Environmental Assessment. Joe s Valley Bouldering Area

Transcription

1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-G EA April 2017 Joe s Valley Bouldering Area Location: T16 S R6 E Sections 26, 27, 34, 36 T17 S R6 E Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36 T17 S R7 E Sections 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T18 S R 6 E Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12 T 18 S R 7 E Sections 1-17, 23, 24 Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, Utah Phone: (435) Fax: (435) Forest Service Manti-La Sal National Forest 599 West Price River Drive Price, UT Phone: (435) Fax: (435)

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

3 Table of Contents 1. PURPOSE & NEED Introduction Background Purpose Need Conformance with Land Use Plans BLM Price Field Office (PFO) Manti-La Sal National Forest Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans Issues Summary ALTERNATIVES Introduction Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction Resources Brought Forward for Analysis Cultural Resources Livestock Grazing Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Recreation Soils Wildlife Resources ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction Direct and Indirect Impacts... 27

4 Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Cumulative Impacts Introduction Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Cumulative Impacts CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted Summary of Public Participation REFERENCES Appendix A: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST Appendix B Maps LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Issues Requiring Detailed Analysis Table 2-1: Proposed Campground Features (BLM lands) Table 2-2: Approximate Total Ground Disturbance by Alternative and Agency Table 2-3: Alternatives Summary by Management Action and Agency Table 3-1: Bouldering Site Soil Condition Classification System Table 3-2: Trail System Soil Condition Classification System Table 4-1: Amount and Percentage of Mule Deer Habitat Type Affected by the Alternatives Table 4-2: Amount and Percentage of Habitat Designation Affected by the Alternatives Table 5-1: List of all Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted Table 5-2: List of Preparers

5 1. PURPOSE & NEED 1.1. Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the development and enhancement of recreation infrastructure in the Joe s Valley bouldering area (planning area) (see Appendix B, Map 1) for the Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office (BLM) and the Manti-La Sal National Forest (USFS). The planning area is located in Emery County, Utah and encompasses lands managed by the BLM, USFS, Utah School Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and some private property. However, all actions proposed and analyzed in this document are only considered on lands administered by the BLM and USFS. The planning area contains approximately 8,500 acres of BLM-administered lands and 8,500 acres of USFS-administered lands, totaling approximately 17,000 acres. The planning area comprises three geographical regions: Left Fork (Straight Canyon) along Utah Highway 29, Right Fork (Cottonwood Canyon) along Forest Road 50040, and New Joes (Grimes Wash) near Utah Highway Background Joe s Valley has been identified for inclusion in BLM s Top 20 Climbing Areas. Visitors come from around the world to experience the climbing that exists at Joe s Valley and over the last several years, this area has experienced increased recreation uses. As a result, several resource impacts have begun to emerge, including multiple informal trails, soil erosion, bare soil, vegetation trampling, human waste issues, and numerous undesignated campfire sites. On November 20, 2013, the Salt Lake Climbers Alliance proposed to conduct a baseline assessment of the resource impacts and safety hazards associated with the bouldering activities and camping in Joe s Valley. Their report, Recreation Site, Informal Trail, and Baseline Assessment and Procedures: Joe s Valley Bouldering Area, Utah (Knight and Porucznick, 2014), which is incorporated into this EA by reference, found that bouldering and its associated activities are indeed impacting the natural resources of the area Purpose The purpose for the proposed actions in the planning area is to address current impacts to soils, water, vegetation, and visitor safety while providing quality recreation opportunities and protecting resources by: Reducing impacts to soil and water (compaction and erosion) caused by high levels of recreation use associated with bouldering activities. Reducing contamination of the project area by providing bathroom facilities for users in key use areas. 1

6 Providing developed use areas (parking, camping, trails, etc.) in order to concentrate use on hardened sites and thereby reducing scattered use and disturbance. Locating trails and disturbance in areas that will protect key vegetative species and minimize the potential spread of noxious and invasive species. Revegetating disturbed and eroded areas utilizing native plants as well as pollinator friendly species Need The planning area currently lacks activity-level planning to manage the recreation activities occurring there. Bouldering and the associated camping, hiking, and parking are contributing to resource impacts and potential visitor safety throughout the area. The recreational use of this area has played a role in the creation of informal trails, soil erosion, bare soil, vegetation trampling, human waste issues, and numerous undesignated campfire sites. The need for the development and enhancement of the recreation infrastructure within the planning area is to address the current resource impacts and visitor safety issues that are a direct result of the current bouldering activities and all of the associated camping, hiking, and parking. Additionally, the need for this project is guided by the BLM Price Field Office Resource Management Plan (PFO RMP), approved October 2008 (BLM 2008) and General and Management Unit Direction specified in the 1986 Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). There is a need to develop sustainable, resource sensitive access trails to bouldering sites There is a need to develop sustainable landing zones around boulders There is a need to contain motorized use at dispersed campsites and parking areas to protect resources and provide for user safety. There is a need to provide visitor amenities such as fire rings and toilet facilities to protect resources Conformance with Land Use Plans BLM Price Field Office (PFO) The alternatives described in this EA are in conformance with the BLM Price Field Office Resource Management Plan (PFO RMP), approved October 2008 (BLM 2008). The planning area is located within an Extensive Recreation Management Area and the following recreation management goals and decisions outlined in the PFO RMP are relevant to the proposed action: Establish management that provides necessary public services, authentic recreation experience, and opportunity within allowable use levels; minimizes 2

7 user conflicts; and maintains the healthy ecosystems and settings that provide the basis for recreation opportunity and experience (Page 103). Provide an environment for and encourage entrepreneurial activities that are supportive of the recreation program goals and objectives (Page 103). REC-10: Develop new sites in response to user demand, amenity value, and critical resource protection needs (Page 104). REC-67: Portions of the PFO not identified as a SRMA will be identified as an ERMA. See Appendix R-9 for additional specific recreation management objectives (Page 112). REC-69: Signs, trails, and facilities will be used to facilitate use and enjoyment of the ERMA (Page 112). REC-71: Sites appropriate for large group events and camping will be designated (Page 112). Appendix R-9 of the PFO RMP states the following about ERMAs: Niche: Provides opportunity for wide variety of experience and opportunity. Venue for activities and events that may not be appropriate in SRMAs. Management Goals: Provides opportunities for a wide variety of recreation experiences, activities, and benefits in a manner that protects visitor health and safety, resource protection, and seek to reduce conflicts between other land uses and other recreation users groups. Management Objectives: Manage this ERMA to provide opportunities for a wide variety of motorized, mechanized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized recreational activities largely free from heavily restrictive regulations and management constraints in a variety of settings ranging from slot canyons, open landscapes with broad scenic vistas, slick rock expanses and slopes, badlands, rangelands, woodlands, forests, and wildland/urban interface. The following soil management goals and decisions outlined in the PFO RMP are relevant to the proposed action: Prevent excessive soil erosion (Page 66). Maintain or restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the area s soil and waters (Page 66) Manti-La Sal National Forest The alternatives described in this EA are in conformance with Forest the goals, objectives, and Management Goals and General and Management Unit Direction contained in the Forest Plan (as amended) (USFS 1986) Forest Management Goals: 3

8 Recognize the significance of recreation in proximity to population centers and national attractions (Page III-2). Offer a broad range of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities by providing appropriate recreation experience and setting levels (Page III-2). Provide appropriate developed recreation capacity where demand exists and private sector cannot meet the demand (Page III-2). Design interpretive service programs where it will help resolve management problems, reduce management costs and obtain visitor feedback, increase public understanding of Forest Service management, enhance visitor use, and provide safe use of the Forest (Page III-2). Protect soil and water productivity so that neither will be significantly or permanently impaired (Page III-4). Minimize hazards from flood, wind, wildfire, and erosion (Page III-5). Control noxious weeds and poisonous plants in cooperation with Forest users and State and local agencies. (III-3) General Direction: Design and implement management activities to blend with the natural landscape (page III-17) Restrict use and/or rehabilitate dispersed sites where unacceptable environmental damage is occurring (page III-18). Minimize adverse, man-caused impacts to the soil resource including accelerated erosion, compaction, contamination, and displacement (page III-32). Construct or reconstruct trails when needed as part of the transportation system (page III-42). Management Unit Direction DRS (Developed Recreation Sites): Not currently present in the project area Develop appropriate facilities where the present facilities are not meeting the demand and where it meets the highest net public benefit (page III-48). GWR (General Big-Game Winter Range): Present in Straight Canyon and the Grimes Wash area Manage recreational activities so they do not conflict with wildlife use of habitat (page III-62). RPN (Riparian): Present in both Straight and Cottonwood Canyons Semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural recreation opportunities may be provided (page III-70). MMA (Leasable Minerals Development): Present in the Grimes Wash area On existing MMA units avoid conflicts with the permitted uses of the unit (page III-96). 4

9 UC (Utility Corridor): Present in Cottonwood Canyon Manage dispersed recreation opportunities to avoid conflicts with the permitted uses of the unit (page III-96) Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans The proposed action and alternatives are consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, Public Law (P.L (43 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1701 et seq.) states under Title I Declaration of Policy (8), the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. The BLM uses trail designation to satisfy recreational demand within allowable use levels in an equitable, safe, and enjoyable manner while minimizing adverse resource impacts and user conflicts. BLM trail designations authorize specific use for use of public lands and/or related waters for specified purposes. The use of public lands and/or related waters is a privilege subject to the terms and conditions of the designation. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSY) of 1960, Public Law (16 U.S.C. 475), established National Forests to be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes using multiple-use and sustained yield principles. Multiple use is defined in this Act as The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. Sustained yield is defined to mean the achievement and maintenance of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land. This document is completed under authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, P.L (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) which requires all federal agencies to take a hard look at proposed actions and how they may impact public lands. National Trails System Act (NTSA) of 1968, Public Law in Section 2 (16USC1241) (c), it states, The Congress recognizes the valuable contributions that volunteers and private, nonprofit trail groups have made to the development and 5

