized routes.

FISHERIES

The analysis area for fisheries consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to fisheries are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Number of stream crossings in redband trout habitat • Change in miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of redband trout habitat • Number of stream crossings in of perennial and intermittent streams • Change in miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams

The Bruneau River and its tributaries provide habitat for both cool-water– and cold-water–adapted fish species, including redband trout, a BLM Special Status Species and an Idaho Species of Special Concern, which are widely distributed and have been documented along approximately 190 miles of streams within the TMA. In addition to redband trout, the TMA also contains habitat for threatened bull trout. Bull trout require cold, clear waters (less than 55°F) and low levels of silt, as well as the ability to migrate throughout river systems for reproduction. The Bruneau River, upstream of the Bruneau and Jarbidge River confluence, provides suitable habitat for spawning, rearing, foraging, migration and overwintering bull trout, but populations have not been verified as occurring, and no inventoried routes occur within bull trout habitats in the TMA. One route facilitates access to bull trout habitat. Impacts from motorized vehicle use of routes to aquatic habitats for redband trout and bull trout are considered to be similar.

Increased fine-sediment composition in stream gravel has been linked to decreased fry emergence, decreased juvenile densities, loss of winter carrying capacity, and increased predation of aquatic species. Increased fine sediment can reduce benthic organism populations and algal production. Increased fine sediment in stream gravel can reduce intragravel water exchange, thereby reducing oxygen concentrations, increasing metabolic waste concentrations, and restricting movements of alevins4 (Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Coble 1961; Cordone and Kelley 1960). Pools function as resting habitats for migrating adults, rearing habitats for juveniles (Bjornn and Reiser 1991), and refugia from natural disturbances (Sedell et al. 1990). Pools that lose volume from sediment (Jackson and Beschta 1984; Lisle 1982) support fewer fish (Bjornn et al. 1977), and fish that reside in them may suffer higher mortality (Alexander and Hansen 1986).

4 A newly spawned salmon or trout still carrying the yolk.

November 2016 96 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Increased sediment reduces populations of benthic organisms by reducing interstitial spaces and flow used by many species and by reducing algal production, the primary food source of many invertebrates (Chutter 1969; Hynes 1970). Other impacts of routes on aquatic habitats include barriers to migration, water temperature changes, and alterations to streamflow regimes. Road stream-crossings have been shown to have effects on stream invertebrates. Aquatic invertebrate species assemblages can be related to the number of stream crossings above a site. Total species richness of aquatic insect larvae can be negatively related to the number of stream crossings, and can cause significant differences between macroinvertebrate assemblages above and below road-stream crossings (Newbold et al. 1980), and diversity is negatively correlated with increased road density (McGurk and Fong 1995).

Routes adjacent to stream channels can contribute additional effects. Changes in temperature and light regime from decreases in the riparian canopy can have both beneficial and adverse effects on fish populations. Occasionally, increased food availability can mitigate negative effects of increased summer water temperatures (Bisson et al. 1988). Adverse effects, including elevation of stream temperatures beyond the range of preferred rearing, inhibition of upstream migrations, increased disease susceptibility, reduced metabolic efficiency, and shifts in species assemblages have been documented (Beschta et al. 1987; Hicks et al. 1991). Increasing road densities are associated with decreased likelihood of spawning and rearing of non-anadromous salmonids in the upper Columbia River basin, and populations are negatively correlated with road density (Lee et al. 1997).

Currently, 4 miles of open routes lie within 300 feet of redband trout habitat within the TMA, with three crossings, two of which are in Cottonwood Creek, a perennial stream. All three stream crossings occur along ML1 routes, which carry a low volume of traffic and contribute lesser amounts of sediment and pollutants into water ways than ML3 routes. In addition, there are 893 routes that cross intermittent streams across the TMA, and 327 miles of open routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs at a density of 1.72 mi/mi2 (see Section 4.2.1.2 Hydrology for a discussion of density thresholds and traffic volume).

When water quality decreases, fish habitat quality also decreases (see Section 4.2.1.2 Hydrology for further discussion of impacts to water quality). This alternative would result in lower diversity of aquatic invertebrates, algae, amphibians, and fish in impacted streams and rivers across the TMA. Redband trout habitat would continue to be impacted by existing stream crossings which can impede movement of fish, gene flow, and change invertebrate assemblages. Routes adjacent to or crossing these streams would continue to contribute sediment and contaminants into waterways and increase turbidity, change water temperature through removal of vegetation, and cause changes to the structure of in-stream habitats such as pools.

BATS

The analysis area for bat species consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to bats are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of motorized routes in habitat

The five special status bat species (big brown bat, canyon bat, little brown bat, long-eared myotis, and pallid bat) that have been recorded within the TMA utilize a spectrum of habitat types for both roosting and foraging activities. Bats are susceptible to the same impacts as general wildlife, particularly alterations of foraging habitats and disturbance of roosting sites (maternity colonies or hibernacula). Disturbance of maternity colonies can cause abandonment of young, while disturbance of hibernacula may arouse bats out of torpor and deplete energy reserves (Adams 2003), which can cause starvation (Haymond 1998). Additionally, hibernating bats are susceptible to infection of the cold-adapted fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) (Foley et al. 2011), which causes white-nose syndrome and infections

November 2016 97 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

may result in starvation of bats over the winter. This fungus is thought to be spread by humans entering caves used as hibernacula, though it has not been observed in Idaho as of 2015.

The presence of open water is of particular importance for even the most arid-adapted species, as many insect species upon which bats feed have reproductive cycles linked to waterbodies. Canyon habitats in shrub-steppe habitat also provide disproportionately important areas for roosting and by extension, define the areas most visited for foraging. Motorized use of routes would cause continued disturbances to bat species by facilitating access to the caves and mines used as maternity colonies or hibernacula by bat species within the TMA. The spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants can alter foraging habitats, and increase the risk of human-caused wildfire. Wildfires can also alter foraging habitats or destroy trees used as roosts by some bat species.

Currently, 265 miles of motorized routes overlap bat habitat. Route mileages described as overlapping with bat habitat include total miles of routes that may only intersect areas within 1 mile of canyon habitat that is most likely to contain a disproportionately large proportion of roosting bats. Consequently, mileages overestimate the actual overlap of route lengths in bat foraging habitat and comparison among alternatives should be viewed only as relative effects to bats. These routes would continue to facilitate human access into bat habitat, particularly recreational activities associated with cave resources, which may result in lowered winter survival due to disturbance where routes remain accessible during the hibernation period. Routes may also continue to contribute to habitat fragmentation and alteration of foraging habitats from the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, which would also increase the risk of human-caused wildfire. Populations of bats would continue to be adversely impacted by motorized routes and human disturbance facilitated by access via motorized routes.

4.2.1.6 Recreation and Social Values

The analysis area for impacts to recreation is the network of motorized routes that are open to public use, which for the purpose of this analysis does not include highway miles (70 miles within the TMA).

Potential impacts to recreation and social values are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Changes in total miles of the existing route system (i.e., miles of specific designations) • Changes in access to designated recreation sites • Miles of route closures within SRMAs • Miles of routes closed to motorized recreational use • Changes in miles of routes available for recreational public use (e.g., rockhounding, spiritual visitor, vehicle exploring, sightseeing, hunting, and trapping) • Changes in miles of routes open to public motorized use within ROS classes.

As noted in Chapter 3 (see Section 3.2.8), over the last 20 years, recreational use of the public lands within the TMA has increased dramatically and this trend is expected to continue, particularly with the population increases of surrounding communities (Nelson and Lynch 2001). River visitor data suggest use may have declined or stabilized for this area over the last 20 years, even with a growing population. Ranchers and miners initially established the existing network of roads, and the primary use of motorized routes remains related to livestock grazing. Due to the remote nature of the majority of public lands within the TMA, motorized vehicle access is necessary even for non-motorized uses. Currently public motorized vehicle use is allowed on 1,521 miles of routes. The most popular recreational activity within the TMA is hunting and trapping; however, public uses of the routes also include rock hounding, spiritual visitation, and vehicular exploration and sightseeing.

November 2016 98 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Current miles of routes open to public motorized use within the three ROS classes (see Section 3.2.6.3 for more detail) is described in Table 4.8 below. The BLM, through future land use planning efforts, would determine whether or not the Canyonlands East TMA route designations would require new or amended ROS classifications. Additionally, the ROS is not prescriptive, but rather is a land management tool that can be used to identify and mitigate change.

Table 4.8. Alternative A Miles within ROS Classes

ROS Class Alternative A Miles

Roaded Natural 431 Semi-Primitive Motorized 1,019 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 45 Total* 1,495

*Total miles does not equal total network mileage because ROS classes do not cover the entire geographic area of the TMA.

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the existing route system or access, therefore there would be no impacts to recreational uses, such as hiking and trapping. Recreational motorized and non-motorized use (e.g., via OHVs, hiking, horseback riding, or cycling) would continue on the 1,521 miles of routes. Of these 1,521 miles of routes, 70 miles consist of Highway 51, 239 miles would be regularly maintained for frequent use by regular traffic (ML3), while the remaining 1,212 miles would receive light use and minimal maintenance. User conflicts may continue to be experienced by non- motorized users as they perceive motorized use to be un-managed and disruptive to their recreational experience (Jackson and Wong 1982). Existing routes within the TMA provide access to three wilderness areas designated in 2009, via cherry-stem routes, which occur in direct proximity to the TMA (the Owyhee River Wilderness, Big Jacks Creek Wilderness, and Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness) and provide opportunities for non-motorized recreation. It is anticipated that recreational use would likely continue increasing over time as populations in surrounding communities grow.

4.2.1.7 Visual Resources

The analysis area for impacts to visual resources consists of the footprint of the route network.

Potential impacts to visual resources are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles within VRM classes • Density of routes within VRM classes

Linear features on a landscape, such as routes, detract from the visual quality. Route proliferation (including parallel routes, multiplicity of routes going to one destination, and routes that serve no known purpose) is also a detracting visual factor in many areas where proliferation has occurred, especially in the VRM Class I areas (see Figure 3-2 under Section 3.2.7 in Chapter 3). Under the No Action Alternative, the existing landscape would not change since there would be no change to the current route system. As the No Action Alternative would not result in changes to the 1,521-mile system (see Table 4.8), it would not affect any VRM classifications. The existing route network would be designated under Alternative A, so there would be no changes in route density. Table 4.9 describes miles and route densities in each VRM class under the No Action Alternative.

November 2016 99 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.9. Alternative A Miles and Route Density of VRM Classes

Route Density VRM Class Miles* 2 (mi/mi )

I 4 0.60 II 293 1.13 III 556 1.29 IV 647 1.13

* Mileage total may not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

4.2.1.8 Range Resources

The analysis area for direct and indirect impacts to range resources consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to range resources are specified in terms of the following impact indicators: • Change in miles of routes available as open to public motorized or authorized only use • Change in number of routes used for livestock management activities available as open to public motorizes or authorized only use

The number of routes used for ongoing livestock management activities is an indicator of direct and indirect impacts to range resources, as these routes provide the ability to effectively manage livestock activities, such as trailing, hauling water, placing salt, or maintaining existing improvements. If access is inadequate for these activities, management of the allotments, the well-being of livestock, and economic feasibility of grazing operations may be affected.

The total number of route miles designated as open is used as an indicator for direct and indirect impacts to range resources. The routes provide access for livestock management activities, but routes used for motorized travel generally degrade native vegetation as well as discouraging vegetation from re-growing within the route footprint (subject to level and frequency of use), as described in Section 4.2.1.6. These impacts to native vegetation can reduce available forage, potentially impacting livestock grazing.

Under the No Action Alternative, there are 1,521 miles of routes within the route network open to motorized use, and 870 individual routes used for known livestock management activities, including access to active allotments, fences, water locations, and salt lick sites. Table 4.10 shows the number of routes accessing range improvements and livestock activity sites. This alternative would not result in alterations to route-related livestock management activities. Under the No Action Alternative, existing impacts to livestock grazing would continue at current levels. This alternative assumes that use would continue to occur on all existing open routes and that these levels would increase over time as shown by current trends.

Table 4.10. Alternative A Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites

Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes*

Total number of routes 870 Allotment, pasture, and exclosure fences 386 Stock tanks, ponds, dams, and reservoirs 273 Developed water sites, wells, windmills, and pipelines 187 Water haul sites 71 Salt lick and supplement sites 216

November 2016 100 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.10. Alternative A Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites (Continued)

Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes* Livestock trailing 64 Cattle guards and gates 306 Corrals or other structures 23

* Routes are not additive as a single route may access more than one feature.

4.2.1.9 Special Designations

The analysis area for impacts to special designations consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to special designations are specified in terms of the following impact indicator: • Change in miles within areas with special designations.

Approximately 2 miles of routes designated under Alternative A lie within the Owyhee River/Bighorn ACEC. No miles of routes would be closed within the ACECs under Alternative A; resulting in minor to moderate, long-term impacts to the resources of the ACEC. The No Action Alternative would have the most impact to ACECs since the 2 miles of routes within the ACEC would not be closed or limited to motorized use.

4.2.1.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The analysis area for impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics consists of the footprint of the route network. Potential impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics are specified in terms of the following impact indicator: • Change in overall route miles within lands with wilderness characteristics.

Under Alternative A, all routes that occur within lands with wilderness characteristics (approximately 28 routes totaling 72 miles) would be designated as open to public motorized use and would not change the overall miles within lands with wilderness characteristics. The wilderness characteristic inventory units of Buncel Basin, Henry Lake, Meridian, Wildhorse Spring and Yatahoney Creek would be affected if Alternative A were implemented. Since the existing route network was already in place during the establishment of the wilderness characteristic inventory units, and since there would be no new routes added or constructed under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics. Maintenance activities that could affect wilderness characteristics (e.g., decrease naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or supplemental values) associated with the designated route network would be similar to current activities, and would not be anticipated to occur more frequently since Alternative A would designate the entire existing 1,521-mile route system as open to all users.

4.2.1.11 Impact Summary of No Action Alternative

If the No Action Alternative is implemented, motorized and mechanized travel would continue to contribute to impacts to cultural resources, increasing erosion and sedimentation, the spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, displacement and fragmentation in wildlife habitats and vegetative communities (including ACECs), as described above. The No Action Alternative would continue to provide the maximum levels of access for fire and fuels management, recreation, and a multitude of land

November 2016 101 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

uses (including grazing and mineral material extraction); access to recreation sites and special designations would be maintained (see Table 2.7, Summary of Impacts by Alternative, in Chapter 2).

4.2.2 Alternative B As described in Section 2.3.2 in Chapter 2, Alternative B is designed to provide maximum protection to natural, scenic, and cultural values while still providing reasonable motorized access. The primary management emphasis would be the protection and enhancement of natural resource values through a substantial reduction in the travel routes available for motorized use. Under Alternative B, 40% of routes open under current conditions would be designated closed. The route designations that would occur under this alternative within the TMA are displayed in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11. Route Designations – Alternative B

Designation Mileage Definition

Highway 70 Open 303 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 174 Closed to public motorized use during seasons or times. OHV <50 inches 3 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 29 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 325 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 617 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

4.2.2.1 Cultural Resources

Alternative B would result in a moderate reduction in impacts to cultural resources from the current conditions (also described in the No Action Alternative above). In terms of direct impacts, one non-linear, NRHP-eligible site (Table 4.12), and three linear sites—crossed 21 times—would be impacted by open or limited use routes under Alternative B.

Table 4.12. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative B

NRHP NRHP Route Designation Total Eligible Unevaluated or Unknown

Open 0 0 0 Limited 1 0 1 Closed 3 1 4 Total 4 1 5

Additionally, there would be fewer indirect impacts from Alternative B than the No Action Alternative; 274 of the 500 known archaeological sites within 0.25 mile of the route network would be along closed routes, and would be less likely to be indirectly impacted by OHV use. Of those 274 known archaeological sites, 186 are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, or their NRHP status is unevaluated/unknown.

November 2016 102 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

In summary, access to areas within the TMA where 274 known archaeological sites are located would be limited by the closure of 617 miles of routes. Thus, Alternative B would provide moderate beneficial impacts to cultural resources.

4.2.2.2 Soils and Hydrology

SOILS

This alternative would have the greatest beneficial impact to soil resources in the TMA. Under Alternative B, 179 of the existing 263 identified routes (68%) that occur in erosive soils would be designated as closed or non-motorized, resulting in a reduction of 225 miles (38% of the mileage of identified routes) of impacts. Another 421 miles of routes occurring outside of highly erosive soil areas would also be designated as closed or non-motorized. The retained motorized routes would still be susceptible to soil erosion and compaction; however, the potential severity of impacts to soil resources would be substantially decreased as compared to current conditions, described in Alternative A. Table 4.13 describes miles of routes identified on soils with high erosion potential designated as closed or non- motorized.

Table 4.13. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative B

Percent Change Percent of Route Percent of Total Alternative A Alternative B Surface Texture from No Action Miles per Texture Miles in Identified Miles Miles Alternative Class Erosive Soils Silt loam 124 -46% 57 25% 10% Loam 78 -46% 36 16% 6% Fine sandy loam 46 -50% 23 10% 4% Gravelly loam 75 -30% 23 10% 4% Ashy sandy loam 35 -35% 12 5% 2% Cobbly silt loam 19 -64% 12 5% 2% Cobbly loam 24 -47% 11 5% 2% Stony loam 75 -15% 11 5% 2% Very fine sandy loam 24 -42% 10 4% 2% Very gravelly sandy loam 15 -59% 9 4% 1% Stony silt loam 17 -35% 6 3% 1% Sandy loam 12 -42% 5 2% 1% Very cobbly loam 16 -28% 4 2% 1% Loamy sand 4 -48% 2 1% <1% Gravelly silt loam 7 -22% 2 1% <1% Bedrock 3 -45% 1 1% <1% Gravelly loamy sand 1 -70% 1 <1% <1% Very gravelly loam 4 -2% <1 <1% <1% Gravelly sandy loam 1 -3% <1 <1% <1% Gravelly fine sandy loam 8 0% 0% 0% 1% Very cobbly sandy loam 3 0% 0% 0% <1% Stones, boulders 2 0% 0% 0% <1% Clay 2 0% 0% 0% <1% Total 595 -38% 225 99% 38%

November 2016 103 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The types of impacts to the soil resources would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative, and include soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, impaired or diminished function of soil stabilizers such as biotic soil crusts and desert pavement, and accelerated erosion rates causing rills and gullying. Approximately 373 miles of identified routes would be retained for motorized use under this alternative. Impacts could potentially increase in intensity across the designated route system as current and projected future motorized use is concentrated to fewer available miles, particularly to areas of highly erosive or compactible soils.

While the types of impacts would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative, the closure or non-motorized designation of 225 miles of existing, unpaved motorized routes occurring on soils with a high risk of erosion would prevent further degradation and provide a major, long-term benefit to sensitive soils resources of the TMA. Eventual natural revegetation of the 225 miles of closed or non- motorized routes occurring within erosive soils, and of the 617 overall miles of existing routes within the TMA that would be designated as closed, would stabilize soils and decrease the potential for erosion. Non-motorized designation of 29 overall miles of routes would result in an eventual revegetation of a portion of existing route width and provide some reduction in adverse soils impacts. An overall reduction of route miles would decrease the rate of soil erosion and prevent the formation of erosional features across the TMA.

HYDROLOGY

Alternative B would have the greatest beneficial impact to live water and stream habitats of the alternatives. Under Alternative B, 428 existing perennial and intermittent stream crossings would occur on routes designated as closed or non-motorized. Of the 465 stream crossings that would be retained, 120 would occur along ML3 routes, which carry a higher frequency of traffic, and therefore have the greatest volume of crossings and thusly, greater impacts than the remaining 345 crossings. Forty-two of the stream crossings that would be designated as closed or non-motorized occur in 303(d)-listed streams, and 55 crossings would be retained, 13 of which occur along ML3 routes. Crossings retained in the route network as either open to public motorized use or authorized use only are described in Table 4.13. Additionally, there are 151 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs that would be closed or designated as non-motorized; approximately 17 miles of these routes lie within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams. Of the 23 miles of retained routes, one is attributed to Highway 51, while 6 miles are attributed to ML3 routes. Routes within 300 feet of 303(d)- listed streams retained in the inventory under this alternative for motorized use are described in Table 4.14 below.

Table 4.14. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative B

Number of Stream Crossings Route Miles within 300 feet Waterbody Name Stream Type Alt A Alt B Alt A Alt B

Trout Creek Intermittent 5 4 0.79 0.69 Rattlesnake Creek Intermittent 6 6 1.73 1.52 Cottonwood Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.46 0.46 Black Leg Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.13 0.13 Black Leg Creek Perennial 1 0 0.31 0.10 Alder Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.30 0.11 Alder Creek Perennial 2 1 0.27 0 Mary’s Creek Perennial 0 0 0.57 0.35 Sheep Creek Perennial 0 0 0.99 0.99

November 2016 104 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.14. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative B (Continued)

Number of Stream Crossings Route Miles within 300 feet Waterbody Name Stream Type Alt A Alt B Alt A Alt B Meadow Creek Perennial 0 0 0.23 0.23 Pole Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.18 0.18 Cat Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.09 0 unnamed Intermittent 80 43 33.95 18.72 Total 97 55 39.98 23.48

Closure of the 151 miles of routes within 300 feet of streams would result in a total of 176 miles of retained motorized routes occurring within 300 feet of streams at a density of 0.93 mi/mi2. This would reduce the route density to below that of the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold at which substantial water quality declines occur, watershed degradation and aquatic species impacts are expected, and closer to the 0.7 mi/mi2 density at which high degradation is determined. Alternative B provides direct benefits to hydrologic function and riparian habitats in response to a reduction in total route density to levels below those determined to have substantial ecological impacts.

This alternative would close a large number of miles, and substantially reduce current rates of sedimentation and turbidity levels in streams directly affected by crossings. The closure of 617 miles of routes across the TMA is reflected in a 48% reduction in number of stream crossings from the current condition, commensurately reducing existing impacts to watershed conditions and improving hydrological function across the TMA. The closure of a substantial number of stream crossings would reduce the impacts from sedimentation, turbidity and pollutants entering the system, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic. More specifically, the closure of 43% of existing crossings in 303(d)-listed streams would improve water quality in already impaired waterbodies. Overall, the closure of stream crossings would have substantial direct benefits to water quality and aquatic habitats across the TMA.

There would be a direct benefit to riparian and aquatic habitats and a reduction in the potential for erosion-caused sedimentation and contamination by pollutants from runoff with the closure or non- motorized designation of 46% of routes within 300 feet of all streams across the TMA. The 17 miles of routes within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams (equaling 41% of existing mileage) would be closed or designated as non-motorized, indirectly improving water quality by reducing soil compaction and allowing for natural revegetation. The reduction of a substantial percentage of motorized route length would commensurately decrease the amount of erosion and surface water runoff produced on route surfaces, and decrease the potential for migration of sediments and contaminates into aquatic habitats, as well as decreasing the opportunities for expansion of surface disturbance caused by human access.

4.2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, access for fire suppression would be moderately reduced. With the closure of 646 miles (42%) of motorized access as compared to current conditions, this alternative would reduce potential access for fire suppression resources, and reduce the number of routes that could be used as fuel breaks or anchor points. Forty-four miles of closed or non-motorized routes would occur along routes

November 2016 105 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

identified as fuel breaks5, which would result in the loss of 11% of routes currently available for this purpose. Of the retained 365 miles of routes identified as fuel breaks, 167 miles would occur along ML3 routes, in addition to the 40 miles of Highway 51. This alternative also provides the highest potential reduction for human-caused fire occurrence of all alternatives due to the closure of the greatest mileage of motorized routes. Reducing motorized travel and access to more remote areas would reduce human- caused risk factors; however, the elimination of access routes under this alternative would also reduce potential access for fire suppression resources.

