Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service December 2013 Environmental Assessment Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest Fremont County, Idaho View looking south along the Railroad Grade ATV Trail located at Bear Gulch. 1

2 USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Brent L. Larson, Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor Information Contact: Liz Davy, District Ranger Abstract This environmental analysis describes the management alternatives for the Island Park OHV Trails System. The project is located approximately 23 miles north of Ashton, Idaho. Alternatives include: No Action and two Action Alternatives. The No Action Alternative is included as a description of the current condition and provides a baseline for comparison to the actions described in the two action alternatives. The Proposed Action (Alternative B) designates approximately 41 miles of new OHV trails and closes approximately 43,610 acres to crosscountry OHV travel. This alternative would also open approximately 395 acres surrounding West End Campground to cross country motorized travel. Several Forest Plan amendments are proposed in this alternative. West End Non-Motorized (Alternative C) designates 24 miles of new OHV trails and closes all areas to cross-country motorized OHV travel. Several Forest Plan amendments are proposed in this alternative. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. i

3 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Purpose and Need... 2 Introduction... 2 Project Area Background... 3 Forest Plan Management Direction... 5 Purpose and Need... 5 Proposed Action... 5 Public Involvement... 7 Administrative Review... 8 Issues... 8 Chapter 2: Alternatives... 9 Development of Alternatives... 9 Alternative A: Existing Situation (No Action)... 9 Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative C: West End Non-Motorized Design Features Common to Alternatives B and C Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction Recreation Soils Hydrology Fisheries Wildlife Noxious Weeds Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Route Density (OROMTRD) Minimization Criteria Appendix A Appendix B References Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I ii

4 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need Introduction The U.S. Forest Service has prepared this environmental analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental analysis discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. This document is organized into three chapters: Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, 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 Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency s proposed action as well as alternatives for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the interdisciplinary team, public, and other agencies. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by individual resource topics and addressed under each of these headings. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analysis presented in the Chapter 3. Project Area The project area is located in southeast Idaho within Fremont County on National Forest System lands within the Island Park Subsection (USDA, 1997, page III-47 and III-48). Island Park is located approximately 22 miles north of Ashton, Idaho. See Figure 1 below. 2

5 Figure 1. Project vicinity area. Background In October, 1999 the Targhee National Forest released the final draft of the Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan (Travel Plan) which developed a road and trail system for the Forest. This Travel Plan complied with direction from the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan (RFP). A major objective of the RFP was to resolve conflict by finding integrated, compatible management methods and prescriptions that allow public use of road and trails to occur in a way that best meet the needs of the resources and the recreating public. In other words, the RFP was developed to be compatible with resource objectives such as protecting soils, water quality, riparian habitat, wildlife habitat, and other forest resources while providing a travel system that was safe, environmentally sound, affordable to manage and maintain, and responsive to public needs. 3

6 The Travel Plan designated roads, trails, and areas open to motorized use on the Targhee National Forest. The Travel Plan designated areas open to cross-country motorized use identified as F and D areas. On the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, approximately 35,996 acres currently allow for motorized cross-country OHV use in F areas and 7,614 acres in D areas. The F areas fall within management prescription 5.1.3(a) and D areas fall within management prescription The Travel Plan does not distinguish between two wheel motorized use and ATV use. If a trail or area is open for motorized travel, it is open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. The U.S. Forest Service Trails Management Handbook (FSH ) defines an Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) as any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (36 CFR 212.1). This project will refer to OHVs as two-wheeled motorized vehicles, Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTVs), and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) that are 50 inches in width or less. On November 9, 2005 the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp ). This final Travel Management Rule requires designation of roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands. Roads and trails designated for motorized use must be included in the National Forest Transportation System. Designations are made by class of vehicle and, where appropriate, by time of year. The designated route system must be displayed on a motor vehicle use map that conforms to a nationally consistent format. Once the designations are identified on a motor vehicle use map, the final rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails, and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles on roads and trails and in areas that is not consistent with the designations. Because the 1997 Forest plan and 1999 Travel Plan was far ahead in travel management at the time, the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District incorporated the 1999 Travel Management Plan and the Big Bend Ridge decision to comply with the 2005 Travel Planning Rule and these decisions were used to produce the motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Cross-country motorized use in the Island Park area is causing a proliferation of user-created routes that are not properly designed or located. Better public service is needed by giving clear direction where the public can ride motorized vehicles, via designated trails that connect to the Forest Transportation System and reduce resource damage while accommodating user needs to the extent possible. Motorized trails must be designed within the context of Forest Plan desired conditions with specific consideration given towards access needs to connect to the Forest Transportation System and establish loop routes. The goal for this project is to improve management of OHVs by designating and constructing trail connectors that provide loop touring opportunities that meets Forest Plan desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and achieves the following objectives: 1. Reduce resource impacts which include soil erosion, damage to wet meadows, damage to streams, and damage to vegetation, wildlife disturbance, noxious weed spread, and damage to cultural resources. 2. Provide a system of sustainable motorized trails that meet forest management and public needs. This project would meet public needs by: Designating motorized trails that are signed and marked to Forest Service standards. 4

7 Connecting motorized trails to the Forest Transportation System. Connecting motorized trails to destinations in the Island Park community. Providing loop touring opportunities and opportunities for outstanding scenery. Forest Plan Management Direction The 1997 Revised Targhee Forest Plan (RFP) applies direction stated as Goals (GL), Standards (S), or Guidelines (G). This direction can be found in Appendix H at the end of this document. Purpose and Need The purpose of this proposal is to revise management of areas open to cross-country OHV travel; designating a motorized trail system that connect to the Forest Transportation System; provide loop touring opportunities; and connect OHV trails to destinations in the Island Park area. This action is needed to provide safe and sustainable trails that reduce resource impacts, improve public safety, improve the motorized recreation experience, improve access, and improve the ability to enforce travel restrictions. See Background section above for additional information about the need for this project. Proposed Action To meet the purpose and need, the Forest Service proposes to: Designate approximately 42 miles of OHV trail. The proposed 42 miles of trail comprise the following: a) Approximately 11 miles of Level 1 Operation Maintenance National Forest System Roads currently closed to public motor vehicle use would convert to OHV Trails. b) Approximately 30 miles of user-created routes would convert to OHV Trails. c) Approximately 1 mile of trail would require new trail construction. Designated OHV trails will meet Trail Class 2 single lane trail standards (FSH ). Since user-created routes evolved without planning or design, tread improvements would be needed on some sections of trail. These improvements include improving water drainage, erecting signage, tread reshaping, and associated trail maintenance activities such as removal of hazard trees, down timber, and brushing. The District has coordinated with Harriman State Park to provide access across the old Osborne Bridge located within the boundaries of the State Park. Highway crossings would be coordinated with the State of Idaho. ATV Parking Area/Trailhead: Establish two new parking areas and install information bulletin boards in each parking area. This would help orient OHV traffic to destinations and looping opportunities in the Island Park area. Cattleguard Construction: Install six cattle guards to accommodate OHV traffic within grazing allotments. 5

8 Decommission: Decommission approximately 15 miles of National Forest System Roads. These roads are currently closed to public motorized use as identified in the 1999 Targhee National Forest Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan and are used for Forest administration purposes only. Obliterate User-Created Routes: Obliterate approximately 73 miles of user-created routes within the F and D areas. North Macks Inn Area: Approximately 0.88 linear mile of user-created trail would be added as a Forest Service System Trail to link OHV riders to the Macks Inn area and to the Forest Transportation System. This route would allow OHV riders to avoid riding parallel State Idaho Highway 20 and paved asphalt on the south Big Springs Loop road. Elk Creek Area: No trails are proposed within this management prescription. All existing Forest System roads and Forest System trails will be retained on the Forest Transportation System. Buttermilk and Coffeepot Area: Add approximately 4.8 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. Milk Creek and Stamp Meadows Area: Add approximately 2.59 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. A Forest Plan amendment will be needed to make the above actions consistent with the Forest Plan. Detailed description of the proposed Forest Plan Amendments can be found in Appendix I and will do the following: Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from F to B for the approximate 35,996 acres of F areas in management prescription 5.1.3(a). Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from D to B for the approximate 7,614 acres of D areas in management prescription Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from No to Yes and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from B to F for the approximate 394 acres of the West End area, as displayed in Map2 in Appendix I, in management prescription 4.3. Change the OROMTRD in management prescription 5.1.3(a) for the following areas as displayed in Map 1 Appendix I as follows: o North Macks Inn area: from 3 miles per square mile to 4.29 miles per square mile. o Elk Creek area: from 3 miles per square mile to 4.04 miles per square mile. o Buttermilk and Coffeepot area: from 3 miles per square mile to 3.42 miles per 6

9 square mile. o Mill Creek and Stamp Meadows: from 3 miles per square mile to 3.69 miles per square mile. Public Involvement The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as...an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR ). The scoping process is used to invite public participation to help identify public issues and to obtain public comment at various stages of the environmental analysis process. Although scoping begins early, it is an interactive process which continues until a decision is made. The project was listed on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning the 4th quarter of FY In May of 2011 the District convened an ATV working group that consisted of a group of interested individuals with a range of perspectives to offer their input to the District on how to develop sustainable OHV trails that would improve the quality of the riding experience and connect OHV riders to the Forest Transportation System. The District met with this group in May of 2011 and September of In August of 2011, the District hosted a public meeting at the Island Park Ranger Station to introduce the Project and gathered input from the public to develop the proposed action. Development of the Proposed Action began during spring of 2011 through December 2012 with input from the public meeting, the ATV working group, the Eagle Rock ATV club, and the Idaho Falls Trail Machine Association. The District met with the Eagle Rock ATV club in June 2012 and with the Idaho Falls Trail Machine Association in December The purpose of this step was to present information about the project and gather information about proposed routes, including the benefits and opportunities provided by particular routes, as well as potential concerns or issues. To invite input on the Proposed Action, a scoping letter was sent in November of 2012 to 400 individuals, groups, and agencies. A press release was sent to local newspaper outlets and an article was printed in the Island Park Journal and the Rexburg Standard Journal describing the proposal. The scoping letter provided a brief description of where hard copies of the scoping document could be obtained or downloaded on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest web-site. Mass printing of the scoping package and maps were cost prohibitive. Project documents were posted on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest web-site since November The District received 16 responses to the scoping package. All comments received were reviewed by the Deciding Official and the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Based on comments received, the proposed action was modified to include additional motorized trails that provide looping opportunities and connectivity in the project area. Based on concerns about impacts to water quality and wildlife, a third alternative was added that proposes no motorized trails and no cross-country OHV use in West End. 7

10 Administrative Review On July 9, 2013, the Forest Service, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, published a notice of opportunity to comment on the Project (Project). This Notice of Comment solicited comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Project. Individuals and organizations who commented are eligible to object to the project and must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. Those individuals and organization who submitted timely comments following the July 9, 2013 notice of opportunity to comment will have standing to object. Analysis indicates that approval of the proposed Project would require an amendment to the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan. The proposed amendment would close approximately 43,610 acres and open approximately 394 acres to cross-country OHV travel and change the Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Route Density within several management prescription areas. Because the decision may include approval of a plan amendment, the responsible official for the Project and the amendment will be the Forest Supervisor of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (36 CFR 219.2(b)(3)). As required under 36 CFR (b)(2), the proposed plan amendment associated with the Project is subject to the predecisional administrative review process ( planning objection procedure ) set forth in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. Issues The Forest Service separated the comments into two groups: Significant issues and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Other issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the Proposed Action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec , identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec ) A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant may be found in the project record. This section identifies the issue that serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and alternatives, giving opportunities during analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. Two issues were identified through the scoping process from public comments and summarized as follows: Issue #1: Loss of motorized access and recreation opportunities. Closing F areas, identified as management prescription 5.1.3(a), and D areas, identified as management prescription 5.2.1, to cross-country OHV travel would result in a loss of OHV riding opportunities. Loop riding opportunities and access to destinations and communities in the Island Park area would be reduced. 8

11 The Proposed Action (Alternative B) has been modified to address the needs of motorized users, further discussed in Chapter 2. Included in Alternative B are designated trails that create more loop opportunities and provide for better connectivity to destinations and communities in the project area. This issue is tracked in the recreation resource discussion in Chapter 3. Issue #2: No motorized trails or motorized areas open to cross-country use at West End. Motorized trails and OHV cross-country use in the fingers would affect wildlife and water quality. An additional alternative (Alternative C) has been developed to address concerns about the impact of OHV use to wildlife and water quality in the West End area. Alternative C proposes no motorized trails and no motorized cross-country area at West End. In addition, Alternative C proposes to close Forest Road 482 and Forest Road 423 to meet Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Density Standards in the Macks Inn area. Development of Alternatives Chapter 2: Alternatives The Interdisciplinary Team analyzed comments received during public scoping. Alternatives were developed to respond to unresolved issues as related to the purpose and need for this project, including laws, regulations, and policies that govern land use on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Alternatives, both those considered in detail and those eliminated from further study, display a range of options which could be used to implement the project. Management needs and opportunities as determined by on-the-ground analysis were also considered in this process. Alternatives to the proposed action (Alternative B) must meet the Purpose and Need as stated in Chapter 1, and address any key issues. A No Action alternative (Alternative A) was included as one of the alternatives to provide a comparison of effects of the current situation and the actions that could be taken. The Deciding Official agreed that the proposed action alternative and alternative C represents the range of concerns. Alternative A: Existing Situation (No Action) The no-action alternative is based on the existing situation. The summer transportation system would not change within the Island Park Subsection. This alternative would continue to allow cross-country OHV use in F areas, falling within management prescription 5.1.3(a) and D areas, falling within management prescription Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Route Density (OROMTRD) standards would continue to be exceeded within management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) in the Elk Creek area and the North Macks Inn area. User-created routes in F and D areas will remain as they currently exist and would not be obliterated. The following summarizes the current conditions: Approximately 43,610 acres open to cross-country OHV travel. Approximately 92 miles of user-created routes in F and D areas. OROMTRDs in all management prescription areas would remain at or below Forest Plan Standards except for the following areas: 9

12 o The OROMTRD in the North Macks Inn management prescription 5.1.3(a) area is currently exceeded by 0.54 miles. o The OROMTRD in the Elk Creek management prescription 5.1.3(a) area is currently exceeded by 1.63 miles. Table 1. Areas open to cross-country OHV travel. Areas Acres Management Prescription 5.1.1(a) (F Area) 35,996 Management Prescription (D Area) 7,614 Total 43,610 Alternative B: Proposed Action This alternative is based on input from public scoping, public meetings, the Eagle Rock ATV Club, Idaho Falls Trail Machine Association, the Island Park ATV working group, and U.S. Forest Service personnel. This alternative would: Designate approximately 42 miles of motorized trail. Of the proposed 42 miles of trail: a) Approximately 11 miles of National Forest System Roads currently closed to public motor vehicle use would convert to National Forest System Trails. b) Approximately 30 miles of user-created routes would be designated as National Forest System Trails. c) Approximately 1 mile of trail would require new construction. North Macks Inn Area: Approximately 0.88 linear mile of user-created trail would be added as a Forest Service System Trail to link OHV riders to the Macks Inn area and to the Forest Transportation System. This route would allow OHV riders to avoid riding parallel State Idaho Highway 20 and paved asphalt on the south Big Springs Loop road. Elk Creek Area: No trails are proposed within this management prescription. All existing Forest System roads and Forest System trails will be retained on the Forest Transportation System. Buttermilk and Coffeepot Area: Add approximately 4.8 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. Milk Creek and Stamp Meadows Area: Add approximately 2.59 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. A Forest Plan amendment will be needed to make the above actions consistent with the Forest Plan. The proposed amendment is described in detail in Appendix I and will do the following: Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the 10

13 Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from F to B for the approximate 35,996 acres of F areas in management prescription 5.1.3(a). This action will provide compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Regulations. Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from D to B for the approximate 7,614 acres of D areas in management prescription This action will provide compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Regulations. Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from No to Yes and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from B to F for the approximate 394 acres of the West End area, as displayed in Map 2 in Appendix I, in management prescription 4.3. This will facilitate dispersed camping in an area adjacent to Island Park Reservoir. Change the OROMTRD in management prescription 5.1.3(a) for the following areas as displayed in Map 1 Appendix I. These changes would provide for OHV rider safety and connections to popular destinations. The proposed changes are as follows: o North Macks Inn area: from 3 miles per square mile to 4.29 miles per square mile. o Elk Creek area: from 3 miles per square mile to 4.04 miles per square mile. o Buttermilk and Coffeepot area: from 3 miles per square mile to 3.42 miles per square mile. o Mill Creek and Stamp Meadows: from 3 miles per square mile to 3.69 miles per square mile. ATV Parking Area/Trailhead: Clear, grub, grade, and gravel two parking areas; one in the Eccles area and the other in the West End area and install information bulletin boards. This will provide additional access and information for OHV riders. Cattleguard Construction: Install six cattle guards to accommodate OHV traffic within grazing allotments. Decommission approximately 15 miles of National Forest System Roads. These roads are currently closed to public motorized use as identified in the 1999 Targhee National Forest Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan and are used for Forest administration purposes only. This would reduce resource impacts in the long term. Obliterate User-Created Routes: Obliterate approximately 73 miles of user-created routes that are not part of the Forest Transportation System. This would reduce resource impacts in the long term. Appendix G shows the location of proposed motorized trails, Forest road decommissioning, and user-created route obliterations. 11

14 Alternative C: West End Non-Motorized This alternative address concerns about impacts to wildlife and water quality in the West End area. This alternative would include the following: Designate approximately 24 miles of trail, of which the Forest would: a) Convert approximately 11 miles of National Forest System roads (currently closed to public motor vehicle use) to National Forest System Trails. b) Convert and improve approximately 13 miles of user-created routes to NFS Trails. Construct an ATV Parking Area/Trailhead in the Eccles area. Install six cattle guards to accommodate OHV traffic within grazing allotments. Obliterate approximately 15 miles of National Forest System Roads that are currently closed to public motorized use. Obliterate approximately 86 miles of user-created routes that are not part of the Forest Transportation System. North Macks Inn Area: Approximately 0.88 linear mile of user-created trail would be added as a Forest Service System Trail to link OHV riders to the Macks Inn area and to the Forest Transportation System. This route would allow OHV riders to avoid riding parallel State Idaho Highway 20 and paved asphalt on the south Big Springs Loop road. o The trail addition raised OROMTRD above the standard allowed in the Forest Plan, so the following actions would be taken to maintain the Forest Plan required OROMTRD as 3 miles per square mile. Converting approximately 1.58 linear miles of National Forest System Road from Level 2 Maintenance Roads open to the public use to Level 1 Maintenance roads closed to public use. This would be accomplished by: Closing approximately 0.92 mile of Forest Road 423 to public use. Closing approximately 0.66 mile of Forest Road 482 to public use. Elk Creek Area: No trails are proposed within this management prescription. All existing Forest System roads and Forest System trails will be retained on the Forest Transportation System. Buttermilk and Coffeepot Area: Add approximately 4.8 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. Milk Creek and Stamp Meadows Area: Add approximately 2.59 linear miles of motorized trail that would make viable connections to the Forest Transportation System. A Forest Plan amendment will be needed to make the above actions consistent with the Forest Plan. The proposed amendment is in Appendix I and will do the following: Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the 12