10 maintenance of the Nation s trails. In recognition of these contributions, it is further the purpose of this Act to encourage and assist volunteer citizen involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and management, where appropriate, of trails. BLM Manual 8300 Recreation Management provides policy and guidance on managing recreation on public lands. BLM Manual 9130 Sign Manual establishes guidelines for signs on public lands. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300-Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management The proposed action is consistent with page 27 of the Emery County General Plan Update (Emery County 2016), which states: Some recreation areas should be readily accessible with good roads and should be adequately signed to inform the public of regulations, potential conflicting uses, and problems...emery County seeks to protect the existing uses of public lands and advocates management which allows for and protects that use. Agencies should enhance recreation opportunities Issues The proposed action was reviewed by an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) composed of resource specialists from the BLM and USFS. This team identified resources in the planning area which might be affected and considered potential impacts using current office records, geographic information system (GIS) data, and site visits. The results of the IDT review, including a list of all resources/issues that are analyzed in detail within this EA, are contained in the Interdisciplinary Team Checklist, which is included as Appendix A. In an effort to conduct a collaborative planning effort, the BLM and USFS sought input from the general public, as well as from Native American tribes. The BLM and USFS had a formal 30-day scoping period for the public to submit comments from January 30, 2015 through March 1, Additionally, letters were sent to all interested Native American tribes on December 16, Issues brought forward for detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives are located below in Table 1-1: Table 2-1: Issues Requiring Detailed Analysis Resource Cultural Issue What would be the effect of the alternatives on historic properties within the planning area eligible for inclusion in the National Register (NR)? 6

11 Livestock Grazing Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species and Agency Sensitive Species Invasive Species / Noxious Weeds Recreation Soils Wildlife How would the alternatives impact the acreage and Animal Unit Months (AUM) within the Peacock and West Grimes Allotments? What would be the effect of the alternatives on livestock trailing within the planning area and other livestock activities at the corral in Cottonwood Canyon? How would the alternatives impact the USFS sensitive plant species of Canyon Sweetvetch and Link Trail Columbine within the planning area? What would be the effect of the alternatives on vegetation within the planning area? How will the proposed actions in the alternatives affect the introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds? How would the proposed actions in the alternatives affect the expected recreation experience within the planning area? What would be the effect of the alternatives on soil attributes and soil erosion within the planning area? How would the alternatives affect the typical use patterns and behaviors of wildlife species within the planning area? 1.8. Summary This chapter has presented the purpose and need of the proposed project, as well as the relevant issues, i.e., those elements of the human environment that could be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. In order to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project in a way that resolves the issues, the BLM and USFS have developed a reasonable range of action alternatives. These alternatives are presented in Chapter 2. 7

12 2. ALTERNATIVES 2.1. Introduction This chapter presents the range of alternative proposals developed to meet the purpose and need for this project and to address resource issues identified from public comments and the BLM and USFS IDT. The proposed actions under each alternative will only occur on federal BLM and USFS lands within the planning area. Table 2-2 shows acres of ground disturbance per alternative and per agency. Table 2-3 offers a summary of the each alternative s management actions per agency. The alternatives being considered are intended to find solutions to the following recreation management and infrastructure needs within the planning area: Camping Bouldering Sites Trail Network Parking Areas 2.2. Alternative A No Action Under the No Action Alternative, resource management within the planning area would remain as is (see Maps 5-17 in Appendix B). The current management situation within the planning area is as follows: There are currently no developed campgrounds. Dispersed camping is allowed, except in Straight Canyon on USFS lands. Bouldering is an appropriate recreation use throughout the planning area. Unmanaged redundant and/or user-created trails and parking areas exist throughout the planning area Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B addresses resource impacts resulting from bouldering activities within planning area on both BLM- and USFS-administered lands (see Map 2 in Appendix B). To remedy impacts resulting from the current dispersed camping situation, this alternative proposes the following actions: Designate and develop two campgrounds on BLM-administered lands, as described in Table 2-2. One of these BLM campgrounds would be located at New Joe s (Grimes Wash), and the other BLM campground would be located at Cottonwood Canyon as shown in Map 2 in Appendix B. Dispersed camping would not be allowed on any BLM-administered lands within the planning area. 8

13 All user-created campsites within the BLM portion of the planning area will be reclaimed. The USFS will install approximately 12 fire rings at dispersed campsites on USFS-administered lands along Cottonwood Canyon between the USFS boundary and Dairy Canyon. Table 2-1: Proposed Campground Features (BLM lands) New Joe s Campground Potential fee for campground Access to each campsite Tent pad, fire ring, and picnic table at each campsite Double vault toilet Development of a sign plan Pull-in parking at each campsite Fencing around the entire campground to keep livestock out Cattle guard at the campground entrance Cottonwood Canyon Campground Potential fee for campground Access to each campsite Tent pad at each campsite Fire ring at each campsite Class C open-air toilet The development of a sign plan Pull-in parking at each campsite Fencing around the entire campground to keep livestock out Cattle guard at campground entrance The following supplementary rules will apply to all camping within the BLM portion of the planning area; none of these rules apply to camping on USFS-administered lands: No burning of wood pallets or any wood material with nails or screws. No ignition or maintenance of campfires in non-designated sites. All human waste must be disposed of in a vault toilet or packed out by recreation visitors Wood gathering for any purpose is prohibited without a permit. The discharge of firearms is prohibited within 1/4 mile of all trailheads and developed campgrounds within the planning area. No person may leave personal property unattended in campgrounds, developed recreation areas, or elsewhere on public lands within the planning area for a period of more than 72 hours without written permission from the authorized officer. No person shall discharge or ignite a firecracker, rocket or other firework, or explosive without authorization from the BLM. 9

14 Bouldering will continue to be allowed throughout the planning area; however, to address the impacts resulting from bouldering within the planning area, this alternative proposes the following actions on both BLM- and USFS-administered lands: Bouldering sites with Class 4 or 5 soil erosion (see Table 3-1) will be hardened by creating rock or timber retaining walls to level landing areas (see Maps 5-17 in Appendix B). Soil conditions will be monitored to determine which future bouldering sites will be hardened. In order to address the impacts resulting from the current trail network within the planning area on both BLM- and USFS-administered lands, this alternative proposes the following actions: Trails with Class 4 or 5 soil erosion (see Table 3-2) will receive the following treatments as needed and where appropriate (see Maps 5-17 in Appendix B): o Trail hardening with native rock o Re-route access trails to reduce grade and to avoid known sensitive plant species populations o To protect Hedysarum occidentale v canone (Canyon Sweetvetch), a USFS sensitive plant species, buck and rail fence could be placed as necessary to close off access to the trail and 1-3 bouldering sites near the Anderson Mine on USFS-administered lands. The soil condition will be monitored on all trails to determine which future trails will need treatments. As determined by the BLM and USFS, redundant trails will be closed and rehabilitated. A sign plan will be developed for the trail network. Trails on BLM-administered lands will have a 50-foot maintenance corridor. To address the safety hazards and resource impacts resulting from the current usercreated parking areas, the following actions are proposed under this alternative: Establish day-use parking areas as follows: o 8 parking areas will be located on BLM-administered lands as shown on Map 2. o 28 existing parking areas located on USFS-administered lands as shown in Maps 5-17 in Appendix B. These BLM and USFS day-use parking areas will be established as follows: o All parking areas will be hardened using road base. o Native rocks and/or barrier posts/rails will be used as necessary to contain dispersed parking within the established parking areas. 10

15 o The New Joe s parking area will have an interpretive panel about the history of mining in the area. o Develop interpretation to be used at parking areas to inform visitors about the bouldering sites and trail network. All visitor parking must be within an established day-use parking area. User-created parking areas and pull-offs not being improved and authorized as day-use parking areas will be closed and reclaimed. Install a vault toilet at the Angler Access parking area in Straight Canyon. During any of the construction or rehabilitation phases of implementing this alternative, the following actions will be followed: An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan could be developed to address any invasive species and noxious weeds that would become established as a result of this project. As part of an IPM plan, chemical control of invasive species and noxious weeds would be the preferred method of control. When applying herbicides for this project, the Standard Operating Procedures, Prevention Measures and Mitigation Measures from the BLM Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States and Record of Decision will be followed. Chemical applications would be similar to those already analyzed in DOI-BLM-UT-G EA, DOI-BLM-UT-G EA and DOI-BLM-UT-GOSX EA, and are hereby incorporated by reference Alternative C This alternative will be the same as Alternative B for all USFS-administered lands. However, there would be three variations for BLM-administered lands (see Map 3 in Appendix B): 1. The Cottonwood Canyon Campground would not be designated or developed. 2. Dispersed camping is allowed, except in Straight Canyon on USFS lands. 3. The Mansized dispersed camping area in Cottonwood Canyon would have fire rings and one vault toilet installed Alternative D This alternative will be the same as Alternative B for all USFS-administered lands. However, there would be one variation for BLM-administered lands. 1. The New Joe s Campground would be designated in a different location, as shown in Map 4 in Appendix B. 11

16 Table 2-2: Approximate Total Ground Disturbance by Alternative and Agency Alternative A Actions BLM USFS Camping 3.29 acres 1.74 acres Trails 0.44 acres* 0.65 acres* Bouldering Sites 1.58 acres** 3.93 acres** Parking Areas 0.46 acres 0.98 acres* Total Disturbance 5.77 acres 7.3 acres Alternative B Actions BLM USFS Camping 21.4 acres 1.64 acres Trails 0.44 acres* 0.65 acres* Bouldering Sites 1.58 acres** 3.93 acres** Parking Areas 0.31 acres 0.98 acres* Total Disturbance acres 7.2 acres Alternative C Actions BLM USFS Camping 14.5 acres 1.64 acres Trails 0.44 acres* 0.65 acres* Bouldering Sites 1.58 acres** 3.93 acres** Parking Areas 0.31 acres 0.98 acres* Total Disturbance acres 7.2 acres Alternative D Actions BLM USFS Camping 28.2 acres 1.64 acres Trails 0.44 acres* 0.65 acres* Bouldering Sites 1.58 acres** 3.93 acres** Parking Areas 0.31 acres 0.98 acres* Total Disturbance acres 7.2 acres *Acreages are the same across all alternatives because Alternatives B, C, and D will not add disturbance, but enhance the existing disturbance. **Alternatives B, C, and D show the same disturbance as Alternative A for bouldering sites; however, the difference is that B, C, and D will enhance 1.03 acres of bouldering sites with a soil condition class 4 or 5 on BLM lands and 3.13 acres of bouldering sites with a soil condition class 4 or 5 on USFS lands. The 1.03 acres (BLM) and 3.13 acres (USFS) is included in the acreage listed in the table. 12

17 Table 2-3: Alternatives Summary by Management Action and Agency Actions Alternative A No Action BLM Alternative B Proposed Action BLM Alternative C BLM Alternative D BLM Developed Campgrounds No developed campgrounds 2 developed campgrounds New Joes (Grimes Wash) and Cottonwood Canyon 1 developed campground New Joes (Grimes Wash) 2 developed campgrounds New Joes (different locations) and Cottonwood Canyon USFS USFS USFS USFS No developed campgrounds No developed campgrounds No developed campgrounds No developed campgrounds BLM BLM BLM BLM Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area No dispersed camping allowed throughout the planning area Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area No dispersed camping allowed throughout the planning area Dispersed Camping USFS USFS USFS USFS Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area, except in Straight Canyon Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area, except in Straight Canyon Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area, except in Straight Canyon Dispersed camping allowed throughout planning area, except in Straight Canyon 13