4.2.2.4 Vegetation

The reduction in miles of motorized routes under Alternative B would reduce overall impacts to vegetation across the TMA, and the closure of 617 miles of routes would allow revegetation, reducing fragmentation of native plant communities and protecting soils from disturbance and erosion. While growth in population and recreational use is expected to trigger modest increases in route influence zone impacts along retained motorized routes, some vegetation damage would be mitigated in some areas by limiting route use to OHVs with a wheelbase <50 inches. Additionally, reducing the total miles available for motorized use would limit opportunities for the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. Table 4.15 describes changes in miles within general vegetative cover types and route densities from the No Action Alternative.

Table 4.15. Alternative B Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA

Percent Change Route Vegetation Ecological System Miles* in Miles from Density Cover Type 2 No Action Alternative (mi/mi )

Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 277 -50% 0.59 Low Sagebrush Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 177 -38% 0.68 Mountain Big Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 126 -35% 0.64 Sagebrush Bunchgrass Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 74 -39% 0.60 Seeding Unidentified 69 -40% 1.21 Rabbitbrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 26 -49% 0.68 Salt Desert Shrub Salt Brush Scrub 53 -41% 1.45 Exotic Annuals Semi-Natural Herbaceous Rangeland 9 -47% 0.49 Wet Meadow Palustrine Emergent 7 -36% 0.43 Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 8 -47% 0.50 Big Sagebrush Mix Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 4 -60% 0.45 Mountain Shrub Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 3 -25% 0.34 Sparse Vegetation Sparse Vegetation & Natural Barren Areas 12 -45% 1.63 Greasewood Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 4 -60% 1.21

Total 849 0.67**

* Does not include non-motorized and closed route mileages, total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding and did not account for mileage of Highway 51 on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. ** Total route density across all general vegetation cover types.

5 Routes that have been identified as potential fuel breaks were considered in the evaluation and designation process, and when an identified route was unable to be retained, potential fuel breaks were moved to the next closest route that would be retained under any action alternative. These decisions are not reflected in this TMP, as they will be considered under a separate action.

November 2016 106 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Under Alternative B, three of the 14 general vegetative cover types are over the 1 mi/mi2 threshold and consist of seeding (1.21 mi/mi2), salt desert shrub (1.45 mi/mi2), and greasewood (1.21 mi/mi2). The reduction in route density would increase areas of contiguous tracts of native vegetation and reduce erosion as closed routes revegetate. Overall, route density across vegetative communities within the TMA is at 0.67 mi/mi2, which is below the maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape and would have substantial beneficial impacts to the current conditions of vegetation across the TMA.

Retained motorized routes would continue to adversely affect native vegetation in the TMA. The road influence zone and edge effects would continue to influence the distribution and species composition of native vegetation along all 875 miles of motorized routes across the TMA. If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be additional vegetation affected, and increased severity of impacts to the existing affected area. Increased road influence zone impacts in the form of more dust deposition, noxious and invasive weed proliferation, and route widening potentially exacerbate erosion and off-site sedimentation, and general human presence impacts could be expected to occur to vegetation along the retained route network.

Over the long term, populations of existing plants, native and invasive, would increase as the route surface and impacted areas of closed routes revegetate, reducing habitat fragmentation. Subsequently, the long-term effects of reduced erosion and sedimentation of streams would result in increased water quality.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Impacts to special status plant species would be similar to those described for general vegetation (Section 4.2.2.4). Table 4.16 describes the species and number of populations of special status species directly and indirectly impacted by closure or non-motorized designation of routes.

Table 4.16. Alternative B Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species

Percent Change Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count from No Action 0.25 mile Alternative

Astragalus newberryi var. Newberry’s milkvetch 4 - - 3 castoreus Astragalus purshii var. Snake River milkvetch 4 0 -100% - ophiogenes Astragalus yoder-williamsii Mud Flat milkvetch 3 3 -30% 7 Damasonium californicum Star waterplantain 4 - - 7 Dimeresia howellii Doublet 3 - - 7 Bacigalupis downingia Bacigalupi's calico-flower 4 6 -86% 4 Eatonella nivea White eatonella 4 0 -100% - Eriogonum shockleyi var. Shockley’s matted 4 0 -100% - shockleyi buckwheat Glyptopleura marginata White-margined wax plant 4 4 -40% 18 Ipomopsis polycladon Spreading gilia 3 0 -100% - Lepidium davisii Davis peppergrass 3 26 -72% 12 Leptodactylon glabrum Bruneau River prickly phlox 1 -50% 0 Lupinus uncialis Inch-high lupine 4 1 -50% 7 Nemacladus rigidus Rigid threadbush 4 0 -100% -

November 2016 107 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.16. Alternative B Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species (Continued)

Percent Change Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count from No Action 0.25 mile Alternative Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s hedgehog cactus 4 1 -50% 15 Penstemon janishiae Janish’s penstemon 3 4 -67% 11 Peteria thompsoniae Spine-noded milkvetch 4 4 -57% 2 Total 42 65

Under Alternative B, 2 miles of routes within known populations of special status plants would be closed to public motorized use, 6 miles of routes would be retained as open for public motorized use, and total mileage of routes designated as authorized use only would total less than 1 mile. This would result in the closure or non-motorized designation of 42 of the current 70 routes (60%) that intersect special status plant populations. Of the retained 28 routes, five are ML3 routes consisting of 13 intersections with special status plant populations, while the remaining 23 routes are ML1 routes that receive light use. The closures would help to protect the populations from further disturbance and make suitable habitat more hospitable. Twenty-four populations of plants identified within the last 20 years occurring within 0.25 mile of routes proposed to be closed or designated as non-motorized would be protected under this alternative. This would result in the closure or non-motorized designation of 65 of the current 99 routes (66%) within 0.25 mile of known populations of special status species.

This alternative would provide substantial benefits to special status plant species by reducing impacts from the road influence zone (dust deposition, proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, route widening, erosion and off-site sedimentation, soil compaction, crushing of plants, and general human presence, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic), and eventual natural revegetation of closed routes would reduce habitat fragmentation.

If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be increased road influence zone impacts to special status plant species and vegetation where motorized routes are retained. Habitat fragmentation and degradation would continue in those areas where current routes are having adverse impacts on special status plants or suitable habitats. This would indirectly affect species’ productivity, resiliency, diversity, and vigor and their capability to reproduce and sustain natural fluctuations and ecological processes.

NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS

Under Alternative B, closure of 617 miles of routes would provide a substantial reduction of opportunities for dispersal of weed species throughout the TMA. Additionally, 29 of 66 routes (44%) that currently intersect existing populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be designated as closed or non- motorized, 3 of which are ML3 routes. Of the 37 retained routes, 11 are ML3 routes, which are subject to a higher frequency of use and therefore the potential for spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be higher along these routes. One hundred eighty-four populations of noxious weeds or invasive plants occur within 300 feet of routes that would be designated as closed. The adverse impacts to native vegetation described in the No Action Alternative would be reduced commensurate with the miles of currently open routes that would be closed. The substantial reduction in miles of motorized routes under this alternative would limit the spread of noxious weeds and invasive weeds where motorized vehicles are a method of dispersal, but impacts would still occur along retained motorized routes. These routes would continue to have adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and biodiversity across the TMA, and these impacts

November 2016 108 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

would likely increase in relation to predicted increases in recreation and use of routes, though to a lesser degree than the No Action Alternative.

4.2.2.5 Wildlife

The closure of 617 mile of motorized routes under Alternative B would provide substantial, long-term benefits to wildlife species found within the TMA by reducing habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and likelihood of direct mortality from vehicles. Of these closed routes, 18 miles are currently ML3, while the remaining 599 miles are currently ML1. As the frequency of use influences the level of impact a route may have on wildlife in the surrounding areas, routes that are ML3 or greater would have greater potential to cause disturbance or direct mortality via vehicle strikes to wildlife species. Route density would be reduced to 0.67 mi/mi2, well below the 1.0 mi/mi2 maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals (Forman and Hersperger 1996). Route closures can create patches of contiguous habitat without routes, which act as refuge areas for wildlife to complete necessary life-history events (such as breeding) without disturbance (such as noise) associated with motorized recreation. There would also be an overall reduction in route density across the TMA, which would facilitate easier movement of wildlife throughout the area, increasing fitness and enhancing gene flow by reducing barriers. Small-mammal populations would increase in areas without routes, which would benefit raptor species and other predators inhabiting the area.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Bull trout (Threatened) is the only listed species with potential to occur within the TMA, and impacts to this species are described in Fisheries below.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

This alternative would provide substantial, long-term benefits to migratory birds by closing 617 miles of existing inventoried routes, reducing the density of designated motorized routes to 0.67 mi/mi2 across the TMA (refer to Table 4.15, Alternative B Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA, for route density across specific habitats). Average route density across sagebrush shrubland habitat within the TMA would be reduced to 0.59 mi/mi2, directly benefiting sagebrush obligate songbird species by reducing edge effects within their habitat. This would result in a decrease in habitat fragmentation and levels of disturbance would decrease from current levels, benefitting migratory birds in the TMA by creating contiguous tracts of available land. This would increase areas of refuge, and net beneficial effects to breeding, nesting, and fledging would occur. Reproductive success, diversity, and density of birds would be expected to increase in areas of route closure.

The remaining 875 miles of routes that would be designated for motorized use would continue to impact migratory birds and their habitats, as portions of habitat would remain fragmented and levels of disturbance via motorized recreation on retained routes is expected to increase over time. There would continue to be adverse effects to breeding, nesting, and successful fledging along these routes. Impacts on migratory bird species would continue to include energetic costs, behavioral changes (feeding, breeding, sheltering), loss of fitness (survival, growth, reproduction rates), site avoidance, and others.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Greater Sage-Grouse: The permanent route closures would eliminate 617 miles of existing motorized routes, and would benefit sage-grouse by creating more contiguous habitats and reducing the potential for human disturbance via routes. The permanent closure of these routes would also reduce the chance for human-caused wildfires, as well as the potential for nonnative invasive plants and noxious weed spread,

November 2016 109 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

which would lower threats to existing wildlife habitat. Table 4.17 describes mileages and route densities of routes in important types of sage-grouse habitat, though there is overlap between habitat types, in addition to route densities that would occur during times of seasonal closure.

Table 4.17. Alternative B Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types

Percent Change Route Density Miles During Route Density Habitat Type Miles from No Action 2 2 (mi/mi ) Seasonal Closure (mi/mi ) Alternative

Winter 276 -44% 0.64 221 0.51 Late Brood Rearing 10 -29% 1.88 9 1.69 Occupied Leks (2014) 84 -43% 0.69 56 0.46 Key Habitat* 621 -41% 0.65 458 0.48 Sagebrush Focal Areas** 594 -43% 0.81 441 0.60

* The State of Idaho defines key habitat as: areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year including winter, spring, summer, late brood-rearing, fall, transition sites from winter to spring, spring to summer, summer/fall to winter. Key habitat may or may not provide adequate nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter cover due to elevation, snow depth, lack of early season forbs, limited herbaceous cover, or small sagebrush patch size. ** Sagebrush Focal Areas are important landscape blocks with high breeding population densities of sage-grouse and existing high-quality sagebrush.

Under Alternative B, there would be 84 miles of motorized routes within buffered 2014 occupied leks, at a density of 0.69 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of 28 miles of routes would reduce this to 56 miles of motorized routes at a density of 0.46 mi/mi2. Of the existing 40 miles of ML3 routes in lekking habitat, 20 miles would be subject to the aforementioned seasonal closures. The seasonal closures would have a temporal component consistent with the breeding season and time of lekking behavior, and would be in place from March 25 to May 15 when routes would be closed to public motorized use from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. As disturbance caused by proximity to motorized routes can cause reductions in sage-grouse populations from both loss of habitat, as well as lek abandonment, the elimination of routes and the seasonal reduction in disturbance, particularly of ML3 routes, would have a beneficial effect on sage- grouse by reducing disturbance during important breeding and brood-rearing periods, and potentially improve reproductive success. Use of retained motorized routes near leks would likely continue to cause human disturbance of lekking behavior.

Under Alternative B, there would be 276 miles of motorized routes within winter habitat, at a density of 0.64 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of routes would reduce this to 221 miles of motorized routes at a density of 0.51 mi/mi2. Permanent closures of routes in winter habitat would have a substantial beneficial effect on sage-grouse populations by conserving critical habitats on which the species is entirely dependent on through portions of the year. Reductions in fragmentation of this habitat and risk of introduction of non-native plants that have the potential to change the species composition of sagebrush vegetative communities would have long-term beneficial impacts to sage-grouse winter survival.

Under Alternative B, there would be 10 miles of motorized routes within late brood rearing habitat, at a density of 1.88 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of 1 mile of routes would reduce this to 9 miles of motorized routes at a density of 1.69 mi/mi2. Reduction in route density from current conditions would be beneficial to sage-grouse reproductive success by reducing habitat fragmentation and potential for human disturbance.

Motorized route density within key habitat under Alternative B would occur at 0.65 mi/mi2, and human disturbance facilitated by motorized routes would be substantially reduced across the TMA. Motorized route density within SFAs would occur at 0.81 mi/mi2, which would reduce impacts to high-quality

November 2016 110 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

sagebrush habitat from fragmentation and reduce opportunities for non-native vegetation to be introduced into the habitat.

Overall, Alternative B provides seasonal protection for Greater sage-grouse during critical life stages, and would reduce current adverse impacts on breeding success and habitats necessary for winter survival. Additionally, fragmentation of crucial habitat would be reduced, along with potential for invasion of non- native species that may alter species composition and increase the risk of wildfire. These impacts would result in an increase in sage-grouse habitat quality, and in turn have beneficial effects on breeding success and population size.

Pygmy Rabbit: Under Alternative B, 130 miles of motorized routes would be designated in modeled pygmy rabbit habitat within the TMA, occurring at a density of 0.82 mi/mi2. Ninety-three of 183 routes (51%) currently open to motorized use would be closed or designated as non-motorized within habitat for this species. This alternative would have substantial beneficial effects to pygmy rabbits, as a reduction in route density indicates a reduction of habitat fragmentation. There would be tracts of continuous habitat providing buffers from noise and disturbance associated with motorized recreation. Additionally, direct impacts from mortality and burrow collapse would be reduced commensurate with routes designated as closed. Areas of refuge would increase, which could result in greater reproductive success and an increase in population numbers. These larger patches of habitat without routes under this alternative would improve the chances of persistence of the species within the TMA.

Colombia Spotted Frog: Under Alternative B, there would be approximately 0.25 mile of routes retained within 300 feet of recorded occurrences of this species, in addition to one crossing of a 303(d)-listed intermittent stream, which occurs along a ML3 route. Direct and indirect impacts to Columbia spotted frog habitat, such as riparian vegetation and stream channels, would decrease with a reduction of opportunities for chemical pollutants to enter aquatic habitats. Additionally, direct mortality associated with vehicles would be lessened with a reduction in motorized routes. Physical disturbance of riparian vegetation and increased suspended sediment loads from erosion would decrease. When water quality improves, habitat quality for amphibians also improves. Alternative B would improve water quality in spotted frog habitat, beneficially affecting aquatic habitats within the TMA and increasing the chances of persistence.

BIG GAME

Under Alternative B, there would be a substantial reduction in miles of motorized routes that have the potential to disturb big-game species with noise, fragment habitat, create barriers to movement, and allow easier access for hunting. The reduction in disturbance and increase in contiguous areas of habitat would have a substantial, long-term beneficial impact on big-game species’ winter survival and reproductive success, leading to increased population numbers and resiliency.

Bighorn Sheep: Under Alternative B, 74 miles of routes designated as open to public motorized vehicle use would occur in bighorn sheep habitat within the TMA, 31 miles of which would be ML3 routes, occurring at a density of 0.47 mi/mi2. This alternative would provide a reduction of 66% of existing routes, and would substantially reduce habitat fragmentation and barriers to movement. Thirty-nine of the 74 miles would be subject to seasonal closures. Most routes subject to season closure in bighorn habitat are in place to reduce disturbance to Greater sage-grouse and would be in place from March 25 to May 15, and these routes would be closed to public motorized use from 5am to 9am. One route would be subject to seasonal closure during bighorn sheep lambing, which would be in place from April 15 to June 15 and does not have time of day restrictions. Of the open routes, 1 mile would occur within identified lambing habitat. Route densities in general habitat is well below the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 84% during seasonal closures under this alternative and impacts to breeding

November 2016 111 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

and foraging behavior would be substantially reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and potential for population increases. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for bighorn sheep to be disturbed and harassed by humans. In a few instances, higher volume routes in the TMA, such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers, causing habitat fragmentation and genetic bottlenecking between populations.

Pronghorn Antelope: Under Alternative B, approximately 532 miles of routes, of which 214 miles are ML3 routes, would be designated as open to public motorized vehicle use within antelope habitat, at a density of 0.42 mi/mi2. Of the open routes, 103 miles would occur within winter habitat areas, 24 miles of which are ML3 routes, at a density of 0.42 mi/mi2. Route densities in both these habitat types are well below the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold, most importantly within winter habitat. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 68% under this alternative and impacts to breeding and foraging behavior from human disturbance and habitat fragmentation would be substantially reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and winter survival. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for pronghorn antelope to be disturbed and harassed by humans. Routes, particularly higher volume routes such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers and contribute to habitat fragmentation.

FISHERIES

Under Alternative B, less than 3 miles of routes, consisting of both open to public motorized use and authorized use only, are within 300 feet of redband trout habitat, with no crossings. Additionally, 428 existing crossings of intermittent streams would be closed or designated as non-motorized across the TMA, and 151 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams would be closed or designated as non-motorized. The retained routes would occur at a density of 0.93 mi/mi2 (see Section 4.2.2.2 Hydrology for a discussion of density thresholds). The one route that facilitates access to bull trout habitat would be designated open to public motorized use subject to seasonal closures, not related to fisheries.

Improvements in water quality would improve conditions in fish habitat quality (see Hydrology Section 4.2.2.2 for further discussion of impacts to water quality). Designations under Alternative B would result in greater diversity of aquatic invertebrates, algae, amphibians, and fish in impacted streams and rivers across the TMA. Redband trout habitat would no longer be impacted by existing stream crossings, which would facilitate improvements in fish movement, gene flow, and invertebrate assemblage. Closed routes would no longer contribute sediment and contaminants into waterways and therefore turbidity in impacted waterways would be lessened, water temperature would regulate through regrowth of vegetation, and no longer cause continuing changes to the structure of in-stream habitats, such as pools. Alternative B would reduce fine sediment loads and would lead to improved fish reproduction, growth, and a decrease in mortality for both redband trout and potential populations of bull trout.

BATS

Under Alternative B, approximately 174 miles of routes that would be designated as open to public motorized use overlap bat habitat. This alternative would provide a moderate (34%) decrease in routes that overlap bat habitat. Thirty-nine miles of routes would be designated as closed, and 30 miles would be limited to authorized use only. Additionally, 22 miles of routes currently open to motorized use would be designated as non-motorized. Overall, access to this habitat would be moderately reduced from current levels, and risk of impacts to winter survival from disturbance of hibernacula by recreationists would be reduced from current levels where routes remain accessible during the hibernation period. Additionally, the closure of 39 miles of existing routes would reduce fragmentation within bat habitat, and the risk of alteration of foraging habitats from the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, which would also

November 2016 112 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

decrease the risk of human-caused wildfire. Populations of bats would continue to be adversely impacted by retained motorized routes and the human disturbance facilitated by access via routes open to public motorized use.

4.2.2.6 Recreation and Social Values

Under Alternative B, approximately 617 of the 1,521 miles of routes would be designated as closed, in addition to 325 miles of routes that would be designated as limited to authorized use only, and 29 miles that would be designated as limited to non-motorized use (971 total miles of routes no longer available). This would be a 64% reduction in the miles of routes available for public motorized use. Increased regional growth in the Boise area has been a significant driving force in the social and economic setting of the area. Growth in the region has exerted some pressure on undeveloped Federal lands as residential and commercial developments move closer to the fringe (Forest Service 2005). As noted in the “Impacts Common to All Alternatives,” open routes under Alternative B would continue to provide access to the two designated recreation sites, the SRMA within the TMA, as well as access to the three designated wilderness areas that occur in proximity to the TMA.

Approximately 617 miles of routes would be closed to OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) and 325 miles of routes designated to authorized use only, which would allow non-motorized use of routes by the public, but motorized use would be limited to that necessary for administrative purposes. This alternative would close motorized loop opportunities to some recreation destinations, which would remain accessible via one route. In addition to the 303 miles of routes that would be retained as open to year- round public motorized use (174 additional miles of routes would also be open to public motorized use but subject to seasonal closures), approximately 3 miles of routes specifically designated for OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) would be designated under Alternative B. Currently there are no routes designated as open to non-motorized use only. Under Alternative B, approximately 29 miles (2%) of existing routes would be designated for non-motorized use only. Mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders could continue to use designated motorized routes (834 miles), but the availability for exclusive non-motorized use would be 29 miles out of 1,521; an increase of 29 miles from what is currently available. This increase in non-motorized routes would be beneficial to those types of uses, but would be adverse for motorized uses. The overall closure of 29 miles of routes to motorized use would increase the likelihood for conflicts of non-motorized and motorized users to a minor degree among the 477 miles of open routes (both year-round and seasonally closed). In response to the 617 miles of closed routes, 325 miles of routes limited to authorized motorized use only, and non-motorized designation of 29 miles of routes, some users may shift their modes of transportation when compared to the No Action Alternative in order to continue their chosen public use (e.g., a user that travelled in a passenger vehicle may now need to travel in a 4-wheel drive vehicle). A consequence of the increase in intensity of use could be the displacement of some users to other locations within the TMA or adjacent TMAs if the higher levels of use detracted from their experience (i.e., social value) and/or resulted in a sense of overcrowding. The 64% change to the overall mileage of existing route system and their use designations would result in both beneficial (non-motorized) and adverse (motorized) impacts to recreation resources. Non-motorized users would have more opportunities for solitude and non-disrupted recreation opportunities on the 29 miles of routes exclusively for non-motorized use. Conversely, motorized users would be concentrated onto a smaller network of routes open to motorized use and would be adversely impacted by a diminished recreational experience and by the loss of motorized travel opportunities (971 miles no longer available).

As described in Section 2.3.1.7 of Chapter 2, during the route evaluations for Alternative B, the BLM considered redundant routes (i.e., multiple, individual routes that provide the same function or destination) as a priority in determining which routes to designate as closed, open or limited. The BLM also considered type of recreational access facilitated by maintenance level as a priority during the evaluation, such as: ML1 or ML3 (see Chapter 3 for description of type of recreational access). Under

November 2016 113 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative B, approximately 18 miles of routes would be closed that are currently ML3 routes, and 599 miles that are ML1 routes. As shown on Figure 2-2, concentrations of route closures occur in the northwest corner of the TMA surrounding the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness, where exist multiple redundant routes that lead from State Highway 51 to the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. In addition, the southeast corner of the TMA also includes a concentration of routes proposed to be closed. These “clusters” of route closures would result in site-specific impacts to recreational access and may result in adverse, minor to moderate, long-term impacts since users may be required to travel longer distances or alter their mode of transportation to gain public access. For routes that are seasonally closed, the impact would be short-term.