15 Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from F to B for the approximate 35,996 acres of F areas in management prescription 5.1.3(a). Change the designation of cross-country travel for motorized vehicles less than 50 wide in snow-free seasons from Yes to No and the Cross Country Use Matrix on the Summer Travel Map for Ashton/Island Park from D to B for the approximate 7,614 acres of D areas in management prescription Map 2 Appendix I displays this change. Change the OROMTRD in management prescription 5.1.3(a) for the following area as displayed in Map 1 Appendix I as follows: o Elk Creek area: from 3 miles per square mile to 4.04 miles per square mile. Appendix G shows the location of proposed motorized trails, Forest road decommissioning, and user-created route obliterations. Design Features Common to Alternatives B and C Trail Construction Trail construction and trail maintenance methods in the U.S. Forest Service Trails Management Handbook FSH (Chap. 3) and the Region 4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook FSH (see Appendix E) for trail preconstruction and construction will be followed. Proper design measures for the location, alignment, grade, switchback and climbing turns, stream crossings, and drainage features are critical for minimizing erosion. The frequency of cross drains exhibit from FSH (chap. 3) is made site-specific based on soil types in the area. Maximum spacing of drainage structures, whether they are grade reversals, rolling dips, or water bars are shown below. Trail Grades should not exceed 10%: Table 2. Trail Grades Trail Grade (%) Drainage Spacing (feet) Drainage features will not be placed where they may discharge onto erodible slopes or directly into streams. Construction will occur during times when precipitation events are unlikely to occur. A hydrologist or soil scientist will be consulted for site-specific erosion and water control designs prior to construction. Objectives for stormwater management include grading the parking area(s) to direct runoff away from sensitive areas, stabilize disturbed areas with wood-straw or other immediate ground cover, revegetation efforts should occur immediately after construction, construction shall occur during times when precipitation events are unlikely to occur. Six cattle guards would be constructed in the Eccles area to allow OHV access across grazing allotment fence lines. District recreation staff would coordinate installation of cattle guards with a rangeland management specialist. Intersections of Forest road and Forest trails will be evaluated to determine if chokepoints or barriers would be needed to prevent trail encroachment by larger class vehicles. Barriers or chokepoints are constructed features, usually made from wood or steel, which 13

16 would only have an opening wide enough to allow motorized vehicles 50 inches wide or less to pass. This would be site specific since not all intersections would require barriers. Obliteration of Roads and User-Created Trails Obliterate means to un-build, decommission, deactivate, or dismantle a route; the denial of use, elimination of the travel way functionality, and removal of the route from the forest transportation system; return of the route corridor to resource production (USDA FS 1996). Appendix D provides a description of the Forest road decommissioning and usercreated route obliteration guidelines. A hydrologist or soil scientist will assist in this work to identify specific measures. Work would include, but may not be limited to: a) Deep ripping and roughening of the surface to reduce soil compaction (2-3 feet). b) Remove the road prism. Re-contour disturbed areas to restore the natural drainage patterns and contour of the surrounding land as much as practical. This includes pulling material from the fill slope and brow of the cut slope onto the running surface. Where full re-contouring is not practicable, out-slope the route, pullback side-cast material, and scarify the roadway and ditches. c) Remove all culverts and other drainage structures. Remove fill at stream crossings. d) Provide for erosion protection by establishing ground cover that mimics background vegetation levels. This includes the placement of slash, woody debris, stumps, logs, trees, or other organic material onto the disturbed surface. Trees may be tipped over and placed on the disturbed areas. Fisheries For Alternatives B and C, close and obliterate the user-created trail stream crossings on the North Fork of Mill Creek and Elk Springs Creek with the assistance of a hydrologist or fisheries biologist and restore the area to its natural state. As part of routine road maintenance, ensure that a hydrologist or fisheries biologist assist in constructing a hardened ford at the Powerline Road stream crossing on Mill Creek between Forest Roads 626A and 626B. A properly contoured and hardened ford is needed to pass flood flows and resistant to further erosion. Ensure that the crossing on Idaho State lands northeast of Osborne Bridge is piped and that this proposed route is not a sediment source to the Henrys Fork. Hydrology and Wildlife All standards and guidelines in the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction will be met. All personnel involved with the project will comply with the applicable food storage order in effect when the work is performed. Goshawk surveys will be conducted to determine if active nest areas or post-fledging family areas overlap with areas of project activities in the same season that may create noise and disturbance (trail construction, re-construction, or obliteration). If so, these project activities will occur within the management season (October through February). No tree or snag removals between April 1 st and July 1 st. 14

17 Thirsty Creek Area Measures: 1. Gravel Pit area: Construct a fence around the gravel pit to discourage OHV use, enhance AIZ values, and protect boreal toad breeding activities. Place downed woody debris and transplant willows and/or sedge matts to accelerate recovery and further discourage OHV use. Place whole willow transplants and sedge/sod mats along the currently bare stream banks that fed the gravel pit pond. Willows and sod mats would be collected from nearby areas. 2. Easterly Airstrip Motorized Route: Obliterate this route after August 15 to protect boreal toad breeding activities. Maintain stream flow into the ponds located near FSR 059. Construct additional ponds upstream of FSR 059 in drier areas along the route and stream channel (i.e. between FSR 059 and the wetlands located approximately 500 feet upstream of FSR 059). In addition, ponds within 1000 meters of motorized routes to be obliterated will be surveyed prior to route obliteration and if boreal toads or spotted frog breeding activities are detected, the obliteration will occur after August 15. Noxious/Invasive Weeds Noxious weed mitigation includes monitoring the area on a regular basis. Establish a schedule for early detection, rapid response to noxious weeds on disturbed sites. After trail construction and road and trail obliteration, disturbed areas will be monitored for weed infestations and treated if necessary. Heritage If any cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the Forest Archaeologist will be notified immediately and all ground disturbing activities will cease in that area until the Forest Archaeologist takes appropriate action in consultation with the State of Idaho State Historic Preservation Office as required by law to document and determine the significance of the discovery and the effects of the project on them. Design Features for Alternative B Hydrology, Recreation, and Wildlife Stamp Meadows Area: The area is a wet meadow with seasonal wetlands. It is not mapped as an AIZ in the Forest s GIS layer, but AIZ values and direction do apply. The motorized trail will be located such that it crosses the meadow perpendicularly at its narrowest location, and a relatively drier location in the meadow. The route through the meadows may have an amphibian crossing structure installed to protect boreal toad breeding activities and meadow characteristics. Ponds within 1000 meters of the proposed motorized trails will be surveyed prior to trail system designation, and if boreal toads or spotted frog breeding activities are detected, amphibian crossing structures may be placed on OHV routes. The trail end would be 160 feet from the river bank to provide adequate vegetative buffer to reduce sediment delivery to the river. A small parking/turn around area would be constructed. Convert the existing user-created trail from the proposed parking area to the river to a non-motorized walking trail about 160 feet in length. Summary of Effects to Alternatives 15

18 Following is a summary table of the comparison between alternatives and effects to each action alternative. Supporting effects analysis is found in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Table 3. Summary of Effects by Alternatives. Resource/Issue Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Net increase of 42 miles of motorized trail. Net increase of 24 miles of motorized trail. Recreation 43, 610 acres open to crosscountry OHV use within F and D areas. 43,610 acres closed to crosscountry travel within F and D areas. 395 acres open to OHV crosscountry use within management prescription 4.3 in West End. Obliterate 73 miles of usercreated routes and decommission 15 miles of Forest Roads. 43,610 acres closed to OHV cross-country travel. Obliterate 86 miles of usercreated routes and decommission 15 miles of Forest Roads. Close 1.6 miles of Forest roads to comply with OROMTRD within Macks Inn 5.1.3(a) management prescription. Soils Obliterate user-created trails and Forest roads to improve soil quality and hydrologic function = 0 acres. Obliterate user-created trails and Forest roads to improve soil quality and hydrologic function = 63 acres. Obliterate user-created trails and Forest roads to improve soil quality and hydrologic function = 69 acres. New disturbance = 0 acres. New disturbance = 3 acres. New disturbance = 1 acre 16

19 Within Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ): 1.4 miles of existing roads and 2.7 miles of existing user-created trails. Within Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ): 1.7 miles of system trail, obliterate 3.5 miles of user-created trails, obliterate 0 miles of road. Within Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ): 1.0 miles of system trail, obliterate 4.1 miles of user-created trails, obliterate 0 miles of road. Hydrology Number of Stream Channel Crossings: User-Created Roads = 5 and User-Created Trails = 6 Number of Stream Channel Crossings: System trails = 4, obliterate user-created Trails = 8, obliterate roads = 0 Number of Stream Channel Crossings: System trails = 0, obliterate user-created Trails = 11, obliterate roads = 0 AIZ Open to Cross-Country OHV Travel: 1,483 acres AIZ Open to Cross-Country OHV Travel: 24 acres AIZ Open to Cross-Country OHV Travel: 0 acres Fisheries Number of Stream/Ditch Crossings: 2 These crossings are usercreated trails. Number of Stream/Ditch Crossings: 1 This crossing would be on Idaho State Lands. Number of Stream/Ditch Crossings: 1 This crossing would be on Idaho State Lands. Wildlife Boreal toad: Direct mortality from OHV use within breeding site movement zone. Habitat degradation from hydrologic changes from OHV routes in watershed. Canada lynx: Potential disturbance to traveling lynx from OHV use. Potential habitat degradation for lynx and lynx prey from hydrologic disturbances from OHV routes in watersheds. Columbia spotted frog: Direct mortality from OHV use within breeding site movement zone. Habitat degradation from hydrologic changes from OHV routes in watershed. Elk: Decreased habitat quality from disturbance from OHV use. Grizzly bear: Decreased habitat quality from OHV routes and usage. Potential Boreal toad: Direct mortality from user-created route obliteration within breeding site movement zone. Less direct mortality from OHV use within breeding sites movement zone. Less habitat degradation from hydrologic changes from OHV routes in watershed. Canada lynx: Less potential disturbance to traveling lynx from OHV use. Potential disturbance to traveling lynx from OHV route obliteration. Less potential habitat degradation for lynx and lynx prey from hydrologic disturbances from OHV routes in watershed. Columbia spotted frog: Direct mortality from OHV route obliteration within breeding site movement zone. Less direct mortality from OHV use within breeding sites movement zone. Less habitat Same as Alternative B. 17

20 disturbance from OHV use. Wolverine: Potential disturbance during dispersal from OHV use. degradation from hydrologic changes from OHV routes in watershed. Elk: Increased habitat quality from disturbance from OHV use. Grizzly bear: Potential disturbance from OHV route obliteration. Increased habitat quality from reduction in OHV routes and usage. Less potential disturbance from OHV use. Noxious Weeds Current levels of noxious weed infestations will remain the same. Wolverine: Potential disturbance during dispersal from OHV route obliteration. Less potential disturbance during dispersal from OHV use. Ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of trails, obliteration of user-created routes and roads, and associated OHV traffic on the new motorized trails have potential to introduce noxious weeds to the area. Same as Alternative B. Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction The project record of the Environmental Assessment includes specialist reports and field investigation notes. The project record is located at the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District Office in Ashton, Idaho and is available for review during regular business hours. Information from the record is available upon written request. Because the proposed Forest Plan amendment under Alternative B or C only affect travel management, the affected environment and environmental consequences for the amendment are addressed by the analysis for the proposed travel management designations. Recreation Affected Environment The U.S. Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to describe recreation opportunities during programmatic and project-level planning. The ROS provides a systematic framework for looking at the actual distribution of recreation opportunities and provides a logical 18

21 procedure for assessing impacts to those opportunities from potential management actions. U.S. Forest Service recreation management is guided by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which allocates and manages outdoor recreation opportunities and activities by natural resource setting. The distribution of ROS classes in the Island Park Subsection analysis area is shown in the following tables. Table 3. ROS class distribution within the Island Park Subsection. ROS CLASS ACRES Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 141,189 Semi-Primitive Motorized 46,430 Roaded Natural 357,938 Rural 31,849 Table 4. ROS class distribution within management prescriptions. Management Prescription Prescription Name ROS Class 2.4 Eligible Scenic River Primitive to Semi-Primitive Motorized 2.5 Eligible Recreation River Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized to Urban 4.2 Special Use Permit Recreation Site Roaded Natural to Urban 5.1.3(a) Timber Management Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized to Roaded Natural Visual Quality Improvement Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized to Roaded Natural Visual Quality Maintenance Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized to Roaded Natural Grizzly Bear Habitat Primitive to Semi-Primitive Motorized 8.1 Concentrated Development Areas Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized to Urban Within the analysis area, no motorized trails are proposed within ROS classes defined as Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Recreation Use and Demand The Ashton/Island Park Ranger District is mainly located within Fremont County, Idaho. A small portion of the district is located in Clark County, Idaho, and partly within Teton County, Wyoming. A large proportion of land in Fremont County is held in federal ownership and management. In the past, Fremont County s economic base was reliant on resource extraction and gathering forest products while recreation and tourism was growing as one of the major industries. Since the publication of the Targhee 1997 Revised Forest Plan, recreation and tourism levels on the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District have shown dramatic increase and are one of the dominant industries for Fremont County. Visits to the Ashton/Island Park Ranger 19

22 District are often associated with visits to Yellowstone National Park, Harriman State Park, and Grand Teton National Park. The geographic location of the district influences both recreational demand and recreational use. The district s eastern border is shared with both Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park and the western border is shared with Harriman State Park and the Dubois Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The Northern border is shared with the Gallatin National Forest and the southern boundary is shared with the Teton Basin Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Island Park is within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which is one of the largest intact temperate-zone ecosystems on Earth. Due to the unique geology, topography, and biological diversity of the area, there are outstanding opportunities for recreational activities which makes this region a world renowned destination. The area within the Island Park Subsection offers opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Recreational activities include hiking, backpacking, photography, horseback riding, fishing, canoeing, tubing, developed camping, dispersed camping, family reunions, big game and upland bird hunting, mountain biking, and riding OHVs. Due to the close proximity of nearby parks and populated communities, a wide variety of recreational opportunities are provided to meet visitors motivations, expectations, and desires. The proximity of nearby communities also influences recreation demand and use. According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring results for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, the Forest received approximately 1,852,000 visits in 2010 (USDA 2012). Approximately 5% of these visitors participate in OHV recreation. The 15 most common counties for respondents to this survey are shown in Table 5 below. Table 5. Fifteen most common zip codes of Caribou-Targhee National Forest visitors. Forest visitors from the local communities of Island Park, Macks Inn, Ashton, St. Anthony, Rexburg, Rigby, Idaho Falls, Driggs, Pocatello, and elsewhere contribute to increasing visitation on the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District. The population of these local communities increased since 1997 and there has been a corresponding increase in summer and winter home 20

23 development in the Island Park area. Seasonal residents and visitors that rent cabins within subdivisions along the Forest boundary participate in recreational activities on the district. Non-motorized Use Non-motorized recreation such as hiking, horseback riding, photography, and bicycles are popular activities in the area. During the fall season big game hunting on foot is also a common use. Hiking, horseback riding, and bicycles are allowed on the Big Bend Ridge ATV Trail and the Railroad Grade ATV Trail. There are approximately 73 miles of trail open to non-motorized use. Of these 73 miles, 24 miles are closed to motorized use. Motorized Use Since 1997, motorized recreation use has grown and developed considerably. During initial planning stages of the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan, the Forest did not experience OHV use in large amounts. However, planning at that time was far enough ahead to establish a system of designated routes and areas open to OHV use. Island Park is a popular destination for dispersed camping, developed campground camping, and summer home and cabin rentals. OHV riding is typically tied to these activities and is one of the primary recreational uses in the area. There is local demand for OHV riding opportunities. As shown in Figure 2, and Figure 3 below, growth in demand for OHV use has increased considerably. This growth reflects what Forest personnel observe on the ground. Figure 2. State of Idaho OHV registrations from *Source: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Figure 3. Idaho Motorbike and ATV registrations from

24 *Source: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Two designated motorized trails are available within the analysis area: the Big Bend Ridge ATV Trail and the Railroad Grade ATV Trail. Both trails are open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. Big Bend Ridge provides 19 miles of motorized trail and the Railroad Grade provides 30 miles of trail riding opportunities. Table 6 below summarizes current OHV riding opportunities within the analysis area. Table 6. Summary of current OHV riding opportunities. Type of OHV Use Acres Miles Areas open to cross-country travel 43,610 N/A Motorized Forest Trails N/A 49 Forest Roads open to OHV Travel N/A 474 TOTAL 43, North Section The north end of the Island Park Subsection receives heavy OHV use during the summer season. The terrain in this area is relatively flat which provides ideal OHV riding opportunities. Crosscountry travel is allowed within F areas (management prescription 5.1.3(a)) and D areas (management prescription 5.2.1). However, the boundaries of these areas are not signed or delineated on the ground. This lack of signage and delineation confuses visitors where they can ride and makes travel enforcement problematic. These management prescriptions are adjacent to some residential subdivisions and some homeowners with OHVs often access Forest lands directly from their property. This has resulted in a proliferation of entry points and pioneered user-created trails that start from private property leading onto National Forest System lands. West Section Similar to the north end, the west end of the analysis area receives heavy levels of use during the summer and fall hunting season. Recreational activities are primarily dispersed in nature since there are no developed campgrounds or designated trails. The terrain offer steep slopes with some flat areas, offering diverse riding opportunities and opportunities for outstanding scenery. Dispersed camping along the Island Park Reservoir is accessible by Forest roads which are prevalent in the area. Cross-country OHV travel is available within F areas. Dispersed Camping 22

25 Dispersed camping is allowed in most areas except those within the vicinity of developed recreation sites such as boat launches, visitor centers, or campgrounds. Motorized access is allowed for parking and dispersed camping within 300 feet of Forest roads and Forest trails open to motorized use. User-Created Routes The Travel Plan designated roads, trails, and areas open to motorized use on the Targhee National Forest. The Travel Plan designated areas open to cross-country motorized use identified as F and D areas. On the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, approximately 36,199 acres currently allow for motorized cross-country OHV use in F areas and 7,614 acres in D areas. The F areas fall within management prescription 5.1.3(a) and D areas fall within management prescription The Travel Plan does not distinguish between two wheel motorized use and ATV use. If a trail or area is open for motorized travel, it is open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. The district recreation staff inventoried approximately 92 miles of user-created routes located within the F and D areas. These user-created routes are open to OHV travel and the majority of these routes were constructed for other purposes, such as logging or access to grazing allotments. In the past, these routes were not effectively decommissioned to eliminate motorized use. Some of these routes were also established through OHV cross-country use. Over time, some of these routes are used and valued by OHV users and serve recreational purposes. However, some user-created routes are poorly located, not properly engineered, do not lead to destinations, and dead ends. All user-created routes within the F and D areas are not managed as system motorized trails by the U.S. Forest Service and therefore does not receive maintenance. As a result, these routes deteriorate quickly and are unsustainable. Quality Determining the quality of an OHV route system that meets OHV user needs and desires is subjective. There are many features OHV users seek when they ride. The primary feature is looping opportunities (Crimmins 2006). A loop route system is defined as a set of trail segments that connects to other trail segments or to system roads that create a loop or several loops. More loops provide more riding opportunities, decreases congestion, and are more desirable than routes that dead end. Trail maintenance is another factor when determining a quality route system. The amount of use, type of use, and trail location are all factors that determines maintenance need to prevent tread degradation, protect resources, and provide access. The Ashton/Island Park Ranger District accomplishes approximately 60 miles of maintenance and reconstruction each year within the analysis area. Annually, the district clear all trails of downed logs and debris, clean out water control structures, and sign sections of trail where needed. Trail reconstruction are prioritized based on safety needs and accomplished on specific segments where needed on an annual basis. Sometimes trail reconstruction projects may extend 2 to 3 years depending on the amount of work involved. Conflict and Enforcement Conflicts between non-motorized and motorized user groups are minimal within the analysis area. There have been few complaints to the district office concerning trespass on private property. Most reports of conflict occur between OHV users and cabin owners within the analysis area. The District office receives few reported incidents of trespass each year. This is 23