18 Actions Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D BLM BLM BLM BLM Dispersed Fire Rings None None Install fire rings at the Mansized dispersed camping area None USFS USFS USFS USFS None Establish 12 fire rings at dispersed campsites Establish 12 fire rings at dispersed campsites Establish 12 fire rings at dispersed campsites BLM BLM BLM BLM Camping Reclamation None USFS Reclaim all user-created campsites USFS Reclaim all user-created campsites, except at the Mansized dispersed camping area USFS Reclaim all user-created campsites USFS None Campsite containment between the Forest Boundary and Dairy Canyon Campsite containment between the Forest Boundary and Dairy Canyon Campsite containment between the Forest boundary and Dairy Canyon BLM BLM BLM BLM 14

19 Actions Alternative A No Action None Alternative B Proposed Action 1 double vault toilet at New Joes Campground Alternative C 1 double vault toilet at New Joes Campground Alternative D 1 double vault toilet at New Joes Campground 1 open-air toilet at Cottonwood Campground 1 vault toilet at Mansized dispersed camping area 1 open-air toilet at Cottonwood Campground Toilets USFS USFS USFS USFS None 1 vault toilet at Angler Access parking area in Straight Canyon 1 vault toilet at Angler Access parking area in Straight Canyon 1 vault toilet at Angler Access parking area in Straight Canyon BLM BLM BLM BLM Designated Day-Use Parking Areas None USFS 8 parking areas USFS 8 parking areas USFS 8 parking areas USFS None 28 parking areas 28 parking areas 28 parking areas BLM BLM BLM BLM Trail and Bouldering Site Enhancement None Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trail hardening Re-routing Trail hardening Re-routing Trail hardening Re-routing 15

20 Actions Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Monitoring of soil conditions Alternative C Monitoring of soil conditions Alternative D Monitoring of soil conditions USFS USFS USFS USFS None Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trails and bouldering sites with soil condition class 4 or 5 will receive: Trail hardening Re-routing Trail hardening Re-routing Trail hardening Re-routing Monitoring of soil conditions Monitoring of soil conditions Monitoring of soil conditions 16

21 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1. Introduction This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., the physical, biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the planning area as identified in the IDT Checklist (Appendix A) and presented in Chapter 1 of this assessment. This chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts described in chapter Resources Brought Forward for Analysis Cultural Resources Cultural resources are locations of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory (survey), historical documentation, or oral history. The term includes archaeological, historic, and architectural sites, structures, and places with important public and scientific uses, and may include locations (sites or places) of traditional, religious, and cultural importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. Cultural resources are material places and things that are located, classified, ranked, and managed through the system of identifying, protecting, and utilizing for public benefit. Area of Potential Effect (APE) Under 36 CFR 800 the Regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA defines the (Area of Potential Effect (APE) as those areas in which impacts are planned or are likely to occur. Specifically the APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may vary depending upon expected outcomes (36 CFR [d]). The proposed indirect APE for this project is the entire planning area boundary. The indirect APE for historic properties considers visual, audible, and atmospheric elements that could diminish the integrity of properties for which setting, feeling, and/or association are qualifying characteristics of eligibility. The proposed direct APE is defined by those locations where ground disturbance is proposed, which is considerably smaller than the indirect APE. Cultural resources that have a potential to be affected by the direct, indirect and cumulative effects with this project were evaluated. Each alternative was analyzed for its potential to adversely affect properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Intensive Literature and Records Search An intensive literature and records search for the planning area was conducted at the Price Field Office in November 2015 and again in April 2016 by the BLM archaeologist. Similar records searches were conducted for all USFS-administered lands on August 18, The literature search included a review of the Utah Division of State History Data Management site, also known as and 17

22 General Land Office Plats accessed in April 2016 at 71 class III intensive pedestrian inventories have occurred on BLM- and USFSadministered lands within the indirect APE. These inventories have resulted in the identification of 35 archaeological sites. Class III Intensive Pedestrian Inventory An intensive pedestrian inventory was conducted on BLM-administered land in those areas proposed for ground disturbing activities as identified by each alternative. No additional historic properties were identified as a result of this inventory Livestock Grazing The planning area is within the BLM Peacock and West Grimes Allotments, and includes a major livestock trailing route to Trail Mountain, East Mountain, and Straight Canyon grazing areas managed by the USFS. The Peacock Allotment is comprised of approximately 3,571 acres. There are approximately 3,171 acres of BLM-administered lands and approximately 400 acres of private land within the allotment boundary. There are 56 active AUMs on the Peacock Allotment with one permittee. Livestock grazing occurs on this allotment from April 1 st through June 10 th. Livestock graze the bottom of the drainage up Cottonwood Canyon and trail to the private land where water is available. When snow is present, livestock disperse onto the lower benches in the canyon where forage is accessible. For the last several years, Cottonwood Canyon has seen an increase in the amount of vehicle traffic and dispersed camping, which has ultimately caused a change in the way livestock graze in the canyon. Livestock have been harassed in the Cottonwood Canyon area, which has led to the permittee keeping livestock out of this area to avoid conflicts with campers and vehicles. Currently livestock is being concentrated in other areas of the allotment on BLM and private lands. The West Grimes Allotment has approximately 4,440 total acres. There are approximately 530 acres of BLM-administered lands and approximately 530 acres of State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) within the allotment boundary. There are 295 active AUMs on the West Grimes Allotment with three permittees. Livestock grazing is limited to the available forage along the southern edge of the BLM-administered lands along the adjoining permittee s private lands. Livestock grazing is limited on this allotment due to the encroachment of Pinion and Juniper (PJ) trees in this area. The increased canopy cover of PJ has limited understory growth of almost all vegetation, creating a monoculture of PJ. There is minimal vegetation available for livestock or wildlife in this area. Cottonwood Canyon and Straight Canyon are major livestock trailing routes to USFSmanaged grazing areas. There are approximately 901 cattle trailing to Trail Mountain and 744 cattle trailing to East Mountain for a total of 1,645 cattle trailing through Cottonwood Canyon twice during the year. Livestock trailing through Cottonwood Canyon occurs in June and again in September through October. There are 18

23 approximately 1,276 sheep and 1,131 cattle that trail through Straight Canyon twice during the year. Livestock trailing through Straight Canyon occurs in June to July and again in September through October. There was a livestock corral built in 2010 by the USFS grazing permittee holders. The corral was built for safety purposes to keep livestock from drifting or wandering onto Utah Highway 29 to avoid vehicle-livestock accidents. The corral was also built to accommodate a safe loading and unloading area for semi-tractors and trailers. Livestock are trailed to the corral when coming off and going on to the mountain, then picked up or dropped off by semi-tractors and trailers. USFS grazing permittees have complained about their livestock being harassed in this area by campers and vehicles Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) was prepared by the USFS to provide a review of the potential effects within the planning area on threatened, endangered, or proposed plant and animal species (TEP) on forest system lands and to determine whether consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is necessary (USFS 2016c). The BA/BE is hereby incorporated by reference in this environmental assessment. There are no TEP plant species that occur or that have suitable habitat in or near the planning area. There are two USFS sensitive plant species within the planning area that could be impacted, Canyon Sweetvetch, Hedysarum occidentale var. canone, and Link Trail Columbine, Aquilegia flavescens rubicunda. There are no BLM sensitive plant species within the planning area. Canyon Sweetvetch is known to occur on BLM-administered land and USFS administered lands within the planning area. Canyon Sweetvetch is usually found on sites that have a high water table, near springs or stream beds, and riparian sites within the PJ vegetation type at 5,500 to 7,000 feet elevation. River birch and squaw brush are the most commonly associated species. It is endemic to Duchesne and Carbon Counties. Surveys were conducted by the USFS and the BLM in the spring of 2016 to determine the extent and occurrence of Canyon Sweetvetch within the planning area. A total of 128 Canyon Sweetvetch plants were recorded on BLM-administered land in the planning area. A total of 610 plants were recorded on USFS administered lands during the 2016 survey (Fugal et al. 2016). Three populations of Canyon Sweetvetch were found near proposed activities on BLM administered lands. One population was observed in a drainage near the Black and Tan bouldering cluster. A population also occurs near the access route to the Gunshot bouldering site. Another population was recorded along the main Cottonwood drainage by the parking area and access route to the Mansized bouldering cluster. Surveys on BLM lands concluded that Canyon Sweetvetch does not occur in the bouldering sites or along any vehicle access routes or hiking trails. Additionally, Canyon Sweetvetch does not occur in the proposed New Joe s or Cottonwood campsite locations. 19

24 Surveys on USFS-administered lands found several populations in Straight Canyon and Cottonwood Canyon. Straight Canyon had the most widely distributed population, covering a 3.6-mile stretch of the canyon. A few populations (17% of the individuals) occur near parking areas, access trails, or bouldering sites. A few plants were found within a bouldering site near the Anderson Mine. Link Trail Columbine, could potentially exist on BLM and USFS lands within the project planning area. Surveys were conducted in the spring of 2015 to determine the extent and occurrence of Link Trail Columbine within the project planning area. Link Trail Columbine was not definitively found in the project area. Based on the habitat requirements of the species it is not likely to occur in the drier bouldering sites. One columbine was found during the survey in a site not used for bouldering, but the plant was still in the early growth stages and determination of species was impossible. Link Trail Columbine was not the focus of the 2016 survey but was targeted as a species of opportunity if found Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species Vegetation within the planning area includes, but is not limited to, the following: Juniper, Pinion pine, rabbit brush, greasewood, cottonwood trees, shadscale saltbush, mat saltbush, sagebrush, galleta grass, blue gramma, poa grass species, Indian rice grass, wheat and rye grasses, service berry, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, Russian thistle, halogeton, cheatgrass, and several different types of forbs. Vegetation varies with topography, soil type, and elevation. In the Cottonwood Canyon area, the native vegetation has been denuded in the dispersed camping areas and in the parking areas. Invasive species have invaded these areas around the perimeters. In the New Joe s area, the native vegetation has been denuded in the dispersed camping areas and in the parking areas. Invasive species have invaded these areas around the perimeters. Vegetation, along the trails leading to bouldering sites and at bouldering sites, have been trampled in some cases and eliminated in others. Outside of the above mentioned areas, most vegetation is native and relatively unharmed; however it is dependent on the amount of precipitation that is received and therefore variable from year to year Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Annual invasive species are interspersed throughout public lands in the planning area. Halogeton or saltlover, prickly Russian thistle, and cheatgrass are invasive species that are present within the planning area. These invasive species occur along the main roads, within the barrow ditches adjacent to the main road, in isolated patches along the fence lines and in other disturbed areas such as the user created trails, parking areas, and dispersed camping areas. Salt cedar is the only known noxious weed present within the drainages and low lying areas of the planning area where water accumulates. There is 20