Under Alternative B, miles of routes open to public motorized use, both year-round and seasonally closed, within ROS classes would change (described in Table 4.18 below). While a change in route miles would not change the ROS, the change in availability of routes (including loop routes) could change the recreational setting of portions of the TMA. As described in the route designation criteria (see Section 2.3.1.7 for more detail), routes that would be designated as closed, non-motorized or authorized use only are generally indicative of a conflict between resources and motorized use, or route proliferation. Designation of routes as closed would be a return to previous recreational settings. The reduction of 71% of routes open to public motorized use in the Semi-Primitive Motorized and 84% in Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized classes would be consistent with the management objectives of these classes.

Table 4.18. Alternative B Mileage Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Classes

Alternative A Percent Change Alternative B ROS Classes Miles* from Alternative A Miles

Roaded Natural 431 -46% 233 Semi-Primitive Motorized 1,019 -72% 288 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 45 -84% 7 Total 1,495 -65% 527

*Total miles does not equal total network mileage because ROS classes do not cover the entire geographic area of the TMA.

Hunting and trapping opportunities in Game Management Units 40 and 41 would not change under Alternative B. Access for public use activities such as rockhounding, spiritual visitation, vehicle exploring, sightseeing, and hunting and trapping in site-specific locations may result in adverse, minor to moderate, long-term impacts due to the 64% reduction in total routes open to public motorized use, but would not completely eliminate any of these public use activities and opportunities within the TMA. The primary impact to public use activities would result from the seasonal closures of 174 miles of routes, limitation of 325 miles of routes to authorized users only, and permanent closure of 617 miles of routes.

As this alternative provides the greatest reduction of miles of routes available, it can be anticipated that the intensity and level of public use of the route network would increase, as the same number of users would be concentrated on a reduced number of miles of routes.

This alternative would have a direct, major adverse impact to general motorized recreation, and a direct, major beneficial impact to dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities when compared with current conditions. The adverse impacts to motorized recreation would be the greatest of all action alternatives. Alternative B would designate the least routes compared to the No Action Alternative; thus motorized users may encounter more motorized users on designated routes resulting in higher and more intense OHV use. This would result in site-specific, moderate impacts to recreation from closing or limiting the most miles of routes for motorized recreation, and changes to the quality of their recreational experience

November 2016 114 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

would more likely be adversely affected. The beneficial impacts to non-motorized dispersed recreation would be the greatest of all action alternatives.

4.2.2.7 Visual Resources

Under Alternative B, a total of 904 miles of routes would be retained and would continue to impact visual quality. Route proliferation (including parallel routes, redundant routes going to one destination, and routes that serve no known purpose) would be significantly reduced in all VRM classes compared to the No Action Alternative. There would be a direct, regional benefit to impacts to the visual quality by reducing linear features on the landscape, such as routes, when compared to current conditions. These substantial improvements to the visual quality of the landscape would result from the eventual natural revegetation of the 617 miles of routes that would be designated as closed. The eventual return of existing routes to a natural state would result in a reduction of route density across all VRM classes, particularly in more sensitive VRM classes, such as I and II, though each VRM classification would benefit from the reduction of overall route miles. In addition, the reductions in overall route density would also benefit visual resources. Table 4.19 describes retained mileages and route densities in each VRM class under Alternative B.

Table 4.19. Alternative B Mileages and Route Density of VRM Classes

Percent Change in Miles Route Density VRM Class Miles* 2 from No Action Alternative (mi/mi )

I 3 -25% 0.45 II 174 -41% 0.67 III 310 -44% 0.72 IV 397 -39% 0.69

* Does not include closed routes, mileage total may not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

4.2.2.8 Range Resources

Under Alternative B, 58% of existing routes would be retained as either open or administrative use only. Of the routes used for known livestock management activities, 244 individual routes would be retained as open or administrative use only (Table 4.20). While the reduction of routes designated as open to motorized access would reduce potential access for livestock management activities compared to current conditions, this alternative would allow permittees reasonable access to perform necessary management activities.

Table 4.20. Alternative B Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites

Percent Change from Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes* No Action Alternative

Total number of routes 244 -72% Allotment, pasture, and exclosure fences 146 -62% Stock tanks, ponds, dams, and reservoirs 105 -62% Developed water sites, wells, windmills, and pipelines 70 -63% Water haul sites 43 -39% Salt lick and supplement sites 92 -57% Livestock trailing 41 -36%

November 2016 115 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.20. Alternative B Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites (Continued)

Percent Change from Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes* No Action Alternative Cattle guards and gates 129 -58% Corrals or other structures 19 -17% *Routes are not additive as a single route may access more than one feature

The reduction in miles of motorized routes under Alternative B would reduce overall impacts to native vegetation, as described in Section 4.2.2.4. While not expected to provide any substantial change in forage availability, this would still be beneficial to livestock grazing.

4.2.2.9 Special Designations

Approximately 1.5 miles of routes designated for motorized use under Alternative B would occur within the Owyhee River/Bighorn Sheep ACEC. Approximately 0.5 mile of existing routes would be closed within the ACEC; approximately 0.3 mile of routes would be seasonally limited and closed during other seasons, and 1.2 miles of routes would be limited to authorized use (in this case, ranching activities). Alternative B would substantially reduce public motorized access into the ACEC, therefore reducing the potential for human disturbance and predation of bighorn sheep (see discussion of Big Game in Section 4.2.2.5 Wildlife).

4.2.2.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative B, there would be changes to the overall miles within lands with wilderness characteristics. Approximately 33 miles that occur within lands with wilderness characteristics would be designated as open to public motorized use, 13 miles would be limited to authorized use only and 25 miles of routes would be designated as closed. Of the 28 routes identified as occurring within lands with wilderness characteristics, 23 routes would be designated as closed, one route would be designated as limited to authorized use only, and 3 routes would be retained as open to public motorized use under Alternative B.

The wilderness characteristic inventory units of Buncel Basin (44% of existing routes closed), Henry Lake (43% closed) and Yatahoney Creek (20% closed) would be affected if Alternative B were implemented.

Closure of routes within lands with wilderness characteristics would have a major beneficial, long-term effect to lands with wilderness characteristics since the closure of the route would further the ability of affected lands to meet the requirements for wilderness. For instance, closure of a route may enable the area to expand in overall acreage, may increase naturalness, may increase outstanding opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation, and may increase supplemental values.

For the routes that would remain open to all users or limited within lands with wilderness characteristics, there would be no additional impacts since the existing route network was already in place during the establishment of the wilderness characteristic inventory units and there would be no new routes added or constructed. Route maintenance activities that could affect wilderness characteristics (e.g., decrease naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or supplemental values) would be similar to current activities, but would occur less frequently since Alternative B would designate 617 miles of routes as closed.

November 2016 116 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.2.2.11 Impact Summary of Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the effects associated with the current motorized route system would be significantly reduced through route designation and the closure of 40% of currently existing routes, more than Alternative C and D. Impacts associated with the use of motorized routes would still occur, but the rate at which these impacts would accumulate across the TMA (such as erosion and sedimentation, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife (including ACECs), as well as reducing the potential for spread of invasive species and noxious weeds) would be slowed. Alternative B would also substantially reduce levels of access for motorized recreation, though adverse impacts to access for fire and fuels management and a multitude of land uses (including grazing and mineral material extraction) would be minor; access to recreation sites and special designations would be maintained (see Table 2.6).

4.2.3 Alternative C As described in Section 2.3.3 in Chapter 2, Alternative C is designed to balance the need for access with the natural, scenic, and cultural resources in the area. The primary management emphasis is to provide motorized opportunities for the recreating public while balancing the underlying need to protect soils, scenic resources, crucial wildlife habitat, and provide special management of vegetation, cultural resources, among others. Under Alternative C, 21% of routes open under current conditions would be designated closed. The route designations that would occur under this alternative within the TMA are displayed in Table 4.21.

Table 4.21. Route Designations – Alternative C

Designation Miles* Definition

Highway 70 Open 526 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 297 Closed to public motorized use during seasons or times. OHV <50 inches 31 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 24 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 260 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 312 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521 * Total does not equal total route mileage due to rounding.

4.2.3.1 Cultural Resources

Alternative C would result in a minor reduction in impacts to cultural resources compared to the current conditions (also described in the No Action Alternative above). In terms of direct impacts, four non- linear, NRHP-eligible sites (Table 4.22), and three linear sites—crossed 33 times—would be impacted by open or limited use routes under Alternative C.

Indirect impacts under Alternative C would also be reduced compared to the No Action Alternative; 151 of the 500 known archaeological sites within the 0.25-mile buffer would be along closed routes and would be less likely to be indirectly impacted by vehicular use of the route network. Of the 151 sites within the buffer, 107 are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, or their NRHP status is unevaluated/unknown.

November 2016 117 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.22. Known Non-linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative C

NRHP NRHP Route Designation Total Eligible Unevaluated or Unknown

Open 1 0 1 Limited 3 0 3 Closed 0 1 1 Total 4 1 5

In summary, access to areas within the TMA where 151 known archaeological sites are located would be limited by the closure of 312 miles of routes. Thus, Alternative C would provide minor beneficial impacts to cultural resources. In comparison to Alternative B, Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts as fewer routes would be closed and more archaeological sites would be indirectly impacted.

4.2.3.2 Soils and Hydrology

SOILS

This alternative would have a moderate beneficial impact to soil resources in the TMA. Under Alternative C, 107 of the existing 263 identified routes (41%) that occur in erosive soils would be designated as closed or non-motorized, resulting in a reduction of 126 miles (21% of the mileage of identified routes) of impacts. Another 211 miles of routes occurring outside of highly erosive soil areas would also be designated as closed or non-motorized. The retained motorized routes would still be susceptible to soil erosion and compaction; however, the potential severity of impacts to soil resources would be substantially decreased as compared to current conditions, described in Alternative A. Table 4.23 describes miles of routes on soils with high erosion potential designated as closed or non-motorized.

Table 4.23. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative C

Percent Change Percent of Route Percent of Total Alternative A Alternative C Surface Texture from No Action Miles per Texture Miles in Identified Miles Miles Alternative Class Erosive Soils

Silt loam 124 -24% 29 23% 5% Loam 78 -24% 19 15% 3% Fine sandy loam 46 -34% 16 13% 3% Gravelly loam 75 -13% 10 8% 2% Stony loam 75 -11% 9 7% 1% Very fine sandy loam 24 -16% 8 6% 1% Very gravelly sandy loam 15 -50% 8 6% 1% Cobbly silt loam 19 -33% 6 5% 1% Ashy sandy loam 35 -17% 6 5% 1% Stony silt loam 17 -26% 4 4% 1% Cobbly loam 24 -14% 3 3% 1% Very cobbly loam 16 -19% 3 2% 1% Sandy loam 12 -20% 2 2% <1% Loamy sand 4 -34% 2 1% <1% Bedrock 3 -39% 1 1% <1%

November 2016 118 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.23. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative C (Continued)

Percent Change Percent of Route Percent of Total Alternative A Alternative C Surface Texture from No Action Miles per Texture Miles in Identified Miles Miles Alternative Class Erosive Soils Very gravelly loam 4 -2% <1% <1% <1% Gravelly silt loam 7 0% 0% 0% 0% Gravelly sandy loam 1 0% 0% 0% 0% Gravelly loamy sand 1 0% 0% 0% 0% Gravelly fine sandy loam 8 0% 0% 0% 0% Very cobbly sandy loam 3 0% 0% 0% 0% Stones, boulders 2 0% 0% 0% 0% Clay 2 0% 0% 0% 0% Total* 595 -21% 126 100% 21%

* Values may not sum to total due to soil texture classes being excluded if mileage is very small.

The types of impacts to the soil resources would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative, and include soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, impaired or diminished function of soil stabilizers such as biotic soil crusts and desert pavement, and accelerated erosion rates causing rills and gullying. Approximately 472 miles of identified routes would be retained for motorized use under this alternative. Impacts could potentially increase in intensity across the designated route system as current and projected future levels of motorized use is concentrated to fewer available miles, particularly to areas of highly erosive or compactible soils.

The closure or non-motorized designation of 125 miles of existing, unpaved motorized routes occurring on soils with a high risk of erosion would prevent further degradation and provide a moderate, long-term benefit to sensitive soils in the TMA. Eventual natural revegetation of 125 miles of closed or non- motorized routes, and of 312 overall miles of existing routes that would be designated as closed, would stabilize soils and decrease the potential for erosion. Non-motorized designation of 24 overall miles of routes would result in an eventual revegetation of a portion of existing route width and provide some reduction in adverse soils impacts. An overall reduction of route mileage would decrease the rate of soil erosion and prevent the formation of erosional features across the TMA.

HYDROLOGY

Alternative C would reduce impacts to water quality associated with current conditions. Under Alternative C, 230 existing perennial and intermittent stream crossings would occur on routes designated as closed or non-motorized. Of the 663 stream crossings that would be retained, 132 would occur along ML3 routes, which carry a higher frequency of traffic, and therefore have the greatest volume of crossings and thusly, greater impacts than the remaining 531 crossings. Twenty-two of the stream crossings that would be designated as closed or non-motorized occur in 303(d)-listed streams, and 75 crossings would be retained, 13 of which occur along ML3 routes. Crossings retained in the route network as either open to public motorized use or authorized use only are described in Table 4.24. Additionally, there are 78 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams that would be closed or designated as non-motorized; approximately 9 miles of these routes lie within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams. Of the 31 miles of retained routes, one is attributed to Highway 51, while 6 miles are attributed to ML3 routes. Routes within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams retained in the inventory under this alternative for motorized use are described in Table 4.24 below.

November 2016 119 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.24. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative C

Number of Stream Crossings Route Miles within 300 feet Waterbody Name Stream Type Alt A Alt C Alt A Alt C

Trout Creek Intermittent 5 5 0.79 0.79 Rattlesnake Creek Intermittent 6 6 1.73 1.52 Cottonwood Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.46 0.46 Black Leg Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.13 0.13 Black Leg Creek Perennial 1 0 0.31 0.25 Alder Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.30 0.21 Alder Creek Perennial 2 1 0.27 0.15 Mary’s Creek Perennial 0 0 0.57 0.35 Sheep Creek Perennial 0 0 0.99 0.99 Meadow Creek Perennial 0 0 0.23 0.23 Pole Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.18 0.18 Cat Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.09 0.0 unnamed Intermittent 80 60 33.95 26.12 Total 97 75 39.98 31.38

Closure of the 78 miles of routes would result in a total of 249 miles of retained motorized routes occurring within 300 feet of streams at a density of 1.31 mi/mi2. This would not reduce the route density to below that of the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold at which substantial water quality declines, watershed degradation and aquatic species impacts are expected, and nearly double to that of the 0.7 mi/mi2 density at which high degradation is determined. While there would be moderate benefits to hydrologic function and riparian habitats in response to a reduction in total route density, Alternative C does not reduce density to below that of substantial ecological impacts.

This alternative would result in a reduction of current rates of sedimentation and turbidity levels in streams directly affected by crossings, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic. The closure of 312 miles of routes across the TMA is reflected in a reduction in number of stream crossings from the current conditions by 26%, commensurately reducing the existing impacts to watershed and hydrological function across the TMA. More specifically, the closure of 23% of existing crossings in 303(d)-listed streams would improve water quality in already impaired waterbodies. Overall, the closure of stream crossings would have moderate direct benefits to water quality and aquatic habitats across the TMA.

There would be a direct benefit to riparian and aquatic habitats and a reduction in the potential for erosion-caused sedimentation and contamination by pollutants from runoff with the closure or non- motorized designation of 24% of routes within 300 feet of all streams across the TMA. Twenty-two percent of routes within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed stream would be closed or designated as non-motorized, indirectly improving water quality by reducing soil compaction and allowing for natural revegetation. Overall, the reduction of a moderate percentage of motorized routes would commensurately decrease the amount of erosion and surface water runoff produced on route surfaces and thus lessen the potential for sedimentation and contamination produced by vehicle travel from entering streams and aquatic habitats, as well as decreasing the opportunities for expansion of surface disturbance caused by human access.

November 2016 120 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.2.3.3 Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative C, access for fire suppression would not be significantly reduced. BLM would not close any regularly or periodically maintained routes within the TMA, allowing continued access for large fire-fighting equipment. Fire suppression response and use of routes as firebreaks or anchor points would remain relatively unchanged. Ten miles of closed or non-motorized routes would occur along routes identified as fuel breaks, which would result in the loss of 3% of routes currently available for the purpose of fuel breaks. Of the retained 399 miles of routes identified as fuel breaks, 171 miles would occur along ML3 routes, in addition to the 40 miles of Highway 51. While motorized access would be decreased by 336 miles (22%), use of routes for firebreaks or anchor points is determined by the conditions of the route on any given year, and the number of useable routes would not be significantly affected. By reducing motorized access, this alternative would slightly decrease human-caused fire risk factors by reducing motorized travel and access to remote areas.

4.2.3.4 Vegetation

The reduction in miles of motorized routes under Alternative C would reduce overall impacts to vegetation across the TMA, and the closure of 312 miles of routes would allow revegetation, reducing fragmentation of native plant communities and protecting soils from disturbance and erosion. While growth of population and recreational use is expected to trigger modest increases in route influence zone impacts along retained motorized routes, some vegetation damage would be mitigated in some areas by limiting route use to OHVs with a wheelbase <50 inches. Additionally, reducing the total miles available for motorized use would limit opportunities for the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. Table 4.25 describes the changes in route miles per general vegetative cover type from the No Action Alternative.

Table 4.25. Alternative C Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA

Percent Change Route Vegetation Ecological System Miles* in Miles from No Density Cover Type 2 Action Alternative (mi/mi ) Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 393 -28% 0.83 Low Sagebrush Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 239 -16% 0.92 Mountain Big Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 161 -17% 0.80 Sagebrush Steppe Bunchgrass Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 102 -16% 0.82 Seeding Unidentified 93 -19% 1.64 Rabbitbrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 40 -22% 1.04 Salt Desert Shrub Salt Brush Scrub 67 -25% 1.83 Exotic Annuals Semi-Natural Herbaceous Rangeland 12 -20% 0.65 Wet Meadow Palustrine Emergent 10 -9% 0.61 Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 13 -13% 0.82 Big Sagebrush Mix Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 6 -40% 0.67 Mountain Shrub Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 3 -25% 0.34 Sparse Vegetation Sparse Vegetation & Natural Barren Areas 16 -27% 2.17 Greasewood Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 6 -40% 1.81 Total 1,161 0.92**

* Does not include non-motorized and closed route miles, total does not equal total route miles due to rounding and did not account for miles of Highway 51 on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. ** Total route density across all general vegetation cover types.

November 2016 121 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Under Alternative C, five of the 14 general vegetative cover types are over the 1 mi/mi2 threshold and consist of seeding (1.64 mi/mi2), rabbitbrush (1.04 mi/mi2), salt desert shrub (1.83 mi/mi2), sparse vegetation (2.17 mi/mi2) and greasewood (1.81 mi/mi2). The reduction in route density would increase areas of contiguous tracts of native vegetation and reduce erosion as closed routes revegetate. Overall, route density across vegetative communities within the TMA is at 0.92 mi/mi2, which is below the maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape and would have substantial beneficial impacts to the current conditions of vegetation across the TMA.

Retained motorized routes would continue to have an adverse effect on the native vegetation in the TMA. The road influence zone and edge effects would continue to influence the distribution and species composition of native vegetation along all 1,185 miles of motorized routes across the TMA. If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be additional vegetation affected, and increased severity of impacts to the existing affected area. Increased road influence zone impacts in the form of more dust deposition, noxious and invasive weed proliferation, route widening, potentially exacerbate erosion and off-site sedimentation and general human presence impacts could be expected to occur to vegetation along the retained route network.

Over the long term, existing native and invasive plant populations would increase as the route surface and impacted areas of closed routes revegetate, reducing habitat fragmentation. Subsequently, the long-term effects of reduced erosion and sedimentation of streams would result in increased water quality.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Impacts to special status plant species would be similar to those described for General Vegetation (5.1.3.4). Table 4.26 describes the species and number of populations of special status species directly and indirectly impacted by closure or non-motorized designation of routes.

Table 4.26. Alternative C Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species

Percent Change Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count from No Action 0.25 mile Alternative

Astragalus newberryi var. Newberry’s milkvetch 4 - - 3 castoreus Astragalus purshii var. Snake River milkvetch 4 0 -100% - ophiogenes Astragalus yoder-williamsii Mud Flat milkvetch 3 2 -20% 5 Damasonium californicum Star waterplantain 4 - - 4 Dimeresia howellii Doublet 3 - - 5 Bacigalupis downingia Bacigalupi's calico-flower 4 1 -14% 3 Eatonella nivea White eatonella 4 0 -100% - Eriogonum shockleyi var. Shockley’s matted 4 0 -100% - shockleyi buckwheat Glyptopleura marginata White-margined wax plant 4 2 -20% 14 Ipomopsis polycladon Spreading gilia 3 0 -100% - Lepidium davisii Davis peppergrass 3 12 -33% 8 Leptodactylon glabrum Bruneau River prickly phlox 0 -100% - Lupinus uncialis Inch-high lupine 4 1 -50% 4

November 2016 122 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.26. Alternative C Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species (Continued)

Percent Change Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count from No Action 0.25 mile Alternative Nemacladus rigidus Rigid threadbush 4 0 -100% - Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s hedgehog 4 0 -100% 14 cactus Penstemon janishiae Janish’s Penstemon 3 2 -67% 10 Peteria thompsoniae Spine-noded milkvetch 4 2 -71% 0 Total 20 -77% 45

Under Alternative C, 7 miles of routes would be designated as open to public motorized use, 1 mile with seasonal closures, and less than 1 mile of routes designated as authorized use only would occur within known populations of special status plants. One mile of routes would be closed. This would result in the closure or non-motorized designation of 20 of the current 70 routes (29%) that intersect special status plant populations. Of the retained 50 routes, five are ML3 routes consisting of 13 intersections with special status plant populations, while the remaining 45 routes are ML1 routes that receive light use. The closures would help to protect the populations from further disturbance and make suitable habitat more hospitable. Twelve populations of plants identified within the last 20 years occurring within 0.25 mile of routes proposed to be closed would be protected under this alternative. This would result in the reduction of 45 of the current 99 routes (45%) within 0.25 mile of known populations of special status species.

This alternative would provide moderate benefits to special status plant species by reducing impacts from the road influence zone (dust deposition, proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, route widening, erosion and off-site sedimentation, soil compaction, crushing of plants, and general human presence, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic), and eventual natural revegetation of closed routes would reduce habitat fragmentation.

If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be increased road influence zone impacts to special status plant species and vegetation where motorized routes are retained. Habitat fragmentation and degradation would continue in those areas where current routes are having adverse impacts on special status plants or suitable habitats. This would indirectly affect species’ productivity, resiliency, diversity, and vigor and their capability to reproduce and sustain natural fluctuations and ecological processes.

NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS

Under Alternative C, closure of 312 miles of routes would provide a moderate reduction of opportunities for dispersal of weed species throughout the TMA. Additionally, 15 of 66 routes (23%) that currently intersect existing populations of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be designated as closed or non- motorized, two of which are ML3 routes. Of the 51 retained routes, 12 are ML3 routes, which are subject to a higher frequency of use and therefore the potential for spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be higher along these routes. Thirty-five populations of noxious weeds or invasive plants occur within 300 feet of routes that would be designated as closed. The adverse impacts to native vegetation described in the No Action Alternative would be reduced commensurate with the mileage of currently open routes that would be closed. The moderate reduction in the miles of motorized routes under this alternative would limit the spread of noxious and invasive weeds where motorized vehicles are a method of dispersal, but impacts would still occur along retained motorized routes. These routes would continue

November 2016 123 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

to have adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and biodiversity across the TMA, and these impacts would likely increase in relation to predicted increases in recreation and use of routes.