26 due to lack of on-the-ground signing and delineation of F area boundaries adjacent to private property and residence tracts in the area. Travel plan enforcement funding is very limited. One Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) is responsible for patrolling over 1.1 million acres of National Forest System Lands on the north zone of the Forest. Saturation patrols are usually organized during holiday weekends to educate OHV users, and in some instances, citations are issued. This has led to limited effectiveness. Agency funding varies from year to year and in the near future, funding is expected to decline. Efforts by the district staff are continually made to generate new sources of funding. When partnership agreements can be secured and funds made available, additional personnel can be hired to monitor use and enforce motorized travel within the analysis area. Environmental Consequences Obliteration of user-created trails, road decommissioning, motorized trail construction, conversion of user-created routes to motorized trails, and conversion of forest roads to motorized trails all have potential to affect recreation uses and opportunities in the area. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the affected management prescriptions within the Island Park Subsection. Direction for these management prescriptions are described in Chapter 1 above. The spatial boundary for cumulative effects is the Targhee portion of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest because impacts to recreation opportunities in one area can affect the opportunities on other districts. This analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have affected the project area and might contribute to cumulative effects. Recreation use is discussed by tracking the following indicators by alternatives: Miles of user-created routes. Miles of obliterated user-created routes. Miles of designated motorized trail. Miles of National Forest System Roads closed to motorized travel. Miles of National Forest System Roads decommissioned. National Forest System Roads open to OHV travel. Acres open to cross-country OHV travel. Effects Common to All Alternatives The analysis area will continue to see increases in motorized and non-motorized recreation use as regional populations increase. The majority of OHV use will be associated with visitors camping in developed campgrounds, dispersed camping, staying in vacation summer homes, or renting cabins in the Island Park area. Private lands along National Forest boundaries would continue to be developed. Economic uncertainty and high gasoline costs may have negative or positive effects on visitation. Major shifts in recreation use within the analysis area are not expected in the near future. Implementation of any alternative would result in the displacement of an undetermined number of Forest visitors. Displacement is the movement of one or more types of recreational user to other locations better suited to their activity of choice. Overcrowding, lack of recreational opportunities, or a desire to avoid certain types of recreational activities, are typical reasons for 24

27 user displacement (Manning 2011). Non-motorized users often wish to recreate in areas free of motorized travel. The degree of user displacement would be dependent upon the alternative selected and cannot be accurately predicted. No changes would be made to existing non-motorized trails within the analysis area. Access and cross-country travel for non-motorized use would not change. Forest system roads closed to public motorized use would still be available for non-motorized uses and would provide additional access to areas for non-motorized users to recreate. System roads that are part of the Forest Transportation System are commonly used by OHV users for travel and connections between system trails. All Forest system roads in the analysis area would be open to motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width. All county jurisdictional roads are open to OHV travel provided that riders comply with Idaho State Law requiring a valid restricted license plate, a valid state OHV registration sticker affixed to the restricted license plate, a valid driver s license, liability insurance, and a helmet if under 18 years of age. Effects Common to Alternatives B and C Approximately 36,199 acres within the F areas and 7,614 acres within the D areas would close to cross-country OHV travel within management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) and Changes to management of OHV use within the analysis area would require a period of adjustment for Forest visitors. There would be off-route travel violations during the first several years of implementation. Designated motorized trails would be updated and identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) which should reduce confusion involving motorized travel provided that: 1) there is signage on the ground, 2) the signage matches the MVUM, and 3) users have readily available access to a MVUM and utilize the map. If motorized use in the analysis area increased substantially, some motorized users also could be displaced to other locations to find better quality riding opportunities. Suitable areas for displaced motorized users would depend largely upon other travel plan decisions made on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, adjacent National Forests, and other public lands. There are currently motorized recreation opportunities available on public lands near the analysis area. If sufficient, quality OHV opportunities are not provided within the analysis area, OHV enthusiasts would be forced to travel longer distances to participate in their recreational pursuits. Designated motorized trails would meet Trail Class 2 (FSH ) single lane trail standards. Approximately one mile of proposed trail construction (Alternative B) and some sections of user-created routes proposed for designation would require tread improvement to meet Forest Service trail standards. It may take three to four years to complete implementation and the timetable is largely dependent upon agency funding, supplemental grant funding, and partnership/volunteer contributions. Trailhead development would be needed to accommodate use of the OHV route system. Improved trailhead facilities, primarily consisting of a graveled parking lot and signing, would greatly enhance user convenience and mitigate resource impacts. Designation, development, and maintenance of motorized trails would be more costly than under the existing condition. All action alternatives designate a greater number of system trails than currently exist. Both proposed and existing designated system trails require on-going maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and additional signing. 25

28 Highway crossings would be coordinated with the State of Idaho. Connector trail to the Green Canyon Road over Harriman State Park lands would be coordinated with Harriman State Park. There is potential for increased OHV traffic and noise levels in the Last Chance subdivision and increased noise levels affecting the summer home subdivisions along the Buttermilk Loop Road. OHV trespass along the interface of private property and F and D areas would decrease because riders would be restricted to designated roads and trails. Measuring noise is highly subjective and variable and largely depends on the expectations of the affected user. Effects of noise from OHV use would be expected to decrease because areas open to cross-country travel adjacent to private subdivisions would be closed to OHV cross-country travel. OHV trespass and entry points would decrease or possibly be eliminated. All proposed trails are located away from private property and were selected to pull riders away from subdivisions to destinations in the Island Park area. Conflicts between OHV users and private cabin owners would be reduced or eliminated because OHV users would be restricted to roads and trails in the analysis area. ALTERNATIVE A NO ACTION (EXISTING SITUATION) Direct and Indirect Effects Issue #1: Loss of Motorized Access and Recreation Opportunities No changes would be made to the existing motorized opportunities within the analysis area. Current management direction established in the Targhee 1997 Revised Forest Plan and the 1999 Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan would continue. Alternative A would continue to allow cross-country OHV travel in approximately 43,610 acres within F and D areas, on 49 miles of existing designated motorized trails on the Railroad Grade ATV Trail and the Big Bend Ridge ATV Trail, and on 474 miles of Forest roads. Approximately 92 miles of user-created routes within the F and D areas would continue to be open to OHV travel. Off-route travel by OHVs would continue to be allowed within 300 feet of existing routes for parking and access to dispersed campsites. Displacement The continuation or increase of motorized use in existing areas and on existing routes could displace an unknown percentage of non-motorized recreationists to other areas. Because there are non-motorized opportunities available in the analysis area, displaced recreationists who prefer to recreate in areas with no motorized use could find other suitable areas to recreate. User-Created Routes User-created routes inventoried within the F and D areas would not be closed or obliterated under this alternative. These routes would continue to be open to OHV travel. Quality Approximately 92 miles of user-created routes within the F and D areas currently exist. Most routes provide poor OHV riding opportunities because these routes are not maintained, marked, signed, or displayed on a map. Most user-created routes do not link to important destinations and dead ends. As a result, most OHV riders are not able to make informed decisions on loop touring opportunities or decisions on what route serves a purpose; such as access to a scenic overlook, a recreation site, or a dispersed campsite. 26

29 Conflict OHV trespass on private property along the interface of private property and F and D areas would increase. Cumulative Effects Low quality motorized riding opportunities have potential to displace users seeking higher quality route systems. Motorized access and riding opportunities would remain in the analysis area as guided by the Forest Plan and Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan. Non-motorized users may be displaced to other areas on the forest because approximately 43,610 acres are open to cross-country OHV travel within the analysis area. Alternative A would continue to provide maximum OHV riding opportunities when compared to Alternatives B and C. Ongoing and future Forest Service actions have little long-term effect on outdoor recreation opportunities. ALTERNATIVE B PROPOSED ACTION Direct and Indirect Effects Issue #1: Loss of Motorized Access and Recreation Opportunities Approximately 36,199 acres within the F areas and 7,614 acres within the D areas would close to cross-country OHV travel. Approximately 74 miles of user-created routes would be obliterated. Alternative B would provide a net increase of approximately 41 miles of designated motorized trails. These designated trails would connect to Forest system roads to provide access and OHV looping opportunities. Two OHV parking area/trailhead would be constructed; one in the Eccles area and the other in the West End area. Approximately 395 acres within management prescription 4.3 in the West End area would be designated as open to cross-country OHV travel and the boundaries of this management prescription would change. User-Created Routes Of the 92 miles of inventoried user-created routes within the F and D areas, approximately 29 miles of user-created routes within the F and D areas and within other management prescriptions would be designated as motorized trails. See Appendix F for detailed route descriptions and Appendix G for locations of these routes on a map. Quality When comparing the quality of the OHV riding experience to Alternative A, Alternative B improves the OHV riding experience. Designated motorized trails would be signed and marked on the ground to provide OHV users opportunities to make informed decisions when selecting routes that provide loop touring opportunities or routes that access destinations in the Island Park area. OHV riders would be able to access communities such as Last Chance, Ponds Lodge, Lakeside Lodge, Elk Creek, Phillips Lodge, Macks Inn, and to destinations such as Big Springs, West End, and dispersed campsites along the Island Park Reservoir. Trail maintenance needs would increase. Some sections of proposed designated trail would need water drainage structures and tread improvement. Trails of Interest In the McCrea area, access east or west of the Henry s Fork River would require OHV riders to use the Kilgore-Yale Road at the McCrea Bridge crossing. Forest Service personnel determined that this bridge would provide the only viable crossing. The proposed Lakeside Trail would intersect the Kilgore-Yale Road east of McCrea Bridge Campground. OHV riders that decide to 27

30 travel west on the Kilgore-Yale Road would have the opportunity to connect to the Elk Springs Trail. The Elk Springs Trail would intersect the Kilgore-Yale Road just west of the McCrea Bridge subdivision and riders would also have the opportunity to travel east on the Kilgore-Yale Road to connect to the Lakeside Trail. To cross the Henry s Fork River, the riding distance between trail connectors would be approximately 0.5 mile on asphalt road surface. To ride on the Kilgore-Yale Road, OHV riders would need to comply with Idaho State Law which would require a valid restricted license plate, a valid state OHV registration sticker affixed to the restricted license plate, a valid driver s license, liability insurance, and a helmet if under 18 years of age. Displacement There would be a decrease in displacement of non-motorized users in the analysis area. Cumulative Effects Alternative B decreases OHV riding opportunities when compared to Alternative A and would increase management of motorized Forest System trails which would increase trail maintenance costs. Although OHV recreationists would lose approximately 43,610 acres of cross-country travel and 74 miles of user-created routes, there is a net increase in 41 miles of designated motorized trails and a new area open to cross-country OHV travel (395 acres). Forest system trails and area would be open to OHVs less than 50 inches in width. This enlarged route system would improve the quality of the OHV riding experience. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Issue #1: Loss of Motorized Access and Recreation Opportunities Approximately 36,199 acres within the F areas and 7,614 acres within the D areas would close to cross-country OHV travel. Approximately 86 miles of user-created routes would be obliterated. Alternative C would provide a net increase of approximately 24 miles of designated motorized trails. One OHV parking area/trailhead would be constructed in the Eccles area. Approximately 1.6 miles of Forest road would close to public motorized travel in the north Macks Inn 5.1.3(a) management prescription area to comply with Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Density standards. As a result, miles of system road would be open to OHV travel which would be a minimal change compared to 535 miles available in Alternatives A and B. User-Created Routes In Alternative C, more user-created routes are proposed for obliteration compared to Alternative B. Approximately 13 miles of user-created routes within the F and D areas and within other management prescriptions would be designated as motorized trails. Similar to Alternative B, this would result in a loss of OHV riding opportunities because these routes are used for recreational purposes. Quality When compared to Alternative B, proposed designated motorized trails would decrease by 17 miles and looping opportunities in the Buttermilk, McCrea, Mill Creek, and Coffeepot areas would decrease. Access to destinations east of Idaho State Highway 20 from the Buttermilk, 28

31 McCrea, Mill Creek, and Coffeepot areas would be restricted to Forest roads and county jurisdictional roads. Similar to Alternative B, trail maintenance needs would increase but would be less than Alternative B. Some sections of proposed trail would need water drainage structures and tread improvement. Displacement OHV enthusiasts would continue to have access to all designated motorized trails but no crosscountry riding opportunities would be available. Overall, the motorized route system would be characterized as having fewer opportunities than under Alternatives A and B. An unknown number of OHV recreationists would be displaced to other areas in the region. Cumulative Effects Alternative C provides the least OHV riding opportunities. OHV recreationists would lose approximately 43,610 acres currently available to cross-country travel, 86 miles of user-created routes would be obliterated, looping touring opportunities would be reduced, and OHV users would be displaced to other areas in search of better quality riding experiences. Displaced motorized users would have opportunities available to them on the Dubois, Teton Basin, and Palisades Ranger Districts. Similar to Alternative B, this would increase motorized trail maintenance costs when compared to Alternative A, but the cost would be less than Alternative B. Conclusions Alternative A maximizes OHV riding opportunities in the Island Park area. However, the quality of the OHV riding experience would be poor due to the lack of signing, poor location of some user-created routes, and lack of route maintenance. Alternatives B and C would increase designated motorized trail mileage managed to Forest Service design standards. Alternative B would improve upon the existing condition and provide more designated trail opportunities for OHV use, improve the quality of the OHV riding experience, improve user satisfaction, reduce conflict between OHV riders and private cabin residents, and reduce trespass on private property. Trail maintenance costs would increase. Alternative C would provide a lower quality motorized recreation experience compared to Alternatives A and B due to fewer looping opportunities, fewer connections to the Forest Transportation System, and fewer connections to destinations and communities in the Island Park area. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources All alternatives do not represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources concerning recreation uses. Soils Affected Environment The analysis area is approximately 46,500 acres, which encompasses the soil resources affected by this proposal. This area includes approximately 44,000 acres within the F areas (management prescription 5.1.3a), D areas (management prescription 5.2.1) currently open to cross-country motorized travel, and the proposed West End 4.3 prescription area, and small areas of other prescriptions where travel management actions are proposed. These areas drain into the Henrys Fork. 29

32 Capability Travel management limitations were derived from key soil properties and landform characteristics of the Ecological Units in the analysis area. These ratings are for roads and trails and for off-road/off-trail use. Maps and descriptions of these travel management limitations are described in detail in the soils specialist report. Overall, the analysis area has slight to moderate limitations for off-road/ off-trail use although one steeper slope in the West End area is severely limited. A rating of slight indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; moderate indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be needed; severe indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture, 2013). The areas identified as having a slight or moderate limitation to off-road/off-trail use are capable of sustaining crosscountry motorized travel. User-created trails do not receive the maintenance and drainage necessary to reduce erosion and therefore the majority of the analysis area is not capable of sustaining high densities of usercreated trails that are present in some parts of the analysis area. Riparian areas in the analysis area are limited for road and trail use due to wetness, ponding, and low strength, which typically results in rutted and braided trails (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture, 2013) (Meyer, 2002). Ripley Butte was identified as a potentially unstable landform (Bowerman, Dorr, Leahy, Varga, & Warrick, 1999). The majority of the area identified has slopes less than 10% and has a low risk for mass movement (USDA Forest Service, 2010, pp ). The action alternatives propose designation of an existing road as a system trail, and the area is capable of sustaining this action. Methods and Indicators This analysis utilized the best available information. An Ecological Unit Inventory (EUI) was completed for the Targhee National Forest in 1999 (Bowerman, Dorr, Leahy, Varga, & Warrick, 1999) (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture, 2013). Maps and travel management limitation ratings derived from soil properties identified in the EUI are described and included in the soils specialist report. Analysis methods included review of field notes on existing system and non-system trails and on roads in the analysis area collected by contractors and other resource specialists (Northwind, ) (Staff, 2012). A subset of the trails and roads in the analysis area were reviewed in the field to document existing conditions and field-verify proposed routes (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012). Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): Road Erosion modeling was completed for a sample of road and trail segments (Elliot, Hall, & Scheele, WEPP: Road (Draft 12/1999) (WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery, 1999) (Elliot, Foltz, & Robichaud, Recent findings related to measuring and modeling forest road erosion, 2009) (Ayala, Puneet, Brodbeck, Carter, & McDonald, 2005). The indicators used to compare alternatives are: Acres of NFS land, currently used for roads and trails, closed to motorized travel and treated to improve soil quality and hydrologic function. Acres of NFS land proposed for new disturbance such as new trails or parking lots. Acres of NFS land open to cross-country travel by two-wheeled motorized vehicles and ATVs 50 in width or less. 30

33 Environmental Consequences ALTERNATIVE A NO ACTION (EXISTING SITUATION) Direct and Indirect Effects Cross-country motorized use has had a negligible effect on the soil resources (where the litter or forest floor is barely disturbed). Where cross-country use has resulted in an inventoried 92 miles of user-created trails, effects to soils vary based on the terrain. Where user-created trails are located on flat upland terrain (<10% slope), the effects are minor soil erosion, compaction, and displacement in the trail tread. On slightly steeper slopes (10-25% slopes), more erosion is evident, and user-created trails that follow slopes with greater than 25% slope have some gully erosion occurring due to lack of drainage and poor location (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012) (Meadows, Foltz, & Geehan, 2008). Where motorized users frequently cross riparian areas, wetness and low soil strength have resulted in deep ruts, soil displacement, and braided stream crossings (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012) (Meyer, 2002). Ruts, soil displacement, and compaction increases erosion and sediment delivery, and reduce the soil quality in these important areas. Cross-country use is not resulting in increased risk of mass instability in the area identified as potentially unstable. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect to the soil resources is localized, continued erosion, compaction, displacement, and reduced soil quality on roads and system trails and non-system trails, particularly on user-created routes that are not maintained, and other localized disturbances. Since the area would remain open to cross-country motorized travel, more user-created trails are anticipated in the future. The amount of disturbed area in the analysis area with lower soil quality would likely increase slightly over time. Effects Common to Alternatives B and C The effect of road decommissioning and user-created trail closure and rehabilitation activities on soil resources are minor, short-term potential for increased erosion (less than 2 years), and longterm reduction in erosion and increased soil quality (Meyer, 2002, p. 31). The effect of designating user-created trails as system trails and resulting construction and maintenance of drainage structures on the soil resource would be a reduction in erosion on the segments of trail that exceed 10% trail grade (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012) (Stokowski & LaPointe, 2002) (Ouren, et al., 2007) (Meadows, Foltz, & Geehan, 2008). The effect of building new system trails results in soil disturbances such as displacement and compaction. Trail use causes additional compaction and displacement which leads to erosion. Trails built and maintained to Forest Service standards should have a low erosion rate (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012) (Stokowski & LaPointe, 2002) (Ouren, et al., 2007) (Meadows, Foltz, & Geehan, 2008) (WEPP:Road modeling in soil specialist report). The effect of closing areas to cross-country motorized travel and restricting motorized use to system trails on the soil resource would be reduced erosion, compaction, displacement and rutting associated with user-created trails, particularly trails on slopes >10%. There would also be a reduction in rutting, displacement and braiding of trails at stream crossings (Green & Lehman, Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project, 2012) (Stokowski & LaPointe, 2002) (Ouren, et al., 2007) (Meadows, Foltz, & Geehan, 2008) (WEPP:Road modeling in soil specialist report). 31

34 The effect of construction of a parking area(s) on the soil resource would be an irretrievable commitment of 1-2 acres of land to the travel system. The effect of installation of 6 cattle guards would be a minor, short-term potential for increased erosion (less than 2 years), and no sediment is likely to leave the sites. ALTERNATIVE B PROPOSED ACTION Direct and Indirect Effects The effect of the majority of the actions proposed in this alternative on the soil resources is described in the effects common to all action alternatives. About 63 acres of NFS land, currently used for roads and user-created trails would be closed to motorized travel and treated to improve soil quality. Approximately 3 acres would be dedicated to the travel system in new trails and 2 new parking areas. Approximately 44,000 acres would be closed to cross-country motorized travel and about 400 acres would be opened to cross-country motorized travel in the West End area. These 400 acres are rated as having a slight limitation for roads and trails and a slight limitation for off-road/off-trail use. This means that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions and the area is suited to the proposal. This alternative would result in an increase in soil quality in the analysis area. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect to the soil resources is localized, continued erosion, compaction, displacement and reduced soil quality on roads, system trails, and non-system trails and other localized disturbances. The West End area would be opened to cross-country motorized travel, and a slight increase in use is expected to result in potentially more user-created trails in this 400 acre area. The acres in the analysis area with improved soil quality would likely increase over time. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects The effect of the majority of the actions proposed in this alternative on the soil resources is described in the effects common to all action alternatives. Approximately 69 acres of NFS land, currently used for roads and user-created trails, would be closed to motorized travel and treated to improve soil quality. About 2 acres would be dedicated to the travel system in new trails and a new parking area. About 44,000 acres would be closed to cross-country motorized travel. This alternative would result in an increase in soil quality in the analysis area. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect to the soil resources is localized, continued erosion, compaction, displacement and reduced soil quality on roads and trails, particularly on user-created routes that are not maintained, and other localized disturbances. The acres in the analysis area with improved soil quality would likely increase over time. Conclusions The action alternatives would move existing conditions toward improved soil quality and the desired conditions identified in the 1997 Revised Targhee Forest Plan. Alternative C would result in a few more acres of restoration and decommissioning and a few less acres of open motorized cross-country access when compared to Alternative B, but this difference is slight. 32