25 musk thistle present on USFS-administered lands in Cottonwood and Straight Canyons adjacent to the planning area. The Emery County Weed and Mosquito Department currently controls noxious weeds along Utah Highway 29 in Straight Canyon. The BLM does not have an Invasive Species Management Plan for this area. On USFS-administered lands, the weed management program will be implemented where necessary under existing USFS authorities Recreation The planning area is located in three canyons: Left Fork (Straight Canyon), Right Fork (Cottonwood Canyon), New Joe s (Grimes Wash). These canyons begin approximately 3 miles from the town of Orangeville, UT. The existing recreation facilities include two kiosks. Dispersed campsites can be found in all three canyons. Common recreational activities in the area include: bouldering, hunting, fishing, and kayaking. Joe s Valley has been regarded by climbers as a premier bouldering destination due to its concentration of high-quality sandstone boulders, classic problems, moderate to hard grades, scenic views, and rural setting (Knight and Porucznik 2014). Bouldering Sites 188 bouldering sites within the planning area have been identified. 60% of the bouldering sites are located on USFS lands, 25% are located on BLM lands, 5% on SITLA lands, and 10% on private lands. In Left and Right Fork Canyons, the majority of the use level on bouldering sites is low (Knight and Porucznik 2014). In New Joe s, the use level of bouldering sites was a mix of low and heavy use. According to the impact assessment, 64% of the bouldering sites are rated class 4 or 5 for soil erosion (see Table 3-1), which means most of the vegetation and organic litter has been lost and that soil erosion is occurring at these sites (Knight and Porucznik 2014). For a map detailing the bouldering activity, see Maps 5-17 in Appendix B. Campsites Currently there are no developed campsites in the planning area. All existing camping is occurring at dispersed, user-created sites. A total of 94 dispersed campsites have been identified within the planning area. The majority of the camping has been occurring on BLM lands. The breakdown of the dispersed campsites in the planning area by land ownership is 56% on BLM lands, 21% on SITLA lands, 18% on USFS lands, and 4% on private lands (Knight and Porucznik 2014). As a result of the dispersed camping, and the fact that there are no existing permanent toilet facilities, the disposal of human waste has become an issue throughout the planning area. Trail Network 9.7 miles of informal trails have been identified within the planning area. Of those 9.7 miles of trail, 51% are located on USFS land, 33% on BLM land, 2% on SITLA land, 21

26 and 13% on private land. Approximately 4.2 miles of the social trails are rated class 4 or 5 trails for soil erosion (see Table 3-2). Some indicators of Class 4 or 5 trails would be: a loss of vegetation cover and organic litter within the tread, bare compacted soil, soil erosion and gullying is occurring within the trail (Knight and Porucznik 2014). For a map detailing the trail network, see Maps 5-17 in Appendix B. Parking Area/Trailheads Current parking areas and trailheads are located in small pull-offs along the road. 48 parking areas have been identified within the project planning area. 25% of the parking areas are located on BLM lands, 58% on USFS lands, 10% on SITLA lands, and 6% on private lands. The combined disturbed area from these current parking areas is approximately 6.5 acres (Knight and Porucznik 2014) Soils The soils in the planning area can be characterized into two distinct types: Alluvial sandy loam in the bottoms with bouldery fine sandy loam in the uplands. The bottoms are derived from sandstones and shale that have eroded above and have been transported by fluvial action and deposited along the stream banks. The uplands are steep to very steep hill slopes consisting of outcrops of sandstone and some shale in the upper elevations. The upland soils are shallow along the steeper hill slopes and become deeper as the slope attenuates at the bottom. The soils are well drained, and moderately erodible. The following classification system was used to determine the soil conditions around bouldering sites and will continue to be used as a part of the monitoring program for the planning area: Table 3-1: Bouldering Site Soil Condition Classification System Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Site barely distinguishable; no or minimal disturbance of vegetation and/or organic litter. Often an old site that has not seen recent use. Site barely distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal disturbance of organic litter. Site obvious; vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized in primary use areas. Vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized on much of the site, some bare compacted soil exposed in primary use areas (i.e., under boulder problems). Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover and organic litter, bare compacted soil widespread. Very minor erosion localized under bouldering problems may be present. 22

27 Class 5 Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed tree roots and rocks and/or gullying. The following classification system was used to determine the soil conditions of the trail system and will continue to be used as a part of the monitoring program for the planning area: Table 3-2: Trail System Soil Condition Classification System Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Trail slightly distinguishable; faint access route; trail follows drainage/wash; or trail is underlain by bedrock. Trail distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal disturbance of organic litter. Trail obvious; vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized in primary use areas. Vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized within the center of the tread; some bare compacted soil exposed. Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover and organic litter within the tread; bare compacted soil widespread. Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed roots and rocks and/or gullying Wildlife Resources General Wildlife The planning area supports a mosaic of vegetation and physical characteristics that provide habitat for a variety of general wildlife species. Species that occupy lands within the planning area are typically generalist species that are accustomed to moderate amounts of human activity. Small mammal species that are expected to occur throughout the planning area include, but are not limited to, the cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), squirrels (Spermophilus variegatus), coyote (Canis latrans), badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), longtailed weasels (Mustela frenata), and other rodent species. Reptiles and amphibians potentially found in the region include the garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans), racers (Columber sp.), great basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), western toad (Bufo boreas), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), and sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus). Although all of these species are important members of wildland ecosystems and communities, most are common and have widespread distributions within Carbon and Emery County. Consequently, the relationships of most of these species to the proposed 23

28 development are not discussed in the same depth as those species that are threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, of special economic interest, or are otherwise of high interest or unique value Big Game Species Mule Deer Mule deer prefer a mosaic of various aged vegetation that provides woody cover, meadow and shrubby openings, and free water. Vegetation cover is critical for thermal regulation in winter and summer, and to provide escape cover. Mule deer are concentrate selectors, diets contain a much higher shrub component than elk, although dietary composition of forage classes vary among locations and seasons and depend on their availability (USFS 2016a). The planning area falls within the Central Mountains South Manti Wildlife Management Unit (WMU). This wildlife management unit contains private, State, BLM, and USFSadministered lands. The long term population objective set by the Utah Division of Wildlife (UDWR) for wintering herd size within the unit is 38,000 deer (UDWR 2015). Winter range is a limiting factor for deer on this unit. Portions of critical winter ranges are in poor condition. Factors contributing to poor range conditions include recent droughts and range use by deer and domestic livestock. This has resulted in a reduction of winter range carrying capacity. The planning area includes habitat designated by the UDWR as crucial spring/fall, crucial summer, crucial winter, and substantial winter. These habitat designations are common throughout the Central Mountains South Manti (WMU). Mule deer are identified as a management indicator species (MIS) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The Forest Plan considered a minimum viable population for mule deer for the Manti-La Sal National Forest to be 19,820. The current winter population estimates for herd units dominated by Manti-La Sal National Forest lands is 45,100 deer, with 23,600 on the Manti Division. Population estimates by the UDWR in 2015 was 25,100 or 66% of objective. The deer population, for the most part, is dependent on the number and type of tags issued by the UDWR each year, and on weather cycles and patterns. Rocky Mountain Elk Elk habitat includes semi-open forest and mountain meadows in the summer. They move to foothills, plains and valleys in winter. Rocky Mountain elk use uneven-aged, mature forest stands that include old growth characteristics, herbaceous openings, and water. Dense brush under-story is used for escape and thermal cover. They are herbivorous, and feed in riparian areas, meadows, and on herbaceous and brush stages of forest habitats. They graze and browse, eating grasses, forbs, tender twigs, and leaves of shrubs and trees, fungi, some mast and aquatic vegetation. The planning area falls within the Central Mountains WMU. This wildlife management unit contains private, State, BLM, and USFS-administered lands. The long term population objective set by the UDWR for herd size within the Manti sub-unit is 12,000 24

29 elk. Drought is the primary factor that impacts elk populations. Forage production and vigor is severely limited during drought years. Current and future oil and gas development as well as urban expansion will continue to fragment existing elk habitat and displace elk to less productive areas. The planning area includes habitat designated by UDWR as crucial summer and substantial winter. Much of these habitat types are common throughout the Central Mountains South Manti WMU. Elk are identified as a management indicator species for the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The Forest Plan has a minimum viable population for elk of 2,125 (USFS 1986). The population has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, although the elk population was intentionally reduced from due to the persistent drought. The elk population for the most part, is dependent on the number and type of tags issued by the UDWR each year, and on weather cycles and patterns. The current population estimate for elk on herd units dominated by Manti-La Sal National Forest lands is 15,850 elk, with 12,300 elk on the Manti Division. Bird Species The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order contain direction for federal agencies in the conservation of migratory birds. Suitable habitat for four raptor species - bald eagles, golden eagles, peregrine falcons and ferruginous hawks occurs within the planning area (USFS 2016). Bald Eagles Suitable winter habitat occurs within the planning area. The nearest known nest area is near the Hunter Power Plant, a distance of more than 12 miles from the planning area. This nest has not been active for several years. Bald eagles observed in the planning area are wintering populations or northern birds that are migrating through in the fall and spring. Numbers and distribution vary with the severity of the winter. Winter sightings of bald eagles are common along Straight Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, and in the valleys within Emery County where there are cottonwood galleries. There are no known winter roosts or concentration areas in or near the planning area. Bald eagles are found throughout Utah during the winter months and typically begin arriving in November with the highest numbers of bald eagles occurring in January and February. Most of these eagles begin returning north again in March. Golden Eagles Golden Eagles are identified as a management indicator species for the Manti-La Sal National Forest. There are 25 known golden eagle nests within ½ mile of bouldering sites. The area within and around the planning area is used for nesting and foraging habitat. Golden eagles usually nest on cliffs overlooking large open expanses of grass-shrub or shrub steppe habitat, but tree nesting occurs in portions of their breeding range, including Utah. Nesting and brooding season generally extends from mid-february to 25

