decision notice /finding of no significant impact over...

USDA D ""'=

Decision

Decision Notice /Finding of No Significant Impact Over-Snow Trail Grooming

U.S. Forest Service Payette National Forest

Adams, Idaho and Valley Counties, Idaho

I have reviewed the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Over-Snow Trail

Grooming on the Payette National Forest (PNF) in Valley, Adams and Idaho Counties, considered the

comments received on the draft EA, and discussed the project's anticipated effects with both the

Interdisciplinary Team and Forest Staff. As a result I have decided to implement Alternative 3-

Modified, hereafter called the Selected Alternat ive . My decision authorizes the grooming of over-snow

trails as shown on the attached Selected Alternative Map (Attachment A), design features and

mitigation measures, and a project specific, non-significant Forest Plan Amendment (Attachment B).

Specifically, I am making the following decisions:

1. Should the PNF authorize over-snow trail grooming on PNF lands, and if so, how many miles

should be approved?

My decision will authorize a cost-share agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Valley County, and

the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) for a five -year period . Under the terms of that

agreement, Valley County will be allowed to groom 291 miles of over-snow trails on the PNF within

State Designated Snowmobile Areas 43a, and a portion of 43b (see Attachment A- Maps for Selected

Alternative). Of the 291 miles oftrail, 251 miles occur in LAUson the Forest . This time-limited decision

allows grooming in LAUson the PNF to increase by 60 miles for a 5-year period. Of the 291 miles of

groomed trails, 281 miles will occur on existing authorized roads, and 10 miles will traverse cross

country.

My decision will authorize grooming of over-snow trails for a five -year period only in areas currently

open to over-snow vehicle use. My decision does not change existing and I or designate any new over

snow play areas.

2. If approved, what mitigation measures and/or monitoring should be applied to the project?

My decision includes a list of design features and mitigation measures to minimize or avoid effects on a

variety of resources including terrestrial wildlife species, water quality, fisheries, and public safety.

Refer to the section titled "Design Features and Mitigation Measures" below for the detailed list.

3. What, if any, Forest Plan amendments should the decision maker include?

Based on the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA, my decision will not comply with Forest Plan

standard TEST34 regarding snow compaction due to the five-year increase in over-snow groomed routes

in t he Little Weiser, Upper North Fork Payette, Northwest Council, Hazard Creek, Warren, and Boulder

- Decision Notice/FONSI -

of 23

USDA ==

Creek LAU. I have determined that implementation will require a project specific, non-significant

amendment of the Forest Plan to allow a net increase in consistent snow compaction within these LAUs

for the duration of the five-year cost-share agreement. Attachment B of this document presents my

rationale and determination that this amendment will be non-significant.

Waiving application of this standard through this project specific amendment only applies for the

duration of this five -year cost share agreement and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which

TEST 34 standard consistency will be determined in the future . When this cost-share agreement

requires renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not consistent, a new project

specific amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary.

The Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative authorizes over-snow trail grooming within the PNF for a 5 year period . The

Selected Alternative will be implemented via a Cost Agreement between the PNF, Valley County and

IDPR.

Specifically, I am making the following decisions:

• Authorize over-snow grooming on 291 miles of route on the PNF as described in Alternative 3-

modified . (EA, Section 2.2.5)

• Approximately 281 miles of over-snow trail on existing roadbed .

• Approximately 10 miles of over-snow groomed trail cross-country.

• A project specific, non-significant amendment of Forest Plan standard TEST34 to allow a net

increase in consistent snow compaction within the Little Weiser, Upper North Fork Payette,

Northwest Council, Hazard Creek, Warren, and Boulder Creek LAUs.

• Project design features and mitigation measures as listed below.

Design Features and Mitigation Measures Associated with the Selected Alternative In response to public, agency and internal specialist's comments on the proposal, mitigation measures

were developed to ease some ofthe potential impacts the Selected Alternative may cause.