35 Irretrievable Commitment Building new trails and trailheads disturbs soils, removes vegetation, and is a dedicated use of the soil resources, which is an irretrievable commitment of resources. No irreversible resource commitments will result from this proposal. Hydrology Affected Environment The affected area for hydrology is the eleven sixth-level hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) that intersect the activity areas. The temporal scope of this analysis is 30 years into the past and 10 years into the future. Trail construction, maintenance, and use have potential to degrade downstream water quality if pollutants (e.g. sediment, vehicle fluids, and wastes) are delivered to streams. Trails lacking adequate drainage can cause erosion and transport pollutants directly into waterbodies. Such pollutants can harm insect populations and fish reproduction. Indicators used to discuss and compare alternative effects to water quality are: Miles of trail located in the aquatic influence zone (AIZ) Number of stream channel crossings Other construction in the AIZ Acreage of AIZ within areas open to cross-country OHV travel The soils indicators discussed above also provide additional information to compare the alternatives in regards to general watershed conditions. Figure 4 and Table 7 shows the relevant HUCs and the activity areas (roads and trails) associated with Alternative B, the proposed action. Figure 4. Map of the sixth-level HUCs and proposed action (Alternative B). 33

36 Table 7. Eleven sixth-level HUCs that make up the analysis area. HUC HUC Name Area (acres) Twin Creek-Henrys Fork 35, Sawtell Creek 13, Coffee Pot-Henrys Fork 18, Hotel Creek 22, Lower Thirsty Creek 19, Island Park Reservoir 30, Buffalo River 28, Cooney Canyon Creek-Island Park Reservoir 35, Middle Henrys Fork-Silver Lake 31, Trail Canyon-Warm River 22, Swan Lake-Middle Henrys Fork 28,681 Recommended Best Management Practice (BMP) for Water Quality The State of Idaho recognizes BMPs as an effective process for protecting beneficial uses and ambient water quality. The BMP listed below emphasize the applicable direction and also provide project-specific information that expands on the RFP and FSH direction. BMP Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) Considerations Figure 5 show the locations of potential activities within the AIZ for the action alternatives. Figure 5. Potential activities in the AIZ under the action alternatives. 34

37 Table 8. AIZ boundary widths (from high water mark). Water Type Fish-bearing stream reaches Perennial non-fish bearing stream reaches Lakes Reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands greater than one acre Intermittent streams and wetlands less than one acre AIZ Width (feet): Island Park Subsection 150 feet, each side 75 feet, each side 150 feet 75 feet 75 feet, each side Site-Specific AIZ Measures: Alternative B Stream Crossings: The four system trail/stream crossings were field-verified and the existing crossings are adequate to protect AIZ values. West End Area: The three trail/stream crossings that would be added to the trail system are in vegetated swales that lack an active stream channel. Regular trail maintenance work at these AIZ crossing is adequate to protect AIZ resources. In addition, a short trail reroute was identified to remove over 0.2 miles of trail along an intermittent stream channel. The perennial stream crossing on West Fork Mill Creek utilizes the existing culvert on the Yale-Kilgore road. Regular trail maintenance activities will protect AIZ values in this area. West End Trail Head location: The existing disturbed area is the best location because the location does not exhibit AIZ characteristics. There is no active channel in this area that connects to the Island Park Reservoir. The area is a vegetated swale with no active channel. Although there is a small patch of willows nearby, the area further to the east contains much more riparian vegetation. Therefore, it is best to keep the parking area where it is currently to protect the AIZ values further to the east. Figure 6. West End Trailhead location. The mapped AIZ does not exhibit AIZ values. 35

38 Alternative B and C User-created trails located in the AIZ were evaluated for relocation potential outside of the AIZ. This included approximately 2.6 miles in Alternative B and one mile in Alternative C. Last Chance area: An existing user-created trail is located near the AIZ boundary. A portion of the proposed trail would be relocated to improve AIZ resources near the pond (see map below). The old trail portion would be obliterated. The Forest would transplant willow clumps to prevent OHVs from leaving the trail to enter mud bog areas on the northeast end of the AIZ. There are two wet meadow crossings that would be Frenchdrained crossings constructed using rock available on site. 36

39 Figure 7. Last Chance area. McCrea Bridge area: The user-created trail located downstream of McCrea Bridge on the east side of the Henry s Fork does not provide opportunities for relocation. There is adequate drainage already installed to protect AIZ resources. 37

40 Figure 8. McCrea Bridge area. Thirsty Creek area: (see map below): The Thirsty Creek area is located near the junction of the Big Springs Loop Road (FSR 059) and the Black Canyon Road (FSR 066). The stream crossing structures on FSR 059 need to be maintained or replaced soon as they are plugged; this can be done through the road maintenance program. Thirsty creek is severely altered in this area. There are two man-made ditches off of the stream and another portion is captured by the easterly airstrip route that would be obliterated. The route diversion and one ditch drain to the FSR 059 crossing. The other ditch blew out and now drains into a gravel pit. The ponds at the FSR 059 crossing and at the gravel pit are important boreal toad and spotted frog habitat. The measures described below are designed to control OHV use and to protect the habitat and other AIZ values. 38

41 Figure 9. Thirsty Creek. State Water Quality Standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) identifies surface water use designation (beneficial uses) and the water quality standards necessary to protect those uses (IDEQ 2013). The beneficial uses of the relevant water bodies are shown in Table 9 below. Table 9. Beneficial uses of relevant water bodies (IDEQ 2013). Waterbodies Arrange, Blue, Blue Spring, Bootjack, Bunkhouse, Canyon, Chick, Coffee Pot, Crooked, Dry, Elk, Enget, Fish, Hotel, Icehouse, Jesse, Jones, Meadow, Mill, Pine, Reas Pass, Sheep, Stephens, Thurman, Toms, Twin, Tygee, & Yale Creeks; Bishop, Golden, & Silver Lakes, Fish Pond & Sheep Creek Reservoir; & all other undesignated waters Thirsty Creek Buffalo, Henry s Fork, and Warm Rivers; Big Springs, Henry s Lake Outlet, and Island Park Reservoir Beneficial Uses Cold Water Communities, Salmonid Spawning, Primary or Secondary Contact Recreation, Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply, Wildlife Habitats, and Aesthetics - Protected for all recreational uses and the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, wherever attainable. Cold Water Communities, Salmonid Spawning, Secondary Contact Recreation, Domestic Water Supply, Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply, Wildlife Habitats, and Aesthetics Cold Water Communities, Salmonid Spawning, Primary Contact Recreation, Domestic Water Supply, Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply, Wildlife Habitats, and Aesthetics 39

42 Water Quality Impairment ( 303(d) listed) & Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The IDEQ has identified five water quality assessment units (AUs) as not supporting some beneficial uses. Figure 9 and Table 10 below summarize Idaho s 2010 Integrated Report (IDEQ 2011) and the Upper and Lower Henry s Fork TMDLs Addendum (IDEQ 2010a) and Five-Year Review (IDEQ 2010b). The majority of these five AUs are upstream of the routes directly impacted by the project. Figure 10. Summary of IDEQ s 2010 Integrated Report (IDEQ 2011). 40

43 Table 10. Summary of Idaho s 2010 integrated report (IDEQ 2010a, 2010b, & 2011) for supporting and not supporting assessment units (AUs). The remaining AUs and uses have not been assessed. Assessment Units and Relevant Waters ID SK005_02-Warm River Tributaries: Trail Canyon Beneficial Use Support Comments* Water Temperature TMDL: Not Supporting CWAL. ID SK005_03: Warm River ID SK025_02-Henry s Lake Outlet Tributaries: Enget, Jones, Meadow, Sawtell, & Stephens Creeks ID SK030_02 Twin Creek - source to mouth ID SK044_02 Icehouse Creek - source to Island Park Reservoir: Icehouse and Bunkhouse Creeks ID SK014_05-Henry s Fork River, Thurman Creek to Warm River ID SK021_02-Henry s Fork Tributaries, Confluence of Big Springs and Henrys Lake Outlet ID SK024_02-Thirsty Creek, State line to mouth ID SK025_04-Henrys Lake Outlet, Dam to mouth ID SK027_03 Reas Pass Creek - source to sink ID SK028_02 Jones Creek - source to mouth ID SK029_02 Jesse Creek - source to mouth ID SK031_02 Tygee Creek - source to sink ID SK040_02 Hotel Creek - source to mouth: Arrange, East Hotel, Hotel, & West Hotel Creeks ID SK040_03 Hotel Creek - source to mouth ID SK041_02 Yale Creek - source to mouth Water Temperature TMDL: Not supporting CWAL. Supporting DWS, PCR, &SS. 303(d) listed due to combined biota/habitat bio-assessments: Not supporting CWAL & SS. Supporting DWS & PCR. 303(d) listed due to combined biota/habitat bio-assessments: Not supporting CWAL & SS. Supporting SCR. 303(d) listed/water impaired due to sediment: Not supporting CWAL & SS. Supporting SCR. Fully Supporting CWA & PCR. Fully Supporting CWA. Fully Supporting CWA, SS, & SCR. Fully Supporting CWA, DWS, PCR, & SS. Fully Supporting CWA & SS. Fully Supporting CWA, SS, & SCR. Fully Supporting CWA & SS. Fully Supporting CWA, SS, & SCR. ID SK042_02 Blue Creek - source to mouth Fully Supporting SCR. *TMDL=total maximum daily load; CWAL=cold water aquatic life; SS=salmonid spawning; DWS=domestic/drinking water supply, PCR=primary contact recreation; SCR=secondary contact recreation. Environmental Consequences Alternative A provides little to no watershed protection or improvement. Alternative B would produce a large amount of improvement in watershed conditions. Alternative C would provide for the greatest benefit to watershed resources. Water Quality Effects common to all Alternatives Within the analysis area, the IDEQ has identified five water quality assessment units (AUs) as not supporting some beneficial uses. The majority of these AUs are upstream of the routes directly impacted by the project. Therefore, little effect on the five AUs with impaired streams or TMDLs is expected. ALTERNATIVE A NO ACTION Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A does not improve watershed or water quality. This alternative would produce no direct change in water quality and watershed conditions. The network of user-created trails 41

44 which crosses eleven streams would remain in place. Cross-country OHV travel could potentially affect approximately 44,000 acres of land and 1,483 acres within the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ). This alternative provides the least amount of watershed and water quality improvement. Cumulative Effects This alternative has the potential to degrade watershed conditions and water quality over time. Soil and hydrological disturbances could increase if user-created trails continue to expand. The expansion of user-created routes could result in an increase of stream channel crossings. Crosscountry OHV use could occur in sensitive areas such as the AIZ. Effects common to Alternatives B and C Trail and trailhead construction would result in minor disturbances to watershed condition. Short-term impacts caused by the obliteration and trail construction work would be minimized through project design features described in Chapter 2. The obliteration of user-created trails and Forest roads would restore the hydrologic function of these areas, thereby providing for long-term improvements in watershed conditions. Alternative B could provide up to 270 acres towards the Forest s annual watershed improvement target and Alternative C could provide up to 305 acres. ALTERNATIVE B PROPOSED ACTION Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would provide for long-term watershed and water quality improvement over much of the analysis area. Approximately 3.5 miles of routes would be obliterated within the AIZ. Eight of the eleven stream crossings would be obliterated and rehabilitated to restore hydrological function. In the West Mill Creek Area for example, an existing trail/stream crossing would be used at the Yale-Kilgore Road. In the West End area, three trail/stream crossing would remain and 24 acres of AIZ would be open to cross-country OHV use. The West End Area open to cross-country OHV use could have minor impacts to the water quality of Island Park Reservoir. These include sediment delivery directly to the reservoir and the potential for oil and grease delivery to the reservoir. However, little change from the existing conditions is expected. Cumulative Effects Alternative B would provide for long-term watershed and water quality improvement. Obliterated routes in the analysis area would hydrologically recover over time. Overall hydrologic disturbance in the watershed would be reduced. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative C would provide the greatest watershed and water quality improvement. This alternative would minimize long-term disturbance in the AIZ. Approximately 4.1 miles of routes would be obliterated within the AIZ. The Forest would eliminate all eleven of the existing stream crossings on the routes evaluated. Cross-country OHV use would not be allowed in AIZs. Cumulative Effects Alternative C would provide the greatest long-term watershed and water quality improvement. This alternative would minimize long-term disturbance in the AIZ. Obliterated user-created 42

45 routes and Forest roads and closing management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) and to cross-country OHV travel would allow the area to recover hydrologically. Overall hydrologic disturbance in the watershed would be reduced. Conclusions The potential for hydrologic effects are minimized through implementation of mitigation measures. Both action alternatives, implemented with the described mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 and described in Site Specific AIZ measures of this section, comply with the applicable hydrology-related direction and standards and guidelines from the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan as well as other pertinent laws, regulations, and directives. No hydrology related significant effects are expected. Fisheries Affected Environment Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout There are currently no conservation populations of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (YCT) within the project area. The determination in the BE was that this project will have no impact on YCT. There will be some benefits to fisheries habitat by reducing the miles of user created trails and rehabilitating major erosion issues at crossings located on perennial streams. The proposed project lies within the bounds of waters historically occupied by YCT. Populations of YCT that once lived in the Henrys Fork or Island Park Reservoir were eliminated by numerous treatments of the reservoir to eradicate trash fish and at least two treatments of the river system in an attempt to eliminate white fish. The species that were stocked post treatment were primarily rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are now the primary trout in the watershed and there are no plans to reintroduce or manage for a conservation population of YCT within Island Park Reservoir or the Henrys Fork River. Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) does stock fine-spot Yellowstone cutthroat in the Mack s Inn reach of the Henrys Fork. Fine-spot YCT are endemic to the Snake River upstream of Palisades Reservoir. Fine-spots are not considered native to this area nor are they managed as a conservation population by IDFG. Since there is not a population of large-spot cutthroat, IDFG is using fine-spot cutthroat as an attempt to establish a recreational fishery for cutthroat in the Mack s Inn area. Elk Springs Creek was sampled in 2003 as part of Forest surveys to document populations of YCT. Sampling indicates that Elk Springs Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for migrating fish from the Henrys Fork or Island Park Reservoir. The crew noted that the ATV crossing had a major impact on the stream below the unit and that a 0.7 meter wide stream had been transformed into a 1.7 by 12.2 meter pond (2003 Fish Distribution Report). Survival of trout eggs and emergence of fry from the gravels could be affected by sedimentation from this crossing. Mill Creek, including the North Fork of Mill Creek, was sampled in 2002 as part of Forest surveys to document populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. A variety of non-game fish were sampled including dace, redside shiners and sculpin. A few rainbow trout were found near the reservoir and brook trout were the only trout found higher up in the system. Since brook trout are not known to favor reservoirs and rainbow trout are largely absent, this system contains primarily a resident population of brook trout and is not thought to currently be an important 43

46 spawning tributary for reservoir dwelling rainbow trout (2002 Fish Distribution Report). Two crossings have been identified that are affecting fisheries and one has been identified for closure and the other would need a hardened ford. Survival of trout eggs and emergence of fry from the gravels could be affected by sedimentation from the Mill Creek crossing. Within the Island Park Subsection approximately 92 miles of user-created routes were inventoried within management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) and The primary concern with the growth of user-created trail networks is sediment deposition in stream channels. Live Stream Crossings There are four stream crossings that were identified in need of closure or repair in the Last Chance Ditch, Elk Springs, West Fork of Mill Creek and Mill Creek areas. Elk Springs is located one mile northwest of the McCrea Bridge and three braided crossings were identified at this location. ATVs have crossed back and forth at this site which resulted in erosion and ditching; the longest of which is approximately 70 feet (see Figures below). This has led to direct sediment delivery into the stream. At the West Fork of Mill Creek, there is a user-created trail that crosses the stream. This crossing has resulted in a ditched, eroded down-cut that is causing direct sedimentation into the creek (see Figures 13 and 14). The Last Chance ditch diversion takes water from the Henrys Fork and runs water from the Henrys Fork through a series of ditches which returns the remaining flow to the river below the Osborne Bridge. The crossing of the ditch is on Idaho state lands. As recent as 1999 this crossing was piped with no trail erosion (Figures 15, 16 and 17). This project would direct ATV use to this ditch crossing. The Mill Creek crossing is on existing Forest Service System Roads 626A and 626B, known as the Powerline Road. This is a native surface road of sandy, easily eroded, soils. The road descends and ascends through the drainage. Where the road has collected and channelized flows, severe erosion is occurring and being deposited in the stream channel. The crossing is also eroding down and widening with a 90 pool length. Though this road is not directly being evaluated as part of this project, it is part of the Forest Transportation System connected to the actions being taken (Figures 18 and 19). 44

47 Figure 11. User-created route with multiple crossing points on Elk Springs Creek. These routes are proposed for obliteration and rehabilitation under the action alternatives. Figure 12. Pools at Elk Springs Creek crossing (70 feet long). Figure 13. Hill climb just east of the Elk Springs Creek crossing. 45

48 Figure 14. West Fork Mill Creek crossing between the Yale-Kilgore Road and Jackson Landing (FS Road 128). This user-created route is proposed for obliteration and rehabilitation. Figure 15. West Fork Mill Creek crossing. This pool is 75 feet long. 46

49 Figure 16. Last Chance ditch crossing. This crossing is on State of Idaho lands. OHV traffic would be directed through here to the Osborne Bridge and cross State Highway 20 west to the Green Canyon Road to the West End area. Figure 17. Last Chance ditch crossing. Trail veers around the original piped ditch crossing. Figure 18. Existing culvert does not handle the water flow and the route is eroding. 47

50 Figure 19. Existing crossing on Forest Roads 626A and 626B. This is an existing crossing that is not directly evaluated as part of this project but is part of the connected action. Figure 20. This pool length was measured at 90 feet long and is currently not suitable for motor vehicle crossing. 48

51 Environmental Consequences ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects This Alternative is expected to increase sediment delivery. Cross-country OHV use would continue and user created trails will continue to expand in the area. User-created trails do not receive maintenance and increases in stream crossings are expected. ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects This Alternative is expected to decrease sediment input into streams. Alternative B would close management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) and to cross-country OHV use and designate OHV use to trails, roads and an area. User-created trails would be obliterated. User-created trails that cross at Elk Springs Creek and West Fork Mill Creek would be closed, obliterated, and rehabilitated. The Mill Creek crossing will be hardened and forded to decrease stream channel impacts and sedimentation. The Last Chance ditch crossing on Idaho State lands will be piped in coordination with the state of Idaho. Approximately 394 acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel and impacts to the fishery at the West End area are expected to be minimal because no perennial streams are in the area and all intermittent streams are tributaries to the Island Park Reservoir where potential downstream impacts are minimal. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative C would close 43,610 acres to cross-country OHV use and designate OHV use to trails and roads. No trails are proposed in the Buttermilk, McCrea, Mill Creek, and Coffeepot areas. All user-created routes and stream crossings in these areas would be closed, obliterated, and rehabilitated. However, the demand for use in these areas would remain and without a designed route system to connect OHV riders to destinations in these areas, OHV use is expected to continue. User-created trails that cross at Elk Springs Creek and West Fork Mill Creek would be closed, obliterated, and rehabilitated. The Mill Creek crossing will be hardened and forded to decrease stream channel impacts and sedimentation and the Last Chance ditch crossing on State of Idaho lands will be piped in coordination with Idaho Department of Lands. Cumulative Effects (Alternatives A, B and C) Most OHV use occurs in flatter well drained areas of Island Park and does not contribute major inputs of sediment other than at stream crossings. The use of the Henrys Lake outlet to conduct high irrigation flows to the Henrys Fork River has destabilized the banks of the outlet. Straightening and removal of willows has destabilized the outlet and has contributed higher amounts of fine sediment input in the Henrys Fork above Island Park Reservoir. Alternatives B and C would lead to a reduction in sediment inputs to the Henry s Fork river and Island Park Reservoir than compared to Alternative A. Wildlife This section discusses the existing condition of wildlife habitat, as well as the effects of the alternatives on the habitat. These species include all listed and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), all sensitive species designated by the regional forester in the 49