4.2.3.5 Wildlife

The closure of 312 miles of motorized routes under Alternative C would provide moderate, long-term benefits to wildlife species found within the TMA by reducing habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and likelihood of direct mortality from vehicles. Of these closed routes, an existing 9 miles are ML3, while the remaining 304 miles are currently ML1. As the frequency of use influences the level of impact a route may have on wildlife in the surrounding areas, routes that are ML3 or greater would have greater potential to cause disturbance or direct mortality via vehicle strikes to wildlife species. Route density would be reduced to 0.92 mi/mi2, below the 1.0 mi/mi2 maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals (Forman and Hersperger 1996). Route closures can create patches of contiguous habitat without routes, which act as refuge areas for wildlife to complete necessary life-history events (such as breeding) without disturbance (such as noise) associated with motorized recreation. There would also be an overall reduction of route density across the TMA, which would facilitate easier movement of wildlife throughout the area, increasing fitness and enhancing gene flow by reducing barriers. Small-mammal populations would increase in areas without routes, which would benefit raptor species and other predators inhabiting the area.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Bull trout (Threatened) is the only listed species with potential to occur within the TMA, and impacts to this species are described in Fisheries below.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

This alternative would provide moderate, long-term benefits to migratory birds by closing 312 miles of existing inventoried routes, reducing the density of designated motorized routes to 0.92 mi/mi2 across the TMA (refer to Table 4.25, Alternative C Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA, for route density across specific habitats). Average route density across sagebrush shrubland habitat within the TMA would be reduced to 0.81 mi/mi2, directly benefiting sagebrush obligate songbird species by reducing edge effects within their habitat. This would result in a decrease in habitat fragmentation and levels of disturbance would decrease from current levels, benefitting migratory birds in the TMA by creating contiguous tracts of available land. This would increase areas of refuge, and net beneficial effects to breeding, nesting, and fledging would occur. Reproductive success, diversity, and density of birds would be expected to increase in areas of route closure.

The 1,185 miles of routes that would be designated for motorized use would continue to impact migratory birds and their habitats, as portions of habitat would remain fragmented and levels of disturbance via motorized recreation on retained routes is expected to increase over time. There would continue to be adverse effects to breeding, nesting, and successful fledging along these routes. Impacts on migratory bird species would continue to include energetic costs, behavioral changes (feeding, breeding, sheltering), loss of fitness (survival, growth, reproduction rates), site avoidance, and others.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Greater Sage-Grouse: The permanent route closures would eliminate 214 miles of existing motorized routes, and would moderately benefit sage-grouse by creating more contiguous habitats and reducing the potential for human disturbance via routes. The permanent closure of these routes would also reduce the chance for human-caused wildfires, as well as the potential for nonnative invasive plants and noxious

November 2016 124 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

weed spread, which would lower threats to existing wildlife habitat. Table 4.27 describes miles and densities of routes in important types of sage-grouse habitat, though there is overlap between habitat types, in addition to route densities that would occur during seasonal closures.

Table 4.27. Alternative C Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types

Percent Change Route Density Miles During Route Density Habitat Type Miles from No Action 2 2 (mi/mi ) Seasonal Closure (mi/mi ) Alternative

Winter 391 -21% 0.91 291 0.68 Late Brood Rearing 12 -14% 2.26 10 1.88 Occupied Leks (2014) 120 -19% 0.98 60 0.49 Key Habitat* 847 -20% 0.89 577 0.61 Sagebrush Focal Area** 825 -21% 1.13 562 0.77

* The State of Idaho defines key habitat as: areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year including winter, spring, summer, late brood-rearing, fall, transition sites from winter to spring, spring to summer, summer/fall to winter. Key habitat may or may not provide adequate nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter cover due to elevation, snow depth, lack of early season forbs, limited herbaceous cover, or small sagebrush patch size. ** Sagebrush Focal Areas are important landscape blocks with high breeding population densities of sage-grouse and existing high-quality sagebrush.

Under Alternative C, there would be 120 miles of motorized routes within buffered 2014 occupied leks, at a density of 0.98 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of 60 miles of routes would reduce this to 60 miles of motorized routes at a density of 0.49 mi/mi2. Of the existing 40 miles of ML3 routes in lekking habitat, 19 miles would be subject to the aforementioned seasonal closures. The seasonal closures would have a temporal component consistent with the breeding season and time of lekking behavior. As disturbance caused by proximity to motorized routes can cause reductions in sage-grouse populations from both loss of habitat, as well as lek abandonment, the elimination of routes and the seasonal reduction in disturbance, particularly of ML3 routes, would have a beneficial effect on sage-grouse by reducing disturbance during important breeding and brood-rearing periods, and potentially improve reproductive success. Use of retained motorized routes near leks would likely continue to cause human disturbance of lekking behavior.

Under Alternative C, there would be 391 miles of motorized routes within winter habitat, at a density of 0.91 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of routes would reduce this to 291 miles of motorized routes at a density of 0.68 mi/mi2. Permanent closures of routes in winter habitat would have a moderate beneficial effect on sage-grouse populations by conserving critical habitats on which the species is entirely dependent through portions of the year. Reductions in habitat fragmentation and risk of introduction of non-native plants that have the potential to change the species composition of sagebrush communities would have long-term beneficial impacts to sage-grouse winter survival.

Under Alternative C, there would be 12 miles of motorized routes within late brood rearing habitat, at a density of 2.26 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of 2 miles of routes would reduce this to 10 miles of motorized routes at a density of 1.88 mi/mi2. Reduction in route density from current conditions would be beneficial to sage-grouse reproductive success by reducing habitat fragmentation and potential for human disturbance.

Motorized route density within key habitat under Alternative C would occur at 0.82 mi/mi2, and human disturbance facilitated by motorized routes would be moderately reduced across the TMA. Motorized route density within SFAs would occur at 1.13 mi/mi2, which would reduce impacts to high-quality sagebrush habitat from fragmentation and reduce opportunities for non-native vegetation to be introduced into the habitat.

November 2016 125 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Overall, Alternative C provides seasonal protection for Greater sage-grouse during critical life stages, and would reduce current adverse impacts on breeding success and habitats necessary for winter survival. Additionally, fragmentation of crucial habitat would be reduced, along with potential for invasion of non- native species that may alter species composition and increase the risk of wildfire. These impacts would result in a moderate increase in sage-grouse habitat quality, and in turn have beneficial effects on breeding success and population size.

Pygmy Rabbit: Under Alternative C, 155 miles of motorized routes would be designated in modeled pygmy rabbit habitat within the TMA, occurring at a density of 0.97 mi/mi2. Fifty-five of 183 routes (30%) currently open to motorized use would be closed or designated as non-motorized within habitat for this species. This alternative would have moderate beneficial effects to pygmy rabbits, as a reduction in route density indicates a reduction of habitat fragmentation. There would be tracts of continuous habitat providing buffers from noise and disturbance associated with motorized recreation. Additionally, direct impacts from mortality and burrow collapse would be reduced commensurate with routes designated as closed. Areas of refuge would increase, which could result in greater reproductive success and increased population numbers. These larger patches of habitat without routes under this alternative would improve the chances of persistence of the species within the TMA.

Colombia Spotted Frog: Under Alternative C, there would be 0.37 mile of routes retained within 300 feet of recorded occurrences of this species, in addition to one crossing of a 303(d)-listed intermittent stream, which occurs along a ML3 route. Direct and indirect impacts to Columbia spotted frog habitat, such as riparian vegetation and stream channels, would decrease with a reduction of opportunities for chemical pollutants to enter aquatic habitats. Additionally, direct mortality associated with vehicles would be lessened with a reduction in motorized routes. Physical disturbance of riparian vegetation and increased suspended sediment loads from erosion would decrease. When water quality improves, habitat quality for amphibians also improves. Alternative C would improve water quality in spotted frog habitat, beneficially affecting aquatic habitats within the TMA and increasing the chances of persistence.

BIG GAME

Under Alternative C, there would be a moderate reduction in miles of retained motorized routes that have the potential to disturb big-game species with noise, fragment habitat, create barriers to movement, and allow easier access for hunters. The reduction in disturbance and increase in contiguous areas of habitat would have a substantial, long-term beneficial impact on big-game species winter survival and reproductive success, leading to increased population numbers and resiliency.

Bighorn Sheep: Under Alternative C, 135 miles of routes designated as open to public motorized vehicle use would occur in bighorn sheep habitat within the TMA, 32 miles of which are ML3 routes, occurring at a density of 0.86 mi/mi2. This alternative would provide a reduction of 38% of existing routes, and would reduce habitat fragmentation and barriers to movement. Sixty-nine of the 135 miles would be subject to seasonal closures. Of the open routes, 3 miles would occur within identified lambing habitat. Route densities in general habitat is below the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold, which would improve habitat from current conditions and would reduce route density to that of a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 70% during seasonal closures under this alternative and impacts to breeding and foraging behavior would be substantially reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and potential for population increases. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for bighorn sheep to be disturbed and harassed by humans. In a few instances, higher volume routes in the TMA, such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers, causing habitat fragmentation and genetic bottlenecking between populations.

November 2016 126 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Pronghorn Antelope: Under Alternative C, approximately 906 miles of routes, 230 of which would be ML3, would be designated as open to public motorized vehicle use within antelope habitat, at a density of 0.71 mi/mi2. Of the open routes, 211 miles would occur within winter habitat areas, of which 25 miles would be ML3 routes, at a density of 0.86 mi/mi2. Route densities in both these habitat types are below the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold, most importantly within winter habitat. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 35% under this alternative and impacts to breeding and foraging behavior from human disturbance and habitat fragmentation would be substantially reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and winter survival. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for pronghorn antelope to be disturbed and harassed by humans. Routes, particularly higher volume routes such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers and contribute to habitat fragmentation.

FISHERIES

Under Alternative C, 3 miles of routes, consisting of both open to public motorized use and authorized use only, are within 300 feet of redband trout habitat, with one crossing of an intermittent stream along an ML1 route, which carries a low volume of traffic and contributes lesser amounts of sediment and pollutants into waterways than ML3 routes. Additionally, 230 crossings of intermittent streams would be closed or designated as non-motorized across the TMA, and 78 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs would be closed or designated as non- motorized. The retained routes would occur at a density of 1.31 mi/mi2 (see Section 4.2.3.2, Hydrology for a discussion of density thresholds). The one route that facilitates access to bull trout habitat would be designated as open to public motorized use but subject to seasonal closures, not related to fisheries.

Improvements in water quality would improve fish habitat quality (see Hydrology Section 4.2.3.2 for further discussion of impacts to water quality). Designations under Alternative C would result in a moderate improvement in diversity of aquatic invertebrates, algae, amphibians, and fish in impacted streams and rivers across the TMA. Redband trout habitat would continue to be impacted by one stream crossing, which would facilitate moderate improvements in fish movement, gene flow, and invertebrate assemblage. Closed routes would no longer contribute sediment and contaminants into waterways and therefore turbidity in impacted waterways would be lessened, water temperature would regulate through regrowth of vegetation, and no longer cause continuing changes to the structure of in-stream habitats, such as pools. Alternative C would reduce fine sediment loads and would lead to improved fish reproduction, growth, and a decrease in mortality for both redband trout and potential populations of bull trout.

BATS

Under Alternative C, approximately 211 miles of routes that would be designated as open to public motorized use overlap bat habitat. This alternative would provide a moderate (20%) decrease in routes that overlap bat habitat. Sixteen miles of routes would be designated as closed, and 18 miles would be limited to authorized use only. Additionally, 18 miles of routes currently open to motorized use would be designated as non-motorized. Overall, access to this habitat would be moderately reduced from current levels, and risk of impacts to winter survival from disturbance of hibernacula by recreationists would be reduced from current levels where routes remain accessible during the hibernation period. Additionally, the closure of 16 miles of existing routes would reduce fragmentation within bat habitat, and the risk of alteration of foraging habitats from the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, which would also decrease the risk of human-caused wildfire. Populations of bats would continue to be adversely impacted by retained motorized routes and the human disturbance facilitated by access via routes open to public motorized use.

November 2016 127 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.2.3.6 Recreation and Social Values

Under Alternative C, there would be a 39% reduction in the miles of routes available for public motorized use. Approximately 312 miles of routes would be designated as closed, in addition to 260 miles of routes that would be designated as limited to authorized use only, and 24 miles that would be designated as limited to non-motorized use (596 total miles of routes no longer available). Seasonally, an additional 297 miles of routes open to public motorized use would be closed. Alternative C is intended to balance the need for access with resource protection; thus the route designations also provide a balance amongst the types of route users, modes of transportation, and the period of use, with 297 miles of routes seasonally closed, 31 miles of routes available to OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) and 24 miles designated for non-motorized use. This alternative would close motorized loop opportunities to some recreation destinations, which would remain accessible via one route. As noted in the “Impacts Common to All Alternatives,” open routes under Alternative C would continue to provide access to the two designated recreation sites, the SRMA within the TMA, as well as access to the three wilderness areas that occur in proximity to the TMA.

In response to the 312 miles of closed routes, 260 miles of routes limited to authorized motorized use only, and non-motorized designation of 24 miles of routes, some users may shift their modes of transportation when compared to the No Action Alternative in order to continue their chosen public use (e.g., a user that travelled in a passenger vehicle may now need to travel in a 4-wheel drive vehicle). This reduction in the overall miles of existing route system and their use designations would result in both beneficial (non-motorized) and adverse (motorized) impacts to recreation resources. Non-motorized users would have more opportunities for solitude and non-disrupted recreation opportunities on the 24 miles of routes exclusively for non-motorized use. Conversely, motorized users would be concentrated onto a smaller network of routes open to motorized use and would be adversely impacted by a diminished recreational experience and by the loss of motorized travel opportunities (596 miles no longer available).

Approximately 312 miles of routes would be closed to all motorized use (including OHVs with wheelbase <50 inches) and 260 miles of routes would be designated for authorized use only, which would allow non-motorized use of routes by the public, but motorized use would be limited to that necessary for administrative purposes. However, approximately 31 miles of routes would be specifically designated for OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) under Alternative C (see Table 2.4 in Chapter 2).

Under Alternative C, approximately 24 miles of routes would be open to non-motorized use only (currently, as in Alternative A, there are no routes designated as open to non-motorized use only). Mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders can continue to use designated motorized routes (1,083 miles), in addition to 24 miles to be designated exclusively for non-motorized use. This increase in routes to be used exclusively for non-motorized use would be beneficial to those types of uses, but would be adverse for motorized uses. The conversion of 24 miles of routes from open for motorized use to non- motorized only, would increase the likelihood for conflicts of non-motorized and motorized users to a minor degree.

Under Alternative C, approximately 9 miles of existing ML3 routes would be closed, and 304 miles of existing ML1 routes. As shown on Figure 2-3, concentrations of route closures, seasonal closures, and limited to authorized users occur in the northwest corner of the TMA surrounding the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. In addition, the southeast corner of the TMA also includes a concentration of routes proposed to be closed. These “clusters” of route closures would result in site-specific impacts to recreational access and may result in adverse, minor to moderate, long-term impacts since users may be required to travel longer distances or alter their mode of transportation to gain public access. For routes that are seasonally closed, the impact would be short-term.

November 2016 128 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Under Alternative C, miles of routes open to public motorized use, both year-round and seasonally closed, within ROS classes would change (described in Table 4.28 below). While a change in route miles would not change the ROS, the change in availability of routes (including loop routes) could change the recreational setting of portions of the TMA. Designation of routes as closed would be a return to previous recreational settings. The reduction of 42% of routes open to public motorized use in the Semi-Primitive Motorized and 42% in Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized classes would be consistent with the management objectives of these classes.

Table 4.28. Alternative C Miles Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Categories

Alternative A Percent Change from Alternative C ROS Category Miles* Alternative A Miles

Roaded Natural 431 -31.1% 297 Semi-Primitive Motorized 1,019 -42.3% 578 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 45 -42.2% 26 Total 1,495 -39.8% 900

* Total miles does not equal total network mileage because ROS classes do not cover the entire geographic area of the TMA.

Hunting and trapping opportunities in Game Management Units 40 and 41 would not change under Alternative C. Access for public use activities such as rockhounding, spiritual visitation, vehicle exploring, sightseeing, and hunting and trapping opportunities in site-specific locations may result in adverse, minor to moderate, long-term impacts due to the 39% reduction in total routes open to public motorized use, but would not completely eliminate any of these public use activities and opportunities within the TMA. The primary impact to public use activities would result from the seasonal closures of 297 miles of routes, limitation of 260 miles of routes to authorized users only, and permanent closure of 312 miles of routes.

Alternative C would designate 526 miles of routes open to motorized use, a 39% reduction from the current route network. This would result in site-specific, minor impacts to recreation from closing or limiting the miles of routes for motorized recreation, and changes to the quality of their recreational experience may be more adversely affected.

4.2.3.7 Visual Resources

Under Alternative C, a total of 1,209 miles of routes would be retained and would continue to impact visual quality. Route proliferation (including parallel routes, redundant routes going to one destination, and routes that serve no known purpose) would be reduced across all VRM classes compared to the No Action Alternative. There would be direct beneficial impacts to visual quality by reducing linear features on the landscape. These moderate improvements to the visual quality of the landscape would result from the eventual natural revegetation of the 312 miles of routes that would be designated as closed. The eventual return of existing routes to a natural state would result in a reduction of route density across all VRM classes, particularly in more sensitive VRM classes, such as I and II, though each VRM classification would benefit from the reduction of overall route miles. In addition, the reductions in overall route density would also benefit visual resources. Table 4.29 describes miles and route densities in each VRM class under Alternative C.

November 2016 129 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.29. Alternative C Mileages and Route Density of VRM Classes

Percent Change in Miles Route Density VRM Class Miles* 2 from No Action Alternative (mi/mi )

I 3 -25% 0.45 II 174 -19% 0.92 III 418 -25% 0.97 IV 528 -18% 0.92

* Does not include closed routes, mileage total may not equal total route miles due to rounding.

4.2.3.8 Range Resources

Under this alternative, 78% of existing routes (Table 4.30) would be retained as either open or administrative use only, which would still allow reasonable access for permittees to perform animal husbandry and maintain improvements. The closure of routes would result in a minor benefit to range management through a decline in forage loss and possibly a slight increase in available forage as closed routes rehabilitate. While not expected to provide any significant change in forage availability, this would still be beneficial to range management.

Table 4.30. Alternative C Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites

Percent Change from Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes* No Action Alternative

Total number of routes 413 -53% Allotment, pasture, and exclosure fences 225 -42% Stock tanks, ponds, dams, and reservoirs 166 -39% Developed water sites, wells, windmills, and pipelines 114 -39% Water haul sites 58 -18% Salt lick and supplement sites 134 -38% Livestock trailing 51 -20% Cattle guards and gates 189 -39% Corrals or other structures 19 -17%

*Routes are not additive as a single route may access more than one feature

4.2.3.9 Special Designations

Approximately 1.5 miles of routes designated for motorized use under Alternative C would occur within the Owyhee River/Bighorn Sheep ACEC. Approximately 0.5 mile of routes would be closed within the ACEC; approximately 0.3 mile of routes would be seasonally limited and closed during other seasons, and 1.2 miles of routes would be open. The 1.2 miles of open routes and 0.3 mile of seasonally closed routes may result in indirect impacts to the wildlife resources of the ACEC from hunting-related access and temporary noise from vehicles and OHVs.

4.2.3.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative C, there would be changes to the overall route miles within lands with wilderness characteristics. Approximately 53 miles that occur within lands with characteristics would be designated

November 2016 130 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

as open to public motorized use, 6 miles would be limited to authorized use only and 12 miles of routes would be designated as closed. Of the 28 routes identified as occurring with land with wilderness characteristics, 16 routes would be designated as closed, two routes would be designated as limited to authorized use only, and 9 routes would be retained as open to public motorized use.

The wilderness characteristic inventory units of Buncel Basin (36% of existing routes closed) and Henry Lake (5% closed) would be affected if Alternative C were implemented.

As described under Alternative B, closure of routes within lands with wilderness characteristics would have a major beneficial, long-term effect to lands with wilderness characteristics since the route closures would further the ability of affected lands to meet the requirements for wilderness. For instance, route closures may enable the wilderness characteristic inventory unit to increase in acreage, may increase naturalness, may increase outstanding opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation, and may increase supplemental values. For the routes that would remain open to all users or limited within lands with wilderness characteristics, there would be no additional impacts since the existing route network was already in place during the establishment of the wilderness characteristic inventory units and there would be no new routes added or constructed. Maintenance activities that could affect wilderness characteristics (e.g., decrease naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or supplemental values) would be similar to current activities, and would be anticipated to occur less frequently than is currently being done since Alternative C would designate 312 miles of routes as closed.

4.2.3.11 Impact Summary of Alternative C

Under Alternative C, effects associated with the current motorized route system would be moderately reduced through route designation and the closure of 21% of existing routes, less than Alternative B but more than Alternative D. Impacts associated with the use of motorized routes would still occur, but the rate at which these impacts would accumulate across the TMA (such as erosion and sedimentation, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife (including ACECs), as well as reducing the potential for spread of invasive species and noxious weeds) would be slowed. Alternative C would also moderately reduce levels of access for motorized recreation, though adverse impacts to access for fire and fuels management and a multitude of land uses (including grazing and mineral material extraction) would be minor; access to recreation sites and special designations would be maintained (see Table 2.6).

4.2.4 Alternative D As described in Section 2.3.4 in Chapter 2, Alternative D would be the least restrictive to motorized public access while providing reasonable protection to natural, scenic, and cultural values. The emphasis for natural resource management in this alternative would be to maintain the integrity of existing vegetation, while improving conditions through closures on routes with existing resource damage or serious visitor conflict. Under Alternative D, 13% of currently open routes would be designated closed. The route designations that would occur under this alternative within the TMA are displayed in Table 4.31.

Table 4.31. Route Designations – Alternative D

Designation Miles* Definition

Highway 70 Open 953 Open to public motorized use. Seasonal Closure 145 Closed to public motorized use during seasons or times.

November 2016 131 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.31. Route Designations – Alternative D (Continued)

Designation Miles* Definition OHV <50 inches 70 Limited to use by OHVs with a wheelbase of less than 50 inches. Non-motorized 15 Limited to non-motorized uses, such as bicycle, horseback, or hiking. Authorized Only 62 Limited to administrative motorized use. Closed 205 Motorized or mechanized use prohibited. Total 1,521

* Total does not equal total route miles due to rounding.

4.2.4.1 Cultural Resources

Like Alternative C, Alternative D would result in a minor reduction in impacts to cultural resources. In terms of direct impacts, one non-linear archaeological site would benefit from one road closure within the site; however, another road within the same site would only be designated limited use. That site’s NRHP status is unevaluated at this time. The remaining four non-linear sites would be impacted by routes open to public motorized routes. Routes open to public motorized use would cross linear sites a total of 34 times. Fewer routes going through three of the linear sites would be closed or limited than for Alternatives B and C. Changes in direct impacts to non-linear sites from motorized use of routes is described in Table 4.32.

Table 4.32. Known Non-Linear Cultural Resources Directly Impacted by Alternative D

Route Designation NRHP Eligible NRHP Unevaluated or Unknown Total

Open 4 0 4 Limited 0 1 (One of two roads in a site) 1 Closed 0 1 (One of two roads in a site) 1 Total 4 1 (the above represents two routes through one site) 5* * One site appears twice in the table but is only counted as one site.