30 mid-july. There is extensive cliff habitat along the eastern margin of the Wasatch Plateau and in canyons incising the Plateau. There are also extensive grassland and mountain brush habitats for foraging. Golden eagles primarily prey on small mammals including ground squirrels, prairie dogs, jack rabbits and cottontails. Preferred golden eagle prey habitat includes the edge along high mountain brush habitat, high/midelevation perennial forb habitat, and high elevation perennial grassland habitat. Preferred golden eagle winter habitat includes large expanses of sagebrush. Peregrine Falcon Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Peregrine falcon occurs within the planning area. Peregrine falcons most commonly occupy habitats which contain cliffs for nesting and more open country for foraging. There is no preference to certain vegetation types. Ferruginous Hawk Suitable habitat for the Ferruginous hawk occurs within or near the planning area. The Ferruginous hawk usually breeds in areas of flat and rolling terrain in grassland or shrub steppe habitat. They avoid high elevations, forests, and narrow canyons, typically occurring in grasslands, agricultural lands, sagebrush/salt brush/greasewood shrublands and the periphery of pinyon/juniper habitats. 26

31 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1. Introduction This chapter provides an analysis of the environmental consequences from implementing the alternatives identified in Chapter 2. Design features that would avoid or reduce impacts have been included in Chapter 2 of this EA, and the analyses in this chapter assume that those measures would be implemented Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in the time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable Alternative A No Action This section analyzes the impacts of the no action alternative to those potentially impacted resources described in chapter Cultural Resources The no action alternative would result in continued unmanaged recreation use in the planning area. Potential adverse effects to historic properties or other cultural resources not yet identified might occur at an unknown rate Livestock Grazing The no action alternative would result in continued unmanaged recreation use in the planning area. Conflicts between livestock and users would continue. Livestock would continue to be harassed and pushed in and out of areas where they are supposed to be, causing difficulty in the removal or trailing of livestock. Conflicts with livestock trailing and grazing in parking areas, dispersed camping areas, bouldering areas, and trails could also lead to safety conflicts between humans, vehicles, and livestock Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species Populations of Canyon Sweetvetch, a USFS sensitive species, are known to occur in the planning area. Most populations are limited to drainages and are not being directly affected by current parking areas, access trails, bouldering or camping activities. Under the no action alternative, the continued use and unmanaged expansion of the trails, campsites, and parking areas could affect the few individuals adjacent to the trails, campsites, and parking areas through habitat degradation Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species The no action alternative would result in continued unmanaged recreation use in the planning area. Vegetation would continue to be trampled and denuded in dispersed camping locations, parking areas, bouldering areas, and braided trails. Invasive species 27

32 would continue to invade these disturbed areas and could out-compete native vegetation. Soils would continue to display erosion without proper vegetation cover to help minimize the erosion Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds The no action alternative would result in continued unmanaged recreation use in the planning area. Invasive species would continue to invade dispersed camping locations, parking areas, bouldering areas, and braided trails due to the invasive species that are currently within the area; however the potential would be lower since no construction would occur. Control of invasive species and noxious weeds would continue along Utah Highway 29 going up Straight Canyon Recreation The no action alternative would result in continued unmanaged recreation use in the planning area, which eventually will lead to a degraded recreation experience for most users due to soil erosion, lower visual quality, and potential for health and safety issues. Bouldering Sites The no action alternative would result in 121 of the 188 bouldering (91 on USFSadministered lands and 30 on BLM-administered lands) sites in the planning area remaining in class 4 or 5 soil erosion (see Table 3-1) leading to further soil erosion problems and negatively affecting the recreation experience of visitors. The no action alternative leaves approximately 1 acre of BLM-administered lands and 3 acres of USFS-administered lands untreated and susceptible to further erosion issues as a result of continued use of these bouldering sites. Campsites The no action alternative would result in the continued expansion of the 94 dispersed campsites throughout the planning area. These campsites have disturbed approximately 5 acres of both BLM- and USFS-administered lands in the planning area. Dispersed campsites and impacts from fire rings will continue to expand under this alternative. Currently there are 125 fire sites in the planning area. Because there are no existing, permanent toilet facilities, the disposal of human waste has become an issue. Under the no action alternative, the unsanitary human health conditions resulting from human waste throughout the planning area would continue to be a concern. Trails Network There are currently 9.7 miles of informal social trails in the planning area, including trails on BLM, USFS, SITLA, and private lands. The BLM has 3.2 miles of informal trails, and the USFS has 5 miles of informal trails. There are 4.2 miles of trail within the soil condition class 4 or 5. Under the no action alternative, these 4.2 miles of class 4 or 5 social trails in the planning area will remain in their existing poor condition (see Table 3-2). This would lead to further soil erosion problems and creation of alternate usercreated routes to bouldering sites. 28

33 Parking Areas The no action alternative would result in an unsafe situation in all of the dispersed parking areas (approximately 1.5 acres of existing ground disturbance) in the planning area because of the proximity of the user-created parking areas to the roads Soils Under the no action alternative, many of the bouldering sites and the trail network would remain in a soil condition of class 4 and 5 (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). It is anticipated that, with the continued trend of increased recreation activities in the planning area, without any actions taken to monitor and improve soil conditions, more of the bouldering sites and trail network within the planning area will reach the class 4 and 5 soil conditions Wildlife No change to the current recreation use of the area is expected. The trails would continue to be used, and dispersed camping would continue. As a result changes to the use by wildlife species would occur within the planning area. As the dispersed camping areas expand, some wildlife like deer would avoid the area. Other wildlife that quickly adapts to human use like squirrels and chipmunks would likely continue their use the area. Much of the recreation use occurs adjacent to the creeks in Straight Canyon and Cottonwood Canyon. The trail braiding and the disturbed areas from camping would continue to contribute sediment into the creek, which could potentially affect the macroinvertebrate and fish populations. The potential for human waste and debris to make into the creek systems would continue due to the unrestricted camping and waste management Alternative B Proposed Action This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed actions as described in Alternative B to those potentially impacted resources described in chapter 3 above Cultural Resources All of the area of direct effect for this alternative has been inventoried for cultural resources. There is only one National Register Eligible archaeological site within the direct APE for this project. The Anderson Mine (42EM4089 / ML-4752) is in the New Joe s (Grimes Wash) portion of the project area. It is a small-scale historic coal mine that operated between about 1914 and It consists of a 1,155 by 1,634 foot area containing a very scattered array of features, including a small tipple, a small collapsed frame building, two native surface roads, sparse and intermittent artifact scatters, and discontinuous surface patches of coal. There are 18 climbing boulders within the site s boundary, along with foot trails that access these boulders. The boulders are between 400 and 1,400 feet away from the tipple or collapsed building. Several boulders are near coal patches, but no foot trails accessing the boulders cross them. There are some artifact scatters near foot trails, but 29

34 no artifacts occur under or adjacent to boulders. The two old mine roads also serve as foot trails to climbing boulders, and one of these passes within about 30 feet of the tipple. This site has been monitored since 2014, to assess the degree to which climbing activities might be affecting the site. This monitoring includes detailed artifact mapping (to detect the movement or removal of tin cans, broken bottles or other small artifacts), and repeat photography (with initial site documentation photos from 2008 serving as the baseline). The site is visited during the spring or fall climbing seasons. This monitoring has shown that the site has changed very little since The only detected changes have been in the positioning of some pieces of scattered milled wood near the tipple. No artifact removal or movement has been detected near foot trails, boulders, or the tipple. This monitoring shows that no adverse effects to any of the site features or artifact scatters has occurred since 2008 and bouldering has been done at the site throughout that time. In order to continue to minimize the effect of bouldering activities at the Anderson Mine, the USFS and BLM will continue to annually monitor the site for any changes in its condition (and take actions such as fencing of site features, as needed). In addition, the agency will continue to stipulate that any volunteer trash collection projects in New Joe s leave all historic period artifacts in place. Further, the agencies will install interpretive signs in New Joe s that tell the story of the Anderson Mine and provide Respect and Protect cultural resources messages. This alternative proposes to potentially rehabilitate some redundant foot trails to reduce soil erosion at the site. None of these trails are on or near coal patches or artifact scatters and this activity will not adversely affect the site. The alternative also proposes to add low landing areas under selected boulders within the site boundary. Ten of the 18 boulders within the site boundary are Condition Class 4 or 5, indicating that landings could reduce soil erosion in those locations. Any landings would be constructed to blend into the environment, and would be designed to be as low and discreet as possible. As a result, they would not be noticeable to most site visitors and would not adversely affect the appearance of the site as a historic mine. In summary, there will be no adverse effect to cultural resources as a result of this proposed action alternative. This includes the potential effects from landings, trail rehabilitation, or the continuation of bouldering at the Anderson Mine (42EM4089) Livestock Grazing The proposed action would result in managed recreation in Cottonwood Canyon and New Joe s (Grimes Wash). Approximately 15 acres and one AUM would be removed from livestock grazing on the BLM-administered Peacock Allotment. Approximately 21 acres and two AUMs would be removed from livestock grazing on the BLMadministered West Grimes Allotment. The combined loss of AUMs is less than 1% of the total grazing permitted on these allotments. Fencing and cattle guards would be constructed to eliminate livestock from the campgrounds. This would lessen the conflicts between livestock and users in the campgrounds. The parking areas would not be fenced and livestock would continue to trail and graze through the area. Possibilities 30

35 for conflict between livestock and users would continue on both BLM- and USFSadministered lands. The trails and bouldering sites would have minimal interaction between livestock and users when livestock are in the areas at the same time on BLMand USFS-administered lands Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species Populations of Canyon Sweetvetch, a USFS sensitive species, are known to occur on BLM- and USFS-administered lands in the planning area. On BLM-administered lands, the three populations are limited to drainages and are not being directly affected by current bouldering or camping activities. On USFS-administered lands 610 individuals were observed in The majority, 83 percent, of the plants were located beyond the potential impact area (within 50 feet of the bouldering sites or access trails). Seventeen percent of the individuals were within 50 feet of a bouldering site or adjacent to a trail and a few plants were found at one bouldering site near the Anderson Mine. Current bouldering activity is not measurably affecting the populations on USFS-administered lands. However, future bouldering activity may affect the few individuals growing at the base of one bouldering site near Anderson Mine area because they occur in an area used for pad and equipment placement. The implementation of the proposed action, including closing of trails, designating parking areas, and developing two campgrounds with toilets would mitigate direct impacts to the species or the suitable habitat. All proposed actions would occur in previously disturbed areas. Indirect effects from erosion and habitat fragmentation would be reduced through hardening of the bouldering sites and improving the trail network. Implementation of the proposed action, including fencing off access to and at 1-3 bouldering sites near the Anderson Mine, will help conserve the Canyon Sweetvetch and its habitat and not contribute to the need to list the species Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species The proposed action alternative would result in managed recreation in Cottonwood Canyon and New Joe s (Grimes Wash). Approximately 15 acres would be disturbed in Cottonwood Canyon and 31 acres would be disturbed in New Joe s (Grimes Wash) for the construction of campgrounds. In the short term, vegetation will be displaced and unable to protect the soil or compete with invasive species. In the long term, having designated campgrounds will help to minimize further vegetation loss. The designation of parking areas would provide areas for vehicles to park. The continued loss of vegetation would be avoided. By improving trails to bouldering sites, it will eliminate vegetation on the trails and at the bouldering sites. However, by creating one trail and avoiding continued user created braided trails, vegetation would be able to re-establish in the areas that have been previously denuded. There will be permanent loss of vegetation in the designated campgrounds, parking areas, trails, and bouldering areas. All other areas would be re-seeded to eliminate further erosion 31