52 Intermountain Region, and priority migratory bird species or Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). Table 11. Summary of effects on threatened and endangered species. Although not presently listed, the Greater Sage-Grouse and Yellow-billed Cuckoo are included in the biological assessment because they are candidate species. Detailed description of species that were found to have no effect can be found in the Biological Assessment in the project record. Species Canada lynx (T) Grizzly bear (T) Wolverine (PT) Greater Sage-Grouse (C) Yellow-billed Cuckoo (C) No Effect X X May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) X X X May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) Table 12. Sensitive species biological evaluation (BE) summary of conclusion of effects. Detailed description of species that were found not to be impacted can be found in the Biological Evaluation in the project record. Species Boreal toad (Bufo boreas, Anaxyrus boreas) Spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus Common Loon (Gavia immer) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeoulus) Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Fisher (Martes pennanti) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Townsend s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) No Impact MIIH 1 WIIH 2 1 MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species 2 WIIH = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 50

53 The species that may be impacted by this project are described below. Threatened and Endangered Species Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) The Ashton-Island Park Ranger District is a secondary lynx area. Secondary lynx areas are hypothesized to be important for dispersal of lynx or provide habitat until the animal(s) return to core areas (USFWS 2005). There is no evidence that lynx occupy the Ashton-Island Park District. However, lynx are expected to move through the Ashton-Island Park District because the ability and propensity of long-distance exploratory movements by lynx has been demonstrated by the movements of radio-collared lynx from Colorado (Shenk 2009). There are 10,416 acres of lynx habitat in the F Areas. Lynx habitat is defined as subalpine fir habitat types that do not result in a climax lodgepole pine seral stage. In addition, cool, moist habitat types of Douglas fir that are interspersed and adjacent to the former are also lynx habitat (USDA 2007). ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Approximately twenty-six miles user-created routes and existing closed roads will remain in lynx habitat. Although the relationship between lynx habitat and user-created routes are not clear (Hoving et al. 2005, Niedzialkowska et al. 2006, Ruediger et al. 2000,Vashon et al. 2008), watershed impacts and disturbance may decrease habitat quality for lynx and lynx prey. Lynx are expected to move through the Ashton-Island Park District because the ability and propensity of long-distance exploratory movements by lynx has been demonstrated by the movements of radio-collared lynx from Colorado (Shenk 2009). Approximately 107 miles of open motorized routes (92 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of existing roads closed roads) would remain and this may be a disturbance to traveling lynx. ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects Obliteration of 73 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of Forest roads may disturb traveling lynx. However, the project area is currently characterized by considerable cross-country OHV use, so project activities may not contribute noticeably more disturbance relative to current conditions. Of the 41 miles of proposed OHV trails, approximately 12 miles would occur in lynx habitat. There is no evidence that secondary motorized routes decrease lynx habitat quality (Hoving et al. 2005, Niedzialkowska et al. 2006, Ruediger et al. 2000, Vashon et al. 2008). Beneficial effects may occur over the long term. Approximately 26 miles of user-created routes and Forest roads would be removed within lynx habitat. Although the relationship between lynx habitat and user-created motorized routes are not clear (Hoving et al. 2005, Niedzialkowska et al. 2006, Ruediger et al. 2000,Vashon et al. 2008), improved watershed conditions and less disturbance are expected, which may increase habitat quality for lynx and lynx prey. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects 51

54 Effects are the same in Alternative B. Approximately 32 miles of user-created routes and Forest roads would be removed in lynx habitat. Of the 24 miles of proposed OHV trails, approximately 11 miles would occur in lynx habitat. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for Canada lynx is usually the LAU. However, the forest is in the process of re-designating LAUs; so, the analysis area is the 10,416 acres of lynx habitat within the project area. Past timber harvest and wildfire suppression may have altered vegetation in the project area and affected snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. There are no foreseeable vegetation management projects in the analysis area. Over-trapping of lynx, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when pelt prices were high, may have contributed to lynx declines. Research suggests that major roads and highways can create lynx movement impediments and cause direct mortality (Ruediger et al. 2000). Highway 20 and the A2 county road are adjacent to the analysis area. All project activities of the district will meet the objectives, guidelines, and standards in the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. The expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to Canada lynx recovery. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Approximately 10,879 acres or 30% of the F areas are within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA). Approximately 752 acres or 10% of the D areas are within the PCA. Specifically, these areas are within the Henry s Lake 1 Bear Management Unit (BMU). All of the project area is used by grizzly bears during the snow-free months. The portion of the project area east of Highway 20 and south of the Buffalo River provides important habitat, including a movement corridor, and is used extensively by grizzly bears (B. Aber, IDFG/CTNF carnivore biologist, pers. comm.). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population has met all recovery goals and continues to increase in number and distribution (ICST 2007). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population is stable and slightly increasing, in contrast to estimated growth rates of 4 to 7 percent during the 1980s and 1990s. The change in growth pattern may be due to density-dependent effects (Haroldson 2012). ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Approximately 92 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of existing closed roads would remain on the district. Secure habitat for grizzly bears is defined as areas greater than or equal to 10 acres in size and 500 meters from an open or restricted motorized route (ICST 2007). The amount of secure habitat in a grizzly bear s home range may be the strongest predictor of survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). There would continue to be less secure habitat, outside the PCA, associated with the motorized routes. All of the project area is used by grizzly bears during the snow-free months (B. Aber, IDFG/CTNF carnivore biologist, pers. comm.). Human disturbance associated with the 107 miles of motorized routes (92 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of existing closed roads) would continue. ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects 52

55 In the short-term, the obliteration of 73 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of Forest system roads, may be a disturbance to grizzly bears since grizzly bears may be present throughout the project area. However, the project area is currently characterized by considerable cross-country OHV use, so project activities may not contribute noticeably more disturbance relative to current conditions. In the long-term, the project would concentrate OHV use, currently in the 43,000 acres of open motorized cross-country areas, to a designated 42-mile OHV trail system. This high level of confinement of OHV use may result in less displacement and disturbance to grizzly bears within or near the project area. Approximately 73 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of existing closed roads would be removed. This would result in 5,000 acres or 7.8 square miles of new secure habitat, primarily outside the PCA. Since the amount of secure habitat present in a grizzly bear s home range may be the strongest predictor of survival (Schwartz et al. 2010), beneficial effects from project activities are expected. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Effects are the same in Alternative B. Approximately 86 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of Forest roads would be removed which would result in 5,500 acres or 8.6 square miles of new secure habitat outside the PCA. Since the amount of secure habitat present in a grizzly bear s home range may be the strongest predictor of survival (Schwartz et al. 2010), beneficial effects from project activities are expected. Cumulative Effects For the cumulative effects analysis, the analysis area is the Henry s Lake 1 BMU on the Ashton- Island Park District and the portion of the District outside of the PCA because this area encompasses the project area and grizzly bears are widely-distributed on the District. Secure habitat (large tracts of public land where human contact is infrequent) is important for grizzly bear production (female grizzly bears and their young). Secure habitat is largely determined by motorized roads (ICST 2007). Past road construction decreased habitat quality for grizzly bears, but the 1997 Targhee Forest Plan has decreased motorized road density and maintains a stasis into the future. Grizzly bear-livestock conflicts may occur with cattle, but are more likely with sheep (ICST 2007). Relocation or removal of grizzly bears is possible when livestock conflicts occur. In the Henry s Lake BMU 1, there are 11 closed C&H allotments, 3 active C&H allotments, and 1 S&G allotment that have been in non-use since In addition, several conservation measures specific to grizzly bears have been implemented for allotment activities. In 2010, there was one livestock conflict on the Bootjack C&H allotment, which is within the Henry s Lake 1 BMU. Also, there were two livestock conflicts on the Antelope Park C&H allotment, which is outside of the PCA on the District. However, neither of these was a recurring conflict, nor was a grizzly bear removed because of the conflict. Human/grizzly bear conflicts are an important conservation issue, and human recreation, private developments, and human populations are increasing in the analysis area (Hansen et al. 2002). The leading cause of human-related grizzly bear mortality is elk hunter/grizzly bear interactions. The number of elk hunters in the GYE is static, but the GYE grizzly bear population is increasing (ICST 2007). 53

56 The population trend for grizzly bears in the GYE is stable and slightly increasing (Haroldson 2012). The GYE grizzly bear population has met recovery goals (ICST 2007). Actions on the district are directed by the final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area which maintains a recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE. The expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to grizzly bear recovery. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Wolverine denning habitat may be the most important habitat type for wolverine persistence. Using wolverine denning habitat information from the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine study (aspect, elevation, habitat type) (Inman et al. 2007), wolverine denning habitat were mapped on the Targhee National Forest (USFS, unpublished data). The project area does not contain potential denning habitat. Further, the project area is within low-quality habitat, based on snow depth, road density, elevation, terrain ruggedness, forest edge, and conifer cover (Brock et al. 2007). The project area may be dispersal habitat. A radio- collared wolverine dispersed to and occupied the Centennial Mountains during the 2000s. This individual would have traveled through a portion of the Targhee National Forest to reach its destination (Inman et al. 2012b). The 1997 Targhee National Forest revised forest plan contains management direction for wolverines. Detailed description on the management direction with explanations and discussion can be found in the wildlife Biological Assessment in the project record. ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Although the primary wolverine dispersal period is winter and spring (Inman et al. 2012), wolverines may disperse through the project area. Approximately 92 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of existing closed roads would remain in the project area and this may be a disturbance to dispersing wolverines. ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects Removal of 73 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of Forest roads may disturb dispersing wolverines but project activities would not occur within the primary dispersal period of wolverines and disturbance may not be noticeable compared to existing conditions. In the longterm, the project would restrict OHV use to designated trails and roads. Motorized disturbance would be confined to a small area relative to current conditions. This high level of confinement of OHV use may result in less displacement and disturbance to dispersing wolverines. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Effects are the same as Alternative B. Approximately 86 miles of user-created routes and 15 miles of Forest roads would be removed. Cumulative Effects The analysis area is the Targhee National Forest, which contains the Jedediah Smith Wilderness. The Wilderness contains 123,451 acres or 193 square miles (500 square kilometers). It is adjacent to Grand Teton National Park to the east. Multiple resident wolverines have been documented within the area of the Wilderness and Park (Inman et al. 2012b). The non- 54

57 wilderness portion of the Targhee National Forest may provide dispersal habitat for wolverines. A radio-collared wolverine was documented dispersing through the Targhee National Forest to the Centennial Mountains (Inman et al. 2012b). Wolverines occur at naturally low densities (USFWS 2010). The Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program asserts that secure maternal habitat is very important to wolverine persistence. Maternal habitat is in remote, high-elevation areas (Inman et al. 2007), such as the Jedediah Smith Wilderness, which is relatively secure. However, the quality of reproductive habitat appears to be positively related to snowpack and climate change may decrease snowpack (Inman et al. 2012a, McKelvey et al. 2011). In non-wilderness areas, recreational disturbances may exist. The maintenance of dispersal ability for wolverines is also paramount (Ruggiero et al. 2007) because wolverines likely constitute a meta-population (USFWS 2010) utilizing islands of available high-elevation habitat over the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Indeed, the Centennial Mountains may be an important dispersal corridor for wolverines (Schwartz et al. 2009). The Centennial Mountains contain the Mount Jefferson Roadless Area, and while there is a negative relationship between road density and wolverine presence (USFWS 2010), more research is needed for further clarification. The reduction of road density on the Targhee National Forest, brought on by the 1997 revised forest plan, may or may not have been beneficial to wolverines. However, dispersal ability is positively related to snowpack and could be impacted by climate change (McKelvey et al. 2011, Ruggiero et al. 2007). Overall, 86% of wolverine detections of the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program research project occurred on National Forest land (Inman et al. 2012b). The Northern Rockies wolverine population is estimated at 300 individuals. Due to naturally low population densities, it is believed that the present population level in the Northern Rocky Mountains is not substantially less than historic (prior to European settlement) (USFWS 2010). The expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to wolverine recovery. Sensitive Species Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas, Anaxyrus boreas) Suitable boreal toad habitat contains breeding sites (ponds, lakes, oxbows, streams, flooded meadows, etc.) and nearby upland sites (forests, sagebrush steppe, meadows) (Keinath and McGee 2005). Two current and one historic toad breeding sites are within or adjacent to the project area. Toads are expected to conduct movements to, from, and around the breeding site within a 2.4-kilometer radius (Bartelt et al. 2004) as they move from breeding sites to summer foraging sites to over-winter sites (Kenaith and McGee 2005) during May to September (Bartlet et al. 2004, Browne and Paszkowski 2010, Bull 2009). The two current breeding sites have been included in three decadal surveys at over 90 sites on the Targhee National Forest. These surveys have not detected a decline in amphibian species on the forest. ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Cross-country OHV use would continue and approximately 92 miles of user-created routes would remain. Approximately eight kilometers (5 miles) of user-created motorized routes are within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the southern breeding site and ten kilometers (6 miles) of user- 55

58 created motorized routes within a 2.4 kilometer buffer of the northern breeding site. Negative effects such as road mortality, hydrologic changes that can alter breeding habitats, habitat fragmentation, destruction, and/or isolation; and movement barriers are expected (Jochimsen et al. 2004). ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects Approximately 12 miles of user-created motorized routes within the 2.4-kilometer buffers of the three breeding sites would be obliterated. Toads exhibiting movements may be killed by these activities. However, long-term benefits are expected and would result in lower mortality (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009) and improved habitat (Jochimsen et al. 2004). One mile of trail construction would have no impact because no breeding sites occur within a 2.4 kilometer buffer. Approximately one mile of designated OHV trail would be within a 2.4-kilometer radius of the western breeding site. However, this is a historic site and may not be current. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Effects are the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects The analysis area is the project area. Past activities that impacted toads include alterations to aquatic habitats, road construction, and wildfire suppression. Recent research suggests that toads prefer burned areas (Guscio et al. 2008) and wildfire suppression may have limited habitat. A literature review on road effects on amphibians indicates that amphibians receive primarily negative effects from roads because of vulnerability to road mortality (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). The 1997 Targhee Forest Plan reduced road density throughout the forest and this may have provided benefits to toads. Aquatic habitat alteration such as diversions, damming, and recreation may have removed or impacted toad breeding habitat. Past, present, and future livestock grazing (both cattle and sheep) occur within the project area. Potential livestock impacts include lower oxygen concentration in wetlands, fecal contamination of aquatic areas, compaction of stream banks and stream bank refugia, and over-grazing in riparian areas. Trampling of thousands of recently-metamorphosed toads by trailing sheep was documented within the project area on the district during graduate research on toads (Kenaith and McGee 2005). In addition, cattle may have a detrimental impact on toadlets and juveniles at ponds in dry years (Bull 2009). However, there are only three open allotments in the project area. Rodent control may have been conducted within the project area in the past. Control of pocket gophers with strychnine can impact toads by dermal absorption of bait during burrow occupancy, secondary poisoning by ingestion of contaminated invertebrates, and loss of burrows for summer refugia and hibernal sites. Clearcuts generally provide negative effects for amphibians (demaynadier and Hunter 1995) and clearcuts were common on the district in the last 30 years. Research on climate change and amphibian declines has been ambiguous, but climate change may decrease the hydroperiod of important breeding ponds and expose amphibians to extreme weather events (e.g. drought or frost) (Corn 2005). Forest-wide amphibian surveys have occurred every decade since The results of the three decadal surveys ( , 2002, and 2012) were compared to assess if amphibian species were declining on the Targhee National Forest and there was no evidence that amphibian species, including toads, were declining (Clark et al. 2012). The expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to boreal toads. 56

59 Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Suitable spotted frog habitat includes aquatic areas (springs, streams, beaver dams, lakes, ponds, marshes, meadows, and oxbows) and the riparian or overland migration corridors between these habitats. Many spotted frogs move less than 100 meters throughout the year. The maximum distance moved by an adult spotted frog in central Idaho was one kilometer (Pilliod et al. 2002) and 2.3 kilometers in Oregon (Bull 2005). However, the maximum distance moved by a dispersing juvenile was 5.8 kilometers in Montana (Funk et al. 2004). There is a breeding site complex within/adjacent to the project area. There is no indication that amphibian species are declining on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (Clark et al. 2012). Further, no decline is evident in nearby Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Of the 47 standard survey sites on the Ashton-Island Park District, spotted frogs were detected at 32 of these sites. Spotted frogs are considered common on the Targhee National Forest. Frogs are expected to conduct movements to, from, and around breeding sites within a one kilometer radius. Similar to toads, spotted frogs may occupy hibernal sites, breeding sites, and summer foraging areas; each of which may be unique. Movements between habitats may occur in riparian zones or overland if the route is more direct (Patla and Kenaith 2005, Pilliod et al. 2002). Movements may occur from April to mid-october (Bull 2005, Patla and Kenaith 2005, Pilliod et al. 2002). Proposed motorized trails under the action alternatives are not within 1one kilometer of the breeding complex. However, there are approximately three kilometers (1.8 miles) of user-created routes within a one kilometer zone of the breeding complex. ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Cross-country OHV use would continue and approximately 92 miles of user-created routes would remain. Approximately three kilometers (1.8 miles) of user-created motorized routes are within a 1-kilometer zone of the breeding complex adjacent to the project area. Negative effects such as road mortality, hydrologic changes that can alter breeding habitats, habitat fragmentation, destruction, and/or isolation; and movement barriers are expected (Jochimsen et al. 2004). ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects Approximately three kilometers (1.8 miles) of user-created motorized routes within the one kilometer buffer of the breeding site complex would be obliterated with heavy equipment. Spotted frogs move around breeding sites via riparian corridors or overland, if the route is more direct (Patla and Kenaith, 2005; Pilliod, 2002). Spotted frogs exhibiting overland movements could be killed by heavy equipment operation. However, long-term beneficial impacts are expected and would result in lower mortality (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009) and improved habitat (Jochimsen et al. 2004). One mile of trail construction would have no impact because no breeding site complex occur within a one kilometer buffer. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Effects are the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects 57