Indirect impacts under Alternative D would also be reduced compared to the No Action Alternative; 106 of the 500 known archaeological sites within 0.25 mile of the route network would be along closed routes, and would be less likely to be indirectly impacted by OHV use. Seventy-two of the 106 sites are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, or their NRHP status is unevaluated/unknown.

In summary, access to areas within the TMA where 106 known archaeological sites are located would be limited by the closure of 205 miles of routes. Thus, Alternative D would provide minor beneficial impacts to cultural resources. In comparison to Alternatives B and C, Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts as fewer routes would be closed and more archaeological sites would be indirectly impacted.

4.2.4.2 Soils and Hydrology

SOILS

This alternative would have a moderate beneficial impact to soil resources in the TMA. Under Alternative D, 76 of the existing 263 identified routes (29%) that occur in erosive soils would be designated as closed or non-motorized, resulting in a reduction of 76 miles (12% of the mileage of identified routes) of impacts. Another 144 miles of routes occurring outside of highly erosive soil areas would also be

November 2016 132 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

designated as closed or non-motorized. The retained motorized routes would still be susceptible to soil erosion and compaction; however, the potential severity of impacts to soil resources would decrease as compared to current conditions, described in Alternative A. Table 4.33 describes miles of routes occurring on soils with high erosion potential designated as closed or non-motorized.

Table 4.33. Miles of Identified Routes in Soils of Differing Surface Textures for Alternative D

Percent of Total Percent Change Percent of Route Alternative A Alternative D Miles in Surface Texture from No Action Miles per Texture Miles Miles Identified Alternative Class Erosive Soils

Silt loam 124 -16% 19 25% 3% Loam 78 -13% 10 13% 2% Fine sandy loam 46 -18% 8 11% 1% Stony loam 75 -10% 8 10% 1% Very fine sandy loam 24 -24% 6 7% 1% Very gravelly sandy loam 15 -37% 6 7% 1% Gravelly loam 75 -6% 5 6% 1% Cobbly silt loam 19 -23% 4 6% 1% Ashy sandy loam 35 -12% 4 5% 1% Cobbly loam 24 -7% 2 2% <1% Loamy sand 4 -31% 1 2% <1% Very cobbly loam 16 -8% 1 2% <1% Sandy loam 12 -10% 1 2% <1% Bedrock 3 -38% 1 2% <1% Stony silt loam 17 -1% <1 <1% <1% Very gravelly loam 4 -2% <1 <1% <1% Gravelly fine sandy loam 8 0% 0 0% 0% Gravelly silt loam 7 0% 0 0% 0% Very cobbly sandy loam 3 0% 0 0% 0% Stones, boulders 2 0% 0 0% 0% Clay 2 0% 0 0% 0% Gravelly sandy loam 1 0% 0 0% 0% Gravelly loamy sand 1 0% 0 0% 0% Total* 595 -13% 76 100% 12%

* Values may not sum to total due to soil texture classes being excluded if miles is very small.

The types of impacts to the soil resources would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative, and include soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, impaired or diminished function of soil stabilizers such as biotic soil crusts and desert pavement, and accelerated erosion rates causing rills and gullying. Approximately 521 miles of identified routes would be retained for motorized use under this alternative. Impacts could potentially increase in intensity across the designated route system as current and projected future levels of motorized use would be concentrated to fewer available miles, particularly in areas of highly erosive or compactible soils.

November 2016 133 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The closure or non-motorized designation of 76 miles of existing, unpaved motorized routes occurring on soils with a high risk of erosion would prevent further degradation and provide a minor, long-term benefit to sensitive soils resources of the TMA. Eventual natural revegetation of 76 miles of closed or non- motorized routes, and overall of 205 miles of existing routes that would be designated as closed, would stabilize soils and decrease the potential for erosion. Non-motorized designation of 15 miles of routes would result in an eventual revegetation of a portion of existing route width and provide some reduction in adverse soils impacts. An overall reduction of route miles would decrease the rate of soil erosion and prevent the formation of erosional features across the TMA.

HYDROLOGY

Under Alternative D, 120 existing perennial and intermittent stream crossings occur on routes that would be designated as closed or non-motorized. Of the 773 stream crossings that would be retained, 134 would occur along ML3 routes, which carry a higher frequency of traffic, have the greatest volume of crossings, and thus, greater impacts than the remaining 639 crossings. Thirteen of the stream crossings that would be designated as closed or non-motorized occur in 303(d)-listed streams, and 84 crossings would be retained, 13 of which occur along ML3 routes. Crossings retained in the route network as either open to public motorized use or authorized use only are described in Table 4.34. Additionally, there are 37 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams that would be closed or designated as non-motorized; approximately 6 miles of these routes lie within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams. Of the 34 miles of retained routes, one is attributed to Highway 51, while 6 miles are attributed to ML3 routes. Routes within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams retained in the inventory under this alternative for motorized use are described in Table 4.34 below.

Table 4.34. Comparison of Impacts to 303(d)-Listed Perennial and Intermittent Streams for Alternative D

Number of Stream Crossings Route Miles within 300 feet Waterbody Name Stream Type Alt A Alt D Alt A Alt D

Trout Creek Intermittent 5 5 0.79 0.79 Rattlesnake Creek Intermittent 6 6 1.73 1.52 Cottonwood Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.46 0.46 Black Leg Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.13 0.13 Black Leg Creek Perennial 1 0 0.31 0.25 Alder Creek Intermittent 1 1 0.30 0.21 Alder Creek Perennial 2 1 0.27 0.15 Mary’s Creek Perennial 0 0 0.57 0.57 Sheep Creek Perennial 0 0 0.99 0.99 Meadow Creek Perennial 0 0 0.23 0.23 Pole Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.18 0.18 Cat Creek Intermittent 0 0 0.09 0 unnamed Intermittent 80 69 33.95 26.32 Total 97 84 39.98 34.06

Closure of the 37 miles of routes would result in a total of 290 miles of retained motorized routes occurring within 300 feet of streams at a density of 1.53 mi/mi2. This would not reduce the route density to below that of the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold at which substantial water quality declines, watershed degradation and aquatic species impacts are expected, and double that of the 0.7 mi/mi2 density at which

November 2016 134 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

high degradation is determined. While there would be minor benefits to hydrologic function and riparian habitats in response to a reduction in total route density, Alternative D does not reduce density to below that of substantial ecological impacts.

This alternative would result in a reduction of current rates of sedimentation and turbidity levels in streams directly affected by crossings, particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic. The closure of 205 miles of routes across the TMA is reflected in a 13% reduction in number of stream crossings from the current conditions, commensurately reducing the existing impacts to watershed and hydrological function across the TMA. More specifically, the closure of 13% of existing crossings in 303(d)-listed streams would improve water quality in already impaired waterbodies. Overall, the closure of stream crossings (including both 303(d)-listed and non-listed streams) would have minor direct benefits to water quality and aquatic habitats across the TMA.

Alternative D would directly benefit riparian and aquatic habitats and reduce the potential for erosion- caused sedimentation and contamination by pollutants from runoff with the closure or non-motorized designation of 11% of routes within 300 feet of all streams across the TMA. Fifteen percent of routes within 300 feet of 303(d)-listed streams would be closed or designated as non-motorized, indirectly improving water quality by reducing soil compaction and allowing for natural revegetation. Overall, the reduction of a minor percentage of motorized route length would commensurately decrease the amount of erosion and surface water runoff produced on route surfaces and thus lessen the potential for sedimentation and contamination produced by vehicle travel from entering streams and aquatic habitats.

4.2.4.3 Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, access for fire suppression would essentially remain the same as the No Action Alternative. BLM would not close any regularly or periodically maintained routes within the TMA, allowing continued access for large fire-fighting equipment. Fire suppression response and use of routes as firebreaks or anchor points would remain relatively unchanged. Ten miles of closed or non-motorized routes would occur along routes identified as fuel breaks, which would result in the loss of 3% of routes currently available for this purpose. Of the retained 399 miles of routes identified as fuel breaks, 171 miles would occur along ML3 routes, in addition to the 40 miles of Highway 51. While motorized access would be decreased by 220 miles (14%), use of routes for fire suppression is determined by the conditions of the route on any given year, and the number of useable routes would remain essentially the same as the No Action Alternative. By reducing motorized access, this alternative would slightly decrease human- caused fire risk factors by reducing motorized travel and access to remote areas. The reduced potential for human caused fire occurrence would not be significant.

4.2.4.4 Vegetation

The reduction in miles of motorized routes under Alternative D would reduce overall impacts to vegetation across the TMA, and the closure of 205 miles of routes would allow revegetation, reducing fragmentation of native plant communities and protecting soils from disturbance and erosion. While growth of population and recreational use is expected to trigger modest increases in route influence zone impacts along retained motorized routes, some vegetation damage would be mitigated in some areas by limiting route use to OHVs with a wheelbase <50 inches. Additionally, reducing the total miles available for motorized use would limit opportunities for the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. Table 4.35 describes the changes in route miles and densities compared to the No Action Alternative.

November 2016 135 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.35. Alternative D Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA

Percent Change Route Density Vegetation Cover Type Ecological System Miles* in Miles from 2 (mi/mi ) No Action Alternative Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 444 -19% 0.94 Low Sagebrush Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 255 -10% 0.99 Mountain Big Sagebrush Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 173 -11% 0.86 Steppe Bunchgrass Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 108 -11% 0.87 Seeding Unidentified 100 -13% 1.76 Rabbitbrush Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 44 -14% 1.15 Salt Desert Shrub Salt Brush Scrub 78 -13% 2.13 Exotic Annuals Semi-Natural Herbaceous Rangeland 14 -18% 0.76 Wet Meadow Palustrine Emergent 10 -9% 0.61 Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 13 -13% 0.82 Big Sagebrush Mix Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 7 -30% 0.78 Mountain Shrub Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mix 4 0% 0.45 Sparse Vegetation Sparse Vegetation & Natural Barren Areas 18 -18% 2.45 Greasewood Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 8 -20% 2.42 Total 1,276 1.01**

* Does not include non-motorized and closed route mileages, total does not equal total route miles due to rounding and did not account for miles of Highway 51 on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. ** Total route density across all general vegetation cover types.

Under Alternative D, route densities in five of the 14 general vegetative cover types are over the 1 mi/mi2 threshold and consist of seeding (1.76 mi/mi2), rabbitbrush (1.15 mi/mi2), salt desert shrub (2.13 mi/mi2), sparse vegetation (2.45 mi/mi2) and greasewood (2.42 mi/mi2). Two of these cover types are more than double the maximum threshold, which indicates that the vegetative communities would continue to be fragmented. The reduction in route density would increase areas of contiguous tracts of native vegetation and reduce erosion as closed routes revegetate. Overall, route density across vegetative communities within the TMA would be reduced to 1.01 mi/mi2, which is just above the maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape and would have moderate beneficial impacts to the current condition of vegetation across the TMA.

Retained motorized routes would continue to have an adverse effect on the native vegetation in the TMA. The road influence zone and edge effects would continue to influence the distribution and species composition of native vegetation along all 1,301 miles of motorized routes across the TMA. If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that additional vegetation would be affected, and the severity of impacts would increase in affected areas. Increased road influence zone impacts in the form of more dust deposition, noxious and invasive weeds proliferation, route widening, potentially exacerbate erosion and off-site sedimentation and general human presence impacts could be expected to occur to vegetation along the retained route network.

Over the long term, existing native and invasive plant populations would increase as the route surface and impacted areas of closed routes revegetate, reducing habitat fragmentation. Subsequently, the long-term effects of reduced erosion and stream sedimentation would result in increased water quality.

November 2016 136 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Impacts to special status plant species would be similar to those described for General Vegetation (5.1.4.4). Table 4.36 describes the species and number of populations of special status species directly and indirectly impacted by closure or non-motorized designation of routes.

Table 4.36. Alternative D Closure or Non-motorized Designation of Routes and Special Status Species

Percent Change Routes within Scientific Name Common Name BLM Ranking Route Count from No Action 0.25 mile Alternative

Astragalus newberryi var. Newberry’s milkvetch 4 - - 2 castoreus Astragalus purshii var. Snake River milkvetch 4 0 -0% - ophiogenes Astragalus yoder-williamsii Mud Flat milkvetch 3 0 -0% 3 Damasonium californicum Star waterplantain 4 - - 1 Dimeresia howellii Doublet 3 - - 4 Bacigalupis downingia Bacigalupi's calico-flower 4 1 -14% 1 Eatonella nivea White eatonella 4 0 -0% - Eriogonum shockleyi var. Shockley’s matted 4 0 -0% - shockleyi buckwheat Glyptopleura marginata White-margined wax plant 4 1 -10% 4 Ipomopsis polycladon Spreading gilia 3 0 -0% - Lepidium davisii Davis peppergrass 3 10 -28% 6 Leptodactylon glabrum Bruneau River prickly phlox 0 -0% - Lupinus uncialis Inch-high lupine 4 1 -50% 4 Nemacladus rigidus Rigid threadbush 4 0 -0% - Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s hedgehog 4 0 -0% 7 cactus Penstemon janishiae Janish’s penstemon 3 1 -17% 5 Peteria thompsoniae Spine-noded milkvetch 4 1 -14% 0 Total – 14 -16% 27

Under Alternative D, 8 miles of routes designated as open to public motorized use, less than 1 mile of seasonal closure, and less than 1 mile of route designated as limited to OHVs with a wheelbase <50 inches would occur within known populations of special status plants. This would result in the closure or non-motorized designation of 14 of the current 70 routes (20%) that intersect special status plant populations. Of the retained 56 routes, five are ML3 routes consisting of 13 intersections with special status plant populations, while the remaining 51 routes are ML1 routes that receive light use. The closures would help to protect the populations that occur within 0.25 mile of routes proposed to be closed from further disturbance under this alternative. This would result in the reduction of 27 of the current 99 routes (27%) within 0.25 mile of known populations of special status species.

This alternative would provide moderate benefits to special status plant species by reducing impacts from the road influence zone (dust deposition, proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, route widening, erosion and off-site sedimentation, soil compaction, crushing of plants, and general human presence,

November 2016 137 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

particularly along routes that carry larger volumes of traffic), and eventual natural revegetation of closed routes would reduce habitat fragmentation.

If existing trends in community population growth, recreational use and increasing numbers of public land visitors continue, it is likely that there would be increased road influence zone impacts to special status plant species and vegetation where motorized routes are retained. Habitat fragmentation and degradation would continue in those areas where current routes are having adverse impacts on special status plants or suitable habitats. This would indirectly affect species’ productivity, resiliency, diversity, and vigor and their capability to reproduce and sustain natural climatic fluctuations and ecological processes.

NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE SPECIES

Under Alternative D, closure of 205 miles of routes would provide a minor reduction of the opportunities for dispersal of weed species throughout the TMA. Additionally, 8 of 66 routes (12%) that currently intersect existing noxious weed and invasive plant populations would be designated as closed or non- motorized, two of which are ML3 routes. Of the 58 retained routes, 12 are ML3 routes, which are subject to a higher frequency of use and therefore the potential for spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be higher along these routes. Nine noxious weed or invasive plant populations occur within 300 feet of routes that would be designated as closed. The adverse impacts to native vegetation described in the No Action Alternative would be reduced commensurate with the miles of currently open routes that would be closed. The moderate reduction of the miles of motorized routes under this alternative would limit the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants where motorized vehicles are a method of dispersal, but impacts would still occur along retained motorized routes. These routes would continue to have adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and biodiversity across the TMA, and these impacts would likely increase in relation to predicted increases in recreation and use of routes.

4.2.4.5 Wildlife

The closure of 206 miles of motorized routes under Alternative D would provide minor, long-term benefits to wildlife species within the TMA by reducing habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and likelihood of direct mortality from vehicles. Of these closed routes, 5 miles are ML3, while the remaining 201 miles are currently ML1. As the frequency of use influences the level of impact a route may have on wildlife in the surrounding areas, routes that are ML3 or greater would have greater potential to cause disturbance or direct mortality via vehicle strikes to wildlife species. Route density would be reduced to 1.01 mi/mi2, just above the 1.0 mi/mi2 maximum threshold for a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals (Forman and Hersperger 1996). Route closures can create patches of contiguous habitat without routes, which act as refuge areas for wildlife to complete necessary life-history events (such as breeding) without disturbance (such as noise) associated with motorized recreation. There would also be an overall minor reduction of route density across the TMA, which would facilitate easier movement of wildlife throughout the area, increasing fitness and enhancing gene flow by reducing barriers. Small-mammal populations would increase in areas without routes, which would provide benefits to raptor species and other predators inhabiting the area.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Bull trout (Threatened) is the only listed species with potential to occur within the TMA, and impacts to this species are described in Fisheries below.

November 2016 138 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

MIGRATORY BIRDS

This alternative would provide minor, long-term benefits to migratory birds by closing 205 miles of existing inventoried routes, reducing the density of designated motorized routes to 1.01 mi/mi2 across the TMA (refer to Table 4.35, Alternative D Route Density in General Vegetation Cover Types of the TMA, for route density across specific habitats). Average route density across sagebrush shrubland habitat within the TMA would be reduced to 0.89 mi/mi2, directly benefiting sagebrush obligate songbird species by reducing edge effects within their habitat. This would result in a minor decrease in habitat fragmentation and levels of disturbance from current levels, benefitting migratory birds in the TMA by creating contiguous tracts of available land. This would increase areas of refuge, with resulting net beneficial effects to breeding, nesting, and fledging. Reproductive success, diversity, and density of birds would be expected to increase in areas of route closure.

The 1,301 miles of routes that would be designated for motorized use would continue to impact migratory birds and their habitats, as portions of habitat would remain fragmented and levels of disturbance via motorized recreation on retained routes is expected to increase over time. There would continue to be adverse effects to breeding, nesting, and successful fledging along these routes. Impacts on migratory bird species would continue to include energetic costs, behavioral changes (feeding, breeding, sheltering), loss of fitness (survival, growth, reproduction rates), site avoidance, and others.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Greater Sage-Grouse: The permanent route closures would eliminate 152 miles of existing motorized routes, and would benefit sage-grouse by creating more contiguous habitats and reducing the potential for human disturbance via routes. The permanent closure of these routes would also reduce the chance for human-caused wildfires, as well as the potential for nonnative invasive plants and noxious weed spread, which would lower threats to existing wildlife habitat. Table 4.37 describes route miles and densities in important types of sage-grouse habitat, though there is overlap between habitat types, in addition to route densities that would occur during seasonal closure.

Table 4.37. Alternative D Route Density in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Types

Percent Change from Route Density Miles During Route Density Habitat Type Mileage 2 2 No Action Alternative (mi/mi ) Seasonal Closure (mi/mi )

Winter 423 -14% 0.98 380 0.88 Late Brood 11 -21% 2.07 11 2.07 Rearing Occupied Leks 128 -14% 1.04 80 0.65 (2014) Key Habitat* 909 -14% 0.96 783 0.82 Sagebrush Focal 894 -14% 1.22 763 1.04 Area**

* The State of Idaho defines key habitat as: Areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year including winter, spring, summer, late brood-rearing, fall, transition sites from winter to spring, spring to summer, summer/fall to winter. Key habitat may or may not provide adequate nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter cover due to elevation, snow depth, lack of early season forbs, limited herbaceous cover, or small sagebrush patch size. ** Sagebrush Focal Areas are important landscape blocks with high breeding population densities of sage-grouse and existing high-quality sagebrush.

Under Alternative D, there would be 128 miles of motorized routes within buffered 2014 occupied leks, at a density of 0.1.04 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of 48 miles of routes would reduce this to 80 miles of motorized routes at a density of 0.65 mi/mi2. Of the existing 40 miles of ML3 routes in lekking habitat, none would be subject to the aforementioned seasonal closures. The seasonal closures would have a

November 2016 139 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

temporal component consistent with the breeding season and time of lekking behavior. As disturbance caused by proximity to motorized routes can cause reductions in sage-grouse populations from both loss of habitat, as well as lek abandonment, the elimination of routes and the seasonal reduction in disturbance would have a beneficial effect on sage-grouse by reducing disturbance during important breeding and brood-rearing periods, and potentially improve reproductive success. Use of retained motorized routes near leks would likely continue to cause human disturbance of lekking behavior.

Under Alternative D, there would be 423 miles of motorized routes within winter habitat, at a density of 0.98 mi/mi2, and seasonal closures of routes would reduce this to 380 miles at a density of 0.88 mi/mi2. Permanent closures of routes in winter habitat would have a minor beneficial effect on sage-grouse populations by conserving critical habitats on which the species is entirely dependent through portions of the year. Reductions in habitat fragmentation and risk of introduction of non-native plants that have the potential to change the species composition of sagebrush vegetative communities would have long-term beneficial impacts to sage-grouse winter survival.

Under Alternative D, there would be 11 miles of motorized routes within late brood rearing habitat, at a density of 2.07 mi/mi2, and no seasonal closures. This minor reduction in route density from current conditions would be somewhat beneficial to sage-grouse reproductive success by reducing habitat fragmentation and potential for human disturbance.

Motorized route density within key habitat under Alternative D would be 0.96 mi/mi2, and human disturbance facilitated by motorized routes would be substantially reduced across the TMA. Motorized route density within SFAs would be 1.22 mi/mi2, which would result in a minor reduction in impacts to high-quality sagebrush habitat from fragmentation and reduce opportunities for non-native vegetation to be introduced into the habitat.

Overall, Alternative D provides seasonal protection for Greater sage-grouse during critical life stages, and would provide minor reductions in current adverse impacts on breeding success and habitats necessary for winter survival. Additionally, fragmentation of crucial habitat would be reduced, along with potential for invasion of non-native species that may alter species composition and increase the risk of wildfire. These impacts would result in a minor increase in sage-grouse habitat quality, and in turn have beneficial effects on breeding success and population size.

Pygmy Rabbit: Under Alternative D, 169 miles of motorized routes would be designated in modeled pygmy rabbit habitat within the TMA, occurring at a density of 1.06 mi/mi2. Thirty-two of 183 routes (17%) currently open to motorized use would be closed or designated as non-motorized within habitat for this species. This alternative would have minor beneficial effects to pygmy rabbits, as a reduction in route density indicates a reduction of habitat fragmentation. There would be tracts of continuous habitat providing buffers from noise and disturbance associated with motorized recreation. Additionally, direct impacts from mortality and burrow collapse would be reduced commensurate with routes designated as closed. Areas of refuge would increase, which could result in greater reproductive success and an increase in population numbers. These larger patches of habitat without routes under this alternative would improve the chances of persistence of the species within the TMA.

Colombia Spotted Frog: Under Alternative D, there would be 0.59 mile of routes retained as open to public motorized use within 300 feet of recorded occurrences of this species, in addition to one crossing of a 303(d)-listed intermittent stream, which occurs along a ML3 route. Direct and indirect impacts to Columbia spotted frog habitat, such as riparian vegetation and stream channels, would decrease with a reduction of opportunities for chemical pollutants to enter aquatic habitats. Additionally, direct mortality associated with vehicles would be lessened with a reduction in motorized routes. Physical disturbance of riparian vegetation and suspended sediment loads from erosion would decrease. When water quality

November 2016 140 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

improves, habitat quality for amphibians also improves. Alternative D would provide minor improvements to water quality in spotted frog habitat.

BIG GAME

Under Alternative D, there would be a moderate reduction in miles of retained motorized routes that have the potential to disturb big-game species with noise, fragment habitat, create barriers to movement, and allow easier access for hunters. The reduction in disturbance and increase in contiguous areas of habitat would have a substantial, long-term beneficial impact on big-game species’ winter survival and reproductive success, leading to increased population numbers and resiliency.