36 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Disturbance caused by the proposed action could allow for the establishment or spread of invasive species and noxious weeds. Prickly Russian thistle, halogeton, salt cedar, and cheat grass are currently found within the planning area. Specific negative effects of invasive species and noxious weeds associated with the proposed action in the planning area could include: 1) reduction in the overall visual character of the area; 2) competition with, or elimination of native plants; 3) reduction or fragmentation of wildlife habitats; and 4) increased soil erosion. Noxious or invasive plant species would likely continue to expand their distribution within the planning area along roadways from surface disturbance and mechanical transport of weed seeds from outside the area via equipment and other vehicles used. By pre-washing all equipment and vehicles used in carrying out the proposed actions, the introduction of invasive species and noxious weeds could be reduced. Disturbance causes native vegetation to be displaced and creates openings or niches for invasive species and noxious weeds to thrive. There is approximately an additional 18 acres of ground disturbance under this alternative in comparison to the no action alternative. This slightly increases the chance for the introduction, spread, and establishment of invasive species and noxious weeds; however, with the development of an IPM, the risks will be considered and appropriate measures implemented to reduce the risk of introduction, spread, and establishment of invasive species and noxious weeds Recreation The selection of the proposed action will result in better public health and safety experience for recreationists in the planning area. Along with a safer recreation experience, the soil and vegetation resources associated with this recreation experience will be more sustainable, preventing further soil erosion and vegetation trampling. Bouldering Sites There is approximately 5.5 acres of combined existing disturbance for all 188 bouldering sites, under the assumption that each landing area at each bouldering site encompasses approximately 1,500 square feet (0.03 acres) of disturbance. 121 of the 188 identified have been identified as having a soil condition class 4 or 5, and under the assumption mentioned above, this alternative would lead to approximately 4 acres of bouldering sites being hardened by digging around the landing area and filling in with large rocks to help stabilize the landing area and prevent further erosion. This action will not add to the total disturbance, but will enhance the existing disturbance by creating a more sustainable landing area at each bouldering site with a soil condition class 4 or 5. If, after monitoring, additional bouldering sites with class 4 or 5 soil conditions are identified, then the site hardening would take place, ensuring that erosion does not become a problem at future sites. In an attempt to protect the USFS sensitive species Canyon Sweetvetch, the USFS could place fencing to block access to 1-3 bouldering sites on USFS-administered lands near Anderson Mine. Recreationists would lose the ability to climb at these sites. Additionally, with the potential closure of 1-3 of these bouldering sites, there would be 32

37 up to 0.1 acres less of ground disturbance as a result of hardening the landings around these closed off bouldering sites. Campsites Dispersed camping would be eliminated on all BLM lands within the planning area. Current dispersed campsites on BLM lands in the project would be reclaimed to a natural state. All camping on BLM-administered lands would occur in the developed campgrounds in New Joe s and Right Fork. This would create a more sustainable and more pleasing camping experience. Two developed campgrounds on BLM-administered lands would provide camping opportunities for recreation use within the planning area. Campgrounds would have vault toilets, fire rings, tent pads, and parking areas. The campground in New Joe s would offer a double vault toilet and picnic tables at campsites. The facilities would provide recreation amenities that the public has been requesting. These two campgrounds would create approximately 21 acres of ground disturbance, an increase of approximately 18 acres of disturbance from the no action alternative. Dispersed camping would continue on USFS-administered lands in Cottonwood Canyon between the Forest Boundary and Dairy Canyon. These dispersed campsites would receive designated fire rings and site containment. Dispersed camping on USFSadministered lands in Straight Canyon would continue to be prohibited. Trails Network 43%, or 4.2 miles, of all social trails in the planning area are in soil condition class 4 and 5 (see Table 3-2), and would be hardened with the placement of rocks and or rerouting to lower the grade. Lowering the grade of the trails will make these trails more sustainable and prevent further soil erosion. Additionally, the trail network will be evaluated to close and rehabilitate all redundant trails throughout the planning area. This, along with a sign plan, would improve the recreation experience by providing clear directions, while also improving the natural setting of the area. In an attempt to protect the USFS sensitive species Canyon Sweetvetch, the USFS could place fencing to block the trail access to 1-3 bouldering sites on USFS-administered lands near Anderson Mine. Recreationists would lose the ability to access these sites. Parking Areas The current user-created parking areas are unmanaged and hardened with road base and leveled to create sustainable parking areas. The current acreage of disturbance from parking areas on BLM-administered lands is 0.46 acres, and under Alternative B, this acreage would be reduced to 0.31 acres of disturbance for parking areas. The current acreage of disturbance from parking areas on USFS-administered lands is 0.98 acres, and this disturbance would remain the same under Alternative B; however, the current footprint of disturbance would be enhanced by the parking area developments described in Chapter 2. 33

38 Soils Campsites will be designed to reduce soil erosion. The New Joe s Campground will be on a hardened surface with designated campsites to reduce additional impacts to the surrounding area. The Cottonwood Canyon Campground will be located across the highway from the existing Mansized dispersed camping area and will have similar features to the New Joe s Campground. The Cottonwood Canyon Campground will have the highway to act as an additional barrier preventing eroded particles from entering the stream. Fire rings would be installed to prevent the spread of ashes. Trails will be hardened to reduce overland flow and concentrated flows carrying soils from the area. Popular bouldering sites will be hardened and landings designed to prevent erosion at those sites. All these efforts will reduce erosion in the long term Wildlife General Wildlife and Big Game Species Under the proposed action, two campgrounds would be built on BLM lands and dispersed camping would not be allowed on BLM lands. The construction of the campsite would occur on already disturbed ground, so no quality habitat would be lost. The dispersed camping sites would be reclaimed. By limiting the area and location of the camping activities, wildlife habitat within the planning area would generally improve on BLM lands. There may be some minor temporary impacts such as displacement of wildlife as a result of construction and maintenance activities in the area, but once those actions are completed, it is expected that the wildlife populations would move back into the area. The proposed action will also concentrate currently ongoing activities (i.e. hiking, and parking) into specific authorized locations and areas where disturbance has already occurred, reducing fragmentation of habitat and the potential for disturbance in areas that contain sufficient habitat for wildlife. It will also reduce the amount of habitat loss due to unauthorized braided trails and soil erosion through reclamation activities. The planning area includes habitat for mule deer designated by the Utah Division of Wildlife as crucial spring and fall, crucial summer, crucial winter, and substantial winter (UDWR 2015). These habitat designations are common throughout the Central Mountains South Manti Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), less than 5% of the habitat would be affected (see Table 4-1). Construction activities would not occur in the winter, thereby eliminating potential impacts to wintering deer. Population estimates by the DWR in 2015 were 66% of objective (UDWR 2015). The deer populations have been slightly increasing in the recent years. However, populations have been largely dependent on the number and type of tags issued by the UDWR. Implementation of this project would not negatively impact existing habitat or displace deer in the wintering months; therefore no impacts to the population trends of the species are expected. Table 4-3: Amount and Percentage of Mule Deer Habitat Type Affected by the Alternatives 34

39 Species Habitat Type # of Acres (Approx.) Percentage of designated habitat within the Central Mountains South Manti WMU affected. (Approx.) Spring/fall, Crucial 2, % Mule Deer Summer, Crucial 15, % Winter, Crucial 5, % Winter, Substantial 911 5% For Rocky Mountain Elk, much of the designated habitat types are common throughout the Central Mountains WMU, less than 7% of the each habitat would be affected (see Table 4-2). Construction activities would not occur in the winter, thereby eliminating potential impacts to wintering elk. The elk populations have been stable in recent years (USFS 2016). Implementation of this project would not negatively impact existing habitat or displace elk in the wintering months; therefore no impacts to the population trends of the species are expected. Table 4-4: Amount and Percentage of Habitat Designation Affected by the Alternatives Species Habitat designation # of Acres (Approx.) Percentage of similar habitat within the Central Mountains WMU (Approx.) Rocky Mountain Elk Summer, Crucial 35 < 1% Winter, Substantial 24, % The only real potential impact to big game comes in the form of vehicular traffic and deer collisions along Straight Canyon (SR-29), Cottonwood Canyon, Forest System Road (FSR 50040), and New Joe s (Grimes Wash near Utah Highway 57); however, this would not be additive since vehicular traffic from bouldering already exists and the current mortality levels are low. No impacts would occur to elk since they are usually found at higher elevations near Joe s Valley when bouldering occurs in the early spring. No long term direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to affect the general wildlife populations within the proposed action area. Birds Species 35

40 All of the bouldering sites and associated trails within the planning area have been utilized by the general public for several years and some for decades. The parking areas, trails, and bouldering sites are located adjacent to high-use travel routes (i.e. roads). Any new level of noise activity associated with the proposed action will not add substantially to the noise levels that currently exist within the area. The proposed action will also concentrate currently ongoing activities (i.e. camping, hiking, and parking) into specific authorized locations and areas where disturbance has already occurred, reducing future fragmentation of habitat and the potential for disturbance in areas that contain sufficient nesting or foraging habitat for birds. It will also reduce the amount of habitat loss due to unauthorized braided trails, soil erosion, and human waste (i.e. garbage). The cliff band or escarpment above the bouldering sites in Straight Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, and New Joe s provides optimal nesting habitat for golden eagles. The cliff band where eagles nests are located is approximately 1,500 feet (vertical wall) above the bouldering sites and is inaccessible from the bouldering area. The proposed action includes no activities that would cause disturbance or abandonment of a nesting territory, and would have no impacts to golden eagle population trends. Management Indicator Species Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer, Golden Eagle, Northern Goshawk, and Macroinvertebrates were all chosen as management indicator species (MIS) for the USFS. Detailed explanation for the species trend and occurrence is found in the Wildlife Report (USFS 2016). Mule Deer Discussed above. Rocky Mountain Elk Discussed above Golden Eagles Discussed above Northern Goshawk The Forest Plan Guidelines state that goshawks were chosen as Management Indicator Species in the Forest Plan to monitor the impacts of activities (such as mining, oil and gas development) and disturbance in nesting territories. Goshawks are unlikely to occur in the planning area due to lack of suitable habitat. The goshawk population on the Manti-La Sal National Forest has remained relatively stable. The Manti-La Sal National Forest Plan Goshawk Amendment states that less than a 20% decline in occupancy over a 3-year period is an acceptable range. We are currently within that range. Implementation of this project would not affect the trend of the species. Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates are benthic organisms including aquatic insects (mayflies, caddis flies, daphnia, cyclops, stoneflies and others), mollusks, and worms. Freshwater 36