60 The analysis area is the project area. Past activities that impacted spotted frogs include alterations to aquatic habitats, road construction, introduced fish, and beaver eradication. Beavers create spotted frog habitat (breeding ponds, dams for wintering sites, and slower streamside areas for summer foraging areas) and a recent study suggested an increase in spotted frog populations after beaver re-introduction (Patla and Kenaith 2005). However, it is estimated that only 10 percent of the historic North American beaver population is present today (Naiman et al. 1988). It is estimated that 95 percent of Western mountain lakes were historically fishless; fish have been introduced into many lakes and streams. All life phases of spotted frogs (eggs, tadpoles, and adults) are palatable to salmonids (Patla and Kenaith 2005). Indirect effects include prevention of movement through riparian corridors and lower habitat quality in deep lakes used for over-wintering. However, a study of over 2000 Western lakes suggests that spotted frogs are able to co-exist successfully with fish (Pilliod et al. 2010). A literature review on road effects on amphibians indicates that amphibians receive primarily negative effects from roads because of vulnerability to road mortality (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). The 1997 Targhee Forest Plan reduced road density throughout the forest and this may have provided benefits to toads. Aquatic habitat alteration, such as diversions, damming, and recreation, may have removed or impacted spotted frog habitat. Livestock grazing has occurred in the past and is expected in the future. However, there are only three open allotments in the project area. Grazing has differing effects on frogs, which include nitrogen pollution, compaction of streambank refugia (negative), increases in basking sites, and algal tadpole food resources (positive). Research on the effects of cattle grazing at spotted frog breeding habitats suggests neutral to beneficial impacts (Bull 2000, Adams et al. 2009). Research on climate change and amphibian declines has been ambiguous, but climate change may decrease the hydroperiod of important breeding ponds and expose amphibians to extreme weather events (e.g. drought or frost) (Corn 2005). Forest-wide amphibian surveys have occurred every decade since The results of the three decadal surveys ( , 2002, and 2012) were compared to assess if amphibian species were declining on the Targhee National Forest and there was no evidence that amphibian species, including spotted frogs, were declining (Clark et al. 2012). The expected level of effects for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental to Columbia spotted frogs. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) Rocky Mountain elk are a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Targhee National Forest. Wildlife species that have only an MIS designation are primarily considered during forest planning, as opposed to project planning. However, in the project planning process, if public comments request an analysis of a wildlife species that has only a MIS designation; this analysis is included in the biological evaluation. The Ashton-Island Park District is within the Island Park Elk Management Zone. The project area is within Game Management Unit (GMU) 61. There are no population data for GMU 61, but there are for the Zone. Cow elk numbers are within objectives, but bull numbers are below. Calf to cow ratios indicate moderate productivity (IDFG 2010b). The District provides summer range for elk. Winter range is mostly outside of the District in the Sand Creek Desert east of Hamer or north into Montana. Some elk winter around the Henry s Lake Reservoir (IDFG 2010b). 58

61 One of the most important conservation issues related to elk is road density. Not only do roads decrease available habitat, but elk are very sensitive to human disturbance which is encouraged by open roads (IDFG 2010b). Research in northeastern Oregon demonstrated that ATV use produced a change in elk behavior. Elk traveled more and decreased feeding and resting. Potentially, ATV use could result in an energy deficit for elk during disturbance (Naylor et al. 2008). Similarly, research in western Oregon demonstrated that road closures decreased elk movements and may have increased survival (Cole et al. 1997). Elk Habitat Effectiveness (EHE) is defined as the percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting season. It is inversely proportional to motorized route density; lower motorized route density provides higher EHE values (TNF 1997). Research in northeastern Oregon demonstrated that elk select areas further from open roads, but there was no relationship between elk presence and EHE. Although open roads affect elk, further validation of the EHE model is warranted (Rowland, 2000). ALTERNATIVE A Direct and Indirect Effects Cross-country OHV use would continue and approximately 92 miles of user-created routes would remain. Elk may use the area as summer range (IDFG 2010). A strong relationship between increased motorized route density and decreased elk habitat quality has been demonstrated (Cole et al. 1997, IDFG 2010, Naylor et al. 2008). Specifically, disturbance from roads may increase elk movements and decrease elk foraging, which may lead to energy deficits (Naylor et al. 2008). Ultimately, this may decrease elk survival (Cole et al. 1997). Thus, negative effects are expected to continue. ALTERNATIVE B Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative B would close approximately 43,610 acres within management prescriptions 5.1.3(a) and to cross-country OHV travel and designate approximately 41 miles of OHV trails. Approximately 73 miles of user-created motorized routes and 15 miles of Forest road would be obliterated. Restricting OHV use to roads and trails and to a 394 acre area in West End is expected to have benefits for elk because motorized route density would decrease and this would increase elk habitat quality and may increase elk survival (Cole et al. 1997, IDFG 2010, Naylor et al. 2008). Beneficial effects to elk and elk habitat are expected. ALTERNATIVE C Direct and Indirect Effects Effects are the same as Alternative B. This alternative would provide the greatest increase in elk habitat quality and possibly elk survival. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area is GMU 61. GMU 61 includes the eastern Centennial Range, Henry s Lake Reservoir and the Henry s Lake Mountains, and the portion of the Ashton- Island Park District that is east of Highway 30 and north of the Eccles Road. It is bounded on the north by the Idaho border, to the east by Montana and Yellowstone National Park, to the west by Interstate 15 and Highway 20, and to the south by the Eccles Road. The timber harvests on the District during 1970 to 1990 reduced cover and security for elk. Timber harvests provide forage for elk, but this may be out-weighed by the decrease in habitat 59

62 quantity and quality from logging roads (IDFG 2010b). However, current timber harvest activity is minimal and maturing trees from past timber harvests has increased cover for elk on the District. In addition, the District decreased open road density in 1999 which increased elk security (USDA 1999). The Split Creek (7000 acres) and Black Canyon TSI (7760 acres) (precommercial thinning) projects will decrease cover for elk, but only for 3 to 5 years and no roads will be opened to the public during project activities. The project would reduce motorized route density by closing 43, acres of open motorized cross-country areas and replacing these areas with an ATV trail system. Human development has decreased winter range for elk (IDFG 2010b). GMU 61 is primarily summer range, but winter range is present around the Henry s Lake Reservoir and potentially in the Shotgun Valley. Human recreation, private developments, and human populations are increasing in the analysis area (Hansen et al. 2002). Private elk ranches are a potential threat to wild elk. The ranches remove habitat and the fences may block migration corridors. In addition, there is the possibility of disease transmission from captive to wild elk and genetic introgression from escaped captive elk (IDFG 2010b). The 550- acre Velvet Elk Ranch in the Meadow Creek area is in GMU 61. Wolves were reintroduced in 1995 in central Idaho. The estimated minimum population was 746 wolves in 2011 (IDFG&NPT 2012). Wolves preferentially select elk in the GYE. Research by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks indicates that wolf-elk interactions vary. Elk populations are limited by predators when multiple predator species (i.e., wolves and grizzly bears) prey on elk. Populations with wolf-only predation have generally remained stable or increased. The population limitation occurs through low elk calf survival and recruitment. Adult female elk survival has remained high in most areas during wolf population increase. However, demonstrated declining or increasing trends in elk populations requires long-term and adequate data that are difficult to achieve (Hamlin and Cunningham 2009). Elk populations in Idaho are at high levels. However, Idaho elk populations are also subject to greater pressures (IDFG 2010b). The Ashton-Island Park District will continue to provide quality elk summer range. Noxious Weeds Existing Condition There are no known major noxious weed infestations within the project area. Canada Thistle, Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge are widespread and do occur within the area but no large infestations have been located. When noxious weeds are reported, located, and found they are treated. Mitigation for All Action Alternatives Noxious weed mitigation will include monitoring and treating of new or existing noxious weed infestations in the area on a regular basis. Travel enforcement will help keep OHV use on designated roads and trails reducing the potential of weeds to the travel corridor. Noxious weeds would be identified and treated if they appear. After construction, the disturbed areas will be monitored closely for future weed infestations and the applicable treatment will be applied. Environmental Consequences Alternative A 60

63 Under the No Action Alternative current levels of noxious weed infestations will continue to increase in areas open to cross-country OHV travel. New infestations may be introduced from seeds carried by OHVs in the analysis area. Alternatives B and C Ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of trails, obliteration of user-created routes and roads, and associated OHV traffic on the new motorized trails have potential to introduce noxious weeds to the area. Soil disturbances will create an ideal seed bed and the increased OHV traffic and human activity is likely to facilitate noxious weed spread. Treatment of new and existing infestations would minimize the spread of noxious weeds along trails and roads. Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives On-going activities such as motorized and non-motorized travel and livestock grazing could affect the existing rate of spread. All action alternatives would increase trail use, thereby increasing the risk of new infestations. Mitigation measures should reduce these risks along trail corridors and at trailheads. Any ground disturbing projects have potential to establish seedbeds for noxious weed infestations. Forest personnel continue to treat new and existing weed infestations to prevent spread. Measures are taken during all projects to minimize the spread of weed infestations. Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Route Density (OROMTRD) The purpose of this section is to disclose the existing and proposed OROMTRD. Table 13 shows the changes which would occur in each management prescription area by alternative. Table 13. OROMTRD by management prescription areas. Management Prescription Area OROMTRD allowed by the 1997 Revised Targhee Forest Plan (mi/sq mi) Proposed OROMTRD by Alternatives (mi/sq mi) Comments Increase in motorized trail miles by Alternatives Decrease in road mileage by alternative 5.1.3(a) Timber Management (Buttermilk and Coffeepot area polygon) 3.0 Alt. A: No Change Alt. B: 3.42 Alt. C: No Change Under Alternative A and C, the ORMTRD would remain below that allowed in the Forest Plan Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 4.8 Alt. C: 0 Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 0 Alt. C: 0 61

64 5.1.3(a) Timber Management (Elk Creek area polygon) 3.0 Alt. A: No Change Alt. B: 4.04 Alt. C: 4.04 Under Alternative A, the OROMTRD ceiling would continue to be exceeded by 1.63 linear miles. Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 0 Alt. C: 0 Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 0 Alt. C: (a) Timber Management ( Mill Creek and Stamp Meadows area polygon) 3.0 Alt. A: No Change Alt. B: 3.69 Alt. C: No Change Under Alternative A and C, the ORMTRD would remain below that allowed in the Forest Plan Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 2.59 Alt. C: 0 Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 0 Alt. C: 0 Under Alternative A, the OROMTRD 5.1.3(a) Timber Management (North Macks Inn area polygon) 3.0 Alt. A: No Change Alt. B: 4.29 Alt. C: 3.0 ceiling would continue to be exceeded by 0.54 linear miles. Under Alternative C, Forest Road 423 and Forest Road 482 would be closed to public motorized use. Alt. A: N/A Alt. B: 0.27 Alt. C: 0 Alt. A: 0 Alt. B: 0 *Alt. C: 1.6 Summary In Alternative A, only the OROMTRD in the Elk Creek and North Macks Inn 5.1.3(a) management prescription areas are exceeded and current OROMTRD standards would not change. Alternative B would increase the OROMTRD standards for the management prescription areas described in Table 13. Alternative C would increase the OROMTRD standard for the Elk Creek 5.1.3(a) management prescription area and close approximately 1.6 miles of Forest road in the North Macks Inn 5.1.3(a) management prescription area to meet OROMTRD standard. Under Alternatives B and C, converting Forest System roads to Forest System trails would still allow for effective management of the Forest. Under Alternative C, closing 1.6 miles of open road would not affect overall management of the Forest. Minimization Criteria The Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR (b), provides criteria, including the requirement to consider minimizing effects on designating trails and areas. This rule implicitly requires a sufficient analysis to allow consideration of minimizing effects for designation of motorized 62

65 trails and areas in compliance with Executive Orders (EO) and Appendix F provides detailed description of each route. Appendix A Consultation and Coordination The Ashton/Island Park Ranger District NEPA mailing list is available for review in the project record. The U.S. Forest Service notified the following Federal, state, tribes, local agencies, and organizations through scoping: FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Idaho Department of Transportation Idaho Department of Lands Harriman State Park Fremont County, Idaho Board of Commissioners Clark County, Idaho Board of Commissioners Fremont County Parks and Recreation Fremont County Planning and Zoning TRIBES Yvette Tuell, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Environmental Program Manager Chad Colter, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Director Carolyn Boyer Smith, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Cultural Resource Program ORGANIZATIONS Henrys Fork Foundation Greater Yellowstone Coalition Idaho Conservation League Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy Idaho Falls Trail Machine Association Eagle Rock ATV Club 63

66 Appendix B References Adams, M.J., et. al Short-term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Herpetology, 434: Ayala, R. D., Puneet, S., Brodbeck, C. J., Carter, E., & McDonald, T. P. (2005). Modeling sediment transport from an off-road vehicle trail stream crossing using WEPP model ASAE Annual International Meeting, Paper Number , (pp. pp. 1-10). Bartelt, P.E., C.R. Peterson, and R.W. Klaver Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats selected by Western toads (Bufo boreas) in Southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica. 60: Bowerman, T. S., Dorr, J., Leahy, S., Varga, K., & Warrick, J. (1999). Targhee National Forest Ecological Unit Inventory. USDA Forest Service. Brock, B.L., et. al Broad-scale wolverine habitat in the conterminous Rocky Mountain states. Chapter 2 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Cumulative Report May Wildlife Conservation Soecity, Ennis, MT. 128 p. Browne, C.L. and C.A. Paszkowski Hibernation site of Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas): Characterization and management implications. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(1): Bull, E.L. and M. Hayes Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia Spotted Frog. Journal of Range Management. 53: Bull, E.L Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-640. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 46p. Bull, E.L Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4: Caribou-Targhee National Forest & Fish Distribution Surveys on file at, Caribou- Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 64

67 Caribou-Targhee National Forest. (2006). Targhee Monitoring Report Idaho Falls, ID: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region. Clark, R. Seele, C., and C. Peterson Assessment of amphibian occurrence and distribution over 20 years ( ) on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. 125p. Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope, and R.G. Anthony Effects of road management on movement and survival of Roosevelt elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61: Copeland, J.P Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Master s Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 152p. Cordell, Ken. Betz, Carter. Green, Gary. Stephens, Becky Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Corn, S.P Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 28: Crimmins, Tom Management Guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation. Davidson, R.A. & D.H. Page. Unknown date. Road Closure and Obliteration Techniques, Uinta National Forest. demaynadier, P.G. and M.L Hunter, Jr The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental Reviews, 3: Elliot, W. J., Foltz, R. B., & Robichaud, P. R. (2009). Recent findings related to measuring and modeling forest road erosion. 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (pp. pp ). Cairns, Austrailia: Modeling and Simulation Society of Austrailia and New Zealand; and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. Elliot, W. J., Hall, D. E., & Scheele, D. L. (1999). WEPP: Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society 14: Green, K. L., & Lehman, R. (2012, August 15). Field Notes- IP OHV Trails Project. Idaho. Green. K.L Soils field notes-field assessment, Aug 14-15, Located in Project Record. 65

68 Green, K.L Soils Specialist Report, Project. Ashton/Island Park Ranger District. Kara Green Soil Scientist, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. 02/01/2013. Located on Forest Service O: Drive: O:\NFS\CaribouTarghee\Project\AIPD\2350OHVCrossCountryMotorizedTravel\05Resources\14 Soils\Report Griggs, G. B., & Walsh, B. L. (1981). The Impact, Control, and Mitigation of Off-Road Vehicle Activity in Hungry Valley, California. Environmental Geology, pp Guscio, C.G., et.al Post-breeding habitat use by adult boreal toads (Bufo boreas) after wildfire in Glacier National Park, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3: Hamlin, K.L. and J.A. Cunningham Monitoring and assessment of wolf-ungulate interactions and population trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, southwestern Montana, and Montana statewide. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT. 95p. Hansen, A.J., et. al Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the new West. Bioscience, 52: Haroldson, M.A Assessing trend and estimating population size from counts of unduplicated females. in F.T. van Manen, M.A. Haroldson, and K. West (editors). Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, US Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT, USA. Hoving, C.L., et. al Broad-scale predictors of Canada lynx occurrence in eastern North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69: X%282005%29069%5B0739%3ABPOCLO%5D2.0.CO%3B2 IDEQ. 2010a. Upper and Lower Henry s Fork Total Maximum Daily Loads: Addendum to the Upper Henry s Fork Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs, Final. June ys_fork_snake_river.cfm#review IDEQ. 2010b. Upper and Lower Henry s Fork TMDL Five-Year Review, Upper and Lower Henry s Fork Five Year Review. Department of Environmental Quality. April IDEQ Idaho s 2010 Integrated Report, Final. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. August & 66

69 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Rules of the Department of Environmental Quality, IDAPA , Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Website accessed on 2/1/2013: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Elk Progress Report. Boise, Idaho, 154 p. 0PR10.pdf Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe (IDFG&NPT) Idaho wolf monitoring progress report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, Boise, Idaho; Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery Project, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho. 94 p. Inman, R.M., et. al Wolverine reproductive rates and maternal habitat in Greater Yellowstone. Chapter 4 in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Cumulative Report May Wildlife Conservation Society, Ennis, MT. 128 p. Inman, R.M., et. al. 2012a. The wolverine s niche: linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy, 93: Inman, R.M., et. al. 2012b. Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76: Interagency Conservation Strategy Team (ICST) Final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area, 88p. Jochimsen, D., et al A literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the measures used to minimize those effects. Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID. 79p. Johnson, C. W., & Smith, J. P. (1981). Soil Loss Caused by Off-Road Vehicle Use on Steep Slopes Winter Meeting, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Keinath, D. and M. McGee Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lei, S. A. (2004). Soil Conpa ction from Human Trampling, Biking, and Off-Road Motor Vehicle Activities in a Blackbrush (Coleogyne Ramosissima) Shrubland. Western North American Naturalist. Manning, R. E Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. 3rd ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 67

70 McKelvey, K.S., et. al Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. Ecological applications, 21: Meadows, D., Foltz, R., & Geehan, N. (2008). Effects of all-terrain vehicles on forested lands and grasslands. USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Merrill B.R. & E. Casaday Field techniques for forest and range road removal. California State Parks. North Coast Redwoods District. Roads, Trails, and Resources Maintenance. January %20Part%201.pdf Meyer, K. G. (2002, October). Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable and Sensitive Environments. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program. Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience. 38: Naylor, L.M., M.J. Wisdom, and R.G. Anthony Behavioral responses to North American elk to recreational activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 73: Niedzialkowska, M., et. al Environmental correlates of Eurasion lynx occurrence in Poland large scale census and GIS mapping. Biological Conservation, 133: Northwind. ( ). Island Park OHV Trail Inventory. Ouren, D. S., Haas, C., Melcher, C. P., Stewart, S. C., Ponds, P. D., Sexton, N. R., et al. (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 USGS. Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 88p. Pilliod, D.S., C.R. Peterson, and R.I. Ritson Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80: Pilliod, D.S., et.al Non-native salmonids affect amphibian occupancy at multiple spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions, 16: Ruediger, B., et. al Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI 68

71 National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R , Missoula, MT. 142 p. Ruggiero, L.F.; et. al Wolverine conservation and management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White Hazards affecting grizzly bear survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: Schwartz, M.K., et. al Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology. 90: Shenk, T Wildlife Research Report Post-release monitoring of lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. 55p. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture. (2013, January 10). Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for the Targhee National Forest, ID and WY. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from Squires, J. R. and R. Oakleaf Movements of a male Canada lynx crossing the Greater Yellowstone Area, including highways. Northwest Science 79: sgya_squires.pdf Staff, A. I. (2012). Field Notes-Recreation. Stokowski, P. A., & LaPointe, C. B. (2002). Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. Burlington, VT: School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. USDA Forest Service Forest Service Handbook Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook R1/R4. USDA Forest Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Primer and Guide. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Trails Management Handbook. USDA Forest Service Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands. USDA Forest Service A guide for road closure and obliteration in the Forest Service. Technology & Development Program Engineering. Engineering Project Leader = Jeffry E. Moll, P.E. San Dimas Technology & Development Center 4E41 LO3. June

72 USDA Forest Service Revised Forest Plan, Targhee National Forest. Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls, Idaho. USDA Forest Service Record of Decision and Final environmental impact statement, Open road and open motorized trail analysis (Motorized toad and trail travel plan). Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Targhee National Forest. USDA Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding Implementing the Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program in the State of Idaho. FS#: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region Soil Criteria and Managment Interpretations Rating Guide. USDA Forest Service. (2011). Forest Service Manual Soil Management. USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April USDA Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, fiscal year US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Canada lynx recovery outline. Montana Field Office, Helena, MT. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 23-month finding on a petition to list the North American wolverine as endangered or threatened. Federal Register, 75 (239): Vashon, J.H., et. al Diurnal habitat relationships of Canada lynx in an intensively managed private forest landscape in northern Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: Weaver, T., & Dale, D. (1978). Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles, and Horses in Meadows and Forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, Webb, R. H., Ragland, C., Godwin, W. H., & Jenkins, D. (1978). Environmental Effects of Soil Property Changes With Off-Road Vehicle Use. Environmental Managment Vol. 2 No. 3, pp