Bighorn Sheep: Under Alternative D, 190 miles of routes designated as open to public motorized vehicle use would occur in bighorn sheep habitat within the TMA, 32 miles of which would be ML3 routes, occurring at a density of 1.20 mi/mi2. This alternative would provide a 13% reduction of existing routes, and would provide minor reductions in habitat fragmentation and barriers to movement. Thirty-three of the 190 miles would be subject to seasonal closures. Of the open routes, 3 miles would occur within identified lambing habitat. Route density in general habitat is above the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold, which would improve habitat from current conditions but would not reduce route density to that of a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 28% under this alternative and impacts to breeding and foraging behavior would be substantially reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and potential for population growth. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for bighorn sheep to be disturbed and harassed by humans. In a few instances, higher volume routes in the TMA, such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers, causing habitat fragmentation and genetic bottlenecking between populations.

Pronghorn Antelope: Under Alternative D, approximately 1,220 miles of routes, of which 234 miles would be ML3 routes, would be designated as open to public motorized vehicle use within antelope habitat, at a density of 0.96 mi/mi2. Of the open routes, 259 miles would occur within winter habitat areas, of which 26 mile would be ML3 routes, at a density of 1.05 mi/mi2. Route density in this habitat type would be just above the 1.0 mi/mi2 threshold, which would improve habitat from current conditions but would not reduce route density to that of a naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large mammals. Access to this habitat would be reduced by 20% under this alternative and impacts to breeding and foraging behavior from human disturbance and habitat fragmentation would be somewhat reduced from current levels, allowing for greater reproductive success and winter survival. Retained motorized routes would still allow for the potential for pronghorn antelope to be disturbed and harassed by humans. Routes, particularly higher volume routes such as ML3 routes, may also continue to act as movement barriers and contribute to habitat fragmentation.

FISHERIES

Under Alternative D, 4 miles of routes, consisting of both open to public motorized use and authorized use only, are within 300 feet of redband trout habitat, with one crossing of an intermittent stream along an ML1 route, which carries a low volume of traffic and contributes lesser amounts of sediment and pollutants into waterways than ML3 routes. Additionally, 120 crossings of intermittent streams would be closed or designated as non-motorized across the TMA, and 37 miles of routes that lie within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, waterbodies, and springs would be closed or designated as non- motorized. The retained routes would occur at a density of 1.53 mi/mi2 (see Section 4.2.4.2, Hydrology for a discussion of density thresholds). Benefits would accrue due to reduced bank disturbance and suspended sediment loads from motorized vehicle use disturbance. The one route that facilitates access to

November 2016 141 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

bull trout habitat would be designated open to public motorized use. Alternative D would moderately reduce sedimentation and improve water quality, improving fish habitat within the TMA.

Improvements in water quality would improve fish habitat quality (see Hydrology Section 4.2.4.2 for further discussion of impacts to water quality). Designations under Alternative D would result in a minor improvement in diversity of aquatic invertebrates, algae, amphibians, and fish in impacted streams and rivers across the TMA. Redband trout habitat would continue to be impacted by one stream crossing, which would facilitate moderate improvements in fish movement, gene flow, and invertebrate assemblage. Closed routes would no longer contribute sediment and contaminants into waterways and therefore turbidity in impacted waterways would be lessened, water temperature would regulate through regrowth of vegetation, and no longer cause continuing changes to the structure of in-stream habitats, such as pools. Alternative D would reduce fine sediment loads and would lead to improved fish reproduction, growth, and a decrease in mortality for both redband trout and potential populations of bull trout.

BATS

Under Alternative D, approximately 242 miles of routes that would be designated as open to public motorized use overlap bat habitat, which includes 4 miles of routes that would be limited to OHVs with a wheelbase<50 inches. This alternative would provide a minor (9%) decrease in routes that overlap bat habitat. Nine miles of routes would be designated as closed, and 14 miles of routes currently open to motorized use would be designated as non-motorized. Overall, there would be a minor reduction in access to this habitat from current levels, and risk of impacts to winter survival from disturbance of hibernacula by recreationists would be reduced from current levels where routes remain accessible during the hibernation period. Additionally, the closure of 9 miles of existing routes would reduce fragmentation within bat habitat, and the risk of alteration of foraging habitats from the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, which would also decrease the risk of human-caused wildfire. Populations of bats would continue to be adversely impacted by retained motorized routes and the human disturbance facilitated by access via routes open to public motorized use.

4.2.4.6 Recreation and Social Values

Under Alternative D, there would be a 19% reduction in the miles of routes available for public motorized use. Approximately 205 miles of routes would be closed to all uses under Alternative D, in addition to 62 miles of routes that would be designated as limited to authorized use only, and 15 miles that would be designated as limited to non-motorized use (282 total miles of routes no longer available). Of the 1,098 miles of routes open to all users, 145 miles of would be subject to seasonal closures.

Alternative D offers the most open routes for motorized use (1,098 miles) and most routes available for OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) (70 miles), among all of the action alternatives. Because Alternative D would have the least restrictions to motorized access of the action alternatives, Alternative D would offer the least amount of user conflict/mode of transportation conflicts since the uses would be distributed amongst the most diverse route designation when compared to the No Action Alternative. Additionally, Alternative D also retains motorized loop opportunities to some recreation destinations. As noted in the “Impacts Common to All Alternatives,” open routes under Alternative D would continue to provide access to the two designated recreation sites, the SRMA within the TMA, as well as access to the three wilderness areas that occur in proximity to the TMA.

In response to the 205 miles of closed routes, some users may shift their modes of transportation when compared to the No Action Alternative (e.g., a user that travelled in a passenger vehicle may now need to travel in a 4-wheel drive vehicle). This reduction in overall miles of existing route system and their use

November 2016 142 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

designations would result in both beneficial (non-motorized) and adverse (motorized) impacts to recreation resources. Non-motorized users would have more opportunities for solitude and non-disrupted recreation opportunities on the 15 miles of routes exclusively for non-motorized use. Conversely, motorized users would be concentrated onto a smaller network of routes open to motorized use and would be adversely impacted by a diminished recreational experience and by the loss of motorized travel opportunities (282 miles no longer available).

Approximately 205 miles of routes would be closed to motorized use and 62 miles of routes would be designated for authorized use only, which would allow non-motorized use of routes by the public, but motorized use would be limited to that necessary for administrative purposes. Seasonally, an additional 145 miles of routes would be closed to motorized use. However, approximately 70 miles of routes would be specifically designated for OHV use (wheelbase <50 inches) and 953 miles of routes would be open year-round to all motorized use (see Table 2.5 in Chapter 2).

Under Alternative D, approximately 15 miles of routes would be open to non-motorized use only (currently there are no routes designated as open to non-motorized use only). Mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders could continue to use designated motorized routes (1,230 miles), but the availability for exclusive non-motorized use would be 15 miles. This increase in routes to be used exclusively for non- motorized use would be beneficial to those types of uses, but would be adverse for motorized uses. The conversion of 15 miles of routes currently open for motorized use, to non-motorized only, would increase the likelihood for conflicts of non-motorized and motorized users.

As stated previously, it is likely that the intensity of recreational use would increase over time proportionate to the ongoing increase in the sales and use of recreational vehicles (BLM 2014). As this alternative provides the least reduction in miles of available routes, it can nonetheless be anticipated that the intensity and levels of use along the open route network would increase, as the same number of users would be concentrated on a reduced number of miles of routes.

Under Alternative D, approximately 5 miles of existing ML3 routes would be closed, and 201 miles of ML1 routes. As shown on Figure 2-4, concentrations of limited routes occur in the northwest corner of the TMA surrounding the Big Jacks Creek Wilderness. In addition, the southeast corner of the TMA also includes a concentration of routes proposed to be closed; mostly spur or “dead end” routes. These route limitations and closures would result in site-specific impacts to recreational access and may result in adverse, minor, long-term impacts since users may be required to travel longer distances or alter their mode of transportation to gain public access. For routes that are seasonally closed, the impact would be short-term.

Under Alternative D, miles of routes open to public motorized use, both year-round and seasonally closed, within ROS classes would change (described in Table 4.38 below). While a change in route miles would not change the ROS, the change in availability of routes could change the recreational setting of portions of the TMA. Designation of routes as closed would be a return to previous recreational settings. The reduction of 19% of routes open to public motorized use in the Semi-Primitive Motorized and 20% in Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized classes would be consistent with the management objectives of these classes.

Hunting and trapping opportunities in Game Management Units 40 and 41 would not change under the Alternative D. Access for public use activities such as rockhounding, spiritual visitation, vehicle exploring, sightseeing, and hunting and trapping opportunities in site-specific locations may result in adverse, minor to moderate, long-term impacts due to the 19% reduction in total routes open to public motorized use, but would not completely eliminate any of these public use activities and opportunities within the TMA. The primary impact to public use activities would result from the seasonal closures of

November 2016 143 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

145 miles of routes, limitation of 62 miles of routes to authorized users only, and permanent closure of 205 miles of routes.

Table 4.38. Alternative D Miles Open to Public Motorized Use within ROS Classes

Percent Change ROS Class Alternative A Miles* Alternative D Miles from Alternative A

Roaded Natural 431 -17% 349 Semi-Primitive Motorized 1,019 -19% 829 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 45 -20% 36 Total 1,495 -19% 1,214

* Total miles does not equal total network miles because ROS categories do not cover the entire geographic area of the TMA.

Alternative D would designate 953 miles of routes open to motorized use, a 19% reduction from the current route network. This would result in site-specific, minor impacts to recreation from closing or limiting the miles of routes for motorized recreation, and the quality of their recreational experience may be more adversely affected.

4.2.4.7 Visual Resources

Under Alternative D, a total of 1,315 miles of routes would be retained and would continue to impact visual quality. Route proliferation (including parallel routes, redundant routes going to one destination, and routes that serve no known purpose) would be reduced in some VRM classes. There would be a minor, direct benefit to visual quality by reducing linear features on the landscape, such as routes. These minor improvements to the visual quality of the landscape would result from the eventual natural revegetation of the 205 miles of routes that would be designated as closed. The eventual return of existing routes to a natural state would result in a reduction of route density across all VRM classes, particularly in more sensitive VRM classes, such as I and II, though each VRM classification would benefit from the reduction of overall route mileage. In addition, the reductions in overall route density would also benefit visual resources. Table 4.39 describes route miles and densities in each VRM class under Alternative D.

Table 4.39. Alternative D Miles and Route Density of VRM Classes

Percent Change in Miles from Route Density VRM Class Miles* 2 No Action Alternative (mi/mi )

I 3 -24% 0.45 II 257 -12% 0.99 III 463 -17% 1.08 IV 571 -12% 0.99

* Does not include closed routes, mileage total may not equal total route miles due to rounding.

4.2.4.8 Range Resources

Under Alternative D, 85% of existing routes would be retained as either open or administrative use only. Of the routes used for known livestock management activities, 529 individual routes would be retained as open or administrative use only. While the reduction of routes designated as open to motorized access would reduce potential access for livestock management activities compared to current conditions, this

November 2016 144 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

alternative would allow permittees reasonable access to perform necessary management activities. Table 4.40 shows the number of routes accessing range improvements and livestock management activity sites.

The reduction in miles of motorized routes under Alternative D would reduce overall impacts to native vegetation, as described in Section 4.2.4.4. While not expected to provide any significant change in forage availability, this would still be beneficial to livestock grazing.

Table 4.40. Alternative D Number of Routes Accessing Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites

Percent Change from Range Improvements and Livestock Activity Sites Number of Routes* No Action Alternative

Total number of routes 529 -39% Allotment, pasture, and exclosure fences 283 -27% Stock tanks, ponds, dams, and reservoirs 210 -23% Developed water sites, wells, windmills, and pipelines 147 -21% Water haul sites 61 -14% Salt lick and supplement sites 170 -21% Livestock trailing 54 -16% Cattle guards and gates 234 -24% Corrals or other structures 21 -9%

* Routes are not additive as a single route may access more than one feature.

4.2.4.9 Special Designations

Approximately 2 miles of routes designated for motorized use under Alternative D would occur within the Owyhee River/Bighorn Sheep ACEC. Approximately 1 mile of routes within the ACEC would be seasonally limited and closed during other seasons to protect resources; and 1.2 miles of routes would be open. The 1.2 mile of open routes and 1 mile of seasonally closed routes may result in indirect impacts to the wildlife resources of the ACEC due to temporary noise from vehicles and OHVs and allow access for hunting, though the seasonal closures would reduce human disturbance during lambing.

4.2.4.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, there would be changes to the overall miles within lands with wilderness characteristics. Approximately 58 miles that occur within lands with characteristics would be designated as open to public motorized use, 5 miles would be limited to authorized use only and 8 miles would be designated as closed. Of the 28 routes occurring within lands with wilderness characteristics, 12 routes would be designated as closed, and 16 routes would remain open to public motorized use.

The wilderness characteristic inventory units of Buncel Basin (23% of existing routes closed) and Henry Lake (5% closed) would be affected if Alternative D were implemented.

As described under Alternative B, closure of routes within lands with wilderness characteristics would have a major beneficial, long-term effect to lands with wilderness characteristics since route closures would further the ability of lands with wilderness characteristics to meet the requirements for wilderness. For instance, closure of a route may enable the wilderness characteristic inventory unit to expand in overall acreage, may increase naturalness, may increase outstanding opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation, and may increase supplemental values. For the routes that would remain open to

November 2016 145 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

all users or limited, there would be no additional impacts since the existing route network was already in place during the establishment of the wilderness characteristic inventory units and there would be no new routes added or constructed. Maintenance activities that could affect wilderness characteristics (e.g., decrease naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or supplemental values) associated with the designated route network would be similar to current activities, and would be expected to occur less frequently than currently since Alternative D would designate 205 miles of routes as closed.

4.2.4.11 Impact Summary of Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the effects associated with the current motorized route system would be reduced through route designation and the closure of 13% of existing routes, less than Alternatives B or C. Impacts associated with the use of motorized routes would still occur, but the rate at which these impacts would accumulate across the TMA (such as erosion and sedimentation, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife (including ACECs), as well as reducing the potential for spread of invasive species and noxious weeds) would be marginally slowed from current rates. Alternative D would also reduce levels of access for motorized recreation to a minor degree, and adverse impacts to access for fire and fuels management and a multitude of land uses (including grazing and mineral material extraction) would be nearly non-existent; access to recreation sites and special designations would be maintained (see Table 2.6).

4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This section addresses the cumulative effects of the proposed Project that would result when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). Further, BLM’s NEPA Handbook states that the purpose of the cumulative effects analysis is to ensure the decision makers consider the full range of the consequences of the proposed Project and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (BLM 2008).

The following sections discuss the analysis parameters, including the geographic cumulative effects analysis area (CEAA) and the time frame for the analysis, the methodology, and then the effects by resource. The analysis of cumulative effects by resource considers the proposed Project’s contribution to the environmental impacts of other past, present, and future actions and whether the cumulative effects are significant.

4.3.1 Analysis Parameters The CEAA for the majority of the resource and resources uses are tied to the CE TMA and adjacent TMAs in Idaho. The total acreage of the CEAA is 3,605,641 million acres. Except for Greater Sage- Grouse, Range Resources, and Economics, the geographic CEAA is the same for each resource. CEAAs for the Greater Sage-Grouse, Range Resources, and Economics are described below in Sections 4.3.3.5, 4.3.3.8, and 4.3.3.10, respectively. Figure 4-1 illustrates the CEAA.

The CEAA was used to identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may have a cumulative impact when considered with the travel management plan. Table 4.41 summarizes these past, present, and future actions and uses considered in this assessment.

November 2016 146 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-1. Canyonlands East CEAA and cumulative actions.

November 2016 147 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.41. List of Projects (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future) Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Project/Action Name Project/Action Location Project/Action Description

Past and Present Actions Maintained road construction and Throughout CEAA Roads have been a necessary feature of the CEAA for decades. In maintenance general, road construction was needed to support the past and present actions that are listed below in this table. Public use of OHV roads Throughout CEAA The majority of roads in the CEAA were originally constructed and have been maintained for ranching, mineral extraction, or development activities. The primary use has transitioned to vehicle based recreation, and thus, the route network is commonly used by OHVs. Public use of trails Throughout CEAA The majority of trails in the CEAA were originally constructed for ranching, mineral extraction, or development activities. The primary use has transitioned to recreation, and thus, the trail network is commonly used by OHVs, where permitted. Historic ranching and agricultural Throughout CEAA Historic Ranching and agriculture development extends back to the development earliest times of settlement within the CEAA and has played a major role in the development of the landscape and the use of the network of roads for the transportation of livestock and agricultural products. Many of the existing routes were created by ranchers grazing livestock prior to the BLM’s regulation of livestock use. Grazing allotments (79 Throughout CEAA There is also a long history of livestock grazing and trailing within allotments are located within the CEAA dating to prior to 1900. Numerous trails and roads have the CEAA) been created by grazing permittees and the BLM when, after the 1940s, mechanized vehicles (functionally equivalent to today’s OHVs) became more commonly used to access range improvements (fence and pipelines, watering sites, salting areas, etc.). The use of OHVs by grazing permittees and the BLM to construct, maintain, and inspect range improvements has increased over the past 10+ years compared to access provided by horseback, which historically was more commonly used prior to OHVs. The roads and trails used by BLM and permittees are also used by the public and often dead end, potentially leading to off road travel. Wildfire, suppression, and fuels Throughout CEAA Wildfire has been occurring within the CEAA for millennia. The treatment management of public land for the last 100+ years typically meant suppression of wildfire, resulting in increased fuels. Because the area has frequent lightning activity during the summer and early fall, fires can occur anywhere. Eleven wildfires of more than 5,000 acres have occurred in the CEAA between 1993 and 2013. Multiple fuel reduction and ecosystem maintenance/improvement projects occurred within the CIAA. Examples of previous fuel reduction/maintenance/improvement treatment methods used include mechanical, chemical, seeding, and prescribed fire. Treatment areas include sagebrush steppe, juniper, and aspen stands. Open roads are typically used as access and fire lines for these projects. While most native vegetation (e.g., sagebrush subspecies) are killed by fire and slow to reestablish, invasive species such as cheatgrass recovers within 1 to 2 years of a fire from seed in the soil. This annual recovery leads to a reoccurring fire cycle that hampers native vegetation reestablishment. Establishment of special ACECs, wilderness areas, With the ACECs being designated, passage of the Wilderness Act in designations wild and scenic rivers 1964, and implementation of designations of wilderness areas within the TMA in 2009, and passage of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1974, many routes were closed to vehicle and mechanized use, as well as other surface disturbing activities such as mining and utilities (subject to valid existing rights). Murphy TMP Adjacent to the CEAA; The Murphy TMP designated 840 miles of routes across 233,000 northwest of CE TMA acres.

November 2016 148 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.41. List of Projects (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future) Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Continued)

Project/Action Name Project/Action Location Project/Action Description Hemingway Butte TMP The Hemingway Butte Play Area is a 192-acre area designated as open to motorized vehicle use; cross-country travel is permitted. Jarbidge RMP Travel Adjacent to the CE TMA; The Jarbidge RMP, while providing for goals, objectives, and Management on the east side of the management actions for travel management, does not designate a Bruneau River complete route system. Until travel management planning is completed, all travel is limited to the existing route system (FR-A-5), which includes approximately 1,500 miles in the CEAA. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Adjacent to southern A motor vehicle use map for the Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Forest Travel Management boundary of CEAA, Districts was released August 2, 2013, in accordance with the Mountain City and Jarbidge Forest Service’s Final Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR Parts 212, Ranger Districts, 251, 261, and 295. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada Hunting and trapping Throughout CEAA The vast expanses of public land available for hunting and trapping have led to a long-standing (over 100 years) reputation for world- class hunting and trapping opportunities in the CEAA. The hunters and trappers utilize the same roads, OHV roads, and trails that were established by the early ranching activities, and still use this system today. Increase in vehicle-based Throughout CEAA Idaho OHV use has grown substantially in the last 20 years as more recreation and more people take up OHV use as a hobby. Recreation with motorized activities, including OHV use, are anticipated to have the greatest level of impact to sensitive resources due to noise levels, compared to non-motorized uses, such as hiking or equestrian use. Cross-country motorized travel, which is permitted in designated areas on BLM-administered lands, would increase the potential for soil compaction, perennial grasses and forbs loss, and increase the risk of spreading invasive vegetation. In addition, the chances of wildfire are increased during the summer, when fire dangers are high and recreation is at its highest. Idaho Power 500-kV 15 miles long across One major (500-kV +) and several secondary (< 500-kV) Idaho transmission lines CEAA; 67 miles across Power transmission lines crosses the CEAA. The ground CEAA disturbance associated with construction, as well as vehicle and human presence on maintenance roads, may introduce or spread invasive weeds over large areas, degrading habitat. Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss from road construction and direct wildlife mortality from collisions with vehicles. Transmission line access roads may also present barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats, facilitate predator movements, spread invasive plants, and increase human disturbance from noise and traffic. Mineral development and Throughout CEAA Mineral development and exploration impacts the travel exploration (15 sand and gravel management system through direct disturbance and habitat loss pits and three rock quarries are from surface disturbance required during extraction. Indirect located within the CEAA) disturbances result from noise, gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality, and human presence. NW Pipeline gas pipeline 67 miles across CEAA The Northwest Pipeline Company natural gas pipeline crosses the CEAA (see Figure 4-1). The ground disturbances associated with construction as well as the access roads presents the same potential impacts as described above for transmission lines. Proposed Withdrawal from Throughout CEAA Sagebrush Focal Areas are a refinement of Greater Sage-Grouse Mineral Entry in Sagebrush Focal habitat delineating the most valuable habitat to the Greater Sage- Areas 20150501, Greater Sage- Grouse. They are a subset of the "Highly Important Landscapes" grouse Environmental Impact identified by the USFWS October 2014. The SFAs were identified to Statement (EIS) further protect highly valuable sage-grouse habitat and develop conservation strategies as described in the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage Grouse EIS. Areas within SFAs will be managed as Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and may include areas of non-habitat.

November 2016 149 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.41. List of Projects (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future) Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Continued)

Project/Action Name Project/Action Location Project/Action Description Idaho and Southwestern Throughout CEAA The Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final EIS describe Montana Greater Sage-Grouse and analyzes alternatives for managing Greater sage-grouse habitat Proposed Land Use Plan on approximately 9.2 million acres of BLM-administered lands and Amendment and Final EIS 1.9 million acres of National Forest System lands. Major planning issues addressed include energy and minerals, lands and realty (including rights-of-way), wildfire, vegetation management (including invasive species and conifer encroachment), livestock grazing, recreation and travel management, and socioeconomics. Forest Service Intermountain Mountain City Ranger The conservation measures in the Forest plan amendment protect Region Greater Sage-Grouse District, Humboldt-Toiyabe the Greater sage-grouse by maintaining and restoring the Conservation Strategy, Nevada National Forest sagebrush steppe ecosystem. Plan Amendment Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Special Recreation Permits Throughout CEAA The Bruneau Field Office currently has 14 special recreation permit applications pending, the Jarbidge Field Office has 4 applications pending, and the Owyhee Field Office has 5. These include guided hunts, OHV events, and outfitter permits. Many of the special recreation permits require the use of the BLM route system that is subject to this travel management plan. As part of any special recreation permit, the permittee would be required to use the existing route system; no cross-country travel would be permitted. Wildfire burned area emergency Throughout CEAA The emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation would stabilization and burned area include seeding planting over land impacted by wildfire. Temporary rehabilitation protective fencing may be built to protect the seeded areas from livestock grazing. Allotment fences would need to be repaired if damaged by fire. These treatments are necessary to protect the ecological recovery of burned areas for future wildlife, native plant diversity, and livestock use. Teague XY Mine Plan of T 5S, R 1E, Sec. 33 SE¼ Quarry zeolites from existing quarry that operated under a Notice of Operations NW¼ Intent. Bruneau-Owyhee Sage-grouse Western Portion of CEAA The BLM Boise District is proposing to treat early-stage Habitat Project EIS encroachment of juniper within a 10-kilometer radius of approximately 71 occupied sage-grouse leks in Owyhee County, Idaho. There is no broadcast prescribed fire being proposed and no old-growth juniper would be cut. Owyhee Land Exchange EA Various 640-acre State- Land exchange between the BLM and the State of Idaho with the owned inholdings and objective to increase BLM ownership and management within scattered public land wilderness areas. parcels of varying sizes throughout CEAA Boise District Road and Trail Throughout CEAA EA; Road and trail maintenance activities on approximately 500– Maintenance 750 miles of routes annually on over 12 million acres. Big Springs Break EA 3 miles west of CE TMA Grazing permit renewal project on the approximately 204,593-acre Big Spring Allotment that includes restoration, enhancement, and maintenance actions to move conditions toward meeting rangeland health standards. The purpose is to improve riparian, wetland, aquatic, sagebrush steppe, and special status species’ habitat while allowing for livestock grazing. Noxious weed and invasive species control is included.