41 macroinvertebrate communities are highly variable. In a stream system, many physical, chemical, and biotic factors interact to affect macroinvertebrate communities in ways that are not fully understood. Current data for the USFS indicate no statistically significant trends for macroinvertebrates. Implementation of the proposed action would not have a measurable impact on the trends of these species because there are no activities planned within streams Alternative C This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed actions as described in Alternative C to those potentially impacted resources described in chapter 3 above Cultural Resources The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Livestock Grazing The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Recreation Under alternative C, the Cottonwood Canyon Campground would not be designated as a developed campground. Dispersed camping would continue to be allowed, which will lead to the continued expansion of dispersed campsites and fire rings. Vegetation will not get a chance to reclaim and further vegetation will be lost due to user-created campsites. Impacts to trails, parking areas, and bouldering sites will be the same as Alternative B. 37

42 Soils The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Wildlife The direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The impacts resulting from the continuation of dispersed camping throughout the planning area (except on USFS lands in Straight Canyon) would be the same as Alternative A Alternative D This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed actions as described in Alternative D to those potentially impacted resources described in chapter 3 above Cultural Resources The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Livestock Grazing The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Recreation The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B. 38

43 Soils The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Wildlife The only difference from Alternative D and Alternative B is the location of the New Joe s Campground; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Introduction The purpose of the cumulative impacts section is to describe the interaction among the effects of the proposed action and relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. This interaction may be: Additive: the effects of the actions add together to make up the cumulative effect. Countervailing: the effects of some actions balance or mitigate the effects of other actions. Synergistic: the effects of the actions together is greater than the sum of their individual effects Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The planning area has some past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past actions include: Recreational activities like dispersed camping, hiking, bouldering, fishing, and hunting Two active BLM-managed livestock grazing allotments: Peacock and Grimes Wash Allotments Natural gas field operations Public wood cutting areas Fuels reduction projects Present and reasonably foreseeable actions include: Recreational activities like dispersed camping, hiking, bouldering, fishing, hunting, and kayaking during spring runoff. Two active BLM-managed livestock grazing allotments: Peacock and Grimes Wash Allotments 39

44 Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources The cumulative impact area of analysis for cultural resources is the indirect APE, as defined in Chapter 3. The action alternatives would not adversely affect historic properties eligible for the NR and limit significant impacts to cultural resources in general. As a result, the additive impact of the action alternatives, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, will be practically unnoticeable Livestock Grazing The cumulative impact area of analysis for livestock grazing would be the BLMmanaged Peacock and Grimes Wash grazing allotments. Implementation of Alternative A would contribute very little to the collective impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Alternative A would result in continued harassment of livestock during grazing and trailing operations as well as safety issues with livestock, vehicles, and humans. Alternatives B, C, and D are nearly identical in regards to indirect and direct impacts. Total ground disturbance as proposed in these alternatives is less than 1% of the planning area. Although livestock grazing would see a slight decrease in AUMs per allotment (less than 1% decrease), the design features of the action alternatives (e.g., parking areas, fencing campgrounds) offer a barrier to prevent impacts as all past, present, and future activities occur concurrently throughout the planning area Vegetation: USFS Sensitive Species Based on the limited occurrence of USFS sensitive species in the planning area, the cumulative impact area of analysis for USFS sensitive plant species would consist of all lands within the planning area. Implementation of Alternative A would result in continued loss of native vegetation, and potential impact to the plants that occur adjacent to parking areas, access trails, and bouldering sites. Alternatives B, C, and D are nearly identical in regards to indirect and direct impacts. With the rehabilitation of redundant trails, a reduction in dispersed camping, controlled parking, and construction of a fence at key sensitive plant locations, native vegetation throughout the planning area would benefit through reduced disturbance. Because future actions would be managed to reduce effects to USFS sensitive species, cumulative impacts would be minimal. The rehabilitation of redundant trails, reduction in dispersed camping, and controlled parking would benefit native vegetation throughout the project area. Future activities would be managed to reduce impacts to USFS sensitive species, and cumulative impacts would be minimal Vegetation: Excluding USFWS Designated Species The cumulative impact area of analysis for non-usfws designated plant species would be the subwatersheds located within the planning area. Implementation of Alternative A 40

45 would contribute very little to the collective impact and would result in continued loss of native vegetation. Alternatives B, C, and D are nearly identical in regards to indirect and direct impacts. With the rehabilitation of redundant trails, a reduction in dispersed camping, and controlled parking throughout the planning area, native vegetation throughout the planning area will be benefited. As a result, vegetation health and distribution will improve, benefitting the natural setting for recreationists and the forage for grazing livestock Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds The cumulative impact area of analysis for invasive species and noxious weeds consists of all lands in the planning area. Implementation of Alternative A would contribute very little to the collective impact and would result in continued disturbance where invasive species and noxious weeds would continue to invade disturbed areas. The implementation of any of the actions of Alternatives B, C, or D would result in nearly identical direct and indirect impacts. All other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would include design features to mitigate the introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds. Although the proposed actions within the alternatives of this project and the actions of any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action could potentially introduce, spread, or establish invasive species and noxious weeds, design features will be applied to reduce their introduction, spread, and establishment; therefore, cumulative impacts would be minimal Recreation The cumulative impact area of analysis for recreation consists of all lands in the planning area. Implementation of the action alternatives, as well as all existing land uses in the planning area, would not likely lead to the long-term loss of recreation resources. The no action alternative would lead to a long-term trend towards a lower quality recreation experience. Resources throughout the planning area would continue to see continual degradation due to soil erosion, human waste issues, safety hazards, and the continued proliferation of hiking trails. The development of campgrounds could lead to further displacement of cattle and wildlife; however, the effects on those resources can be mitigated in the long run through education and proper site design. With the improved recreation infrastructure in the planning area and the recent designation of the Joe s Valley Bouldering Area to BLM s Top-20 climbing areas, visitation and use is anticipated to increase Soils The cumulative impact area of analysis for soil resources would be the subwatersheds located within the planning area. Under the no action alternative, soil erosion resulting from the current uses of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would continue. Under the action alternatives, the short-term disturbance from the proposed actions of this project would be overshadowed by the long-term benefits from the concentration of camping in developed campgrounds with bathroom facilities, the rehabilitation of redundant trails, the hardening of bouldering sites, and the development 41

46 of day-use parking areas. Therefore, it is not expected that these impacts would result in cumulative long-term impacts to soil resources within the watershed Wildlife In considering cumulative impacts, the cumulative impact area of analysis for mule deer would be the South Manti Wildlife Management Unit. The cumulative impact area of analysis for elk would be the Central Mountains Wildlife Management Unit. The cumulative impact area of analysis for raptors would be the planning area with an additional 0.5-mile buffer. Implementation of Alternative A would result in continued loss of native vegetation that occurs adjacent to parking areas, access trails, and bouldering sites. Alternatives B, C, and D are nearly identical in regards to indirect and direct impacts. Although the proposed actions within the alternatives of this project and the actions of any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action could potentially affect wildlife species, design features would be applied to reduce impacts; therefore, cumulative impacts would be minimal. 42

47 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5.1. Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted Table 5-3: List of all Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted Name Purpose & Authorities for Consultation or Coordination Findings & Conclusions Jonathan Knight Salt Lake Climbers Alliance Impact Assessment Jeff Porucznik Manuel Hart Ute Mountain Tribe Chairman Darwin St. Clair, Jr. Eastern Shoshone Chairman Raymond Loretto Pueblo of Jemez Governor Val Panteah Pueblo of Zuni Governor Jason Walker Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation Chairman Gordon Howell Ute Indian Tribe Chairman Nathan Small Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Chairman Ben Shelly Navajo Nation President Gari Lafferty Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Chairwoman Natural Resources Recreation Planner- Independent Consultant Consultation as required by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 1531) and NHPA (16 USC 1531) Impact Assessment Tribal Consultation Letter was mailed 1/7/15 43

48 Herman Honanie Hopi Tribal Council Chairman Clement Frost Southern Ute Tribal Council Chairman Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation for undertakings, as required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470) No adverse effect to cultural resources Summary of Public Participation The BLM and USFS initiated a 30-day scoping period from January 30, 2015 through March 1, comments were received, 88% of which were from the climbing community. All comments received were considered and, where appropriate, were addressed in the range of alternatives. A 15-day review and comment period, starting April 13, 2017, for this EA will be offered to the public before a decision is made. LIST OF PREPARERS Table 5-4: List of Preparers Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Document Matt Blocker BLM - Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation and Project Leader Jake Palma NEPA Coordinator Quality Assurance/Quality Control Amber Koski Stephanie Bauer BLM - Archeologist/ Assistant Field Manger BLM - Range Management Specialist Cultural Resources Invasive Species & Noxious Weeds, Livestock Grazing, and Woodlands/Forestry 44

49 Karl Ivory BLM - Supervisory Rangeland Specialist Vegetation Jeffery Brower BLM - Hydrologist/Soils Soils Jared Reese/ Dana Truman Jeff Jewkes BLM - Wildlife Biologist USFS-Forest Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Wildlife Kim Anderson USFS-Forest Ecologist Special Status Plants Bill Broadbear USFS- Forest Recreation Specialist Recreation Charmaine Thompson USFS - Archaeologist Cultural Resources 45

50 6. REFERENCES Emery County Emery County General Plan, 2016 Revision. BLM Price Field Office Resource Management Plan. Approved October Fugal et al Rare Plant Bouldering Survey Report. May Knight and Porucznik Recreation Site, Informal Trail, and Dispersed Campsite Impact Baseline Assessment and Procedures: Joe s Valley Bouldering Area, Utah. September UDWR Deer Herd Unit Management Plan - Deer Herd Unit # 16BC/12 - Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael and Deer Herd Unit 16A - Central Mountains, Nebo. October USFS Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USFS 2016a. Wildlife Resource Report for the 2015 Joe s Valley Bouldering Project. Manti-La Sal National Forest. USFS 2016b. Joe s Valley Bouldering Recreation Specialist Report. Manti-La Sal National Forest. USFS 2016c. Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for the 2015 Joe s Valley Bouldering Project. Manti-La Sal National Forest. 46