73 Wilson, P. J., & Seney, J. P. (1994). Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles, and Off- Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development Vol. 14, pp Appendix C List of Preparers Brandon Burke, Project Team Leader and Recreation Specialist Patrick Raley, Archaeologist Brad Higginson, Hydrologist Kara Green, Soil Scientist Martha Mousel, GIS Specialist Sabrina Derusseau, Wildlife Biologist Lee Mabey, Fish Biologist List of Consulting Members Jarrod Hansen, Trails Manager Tom Brown, Transportation Engineer Rose Lehman, Botanist Bart Andreasen, Landscape Architect Megan Bogle, NEPA Coordinator Robb Mickelsen, Resource Branch Chief 71

74 Appendix D Forest Road Decommissioning and User-Created Trail Obliteration Guidelines Obliterate means to un-build, decommission, deactivate, or dismantle a route; the denial of use, elimination of the travel way functionality, and removal of the route from the forest transportation system; return of the route corridor to resource production (USDA Forest Service 1996). A hydrologist or soil scientist will assist in this work to identify specific measures. A track hoe with a live hydraulic thumb typically works best. Obliteration work would include, but may not be limited to: Deep ripping and roughening of the surface to reduce soil compaction (2-3 feet). Remove the road footprint. Re-contour disturbed areas to restore the natural drainage patterns and contour of the surrounding land as much as practical. This includes pulling material from the fill slope and brow of the cut slope onto the running surface. Where full re-contouring is not practicable, out-slope the route, pullback side-cast material, and scarify the roadway and ditches. Remove all culverts and other drainage structures. Remove fill at stream crossings. Provide for erosion protection by establishing ground cover that mimics background vegetation levels. This includes the placement of slash, woody debris, stumps, logs, trees, or other organic material onto the disturbed surface. Trees may be tipped over and placed on the disturbed areas. Scatter small and large woody debris on the road surface to. The following is a description of the procedures to be followed during obliteration of usercreated trails and decommissioning of Forest roads as directed by the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan: Culverts: On perennial streams, culverts will be pulled and the edges of the fill slopes for bedding will be pulled back (maximum of 1:1 slope) until the slopes are rounded off, but not all of the bedding fill will be removed from the trench. The material will be pulled away from the stream, and natural bankfull flow capacity and gradient (as determined by channel characteristics up and down-stream of the site) will be maintained. When working in live streams, all fill will be removed around pipes prior to bypass and pipe removal. On intermittent streams, the majority of the pipes will be pulled and treated as on perennial streams, especially where it is evident the culvert has carried water repeatedly. All drainage structures should be pulled unless authorized to be left by the hydrologist or fisheries biologist. These culverts generally have heavy vegetation growth of trees, grass, and bushes in the stream channel above the pipe. Where culverts are removed, dig to grade of natural stream channel and to a width that the stream will not undercut remaining fill. Surface Ripping: This will be done on a case by case basis where needed to remove visual evidence of a route or access to it. These are generally areas with long strait stretches where there is little adjacent vegetation, or other barricade along wide open trail surfaces. Ripping will also be done in areas where it would be important to expose additional soils to allow vegetation to reestablish. 72

75 Trenching/Berming/Surface Debris Placement/Returning to Original Contour: This will be done as needed, and mostly at the start of decommissioned segments to prevent summer, motorized travel. Berms or trenches will be built following Region 4 standard design. Fill Slopes: These will not be reclaimed or pulled back into the trail cut even when in AIZ or adjacent to a stream, unless significant stream impacts are occurring or are anticipated. These types of areas will be determined on a case by case basis as decommissioning directions are provided to the equipment operators. Seeding: If seeding is determined necessary the seed mix developed by the Forest Botanist and Soil Scientist will be used on all disturbed soils in or near perennial stream channels or water bodies; on disturbed soils that occur within watersheds identified as Water Quality Limited (WQL) streams; and along trail segments that have slopes that are over 15% grade. Disturbed areas will be seeded as soon as possible after disturbance. In areas away from water, and where natural seed sources are available, natural seeding will be allowed to take place. Noxious Weeds: All machinery used in decommissioning is to be washed before entering work areas on the Forest, and again before moving from on County to another. This is to help prevent spread of noxious weeds. As monitoring of trail decommissioning occurs over the years and new weed infestations are discovered, they will be treated if necessary. References USDA Forest Service A guide for road closure and obliteration in the Forest Service. Technology & Development Program Engineering. Engineering Project Leader = Jeffry E. Moll, P.E.. San Dimas Technology & Development Center 4E41 LO3. June

76 Appendix E Soil and Water Guidelines & Directions Soil Management FSM 2550 Policy: Use adaptive management (FSM 1905) to design and implement land management activities in a manner that achieves desired soil conditions and objectives as identified in the applicable land management plan. Monitor resource management activities, and soil conditions and trends to ensure that soil and water conservation practices are implemented and effective. Assess, analyze, and monitor the soil resource to detect changes in soil properties resulting from implementation of land management plans. Determine how changes in soil properties will affect desired soil conditions and objectives related to ecosystem function. Region 4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook FSH Direction: This handbook provides trail management practices that reference FSM and FSH direction. These practices are listed below: PRACTICE: General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails OBJECTIVE: To locate and design roads and trails with minimal soil and water resource impact while considering all design criteria. PRACTICE: Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan OBJECTIVE: To prevent, limit, and mitigate erosion, sedimentation, and resulting water quality degradation prior to the initiation of construction and maintenance activities through effective contract administration during construction and timely implementation of erosion control practices. PRACTICE: Timing of Construction Activities OBJECTIVE: To minimize erosion by conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. PRACTICE: Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of Slopes OBJECTIVE: To minimize soil erosion from road cutslopes, fillslopes, and travelway. PRACTICE: Trail Maintenance and Rehabilitation OBJECTIVE: To minimize soil erosion and water quality problems resulting from trail erosion. Laws, Regulations, and Directives: The Caribou-Targhee National Forest must comply with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. These include, but are not limited to, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Clean Water Act (CWA), Executive Orders and

77 (Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, respectively), the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the Idaho Water Quality Standards. 75

78 Appendix F Minimization Criteria Section 3(a) of EO directs agencies to develop and issue regulations to provide for administrative designation of specific areas and trails on public lands on which off-road vehicles use may be permitted. Regulations direct that the designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Section 3(a) further specifies that regulations shall be in accordance with the following criteria: Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands. Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. 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. Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.¹ The following potential effects are the same for all trail segments unless specifically described by trail segment: Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- No impact on trails located in upland areas because there are no known toad breeding sites within a 2.4 kilometer buffer. Effects to Boreal Toads are noted below on trail segments located within the buffer. Canada Lynx -- There is no evidence that lynx reside on the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District but lynx may exhibit long-distance exploratory movements through the district. There is no evidence that motorized secondary or tertiary roads are an impact to lynx habitat or lynx dispersal. No exceptions are noted in the discussion on specific trail segments. Columbia Spotted Frog Unless described in the specific trail segment discussion, no impact on the Columbia Spotted Frogs on the proposed trail segments because there are no aquatic habitats within a 1-kilometer buffer. 76

79 Elk -- Motorized route density is inversely proportional to elk habitat quality and possibly elk survival, so each additional trail segment may produce negative effects to elk and elk habitat. Restricting OHV use to roads, trails, and a 394 acre area in West End is expected to have benefits for elk because motorized route density would decrease and this would increase elk habitat quality and may increase elk survival (Cole et al. 1997, IDFG 2010, Naylor et al. 2008). Overall the action alternatives would have beneficial effects to elk and elk habitat. ¹Proposed OHV routes are not located within Wilderness or other areas described in this appendix. There is no further discussion related to this criterion in the EA. Grizzly Bear -- The amount of secure habitat present in a grizzly bear s home range may be the strongest predictor of survival. Secure habitat is 500 meters from a motorized route. OHV trail segments are expected to have negative effect to grizzly bears. Wolverine -- Conservation issues are secure denning habitat and maintenance of dispersal ability. None of the proposed trail segments or the proposed motorized cross-country area at West End are within denning habitat. There is no evidence that secondary or tertiary motorized routes affect wolverine dispersal and the primary wolverine dispersal period is February and March when the proposed trails will not be used. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources A study by the U.S. Forest Service in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation analyzed the effects of ATVs on forested lands and grasslands in December The study concluded that dust effects on vegetation causes minor disturbances. Motorized use on roads or trails that are native surface when dry will create dust. Effects to soil and hydrological resources are discussed below by proposed trail segments. Conflicts between Motor Vehicle Use and Existing or Proposed Recreation Uses of Forest System lands or Neighboring Federal lands Additional conflicts are not expected. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a primary tool to describe desired opportunity settings and determining appropriate recreational activities that may occur within those settings. Proposed motorized trails are not located within the Primitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS classes. Conflicts among different classes of Motor Vehicle Uses of National Forest System lands or Neighboring Federal lands Idaho Statutes Sections 49 and 67 (Idaho State legislature 2007a,b) contain requirements for ATV and motorbike registration and use on and off highways in Idaho, including use on paved and unpaved Forest roads. All designated motorized trails/areas require compliance with Idaho State law. Motorized trails are only open to motorized vehicles 50 inches in width or less and that applies to proposed trails in the action alternatives. There is a potential for conflict between different classes of motor vehicles on Forest Service roads. This type of conflict would not increase with the addition of proposed motorized trails. In the past there has not been conflict between different OHV classes on Forest Service trails. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors All proposed trails were considered and designed to pull OHV riders away from residential areas to reduce conflict. Idaho State Law requires all registered OHVs must have mufflers at or below 96 db(a) at the half meter sound test and a spark arrestor device affixed to the exhaust system qualified and rated by the U.S. Forest Service. It is expected that most OHVs would comply with Idaho State Law OHV noise emission requirements. 77

80 Dust effects would be minimal and confined to the trail prism or adjacent to the trail prism. There is no evidence to support adverse effects on human health from dust generated from motorized recreation. Route-Specific Description The following is a description of effects by trail segment. This section describes the specific effects that trail has on the minimization criteria. 1. Buttermilk Trail This proposed trail is approximately 1.24 miles in length. This route would provide a trail riding experience that would link OHV riders to the Lakeside Trail and to Forest Road 126. This route provides continued looping opportunities, access to dispersed campsites along the Island Park Reservoir, and improves safety by pulling OHV riders off the west Buttermilk Loop road which is a paved surface road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.16 mile of new trail construction would disturb soil and remove vegetation. Trees and shrubs would be removed to establish the trail tread and short-term soil loss is expected but would be minimized with installation of water drainage structures (if needed) and trail maintenance. Approximately 1.08 miles of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur on this 1.08 mile segment. No hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to 3 movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 2. Chick Creek Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.31 mile in length. This route would connect OHV riders to Forest Road 134 (Box Canyon Road) and to Forest Road 291 (Chick Creek Road). This route was identified as an important link to get OHV riders across Idaho State Highway 20. OHV riders coming out of the Last Chance would be able to access the Forest Transportation System east of Idaho State Highway 20 by accessing the Chick Creek Road and the same is true vice versa. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.31 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. 78

81 Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 3. Coffeepot Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.19 mile in length. This route was identified as an important link to provide continued looping opportunities and getting OHV riders across Idaho State Highway 20 to Macks Inn and to the Coffeepot/Buttermilk areas. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.19 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 4. Coffeepot Trail This proposed trail is approximately 1.25 miles in length. This route would provide continued looping opportunities and would link OHV riders to and from the Railroad Grade ATV trail. This route would help pull OHV riders off the Kilgore-Yale Road which is a paved road surface. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 1.25 miles of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Trail tread would require some grading on small sections of this trail to remove the berms that have developed besides the wheel tracks. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 5. Crows Landing Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.18 mile in length. This route would allow OHV riders camping at the Crows Landing dispersed camping area access to the proposed Ponds Trail. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.18 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction 79

82 or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 6. Dynamite Springs Trail This proposed trail is approximately 3.55 miles in length. This route would provide continued trail looping opportunities and would connect OHV riders to the Chick Creek Road, Railroad Grade ATV Trail, and to the community of Last Chance. A trailhead is proposed at the intersection of the Eccles Trail and Forest Road 112 for OHV loading, unloading, and access. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.65 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and 2.9 miles of National Forest System Road would convert to Forest System trail. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. Outslope would need to be established on some sections to encourage sheet water flow across the trail tread. Installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. 7. Eccles Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.47 mile in length. This route would provide continued looping opportunities and provide and important link to the Last Chance Trail so that OHV riders can access the community of Last Chance for food and gas and access the Osborne Trail that would link OHV riders to Forest Road 167 (Green Canyon Road). Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.47 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 8. Eccles Trail This proposed trail is approximately 5.33 miles in length. This route provides trail looping opportunities and would link riders to the Chick Creek Road, Railroad Grade ATV Trail, and to the community of Last Chance. A trailhead is proposed at the intersection of Eccles Trail and Forest Road 112 for OHV loading, unloading, and access. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources 80

83 Approximately 5.33 miles of National Forest System Road would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Vegetation has grown in on some sections of the road prism and trees, shrubs, and ground vegetation would be removed to establish the trail tread. Sections of this trail would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 9. Elk Creek Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.41 mile in length. This route would provide a link between Forest Road 134B and Forest Road 631B. This connector trail is important for continued looping opportunities and would allow riders coming off the Railroad Grade ATV trail access to the community of Macks Inn for food and gas and would allow riders coming from the Macks Inn area to access to the Railroad Grade ATV Trail. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.41 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and 2.9 miles of National Forest System Road would convert to Forest System trail. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. Installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. 10. Elk Springs Trail This proposed trail is approximately 1.13 miles in length. This route would pull riders away from the Kilgore-Yale Road which is paved asphalt and would pull riders away from private property. Private property is located approximately 0.20 miles north of the trail segment. The private property owner constructed jack fences to prevent OHV trespass on private property. Restricting OHV riders to this route would reduce or eliminate trespass and would eliminate OHV riders from riding parallel (within the road prism) to the Kilgore-Yale Road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.26 mile of new trail construction would disturb soil and remove vegetation. Trees and shrubs would be removed to establish the trail tread and short-term soil loss is expected but would be minimized with installation of water drainage structures (if needed) and trail maintenance. Approximately 0.86 mile of user-create route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction on this 1.08 mile section would occur. Approximately 0.03 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ). No trail relocation would occur and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats 81

84 Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors Constructing a 0.26 mile section of this trail would pull OHV riders away from private property and restrict OHV use in this area to roads and trails. Private property owners in the area northwest of McCrea Bridge have constructed jack fences along the forest boundary to prevent OHV trespass due to cross-country travel. A section of this trail segment being considered for designation is located near private property. Noise may be a concern to private property owners. 11. Flatrock Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.07 mile in length. This short route would connect OHV riders to Forest Road 130 and would allow for a safe crossing across the Kilgore-Yale Road, which is paved asphalt road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.07 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. 12. Green Canyon Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.45 mile in length. This route provides continued loop opportunities and would pull OHV riders traveling east on the Green Canyon Road to the scenic overlook on the West End Trail or pull riders west to the Green Canyon Road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.95 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.02 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 13. Lakeside A This proposed trail connector is 0.04 mile in length. This short route would provide access to the Lakeside Trail for OHV traffic coming off the west Buttermilk Loop Road and from the nearby summer home/rental subdivisions. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources 82

85 Approximately 0.04 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.01 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors This trail segment being considered for designation is near private property. However, the location of this route is west of the Buttermilk Loop Road. The Buttermilk Loop Road receives passenger vehicle and Recreational Vehicle traffic during the summer season. In addition, this short route connector would link to the Lakeside Trail which is characterized as having numerous twists and turns and some tight corners which would reduce OHV speed which would reduce noise levels. Effects of OHV noise on individuals within earshot are highly subjective and variable. 14. Lakeside B This proposed trail connector is 0.05 mile in length. This short route would provide access to the Lakeside Trail for OHV traffic coming off the west Buttermilk Loop Road and from the nearby summer home/rental subdivisions. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.05 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.02 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within 1 kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within 1 kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use and motorized routes may cause negative hydrological changes to aquatic habitats. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors This trail segment being considered for designation is near private property. However, the location of this route is west of the Buttermilk Loop Road. The Buttermilk Loop Road receives passenger vehicle and Recreational Vehicle traffic during the summer season. In addition, this short route connector would link to the Lakeside Trail which is characterized as having numerous twists and turns and some tight corners which would reduce OHV speed which would reduce noise levels. Effects of OHV noise on individuals within earshot are highly subjective and variable. 83

86 15. Lakeside Trail This proposed trail connector is 3.13 miles in length. This route would access dispersed campsites along the Island Park Reservoir and link OHV riders coming out of Bills Island to this trail. This trail would help avoid OHV riders from having to ride the west Buttermilk Loop Road which is a paved surface road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 3.13 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.42 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a reliable 2003 detection of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to three movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors A section of this trail segment being considered for designation is near private property. However, the location of this route is west of the Buttermilk Loop Road. The Buttermilk Loop Road receives passenger vehicle and Recreational Vehicle traffic during the summer season. In addition, this short route connector would link to the Lakeside Trail which is characterized as having numerous twists and turns and some tight corners which would reduce OHV speed which would reduce noise levels. Effects of OHV noise on individuals within earshot are highly subjective and variable. 16. Last Chance Trail This proposed trail connector is 8.29 miles in length. OHV riders coming out of Last Chance would be able to access this route and connect to the Forest Transportation System. This route would also link riders to Last Chance for food and gas and provides an important link for OHV riders seeking to cross Highway 20 to the Green Canyon Road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.24 miles of trail would require construction to avoid OHV use in a wet meadow and locate the trail at least 150 feet away from a pond. This trail construction would disturb soil, remove ground vegetation, and remove some trees. Approximately 8.05 miles of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. A 0.1 mile section of this trail segment is located in a wet area and would require hardening and armoring to reduce impacts to vegetation, to the trail tread, and soil. 84

87 See Figure 20 below. Approximately 0.87 mile of this trail segment is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ). Figure 21. North section of the Last Chance Trail. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a reliable 2003 detection of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to three movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors A small section of this trail segment being considered for designation is located adjacent to private property. The north end of this trail segment would link to E 3300 N, which is a public 85

88 road, which would link OHV riders to Last Chance for gas and food in the commercial section Last Chance. Noise may be a concern to nearby private property owners. 17. Macks Inn Trail This proposed trail is approximately 1.40 miles in length. This route would link OHV riders to the north Big Springs Loop Road which provides access to the Big Springs recreation area and to the Railroad Grade ATV Trail. This route would allow OHV riders to avoid the paved section of the North Big Springs Loop Road and the paved south Big Springs Loop Road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 1.40 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. Installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 18. Mill Creek Trail This proposed trail connector is 1.42 miles in length. This route would provide access to the Mill Creek dispersed recreation area, which is adjacent to the Island Park Reservoir, and would allow OHV riders from camping at the Mill Creek dispersed recreation area access to the Forest Transportation System. This route would allow OHV riders to avoid the paved surface of the Jackson Landing Road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 1.42 miles of user-create route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.04 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a reliable 2003 detection of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to 3 movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 19. Osborne Trail 86