November 2016 150 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4.41. List of Projects (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future) Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Continued)

Project/Action Name Project/Action Location Project/Action Description BLM Idaho Travel Management Jarbidge Field Office, Twin TMP/EAs are underway or are being developed by the BLM, in Plans (5,294 total miles of Falls District Office accordance to the Jarbidge RMP and the OPLMA of 2009: existing, open routes within the • NCA North (existing route network of 1,000 miles of existing CEAA) open routes) • Silver City (existing route network of 1,087 miles of existing open routes) • Grand View (existing route network of 1,576 miles of existing open routes) • NCA (existing route network of 292 miles of existing open routes) • Canyonlands West (existing route network of 1,339 miles of existing open routes)

The BLM Idaho State Office has embarked on travel management planning for route systems across multiple field offices on over 11.6 million acres of public lands in Idaho. As such, TMAs surrounding (directly adjacent to) the CE TMA are considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

In general, actions that could result in similar cumulative effects include linear projects such as roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. Fourteen projects or actions have been identified that when combined with the proposed Project may result in cumulative impacts. These projects span the entire extent of the proposed Project and nearby region, and they range in proximity.

In terms of time frame, the cumulative effects analysis is considered over a 30-year time period, but only those projects that are “reasonably foreseeable” are considered in the analysis.

For the purpose of this analysis, “reasonably foreseeable” actions are considered where there is an existing decision (i.e., record of decision or issued permit), a commitment of resources or funding, a formal proposal (i.e., a permit request) or actions that are highly probable based on known opportunities or trends. Speculative future developments are not considered. As indicated in Table 4.41, BLM travel management area planning efforts are analyzed as reasonably foreseeable actions even though the quantification of route designation type is not yet known.

4.3.2 Methodology The following analyses consider 1) the CEAA for each resource, 2) a description of those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that are similar in kind and effect as the proposed Project, or would have considerable impact to the environmental resources to which the proposed Project’s effects would cumulatively contribute, and 3) evaluate the potential effects of those actions and consider the significance of those cumulative effects.

Where data were available to do so, cumulative effects are quantified. Where reliable quantitative data could not be found, qualitative data were used to best assess the cumulative effects of the proposed Project. The impacts of any specific past action may be difficult or impossible to individually quantify and disclose due to issues like inconsistent data collection methodology in the past, data that have become lost or missing over time, and the lack of data in the case of unplanned events (wildfire). Therefore, this analysis does not attempt to quantify specific impacts for each past action within the CEAA, but rather uses the most current and scientifically accurate data available to identify the existing condition of each resource. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area are addressed in the cumulative impacts analysis for each resource.

November 2016 151 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

For purposes of the analysis in this EA, the impacts of all past activities within the CEAA were considered to be reflected in existing resource conditions. Land uses, land allocations, and land designations (e.g., human settlement, BLM land use, special designations such as ACECs, wilderness and wild and scenic rivers) described as “past” or “present” are considered in the baseline conditions in Chapter 3.

Like the direct and indirect effects previously described in this chapter, the cumulative effects of the proposed travel management designations (Alternatives A, B, C, or D), in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered.

4.3.2.1 BLM Idaho Travel Management Planning

As stated in Table 4.41, this EA considers potential cumulative effects within the Canyonlands East TMA, as well as TMAs in Idaho that are directly adjacent to the Canyonlands East TMA—this geographic area forms the CEAA (see Figure 4-1). Within the CEAA there is a mix of designated routes/open areas (Murphy and Hemingway Butte), routes being considered for designation (Canyonlands East and NCA), and routes that will be considered for designation (NCA North, Canyonlands West, Silver City, Grand View). The following analysis considers the potential effects of route designation at a landscape level, considering the over 7,655 miles of designated or open routes in the CEAA (approximate; includes 5,294 miles of Idaho BLM travel management planning areas, the Murphy TMA, and the CE TMA).

As the outcome (which routes would be closed or open, etc.) of the current and future travel management efforts is unknown, this analysis considers the cumulative effects of the 7,655 miles of designated and open routes, assuming that designation will occur to some extent for all TMAs within the CEAA. Additionally, the analysis assumes that current and future travel management planning would result in a net reduction in routes for motorized and mechanized use and that estimated effects for within the Canyonlands East TMA would extend regionally across the landscape within the CEAA once all ongoing and future TMP efforts are completed.

4.3.3 Cumulative Effects by Resource 4.3.3.1 Cultural Resources

Past, current, and future use of the CEAA for recreation, ranching, agriculture, hunting, and vegetation management and wildfire suppression may have had/will have a minor impact on cultural resources within the CEAA. The over 7,655 miles of existing, open-to-motorized routes in the CEAA, Murphy and Hemingway Butte TMPs, existing transmission lines, Idaho Power 500-kV transmission line, NW Pipeline, and mineral development may have had an adverse impact to cultural resources; however, those impacts would have been mitigated through BLM compliance with federal laws and regulations regarding cultural resources and historic properties. Management recommendations reached through special designations, the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment, land exchanges, and the Big Springs Break grazing permit renewal that includes improvements are likely to protect resources and not contribute to cumulative effects. Future activities such as BLM travel management planning for NCA North, Silver City, Grand View, NCA, and Canyonlands West would also be subject to compliance with federal laws and regulations that would require mitigation of adverse impacts and are not likely to contribute to cumulative impacts.

Projected increases in retained route use resulting from the route closures of other travel management plans in the CEAA, in combination with those anticipated increases resulting from closing between 205

November 2016 152 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

and 617 miles of existing routes under Alternatives B, C, or D, could further contribute to the degradation of irreplaceable cultural and historic resources in proximity to retained routes, but route designation across the CEAA would also protect sensitive resources along routes that would be closed or otherwise restricted.

Therefore, the No Action Alternative would contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the CE TMA and the CEAA. Route designation and control through closures, limiting access, and enforcement could reduce current and future destruction to fragile cultural and historic resources; therefore, Alternatives B, C, and D would limit contributions to cumulative impacts from reductions in routes of 64%, 39%, and 19%, respectively.

4.3.3.2 Soils and Hydrology

As described in Section 3.2.2, motorized vehicle use—both on designated route systems and that associated with illegal cross-country use—has affected soil resources throughout the area. When combined with other reasonably foreseeable actions such as water pipelines, fencing, mining, trail maintenance, and special recreation permits, designating the CE TMP would continue to increase motorized recreational use and create a growing long-term, ecosystem-wide adverse impact to soil resources and watershed health. Reasonably foreseeable actions such as the implementation of designating up to 5,294 total miles of motorized and non-motorized routes in the adjacent TMAs (see Table 4.41), would likely include closures of routes in areas of particularly fragile soils; this, along with burned area stabilization projects, sage-grouse projects, and road maintenance, would substantially reduce the potential for adverse impacts.

Under the action alternatives, the route designation and transportation planning designating up to 7,655 total miles of motorized and non-motorized routes in the CEAA would cumulatively result in fewer impacts to riparian areas, since the overall number of stream crossings would be reduced in the CEAA. Closure of routes would reduce stream crossings and reduce the hydroconnectivity of the trail system to the drainage systems, and reduce overall sedimentation of streams. When combined with other reasonably foreseeable actions, the action alternatives would have beneficial cumulative impacts, improving water quality in the long term.

Under the No Action Alternative, continued use of routes would result in cumulatively greater impacts to riparian areas. Water quality, watershed-wide, would diminish due to excessive sediment infiltration of waterways, and increase overall sediment loads into the surface drainages and eventually streams and rivers of the CEAA. Streams that currently are meeting water quality standards would degrade and streams that have not attained their beneficial uses would remain on the 303(d) list. Additionally, the streams that have not been assessed but are presumed to have beneficial uses could degrade due to excessive sediment. The No Action Alternative would have adverse cumulative impacts to burned area stabilization projects, sage-grouse projects, and road maintenance projects since the No Action Alternative may designate routes as open in these areas, negating the intention of those reasonably foreseeable actions.

4.3.3.3 Fire and Fuels Management

Wildfire and wildfire suppression have occurred in the TMA for millennia. As described in Chapter 3, past and present establishment of a maintained route network has also resulted in increased fuel loads due to invasive vegetation spread, and increased risk for accidental ignition as a result of historic-era ranching, agricultural development, higher numbers of recreational users, and increases in OHV use.

November 2016 153 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Future designation of a route network in CE TMA, in addition to designation of some portion of the approximately 7,655 miles of existing routes in the CEAA, the 204,593-acre Big Springs allotment improvement, and the 1,122 acres of burned area rehabilitation, would likely result in a beneficial cumulative impact to fires and fuels management. All routes considered in future actions, such as BLM Idaho travel management planning that currently provide a “main” access type (refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.2.6 for definitions of access types) would be designated as part of the route system, and therefore would include management objectives to be maintained under all action alternatives, allowing for emergency and equipment access to continue. The beneficial impact would result from the route closures when combined with other future actions such as burned area rehabilitations on 1,122 acres, and road and trail maintenance on nearly 2 million acres of the Boise District portion of the CEAA. Across the CEAA, the beneficial cumulative impact would allow for both general and fire-fighting equipment access.

With the existing route network remaining open under the No Action Alternative, in consideration of ongoing and future road and trail maintenance conducted by the BLM Boise District, there would be a net cumulative benefit in fuels management where native vegetation restoration is successful. The No Action Alternative would have adverse cumulative impacts to fuel loads since the beneficial effects of limiting and closing routes to fire and fuels management and future actions such burned area stabilization projects, sage-grouse projects, and road maintenance projects may be negated by designating all existing routes (up to 7,655 miles of routes across the CEAA) as open in these areas.

4.3.3.4 Vegetation

Past and present disturbances associated with road construction and maintenance of the approximately 7,655 miles of existing routes in the CEAA, ranching, agriculture, grazing, wildfire, utilities, and mineral development would continue to reduce vegetative cover and create sites for invasive weed establishment and spread. In addition, increases in recreational use on up to 1,521 miles of routes in the CE TMA, as well as the other 6,134 miles of existing routes in the CEAA (e.g., access to special designations, special use permits, motorized and non-motorized use) would increase erosion on motorized routes and trails, and would have the potential to reduce vegetative cover, increase susceptibility to soil erosion, and provide corridors for spread of weeds for up to 7,655 miles of routes within the CEAA.

Under all action alternatives, BLM route designations within the CEAA of approximately 7,655 miles of routes (in addition to not-yet-determined miles of existing open routes throughout the Jarbidge RMP area), and mining operations would reduce the number of publicly accessible miles on BLM public lands, and would not contribute to the further spread of weeds. Travel designations would benefit the weed inventory and control programs of federal, state, and county agencies. Other actions such as BLM Idaho travel management planning efforts within the CEAA, burned area rehabilitation (1,122 acres within the CEAA), and sage-grouse habitat projects would complement the route designations under all action alternatives, a beneficial cumulative impact to general vegetation, protection of populations of special status species, and the prevention of the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants.

The route designation process in the CE TMA as well as other BLM Idaho travel management planning, sage-grouse conservation actions, burned area rehabilitations (up to 1,122 acres in the CEAA), and rangeland improvement projects such as the Big Springs Break grazing permit renewal (204,593 acres) would benefit the plant communities of the CEAA by controlling habitat fragmentation and limiting disturbance to soils. Sensitive soils and habitat for special status plant species often overlap; therefore protecting soils from compaction and erosion would benefit the populations of special status plants and their endemic habitats. Route designation, special recreation permits, and road and trail maintenance provides areas for controlled motorized recreation that helps alleviate pressure to soils and plant habitats. The protection of special status plants and habitat provided by the route designation process, as well as

November 2016 154 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

conservation actions such as the Sage Grouse Habitat Project EIS, would reduce the threats to these populations, which could keep the status of these species from being elevated.

The effects of route mileage reductions in other BLM Idaho travel management planning areas within the CEAA as well as under all action alternatives would result in improved health and vigor of the plant communities by reducing the fragmentation of plant communities and the habitat for special status plants, and reducing the opportunity for spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Route designation also allows protection of those soils most susceptible to disturbance, which would benefit the populations of special status plants and their endemic habitats.

4.3.3.5 Wildlife

This cumulative effects analysis covers all wildlife species that occur within the TMA, with the exception of Greater sage-grouse, discussed in greater detail below. Past and present actions in the area have fragmented and degraded habitat for wildlife. Actions such as agriculture development have led to a loss of suitable habitat for wildlife in the TMA. Future development may occur on private land within the analysis area, which makes better management and control of desirable routes and closure of routes, as well as seasonal protections for wildlife, extremely important for long-term viability of wildlife populations. Past actions have resulted in the loss of habitat of the assessment area (maintained road construction, ranching, grazing, and wildfire).

Designation of a route system under Alternative B, C, or D, as well as other BLM travel management planning in the CEAA (up to 7,655 miles of existing routes), burned area rehabilitation, and BLM Boise District road and trail maintenance, would reduce the existing levels of disturbance and habitat fragmentation to wildlife by closing or limiting use and rehabilitating previous disturbance. These actions would increase available contiguous tracts of habitat throughout the 3,605,641-acre CEAA. Management of designated routes would improve habitat quality by maintaining proper trail width and reducing impacts to vegetation. Seasonal closures of routes would benefit wildlife throughout the area by enhancing breeding success and survival of young. The closure of some routes in close proximity to waterways would eliminate the threat to riparian and fish habitat caused by motorized vehicles in the TMA by eliminating increased sedimentation, turbidity, and bank disturbance caused by vehicles. Monitoring associated with route designation would document undesirable effects to wildlife and lead to changes in management with the intention of improving conditions for wildlife.

The No Action Alternative would have adverse minor cumulative impacts to wildlife since there would be the maximum mileage of existing routes designated as open to motorized use of the 1,521 miles of routes of the CE TMA as well as other BLM Idaho travel management planning existing routes (6,134 miles of existing routes) in the CEAA. Continuing this use would lead to increased siltation of aquatic habitat and long-term degradation of redband trout, bull trout, and other riparian-obligate species habitat. With the existing route network remaining open under the No Action Alternative, in consideration of burned area rehabilitation projects on 1,122 acres in the CEAA, the 204,593-acre Big Springs Break grazing permit renewal and range improvement project, and ongoing and future road and trail maintenance conducted by the BLM Boise District, there would be an overall minor adverse cumulative impact to wildlife, even where restoration and conservation measures occur.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

The CEAA for sage-grouse expands beyond the CEAA for most resources analyzed in this EA; the CEAA includes a 17.4-mile buffer (Figure 4-2).

November 2016 155 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-2. Canyonlands East CEAA for Greater sage-grouse.

November 2016 156 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The BLM Bruneau and Owyhee Field Offices and University of Idaho have been collecting telemetry data for sage-grouse for over 10 years—including the distances both males and females may travel during a breeding season between leks, nesting and brood-rearing habitat, and winter habitat throughout the year. The distance of 17.4 miles was found to be a reasonable range for movement of sage-grouse, including those that may occur within the TMA. Recent analysis by BLM of sage-grouse tracked by IDFG from April 2002 through December 2011 showed that birds travelled an average of 17.2 +/- 0.8 (+/- SE) miles annually (sexes, ages, and years combined; BLM 2011a). The aforementioned IDFG data represent the greatest straight-line distance from the earliest location during the breeding period to all subsequent locations within an annual cycle, and only data from birds characterized with information spanning breeding through winter seasons were used. Having calculated these distances originally in metric units, this larger value was rounded to 28 kilometers (17.4 miles). The project area was buffered by 17.4 miles to account for the majority of sage-grouse that may utilize the project area.

After the 17.4-mile buffer was created, areas that do not function as sage-grouse habitat (e.g., lower elevation areas in the Snake River Plain) were removed to derive the cumulative impacts analysis area for sage-grouse. The total acreage of the CEAA for sage-grouse is 2,638,620 acres. In addition to the Bruneau Field Office, the CEAA for sage-grouse includes portions of the Jarbidge Field Office, Owyhee Field Office, Duck Valley Indian Reservation, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada. Approximately 130 miles of routes in the CE TMA occur in buffered leks, and some would be closed seasonally to reduce human disturbances during lekking. Route closures in other BLM Idaho travel management planning areas (unknown overall mileage of route closures or limitations out of approximately 7,655 miles of routes in the CEAA) and Humboldt-Toiyabe travel management planning also cumulatively reduce disturbance on the 1,976,370 acres of Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and 1,289,968 acres of Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) in the CEAA for Greater sage-grouse.

Past actions such as maintained road construction, ranching and agriculture development, hunting, grazing, mineral development, wildfire and suppression, and utilities have degraded rangeland health standards, resulting in major, adverse, long-term cumulative impacts to sage-grouse, from habitat loss, mortality, lek abandonment, and contributing to fragmentation and degradation of habitat, as well as resulting in disturbance during breeding season.

Future BLM and Idaho livestock grazing management, trailing, and range improvements on the 81 allotments in the CEAA (such as the 204,593-acre Big Springs Allotment improvement project) would continue to be designed to allow progress toward meeting rangeland health standards by either enhancing areas for sage-grouse that are in poor condition or maintaining those areas that currently exist in good condition. Seasonal closures of routes would benefit Greater sage-grouse throughout the area by enhancing breeding success. Monitoring associated with the route designation would document undesirable effects to Greater sage-grouse and contribute information to ongoing efforts of improving conditions for Greater sage-grouse. Other future actions such as the Bruneau-Owyhee Sage-Grouse Habitat EIS are concentrating efforts to improve habitat for late brood-rearing sage-grouse. Fuels- reductions projects may also have a beneficial cumulative impact to sage-grouse since they are designed to prevent large wildfires from consuming sage-grouse habitat.

The permanent route closures under all action alternatives would reduce route density within key habitat. These permanent route closures would benefit sage-grouse by creating larger, more contiguous habitat areas when considered with the past establishment of special designations, Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) EIS, and the Idaho and Southwestern Montana EIS in the CEAA. The permanent closure of these routes would also reduce the chance for disturbance, human-caused wildfires, as well as the potential for nonnative invasive plants and noxious weed spread, which would lower threats to existing sage-grouse habitat.

November 2016 157 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Since the projects considered in the CEAA are expected to continue as they currently exist or will benefit sage-grouse via habitat enhancement and protection, the overall combination of the minor effects from route designation under Alternatives B, C or D, when combined with any effects from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within 17.4 miles of the project area, would not cumulatively have a measurable impact on sage-grouse populations. The No Action Alternative would have adverse, minor cumulative impacts to Greater sage-grouse since there would be the maximum miles of existing routes designated as open to motorized use of the 1,521 miles of routes of the CE TMA, as well as other BLM Idaho travel management planning existing routes (approximately 7,655 miles of existing routes) in the CEAA.

4.3.3.6 Recreation and Social Values

Past and present actions, in combination with the existing route systems of the CEAA (over 7,655 miles of existing routes), have resulted in the current conditions for recreation in the CEAA, as described in Section 3.2.6. There would be both beneficial and adverse cumulative effects from designation of routes under one of the action alternative for the CE TMA, in combination with route designation in adjoining TMAs, as described below. From a lifestyle perspective, further development within the CEAA area would change the landscape characteristics, existing conditions on area transportation systems, and existing landforms, which would contribute to an overall change in the social values for members of Owyhee County and elsewhere in the CEAA.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions like special recreation permits, BLM Idaho travel management planning for approximately 7,655 miles of existing routes in the CEAA, and the designation of roads and trails across Owyhee County, as well as other BLM Idaho and Forest Service (Nevada) travel management planning, would further enhance the recreation setting and opportunities by providing focused recreation management and public access for various recreations experiences. BLM Idaho and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest travel management planning actions such as closing redundant routes, closing routes that adversely impact resources, maintaining major connector routes, designing trail systems that avoid the most vulnerable areas, educating and informing the public with signage throughout the route system, and providing higher levels of enforcement and public contact, would reduce or mitigate impacts from higher anticipated recreation use resulting from projected population growth in the region.

However, future actions such as travel management planning, mining, sage-grouse habitat projects, and burned area restrictions, when combined with the closure of between 205 and 617 miles of routes and limiting of between 292 and 531 miles of routes (e.g., seasonal, size-limited, non-motorized, or authorized use only) as proposed under the action alternatives may also adversely, cumulatively impact recreation resources. Route closures decrease the availability of public access in site-specific areas, and cross- country travel on public lands is only available in site-specific areas. Further, noise, visual, and surface disturbances from these actions could reduce the quality of the recreational experience for certain users within or near the action areas and could also affect the distribution or abundance of wildlife species available for hunting, trapping, or viewing (under all action alternatives). Thus, there would be a minor, countervailing cumulative effect to recreation and social values from surface disturbance, area and route closures, or limitation to motorized recreation, resulting in subsequent minor to moderate changes to site- specific recreation experiences. Other actions such as stabilization projects, restoration, and land exchanges may have an additive, beneficial cumulative impact to recreation and public access.

Cumulative impacts to recreation and social values from the No Action Alternative would be beneficial and additive to motorized recreation and public access since there would be no additional route closures or limitations on 1,521 miles out of the approximately 7,655 total miles of the CEAA. However, there would also be adverse, additive cumulative impact to dispersed recreation and social values since

November 2016 158 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

incompatible recreation opportunity and experience conflicts would continue and type of use would not be provided for, on 1,521 miles of the existing route network within the CEAA.

Depending upon the recreation opportunity, setting, or desired experience, the interaction of the combined effects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) with the route designations under each alternative would generally result in either a beneficial contribution to (i.e., additive) or adverse and detracting (i.e., countervailing) cumulative effect to recreation. These two scenarios are dependent upon the type of recreational opportunity that is being pursued because certain recreation settings and experiences are maximized by keeping routes/access open, and certain recreation settings may be severely detracted by the closing of routes/access.

4.3.3.7 Visual Resources

None of the alternatives would result in any adverse cumulative impacts to visual resources when considered with the actions listed in Table 4.41, since there would be no increase in total route miles in all VRM classifications and there would be no increase in route density under all alternatives. As discussed above in the “BLM Travel Management Planning”, none of the other TMPs in the CEAA would increase in total route mileages (up to 7,655 miles for CE TMA and other BLM Idaho travel management planning) nor increase route densities. There are no proposed route additions or new route construction in any of the actions nor under any of the alternatives. The motorized and non-motorized trails analyzed under these action alternatives are currently meeting VRM management objectives, resulting in weak contrasts and direct impacts to the characteristic visual landscape, and when added with other visually impacting actions, would not result in any measurable cumulative impacts.