51 Appendix A: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST Project Title: Joe s Valley Bouldering Area NEPA Log Number: DOI-BLM-UT-G EA Project Leader: Matt Blocker DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column) NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA NC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents cited in Section D of the DNA form. The Rationale for Determination column may include NI and NP discussions. Table 6-1: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date RESOURCES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED (INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES APPENDIX 1 H ) NI Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions No standards have been set by EPA or other regulatory agencies for greenhouse gases. In addition, the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is still in its earliest stages of formulation. Global scientific models are inconsistent, and regional or local scientific models are lacking so that it is not technically feasible to determine the net impacts to climate due to greenhouse gas emissions. It is anticipated that greenhouse gas emissions associated with this action and its alternative(s) would be negligible. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 47

52 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date NP BLM natural areas There are no BLM Natural Areas within the proposed project area as per GIS and RMP review Matt Blocker 11/17/14 PI NP Cultural Resources Cultural: Native American Religious Concerns A literature review and Class III intensive survey were conducted at the proposed camp, trail, parking and climbing locations. Bouldering locations occur within one historic site, but monitoring has shown no significant impact to cultural remains. A report will be submitted by the Forest Service and BLM to the Utah SHPO for consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA. Amber Koski 11/24/2014 Letters sent January 7, Consultation with tribes is still ongoing. Amber Koski 4/13/17 NP Designated Areas: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern After review of the current Price Field Office Resource Management Plan and our GIS system there are no ACEC s located in this project area. Josh Winkler 11/24/14 NP Designated Areas: National Trails and Backways There are no National Trails or Backways within the project area as per review of RMP/GIS maps. Matt Blocker 11/17/14 NP Designated Areas: Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project area as per review of RMP/GIS maps. Matt Blocker 11/17/14 NP Designated Areas: Wilderness Study Areas There are no WSAs within the project area as per review of RMP/GIS maps. Matt Blocker 11/17/14 48

53 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date NI Environmental Justice No minority or economically disadvantaged communities or populations would be disproportionately adversely affected by the proposed action or alternatives. Kelly Buckner NP Farmlands (prime/unique) No prime or unique farmlands, as identified by the NRCS, based on soil survey data for the county are located in the project area; therefore, this resource will not be carried forward for analysis. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NI Fuels/Fire Management The proposed project would not conflict with fire/fuels management activities. Follow any seasonal fire restrictions. Kevin Cahill 11/19/14 NI Geology / Minerals / Energy Production Valuable deposits of oil, gas, and coal are present in the project area; however, the proposal is not intrusive and not destructive to mineral resources. Moreover, the Chris Conrad 12/1/14 proposal does not minimize or reduce access to mineral resources; thus the project will not affect mineral resources. NI Lands/Access After a review of LR2000 and the Master Title Plat, it was determined that there are several rights-of-way within the project area; however, no adverse impacts are Connie Leschin 1/11/2016 expected as a result of the proposed activity. NP Lands with Wilderness Characteristics There are no lands with wilderness characteristics within the project area as per review of RMP/GIS maps. Matt Blocker 11/17/14 PI Livestock Grazing The proposed project is within the Peacock, East Grimes and West Grimes Allotments. This project will unlikely impact grazing, however, grazing will impact this project by cattle accessing campgrounds when they graze. Campground fencing should be considered in this proposal. Cottonwood Canyon and Straight Canyon are within active livestock trailing routes in the spring and fall. The increased traffic could impact trailing cattle through the canyons during these times as well as cattle located at the corral. Stephanie Bauer 12/9/14 NI Paleontology Current and proposed activities would not negatively impact any vertebrate fossils present. The likelihood of any being present is also low. Michael Leschin 12/1/

54 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date PI Vegetation: BLM Sensitive According to BLM records there are no BLM sensitive plants or suitable habitat for sensitive plants within the project area. However, there 2 FS sensitive species present in the canyons. FS will need to be contacted for AQFLRU, HEOCCA, and maybe CHNAPS. See FS BA/BE Dana Truman 11/17/2014 PI Vegetation: Invasive Species / Noxious Weeds Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce/spread invasive species/noxious weeds. There are no known noxious weed infestations, however invasive species such as Russian thistle and halogeton or saltlover are present in disturbed areas and along roadsides in barrow ditches and fencelines. Stephanie Bauer 12/9/14 NI Vegetation: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate According to BLM records and field visit there are no federally listed species in the project area. In addition there is no suitable habitat for listed species. Thus no effect call to Federally listed species. Se also the FS BA/BE Dana Truman 11/17/2014 PI Vegetation: Vegetation Excluding USFW Designated Species and BLM Sensitive Species Vegetation impacts from designating a single trail to the bouldering sites would not impact vegetation any further than it already has, however camp site expansions as well as parking locations have the potential to remove vegetation. Stephanie Bauer 12/9/14 NI Vegetation: Wetland/Riparian The proposed project includes riparian areas along the left fork and the right fork of Cottonwood Creek. No actions (improved campgrounds, trails, bouldering locations) have been identified that would affect these riparian areas. Karl Ivory 11/24/2014 NI Vegetation: Woodlands/Forestry The proposed project is within an approved biomass removal location. However, the alternatives restrict dispersed camping to more than a mile outside of a designated developed campground and all wood collecting is prohibited without a permit. Stephanie Bauer 12/9/14 50

55 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date NI Rangeland Health Standards Rangeland health standards could be impacted due to the loss of vegetation in camp site and parking locations. The impacts to rangeland health are expected to be minor and isolated to these area. Vegetation, soils, water quality and riparian areas are addressed in other sections of this checklist and therefore will address Rangeland Health Standards in those sections. Stephanie Bauer 12/9/14 PI Recreation The proposed action is in an area (Extensive Recreation Management Area) where recreation opportunities and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is not required. This area is also found within our roaded natural and Josh Winkler 11/24/14 limited to designated road and trails management directives from the RMP. Implementation of the proposed action could have impacts on recreation. NI Socio-Economics No impact to the social or economic status of the county or nearby communities would occur from this project due to its small size in relation to ongoing development throughout the PFO. Kelly Buckner PI Soils The proposed project is designed to improve erosion at bouldering sites. There will be new campgrounds proposed that will permanently change the attitude of the soil under the camp sites. New trails would reduce erosion as will the improvements under the bouldering sites. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NI Visual Resources The proposed action is found in a VRM class III & IV area. Management directive for VRM III are to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. While management directives for VRM IV are to provide for management activities Josh Winkler 11/24/14 which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. If mitigation measures are made and followed this trail system should meet the criteria. 51

56 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date NI Wastes (hazardous/solid) No chemicals subject to reporting under SARA Title III will be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed of annually in association with the project. Furthermore, no extremely hazardous substances, as defined in 40 CFR 355, in threshold planning quantities, will be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed of in association with the project. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 Trash would be confined in a covered container and disposed of in an approved landfill. No burning of any waste will occur due to this project. Human waste will be disposed of in an appropriate manner in an approved sewage treatment center. NI Water: Floodplains The proposed action would use lands outside the floodplain and therefore, minimal effects to the floodplain. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NI Water: Groundwater Quality This would not affect groundwater. All activities would occur on the surface. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NI Water: Hydrologic Conditions (stormwater) This project is designed to reduce the braiding of trails used to hike to boldering sites, improve landing areas under boldering sites and create maintainable camping areas. These would serve to reduce erosion and other NPS issues. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NI Water: Surface Water Quality The proposed project would reduce erosion and NPS issues. No impact to water quality. Jeffrey Brower 11/26/14 NP Wild Horse / Burro The Proposed action is not within a Wild Horse or Burro Herd Area. Mike Tweddell 11/17/14 52

57 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date Portions of the proposed action are located adjacent to Cottonwood Creek and Straight Canyon. Both creeks contain populations of native fish. NI Wildlife: BLM Sensitive Recent hydrologic regimes have resulted in the Cottonwood creek being dry during the summer of 2015 and the spring for Potential habitat for Flannelmouth Sucker and Bluehead Sucker is marginal and the potential for occurrence of the species is very low due to the current flows. The proposal has potential to decrease erosion, thus no negative effects to the water quality of fish habitat. Dana Truman 02/15/2017 PI Wildlife: Migratory Birds (including raptors) There are multiple locations of raptor nests scattered throughout the proposed action (Golden Eagle & Ravens). Potential effects could occur. There is one small portion of riparian breeding habitat that occurs within the project area. No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to any of the migratory Dana Truman 2/15/17 bird species (excluding raptors)from the proposed project. The proposed project is located along highway routes and no additional noise impacts are anticipated from the climbing activities. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat would be removed or disturbed from any of the bouldering area improvements. The proposed action is located within the following crucial big game habitats. Moose: Year-long crucial habitat PI Wildlife: Non-USFWS Designated Mule Deer: Summer and winter habitat. This habitat is important to these species as it provides them with the essential elements needed to successfully reproduce and ensure their existence within extreme climatic conditions. Jared Reese 12/01/14 53

58 Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date NI Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate Even though the proposed action is located within areas modeled as potential habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl, the area does not exhibit the canyon habitat that matches the primary constituent elements (physical and biological) as described in Jared Reese 12/01/14 the Final Designation of Critical Habitat. The analysis area is more than 45 miles from designated critical habitat and approximately 120 miles from the nearest designated MSO PAC. FINAL REVIEW: Reviewer Title Signature Date Environmental Coordinator Authorized Officer 54

59 Appendix B Maps Map 1 Planning Area Overview 55

60 Map 2 Alternative B Overview 56

61 Map 3 Alternative C Overview 57

62 Map 4 Alternative D Overview 58

63 Map 5 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 59

64 Map 6 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 60

65 Map 7 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 61

66 Map 8 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 62

67 Map 9 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 63

68 Map 10 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 64

69 Map 11 Alternative A Cottonwood Canyon 65

70 Map 12 Alternative A Straight Canyon 66

71 Map 13 Alternative A Straight Canyon 67

72 Map 14 Alternative A Straight Canyon 68

73 Map 15 Alternative A Straight Canyon 69

74 Map 16 Alternative A Straight Canyon 70

75 Map 17 Alternative A Straight Canyon 71