89 This proposed trail connector is 0.30 miles in length. This proposed route would connect OHV riders to the Green Canyon Road and to the Last Chance Trail. This trail connector would allow OHV riders to avoid use along Idaho State Highway 20 and along the Mesa Falls Scenic ByWay. Designation of this trail would require coordination with the State of Idaho and Harriman State Park. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.30 miles of user-create route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. This route would direct OHV traffic to onto Idaho State Lands where there is a ditch crossing. District and Forest staff will coordinate with the State of Idaho for directing OHV use on Idaho State Lands and ensure that OHV use at this ditch crossing would not contribute to sediment input. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a reliable 2003 detection of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to three movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 20. Ponds Trail This proposed trail is 3.72 miles in length. This proposed route would link to Ponds Lodge where gas and food are available and would provide an important link to cross the Buffalo River to access the Buttermilk, McCrea, Coffeepot, Mill Creek, and Elk Creek areas. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 3.72 miles of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.06 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a reliable 2003 detection of juvenile boreal toads, adjacent to a potential breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to 3 movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking into Account Sound, Emissions, and other Factors During scoping a comment was received from a Buffalo Summer Home resident with concerns over OHV noise levels. A section of this trail is located near the Buffalo Home Summer Home 87

90 Tract. However, this trail parallels Idaho State Highway 20, just outside the highway right-ofway. Effects of noise would be subjective and variable due to nearby highway traffic. 21. Ripley Butte Trail This proposed trail is approximately 3.08 miles in length. This route provides trail looping opportunities and would link riders to the Chick Creek Road, Railroad Grade ATV Trail, and to the community of Last Chance. A trailhead is proposed at the intersection of Eccles Trail and Forest Road 112 for OHV loading, unloading, and access. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.08 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail and three miles of National Forest System Road would convert to Forest System trail. Installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. 22. Shotgun Trail This proposed trail is approximately 0.58 mile in length. This route would link OHV riders to the Buttermilk, McCrea, Coffeepot, Mill Creek, and Elk Creek areas. This route would pull OHV riders away from the Kilgore-Yale Road which is a paved surface road. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.58 mile of user-created trail would convert to Forest System trail. No trail reconstruction or relocation would occur. This trail segment is not within an Aquatic Influence Zone and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 23. Stamp Meadows Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is 0.23 mile in length. This route would keep OHV riders off the Kilgore-Yale Road which is paved asphalt and would provide an important link to the Mill Creek Trail, Stamp Meadows Road, and the Elk Springs Trail. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.23 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. No trail reconstruction would occur. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.07 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 88

91 24. Stamp Meadows Trail This proposed trail is 1.41 mile in length. This route would allow access to the Henrys Fork River for scenic view and fishing access. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 0.19 mile would require new trail construction to avoid trail placement and use within Stamp Meadows. This trail construction would cross Stamp Meadows at its narrowest point. Approximately 1.22 miles of user-created route would be designated as Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Small sections of this trail (approximately 0.2 miles) would require reconstruction to remove old tank traps on the route to bring it up to Forest Service Trail standards. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.20 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. The area is a wet meadow with seasonal wetlands. It is not mapped as an AIZ in the Forest s GIS layer, but AIZ values and direction do apply. The motorized trail will be located such that it crosses the meadow perpendicularly at its narrowest location, which is also a relatively drier location in the meadow. The route through the meadows may have an amphibian crossing structure installed to protect boreal toad breeding activities and meadow characteristics. Ponds within 1000 meters of the proposed motorized trails will be surveyed prior to trail system designation, and if boreal toads or spotted frog breeding activities are detected, amphibian crossing structures may be placed on OHV routes. A user-created trail currently extends to the streamside of the Henry s Fork River. The trail end would be moved back 160 feet from the river bank to provide adequate vegetative buffer that reduce sediment delivery to the river. A small parking/turn around area would be constructed. Convert the existing user-created trail from the proposed parking area to the river to a non-motorized walking trail about 160 feet in length. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Boreal Toad -- This trail segment is within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of a historic toad breeding site. Toads are expected to make up to three movements per year between seasonal habitats within a 2.4-kilometer buffer of the breeding site. During movements, toads may be killed by motorized trail use. Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 25. West End Cutoff Trail This proposed trail is approximately 1.03 miles in length. This route provides continued loop opportunities in the West End area. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 1.03 mile of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Sections of this trail tread would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove the berms that have developed beside wheel tracks. No trail relocation would occur. Approximately 0.55 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) and no hydrological effects are expected. 89

92 Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 26. West End Loop Trail This proposed trail is approximately 2.91 miles in length. This route provides continued loop opportunities in the West End area and would provide a scenic overlook of the Island Park Reservoir, Shotgun Valley, and the Centennial Mountain Range. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Approximately 2.91 miles of user-created route would convert to Forest System trail and installation of drainage structures (if needed) would minimize soil loss. Sections of this trail segment would require grading using a Trail Cat or Skid Steer to remove vegetation that has grown in on the old road bed. A short trail reroute was identified to remove 0.2 miles of proposed trail away from an intermittent stream channel. Approximately 0.15 mile is located in the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ). No hydrological effects are expected. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized trail use. 27. West End Cross-Country Area Approximately 394 acres would be open to cross-country travel within management prescription 4.3. The boundary of this management prescription would change. Damage to Soil, Water, Vegetation and Other Resources Soils in this area are rated as having a "slight" limitation for roads and trails and a "slight" limitation for off-road and off-trail use. This indicates that soil erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions and the area is suited to cross-country OHV travel. The area has slopes less than 10% and has low risk for mass soil movement. Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitats Columbia Spotted Frog This trail segment is located within one kilometer of an aquatic habitat (stream, pond, or wetland) which is considered potential habitat and spotted frogs may be present. Movements occur between seasonal habitats within one kilometer of breeding sites. During movements, frogs may be killed by motorized use. 90

93 Appendix G Alternative Maps Larger maps may be viewed at the Ashton/Island Park Ranger Station in Ashton, Idaho or Island Park, Idaho. Maps may be downloaded and viewed from the Caribou-Targhee National Forest website at: under the Island Park OHV Trails Project. 91

94 Map 1 Appendix G. 92

95 Map 2 Appendix G. 93

96 Map 3 Appendix G 94

97 Map 4 Appendix G 95

98 Map 5 Appendix G. 96

99 Appendix H Forest Plan Management Direction The 1997 Revised Targhee Forest Plan (RFP) applies direction stated as Goals (G), Standards (S), or Guidelines (G). Forestwide Goals(GL), Standards(S), and Guidelines(G) The specific goal, standard, or guideline listed below apply to this project and are listed by element and resource area. Biological Elements Fisheries, Water, and Riparian Resources Maintain or improve water quality to meet water quality standards for the States of Idaho and Wyoming (GL) (RFP, page III-9). Maintain or restore (GL) (III-9): a) Water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems. b) Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and sediment regimes under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems naturally developed. c) Diversity and productivity of native and nonnative plant communities in riparian zones. d) Riparian vegetation to provide large woody debris, provide thermal regulation, and help achieve natural erosion rates and channel migration characteristics. e) Aquatic habitats necessary to support over-all biodiversity. The Forest is directed to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and riparian dependent species from past, existing, and proposed management activities (GL) (RFP, page III- 107). Wildlife Wildlife biodiversity is maintained or enhanced by managing for a diverse array of habitats and distribution of plant communities (GL) (RFP, page III-15). Plant Species Diversity Information on the presence of listed threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species will be included in all assessments for vegetation and/or ground disturbing management activities. Appropriate protection and mitigation measures will be applied to the management activities (S) (RFP, page III-14) Forest Use and Occupation Access The Forest road and trail system is cost effective and integrates human needs with those of other resource values (GL) (RFP, page III-23). 97

100 Road closures will be located and designed to effectively control motorized use (G) (RFP, page III-23). Restrict or reclaim roads not needed for future management ad determined in site-specific analysis, at the end of project use. Consider historic recreation use before closure (G) (RFP, page III-23). Recreation Provide a network of OHV trails while minimizing the effects of OHV use on soils, wildlife and other users (GL) (RFP, page III-26) Discourage OHV use on slopes greater than 40 percent, except on designated routes Roads and trails; however, may cross slopes that exceed 40 percent (G) (RFP, page III-26). Areas with slopes of percent may require travel restrictions if soil erosion factors warrant them (G) (RFP, page III-26) Restrict OHV use on identified areas of unstable soils (except for snowmobiles) (G) (RFP, page III-26) No motorized vehicles over 50 inches wide are allowed on trails unless the trails are specifically designed for such vehicles (G) (RFP, page III-26). Trails for motorized/mechanized use would be sufficient to sustain use over long periods of time and minimize requirements for maintenance or reconstruction (G) (RFP, page III- 27). Management Prescription Direction The Forest Plan uses management prescriptions to define the uses and activities within a given prescription area. The following lists the prescription areas involved in this proposal. Prescription 2.4 Eligible Scenic River. The purpose of this prescription is to maintain and protect the free-flowing character and the outstandingly remarkable values which qualify the river to be considered eligible as a Scenic River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System pending a suitability determination. a) Motorized use is allowed unless it needs to be prohibited or restricted to protect the river values (S) (RFP, page III-92). b) Trails and bridges paralleling or crossing the river are acceptable, provided VQO and ROS objective for the river and corridor are maintained (G) (RFP, page III-93). Prescription 2.5 Eligible Recreation River. The purpose of this prescription is to maintain and protect the essentially free-flowing character and the outstandingly remarkable values which qualify the river to be considered eligible as a Recreational River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System pending a suitability determination. a) Motorized use is allowed unless it needs to be prohibited or restricted to protect the river values (S) (RFP, page III-96). b) Trails and bridges paralleling or crossing the river are acceptable, provided VQO and ROS objective for the river and corridor are maintained (G) (RFP, page III- 93). 98

101 c) New trails could be constructed on one or both river banks. There can be several bridge crossings and numerous river access points (G) (RFP, page III-97). Prescription Aquatic Influence Zone. This prescription applies to the aquatic influence zone associated with lakes, reservoirs, ponds, perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands (such as wet meadows, springs, seeps, and bogs). These areas control the hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes that shape the various water types mentioned above and directly affect aquatic life. a) No new roads, trails, or landings will be constructed within these lands until appropriate standards for construction, maintenance, and operations are in place (G) (RFP, page III-110). b) Improve; seasonally close; close, relocate and stabilize; or obliterate roads and trails that have been identified as posing a high risk of causing unnaturally high levels of sediment input or are known to be doing so. Action to be taken will be determined based on travel management needs, terrain, the need for the road or trail, the potential environmental impacts, and resource priorities (G) (RFP, page III-110). c) Roads and trails or sections of them that have been identified as inhibiting riparian, wetland, or aquatic ecosystem processes and/or functions (e.g. plant community development, sediment transport, and stream channel development) will be improved, relocated, or obliterated. The decision to improve, relocate, or obliterate will be based on the potential environmental impact, the ecological condition of the riparian, wetland and aquatic resources affected, and the need for the road or trail (G) (RFP, page III-110). d) Culvert and stream crossings found to pose a risk to riparian, wetland or aquatic conditions will be improved to accommodate at least a 50-year flood, including associated bedload and debris (G) (RFP, page III-110). e) New stream crossings will be constructed and maintained to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in case of failure. In locations found to have high potential for failure, the roadway will be hardened to further lessen the chance of roadway failure or severe erosion should the crossing overtop (G) (RFP, page III-111). f) Constructed temporary stream crossings, such as log and culvert installations, may be allowed if temporary crossings will be constructed and used in such a way as to minimize sediment input and to provide for fish passage. They will be maintained during use and removed and rehabilitated as soon as they are no longer needed (G) (RFP, page III-111). g) Construct, reconstruct, and maintain all road and trail crossings of streams which currently or historically bear fish to provide for fish passage. Exceptions are allowed where it is necessary to restrict fish movements in order to protect native or desirable nonnative fish populations (G) (RFP, page III-111). Prescription 4.2 Special Use Permit Recreation Sites. This prescription applies to ski areas, resorts, summer home sites, and organization camps that are allowed under a special use permit. The emphasis is on providing privately operated types of recreation on National Forest System lands for large concentrated groups of people. 99

102 a) Motorized use is allowed only on existing roads and is limited to entering, leaving, and visiting other sites within the facility, except as guided by the special use permit (S) (RFP, page III-130). b) Trails may be allowed for the convenience of people using these sites (G) (RFP, page III-130). c) Short trails are allowed which provide access to facilities and opportunities for interpretation (G) (RFP, page III-130). Prescription 4.3 Dispersed Camping Management. The purpose of this prescription is to maintain a quality dispersed recreation experience for the public and still protect other resource values that occur in the same area. This prescription applies to highly attractive and desirable heavy summer use areas such as around lakes or reservoirs; along roads and streams; or at trailheads where there are multiple campsites accessed by conventional wheeled vehicles (> 50 wide) or boats. a) Provide facilities to a level only to meet resource protection needs (GL) (RFP, page III-131). b) Provide a balance between recreation use and other resource needs so that those resources which provide attractions to the area are protected to a point they continue to be important recreational attractions (GL) (RFP, page III-131). c) Maintain or improve the quality of the dispersed camping sites that now exist in the area (GL) (RFP, page III-131). Prescription 5.1.3(a) Timber Management. The purpose of this prescription is to allow timber management with no clearcutting and to allow fuels management within and adjacent to urban areas of the Forest. a) Motorized vehicle use greater and less than 50 inches in width is allowed on designated routes shown in the Forest Plan Travel map (S) (RFP, page III-138). b) Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Route Density (OROMTRD) apply to this prescription area. The density standard is 3 miles of open road and open motorized trail per square mile. OROMTRD does not apply to prescription areas less than 2.5 square miles in size (S) (RFP, page III-138). Prescription Visual Quality Improvement. This prescription emphasizes improving or maintaining visual opportunities for visitors along major travel corridors through heavily timbered areas, while allowing livestock production, timber harvest, and other compatible commodity outputs. The purpose of this prescription is to maintain or create openings in timber stands to provide scenic vistas. a) Motorized vehicle use greater and less than 50 inches in width is allowed on designated routes shown in the Forest Plan Travel map (S) (RFP, page III-144). b) OROMTRD does not apply to this prescription area (S) (RFP, page III-144). c) Motorized trails should be developed using primarily local roads and trails not being actively used for commodity recovery (G) (RFP, page III-144). Prescription Visual Quality Maintenance. This prescription emphasizes maintaining the existing visual quality within major travel corridors with high quality 100

103 natural vistas, while allowing livestock production, limited timber harvest, and other compatible commodity outputs. a) Motorized vehicle use greater and less than 50 inches in width is allowed on designated routes shown in the Forest Plan Travel map (S) (RFP, page III-146). b) Motorized vehicle use is allowed unless visual features are degraded by disturbances to vegetation or soils (S) (RFP, page III-146). c) OROMTRD does not apply to this prescription area (S) (RFP, page III-146). Prescription Grizzly Bear Habitat. This management prescription emphasizes a high degree of security and resource conditions which contribute toward the conservation and recovery of the grizzly bear, and benefits to other wildlife. Habitats will be managed to meet the goals of grizzly bear recovery. Other uses may be allowed when compatible with these goals. a) Motorized vehicle use greater and less than 50 inches in width is allowed on designated routes shown in the Forest Plan Travel map (S) (RFP, page III-149). b) New or relocated trails will avoid high quality grizzly bear habitat and be located to so as to minimize the risk of human/bear interactions (e.g. not placing trails along roaring streams where bears cannot hear humans approaching) (G) (RFP, page III-150). Prescription 8.1 Concentrated Development Areas. This prescription applies to all existing concentrated developments including active mines, borrow pits, gravel pits, electronic sites, utility corridors, and administrative sites. Concentrated development is normally small, but may be extensive on occasion. A wide variety of vegetation and landtypes may be present. This category is often surrounded by other management prescriptions. a) Motorized vehicle use greater and less than 50 inches in width is allowed on designated routes shown in the Forest Plan Travel map (S) (RFP, page III-158). b) Protect existing trails and wherever possible avoid development of trails in or near concentrated development sites. Where feasible move existing trails away from these areas (G) (RFP, page III-158). 101

104 Appendix I Forest Plan and Travel Plan Amendments Several Forest Plan Amendments are proposed in Alternatives B and C. The proposed amendments are described below by issue and a summary is provided by alternative. Open Road Open Motorized Trail Road Density Forest Plan Amendment (OROMTRD) The proposed amendments include changes to 1997 Revised Forest Plan open road open motorized trail road densities (OROMTRD) (RFP page III-138). The Forest Plan Amendments would occur if an alternative were selected that exceeded the OROMTRD allowed by the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. The open road open motorized trail and road densities would only change for the specific areas represented in Table 1 and Map X. Changes would not occur to other areas with that management prescription. The specific OROMTRD amendments for Alternative B are as follows. Change OROMTRD to 3.42 miles per square mile for Buttermilk and Coffeepot area. See Map 1 Appendix I for specific location Change OROMTRD to 4.04 miles per square mile for Elk Creek Area. See Map 1 Appendix I for specific location. Change OROMTRD to 3.69 miles per square mile for Mill Creek and Stamp Meadows area. See Map 1 Appendix I for specific location. Change OROMTRD to 4.9 miles per square mile for North Macks Inn area. See map 1 Appendix I for specific location. The specific OROMTRD amendments for Alternative C are as follows. Change OROMTRD to 4.04 miles per square mile for Elk Creek Area. See Map 1 Appendix I for specific location. Close 1.6 miles of a road currently open to closed for motorized use in the North Macks Inn area to meet OROMTRD standards in that area. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed changes to open road open motorized trail and road densities for each alternative including Alternative A, No Action. 102

105 Table 1 Appendix I OROMTRD Forest Plan Amendments by Alternative. Management Prescription Area OROMTRD allowed by the 1997 Revised Targhee Forest Plan (mi/sq mi) OROMTRD Alternative A (mi/sq mi) OROMTRD Alternative B (mi/sq mi) OROMTRD Alternative C (mi/sq mi) 5.1.3(a) Timber Management (Buttermilk and Coffeepot area polygon) Forest Plan Amendment (a) Timber Management (Elk Creek area polygon). See map area xx Forest Plan Amendment 4.04 Forest Plan Amendment 5.1.3(a) Timber Management ( Mill Creek and Stamp Meadows area polygon). See map area xx Forest Plan Amendment (a) Timber Management (North Macks Inn area polygon). See map area xx Forest Plan Amendment 3.0 Cross Country Motorized Use Amendment The ability to ride or drive a motorized vehicle off of designated roads or trails is described in the Cross Country Use Matrix on the summer travel maps for Ashton/Island Park Ranger District. Summer Cross Country Use Matrix indicates opportunities and restrictions off designated roads and trails. The Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan would be amended if Alternative B or Alternative C is selected. This would change areas designated open to motorized cross country travel to closed to 103

106 motorized cross country travel. The Forest Plan Amendment would be implemented through the Summer Travel Map and changes to the summer cross-country use matrix. Map 2 Appendix I depicts where these changes would occur on the ground. The specific cross country motorized use changes for Alternative B are as follows. Change F and D areas to B areas, closing these areas to motorized cross country travel. Change West End Campground from B Area to F area, opening it to motorized cross country travel for vehicles less than 50 inches wide. The specific cross country motorized use changes for Alternative B are as follows. Change F and D areas to B areas, closing these areas to motorized cross country travel. The Summer Cross Country Use Matrix for the summer travel map for the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest would change the Area reference letter and associated opportunities and restrictions from F or D areas to B areas if Alternative B or C is selected. The use changes are depicted in Table 2. TABLE 2. Summer Cross-Country Use Matrix Opportunities/Restrictions F area D area B area Non MotorizedUse Open Open Open Bicycles Open Open Open Two-wheeled Motorized Open Open Closed (Forest Plan Amendment in Alternative B and C) Vehicles All Terrain Vehicles <50 Open Open Closed (Forest Plan Amendment in Alternative B and C) in Width High Clearance Vehicles Closed Open Closed (Forest Plan Amendment in Alternative B and C) >50 inches in Width Sedans > 50 inches in Width Closed Open Closed (Forest Plan Amendment in Alternative B and C) 104

107 Map 1 Appendix I. Forest Plan Amendment Open Road Open Motorized Trail Road Density 105

108 Map 2 Appendix I. Forest Plan Amendment Cross Country Motorized Use Changes 106