There would be site-specific, minor beneficial cumulative impacts to visual resources in the areas where route closures or limitations, when combined with other actions that may close or limit routes (BLM Idaho travel management planning, road and trail maintenance) and with actions that may enhance the natural landscape (burned area rehabilitation and sage grouse habitat improvements) would decrease the overall route density across the CEAA.

4.3.3.8 Range Resources

The CEAA for range resources includes all grazing allotments within the CEAA (i.e., excludes areas closed to grazing), since livestock are free to roam cross-country, and routes are used to access facilities used for husbandry activities.

All action alternatives would restrict public access to rangelands and range improvements to varying degrees, though designation of limited routes for authorized users would still allow site-specific, local access critical for range activities. The action alternatives and other reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as BLM Idaho travel management planning for up to 6,134 miles of routes, would result in some reduction in livestock-vehicle interaction through a reduction in total miles of routes available for motorized travel. In addition to minor increases in available forage as closed routes rehabilitate, actions such as burned area rehabilitations, Big Springs allotment improvement (204,593 acres), land exchanges, and other road and trail maintenance in the CEAA reduce threats of the spread of invasive species by vehicles.

The No Action Alternative would not restrict public access to rangelands and range improvements since the existing route network would be designated as open; thus, adverse cumulative impacts would occur on 1,521 miles to other future actions (including BLM Idaho travel management planning for up to 5,294 miles of routes) that are intended to close or limit routes elsewhere within the CEAA.

November 2016 159 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4.3.3.9 Special Designations As there are no direct and indirect impacts, there would be no cumulative impacts to BLM National Land Conservation System Special Designations (Wilderness Areas and designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers). The past action for establishing special designations such as ACECs, wilderness areas, and designated or eligible wild and scenic rivers ensured protection of resources over route construction. The closure or limitation of motorized routes in other areas of the CEAA (BLM Idaho travel management planning on up to 6,134 miles of routes, Humboldt-Toiyabe travel management planning) under all action alternatives would have a beneficial cumulative impact to access to special designations, such as wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, adjacent to the CEAA. The impact would be beneficial since closures or limitations would meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and other management decisions. There would be no other cumulative impact under all alternatives when considering the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 4.3.3.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.10, there are eight areas with potential wilderness characteristics that would occur within the CE TMA. Wilderness characteristic inventory units have not been established throughout the CEAA. Many of the reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 4.41 would have similar impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics as the CE TMP would since the wilderness characteristic inventory units are already in place and no new construction is included under all alternatives. Designating a route system, when considered in combination with the actions listed in Table 4.41 (particularly linear features such as the Idaho Power 500-kv transmission line and Owens pipeline; burned area rehabilitations; the Teague Mine Plan of Operations; and land exchanges) may have the potential to impact areas with wilderness characteristics directly by reducing the size (5,000 acres or more of undeveloped and unroaded lands), the naturalness condition (reduction of vegetation, wildlife, recreation, or other natural resources), or any supplemental values identified for those lands. Indirect cumulative impacts to the eight areas with wilderness characteristics inventory units may occur where a route open all public use, when considered with other past and present projects such as transmission lines, mines, pipelines, may be visible and audible from the lands with wilderness characteristics. 4.3.3.11 Economics The CEAA for economics is Owyhee County. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted and continue to result in establishing local economies (including environmental justice communities) and social values (ranching and recreation–based). Roads and trails would still be available for use by ranchers and grazing permittees as well as the recreating public, outfitters and guides, and permittees including up to 1,576, 1,339, and 1,521 miles of routes of the Grand View, Canyonlands West, and CE TMAs within Owyhee County, respectively. Considerations of these actions under all action alternatives would not result in any changes to economic and social values. Because the wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and a National Conservation Area are all accessed via numerous routes within the CEAA, there are vast opportunities to access recreation, solitude, and an overall perception of a higher quality of life from all areas of the CEAA. Designation of the route system, under all action alternatives, when combined with future actions that would enhance regional transportation systems and recreational areas such as road and trail maintenance, BLM Idaho travel management planning, and special recreation permits, allows the potential for more visitors to visit the region, which would increase employment opportunities and subsequently allow for slight increases in population and visitation.

November 2016 160

Chapter 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that federal agencies provide meaningful opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide input and identify their concerns with regard to the NEPA process. Federal laws, such as the ESA, CWA, and the NHPA, mandate public involvement and consultation with agencies or federally recognized tribal governments.

This chapter documents the specific consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by the BLM throughout the entire process of developing the Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan and EA.

5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS

The EA was written by a team composed of the BLM Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) and third-party contractor personnel. Under direction of the ID Team, the consulting team assisted with the description of the alternatives, collected data for the analysis, assessed potential effects of the alternatives, and prepared other chapters. The ID Team has approved the content of this EA. Table 5.1 identifies the agencies and individuals involved with the preparation and review of this EA.

Table 5.1. Preparers of the Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan

Name Title Responsibility Bureau of Land Management ID Team T.J. Clifford Bruneau Field Office Assistant Field Project Manager Manger Tanya Thrift Bruneau Field Office Manager Decision Maker Seth Flanigan NEPA Specialist NEPA Coordination David Draheim Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation, visual resources, wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers Holly Beck Botanist Special status plants Kavi Koleini Ecologist Upland vegetation and soils Lois Palmgren Archaeologist; Contracting Officer’s Cultural resources Representative Bruce Schoeberl Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Kyle Paffett Hydrologist Soils and Hydrology Jon Haupt Rangeland Management Specialist Range Resources Michael Boltz Rangeland Management Specialist Range Resources Raul Trevino Range Technician Range Resources Chris Clay Supervisory GIS GIS, maps, and figures Christa Braun GIS GIS, maps, and figures Janelle Alleman Fish Biologist Fisheries David Keeler Geologist Geology and Minerals

November 2016 161 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 5.1. Preparers of the Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan (Continued)

Name Title Responsibility SWCA Environmental Consultants Cara Bellavia Senior Environmental Planner Project Manager Ryan Rausch Environmental Planner Recreation and Social Values, Visual Resources, Special Designations, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Meggan Dugan Environmental Planner/Biologist GIS, Vegetation, Wildlife Dr. Adrienne Tremblay Senior Archaeologist Cultural Resources Jenny Addy Environmental Planner Soils and Hydrology, Fire and Fuels Management, Range Resources Jonathan Rigg Environmental Planner Economics and Environmental Justice Danielle Desruisseaux Editor Technical Editing Shari Bell Formatter Formatting and Section 508 Compliance Specialist Chris Query GIS Specialist Maps and figures

5.3 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

The BLM prepared scoping information materials and provided copies to federal, state, and local agencies; Native American tribes; and members of the general public on December 7, 2015.

5.3.1 Tribal Consultation Executive Order 13186 expressly requires that Federal agencies evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds (including eagles) pursuant to NEPA “or other established environmental review process;” restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; identify where unintentional take reasonably attributable to agency actions is having, or is likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations; and, with respect to those actions so identified, the agency shall develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen the amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the Service.

5.3.1.1 Cultural Resource Laws and Executive Orders

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

November 2016 162 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

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

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

The Bruneau Field Office conducted government-to-government consultation in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA with the Shoshone Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall and the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley. Consultation was conducted on numerous occasions, as shown in Table 5.2 below. BLM initiated consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office on August 12, 2015.

Table 5.2. Bruneau Field Office Government-To-Government Section 106 Consultation Activity

Date Topic Attendees May 21, 2015 Wings and Roots Meeting – Introduction to Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Canyonlands East TMP/EA Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager July 16, 2015 Project update Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager September 16, 2015 Ad-hoc meeting to discuss Canyonlands East Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, TMP/EA Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager February 18, 2016 Project update Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager March 15, 2016 Project update Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager April 21, 2016 Project update Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager May 19, 2016 Shoshone Paiute Tribes provided comments Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley members, Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager June 17, 2016 Request from Shoshone Bannock Tribes for Shoshone Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall members, copies of cultural report and EA Tanya Thrift, Bruneau Field Office Manager

5.3.2 Public Participation The BLM has taken a variety of steps to inform the public, special interest groups, and local, state, and federal agencies about the Canyonlands East travel management planning process, and to solicit feedback from these interested parties to help shape the scope of this project.

Internal scoping was performed by the BLM on October 29, 2015. The BLM prepared scoping information materials and provided copies to the public. Two scoping meetings were held in the Owyhee

November 2016 163 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

County vicinity on December 10 and 11, 2015. In total, 68 comments were received at the close of the scoping period. These comments were analyzed, and issue statements were developed, as provided in Section 1.7 of this EA (see Table 1.1).

Throughout the preparation of the EA, the BLM updated the Boise District’s Owyhee County travel management planning website to inform the public of the process, project activities, and availability of the EA.

November 2016 164

Chapter 6 LITERATURE CITED

Achana, F. 2005. ATV/Motorbike User Survey. Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.

Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Adams, J.A., A.S. Endo, L.H. Stolzy, P.G. Rowlands, and H.B. Johnson. 1982. Controlled experiments on soil compaction produced by off-road vehicles in the Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 19:167–175.

Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6(1):9–23.

Anderson, S.H., K. Mann, and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 1977. The effect of transmission-line corridors on bird populations. American Midland Naturalist 97(1):216–221.

Badaracco, R.J. 1976. ORVs: Often rough on visitors. Parks and Recreation 11(9):32–35, 68–75.

Bazzaz, F.A., and Garbutt, K. 1988. The response of annuals in competitive neighborhoods: Effects of elevated CO2. Ecology 69:4.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. Monograph 6. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

Berry, K.H. 1980. A review of the effects of off-road vehicles on birds and other vertebrates. In Management of Western Forests and Grasslands for Nongame Birds: Workshop Proceedings, edited by R.M. DeGraaf and N.G. Tilghman, pp. 451–467. Federal Government Series INT-86. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, edited by E. Salo and T. Cundy, pp. 191–232. Contribution No. 57. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.

Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielsen, and J.W. Ward. 1988. Summer production of coho salmon stocked in Mount St. Helens’ streams 3-6 years after the 1980 eruption. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117(4):322–335.

Bjornn, T.C., M.A. Brusven, M.P. Molnau, J.H. Milligan, R.A. Klamt, E. Chacho, and C. Schaye. 1977. Transport of Granitic Sediment in Streams and Its Effects on Insects and Fish. Bulletin No. 17. Moscow: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, edited by W.R. Meehan, pp. 83–138. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Blackburn, W.H., T.L. Thurow, and C.A. Taylor, Jr. 1986. Soil erosion on rangeland. In Use of Cover, Soil, and Weather Data in Rangeland Monitoring. pp. 31–39. Symposium Proceedings for the Society for Range Management. Denver, Colorado.

November 2016 165 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, edited by R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, pp. 109–156. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Bradfield, T.D. 1974. On the Behavior and Ecology of the Pygmy Rabbit, Sylvilagus idahoensis. M.S. thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139–156.

Brocke, R.H., J.P. O’Pezio, and K.A. Gustafson. 1988. A forest management scheme mitigating impact of road networks on sensitive wildlife species. In Is Forest Fragmentation a Management Issue in the Northeast? Edited by R.M. Degraaf, and W.M. Healy, pp. 13–17. General Technical Report NE-140. Radnor, Pennsylvania: U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Brown, K.J. 1994. River-bed sedimentation caused by off-road vehicles at river fords in the Victorian Highlands, Australia. Water Resources Bulletin 30:2.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1983. Bruneau Management Framework Plan, as amended in 1992. Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35605/41978/44479/BruneauMFP.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2016.

———. 1984. BLM Manual 8400 – Visual Resource Management. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8400.html. Accessed April 13, 2016.

———. 1986. BLM Manual H-8410-1 – Visual Resources Inventory. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_ha ndbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2016.

———. 2008. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1). January.

———. 2012a. BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (Public). Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_ma nual.Par.38337.File.dat/6310.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.

———. 2012b. BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers: Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning and Management. Available at: http://www.rivers.gov/documents/blm-policy-manual.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2016.

———. 2014. Travel management planning in Idaho. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/Travel_Management.html. Accessed July 2016.

———. 2015a. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. September.

———. 2015b. Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Decision Record. Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl- front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=2 2153. Accessed July 2016.

November 2016 166 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

———. 2016. Backcountry Byway. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/NLCS/national_historic/owyhee_uplands_backcountry.html. Accessed April 11, 2016.

Burrillo, R., and K. Hansen. 2016. Preliminary Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Travel Management Planning Project, Canyon Lands East and Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Idaho. Cultural Resources Report No. 16-5. Salt Lake City, Utah: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

Canfield, J.E., L.J. Lyon, J.M. Hillis, and M.J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. In Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana, edited by G. Joslin and H. Youmans, pp. 6.1– 6.25. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

Chutter, F.M. 1969. The effects of silt and sand on the invertebrate fauna of streams and rivers. Hydrobiologia 34(1):57–76.

Clark, T.W., E.D. Amato, D.G. Whittemore, and A.H. Harvey (eds.). 1989. Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Jackson, Wyoming: Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services.

Clark, W.D., and Karr, J.R. 1979. Effects of highways on red-winged blackbird and horned lark Populations. The Wilson Bulletin 91:143–145.

Coble, D.W. 1961. Influence of water exchange and dissolved oxygen in redds on survival of steelhead trout embryos. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 90(4):469–474.

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope, and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1115–1126.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967–985.

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS). 2006. The growth scenario. In Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan 2030. Available at: http://www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/reg-archives.htm. Accessed October 26, 2016.

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, G. Green, and M. Owens. 2005. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the United States, regions, and states: A national report from the national survey on recreation and the environment. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Technical Report.

Cordone, A.J., and D.W. Kelley. 1960. The influence of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game 46:189–228.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1979. Off-Road Vehicles on Public Land. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality.

November 2016 167 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Darden, T.D., N.R. Rimbey, and J.D. Wulfhorst. 2003. Regional Economic Impact Model of Owyhee County, Idaho and the Four County Area Including Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee Counties. AEES No. 03-06. University of Idaho: Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States: Natural History and Habitat Use. Agricultural Handbook 688. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Dunham, J.B., G.L. Vinyard, and B.E. Rieman. 1997. Habitat fragmentation and extinction risk of Lahontan cutthroat trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1126–1133.

Estes-Zumpf, W.A., and J.L. Rachlow. 2009. Natal Dispersal by the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Journal of Mammalogy 90(2):363–372.

Fisher, A.L., D.J. Blahna, and R. Bahr. 2001. Off-Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Report No. IORT PR2001-02. Logan, Utah: Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University.

Foley, J., D. Clifford, K. Castle, P. Cryan, and R. S. Ostfeld. 2011. Investigating and managing the rapid emergence of white-nose syndrome, a novel, fatal, infectious disease of hibernating bats. Conservation Biology 25:223–231.

Forman, R.T.T. 2004. Road ecology’s promise: What’s around the bend? Environment 46:8–21.

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231.

Forman, R.T.T., D.S. Friedman, D. Fitzhenry, J.D. Martin, A.S. Chen, and L.E. Alexander. 1997. Ecological effects of roads: Toward three summary indices and an overview for North America. In Proceedings of the International Conference “Habitat fragmentation, Infrastructure and the Role of Ecological Engineering,” edited by K. Canters, A. Piepers, and D. Hendriks-Heersma, pp. 40–54. Delft, The Netherlands: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.

Forman, R.T.T., and A.M. Hersperger. 1996. Road ecology and road density in different landscapes, with international planning and mitigation solutions. In Proceedings, Transportation and Wildlife: Reducing Wildlife Mortality and Improving Wildlife Passageways across Transportation Corridors, edited by G. Evink, P. Garrett, and J. Berry, pp. 1–23.

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, and V.H. Dale. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Funk, C.W., C.A. Pearl, H.M. Draheim, M.J. Adams, T.D. Mullins, and S.M. Haig. 2008. Range-wide phylogenetic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and Rana pretiosa) in northwestern North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49:198–210.

Furniss, M.J., S.A. Flanagan, and B.A. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically Connected Roads: An Indicator of the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface Water Hydrology, and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology Center, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

November 2016 168 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Graefe, A.R., and B. Thapa. 2004. Conflict in natural resource recreation. In Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge, edited by M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, pp. 209–224. Jefferson, Missouri: Modern Litho.

Greenberg, C.H., S.H. Crownover, and D.R. Gordon. 1997. Roadside soils: A corridor for invasion of xeric scrub by nonindigenous plants. Natural Areas Journal 17(2):99–109.

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical Report No. PNWGTR-509. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hanowski, J.M., and G.J. Niemi. 1995. A comparison of on-and-off-road bird counts: do you need to go off road to count birds accurately? Journal of Field Ornithology 66(4):469–483.

Havlick, D.G. 2002. No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Haymond, S. 1998. Summer HABITAT USE by Three Vespertilionid Bats in Sagebrush-Steppe in Southeastern Idaho. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University.

Heede, B.H. 1983. Control of rills and gullies in off-road vehicle traffic areas. In Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions, edited by R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire, pp. 245–264. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hicks, B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat changes. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, edited by W.R. Meehan, pp. 483–518. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

Hinckley, B.S., R.M. Iverson, and B. Hallet. 1983. Accelerated water erosion in ORV-use areas. In Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions, edited by R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire, pp. 81–96. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2002. Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). Boise, Idaho.

———. 2014. Idaho’s 2012 Integrated Report. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2010. Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2010. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

———. 2016. Hunt Planner Map Center – Game Management Units. Available at: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/mapcenter/. Accessed April 13, 2016.

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. 2007. Idaho motorbike/ATV/UTV registration statistics, 2003-2007.

Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (IFWIS). 2005. Ferruginous hawk. Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/cwcs/pdf/Ferruginous%20Hawk.pdf. Accessed August 2016.

November 2016 169 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

———. 2015. Animal Conservation Database. Available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/observations/list. Accessed April 2016.

Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with natural gas extraction in a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64(3):385–395.

Jackson, E.L., and R.A. Wong. 1982. Perceived conflict between urban cross-country and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research 14(1):47–62.

Jackson, W.L., and R.L. Beschta. 1984. Influences of increased sand delivery on the morphology of sand and gravel channels. Water Resources Bulletin 20(4):527–533.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. 2008. A perspective on road effects on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14(1):76–85.

Kochert, M.N. 1972. Population Status and Chemical Contamination in Golden Eagles in Southwestern Idaho. Master’s thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Langton, T.E.S. 1989. Amphibians and Roads: Proceedings of the Toad Tunnel Conference. Bedfordshire, England: ACO Polymer Products.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Vol. 3, edited by S.J. Arbelbide, pp. 1057–1496. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Forest Service.

Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of aggradation and degradation on riffle-pool morphology in natural gravel channels, northwestern California. Water Resources Research 18(6):1643–1651.

Lonsdale, W.M.; Lane, A.M. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kadudu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69(3):277–283.

Lovich, J.E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management 24:3.

Lyneis, M., D.L. Weide, and E. von Till Warren. 1980. Impacts: Damage to Cultural Resources in the California Desert. Riverside, California: Bureau of Land Management.

Lyon, A.G., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31.

Lyon, L.J. 1985. Road effects and impacts on wildlife and fisheries. Proceedings, Forest Transportation Symposium. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

McGurk, B.J., and D.R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative effect of logging. Environmental Management 19(4):609–621.

Meffe, G.K., and C. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.

Montana State University. 1992. Controlling Knapweed on Montana rangeland. Circular 311. Bozeman: Montana State University, Extension Service.

November 2016 170 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Mumme, R.L., S.J. Schoech, G.W. Woolfenden, and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 2000. Life and death in the fast lane—Demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida scrub-jay. Conservation Biology 14(2):501–512.

Murphy, C., M. Mancuso, and S. Cooke. 2003. Field Inventory of Bureau of Land Management Special Status Plants on the Owyhee Front, Castle Creek to Mud Flat Road. Conservation Data Center, prepared for Lower Snake River District. Bureau of Land Management.

Murphy, J.R. 1975. Status of a golden eagle population in central Utah, 1967-73. Raptor Research Report 3:91–96.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003a. Soil Survey of Owyhee County Area, Idaho.

———. 2003b. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043055.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2016.

———. 2006. Handbook 296 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin.

———. 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed June 2016.

Nelson, C.M., and J.A. Lynch. 2001. A Useable Pilot Off-Road Vehicle Project Evaluation. Technical Report. East Lansing: Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinverterbates instream with and without bufferstrips. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:1076– 1085.

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and Internet Resources. Open-File Report 2007-1353. U.S. Geological Survey.

Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Communities. Boise, Idaho: Partners in Flight Western Working Group.

Prose, D.V., S.K. Metzger, and H.G. Wilshire. 1987. Effects of substrate disturbance on secondary plant succession, Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 24:305–313.

Quigley, T.M., and S J. Arbelbide (eds.) 1996. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW- 405. 4 vols. U.S. Forest Service.

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4):1098–1106.

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C.T. Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III: Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:187–202.

November 2016 171 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Ripley, T., G. Scrimgeour, and M.S. Boyce. 2005. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occurrence and abundance influenced by cumulative industrial developments in a Canadian boreal forest watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2431–2442.

Runyan, D. 2008. Arizona Travel Impacts, 1998–2007. Phoenix: Arizona Office of Tourism.

Sanchez, D.M., and J.L. Rachlow. 2008. Spatio-temporal factors shaping diurnal space use by pygmy rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:794–800.

Schneider, J.S. 2005. Desert Cahuilla acquisition project: Cultural resources. Manuscript on file, California State Parks, Borrego Springs.

Schroeder, M.A. 1997. Unusually high reproductive effort by sage grouse in a fragmented habitat in north-central Washington. Condor 99:933–941.

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 425, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill, pp. 1–28. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Sedell, J.R., G.H. Reeves, F.R. Hauer, J.A. Stanford, and C.P. Hawkins. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environmental Management 14(5):711–724.

Snow, C. 1973. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Habitat Management Services, Unique or Endangered Species No. 7 (Tech. Note T-N-171). Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Land Management.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1986. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Primer and Field Guide. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosfieldguide/ros_primer_and_field_guide.htm. Accessed April 13, 2016.

———. 2003. The USDA National Range and Pasture Handbook. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 190-VI-NRPH. Grazing Lands Technology Institute.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding on Petition to List the Spotted Frog. Federal Register 58:27260–27263.

———. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. December.

———. 2015. Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno, Nevada: Reno Fish and Wildlife Office.

———. 2016. Species list for Canyonlands East TMA, Idaho. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed April 2016.

U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. June.

———. 2005. Socioeconomic Assessment of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Tucson: Arizona National Forests Socioeconomic Assessment Team, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona.

November 2016 172 Canyonlands East Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Walker, D.A., and K.R. Everett. 1987. Road Dust and Its Environmental Impact on Alaskan Taiga and Tundra. Arctic and Alpine Research 19:479–489.

Webb, R.H., and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles—Impacts and management in arid regions. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wilderness.net. 2015. Owyhee River Wilderness. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildView?WID=736. Accessed June 2016.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, and B.K. Wales. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report, PNW GTR-485. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wisdom, M.J., H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69.

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of mule deer does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3):425-429.

Yoakum, D.L. 2004. Habitat characteristics and requirements. In Pronghorn Ecology and Management, edited by B.W. O’Gara and J.D. Yoakum, pp. 409–445. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Zoellick, B.W. 1999. Stream temperatures and the elevational distribution of redband trout in Southwestern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 59(2):136–143.

Zoellick, B.W., and B.S. Cade. 2006. Evaluating redband trout habitat in sagebrush desert basins in southwestern Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:233–246.

November 2016 173