In addition to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to

mitigate impacts, the following measures will be used. These design features have been incorporated

by the Forest Service to reduce or prevent undesirable effects resulting from proposed management

activities.

Design Features and mitigation measures that will be applied to the Selected Alternative include:

• The trail grooming would be authorized from November 15 thru April 301h annually. Even with

these dates, grooming shall not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or


of 23

a

USDA -::-c=;;;;;;;;

rutting could occur. The operator shall consider recent, current, and forecasted weather and

snow conditions to ensure these conditions are met.

• All fuel and other chemicals shall be stored at the groomer storage facilities or outside Riparian

Conservation Areas (RCAs) .

• All equipment maintenance and refueling shall occur at the storage facilities or outside the RCA.

• Spill containment equipment shall be kept at the storage facilities.

• The Forest Service and its Cooperators will meet annually, prior to beginning grooming activities,

to discuss the annual operating plan and any changes deemed necessary to meet the intent of

incorporated design features.

• The annual operating plan will address t he need to protect Forest Service road signs during

grooming activities and the repair of signs damaged by grooming activities.

• Valley County will be responsible for obtaining any required permits or permissions to groom

trails on non-Forest Service administered lands.

• If an active nest or den site of any threat ened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive

species is found within close proximity (i.e., within X miles) of any over-snow groomed trail,

activities would be modified if a Wildlife Biologist determines that activities could disrupt

reproductive success.

• To protect the NIDGS when they begin to emerge in spring, snowmobile trail grooming in the

Lost Valley/Price Valley area will cease on March 15. In addition, starting each year on March

15, a seasonal closure to OSV use will go into effect in the Lost Valley area . Periodic monitoring

of closure effectiveness will occur. An area closure does not appear to be necessary at this time

for the Price Valley NIDGS sites, since they are smaller and more isolated and less likely to incur

snowmobile traffic. Monitoring will occur in the Price Valley area to support this assumption .

• Additional groomed routes may lead to increased unauthorized intrusions into closed areas on

the Forest. Monitoring (similar to that conducted to date for the wolverine study) will be

required to determine if unauthorized use is occurring.

Rationale for My Decision

The criteria I used for making my decision on th is project were based on how well the management

actions analyzed in the EA met the purpose and need and objectives of the project, and addressed the

comments raised during the seeping and comment period. I considered the 2010 Forest Plan and

evaluated the effects disclosed in the EA. The EA evaluated the environmental effects of the no action

alternative, the proposed action, and one additional action alternative (EA. Chapter 2) .

There were no major issues associated with the proposal identified during internal and external seeping.

I based my decision to implement the Selected Alternative on the following considerations:

Does the Selected Alternative meet the project purpose and need?

The Selected Alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. Valley County has requested that

the grooming program and associated Cost Share Agreement be authorized for another five-year period


of 23

USDA ,.-:=;--

in order to allow continuation of the OSV grooming program on the Payette National Forest. The

purpose of the proposed action and the associated Cost Share Agreement is to document the

cooperation among the parties for the groomed snowmobile trails program within the boundaries of

State Designated Area 43A and a portion of 43B on the PNF.

This action is needed to respond to a request from Valley County and Idaho Parks and Recreation to

allow continued over-snow grooming on the PNF. There is a high public demand for the PNF to provide

the recreational and economic benefits of a groomed system, and the snow grooming cost agreement

between the PNF, IDPR and Valley County expired in Ap ril 2012 .

Should the PNF authorize over-snow trail grooming on PNF lands, and if so, how many miles should

be approved?

The Selected Alternative was developed in response to public comments. My decision will authorize

Valley County to groom 291 miles of OSV trails on the Payette National Forest, providing a network of

groomed OSV trails similar to that available for the last decade with the addition of 63 miles of new

routes beyond the proposed action. Additional routes will be groomed in the Lost Valley and Boulder

Creek areas on the New Meadows Ranger District and from Warren to Warren Summit on the McCall

District.

Effects to snowmobilers: The Selected Alternative does provide potential benefits to snowmobilers

over and above those discussed in Alternative 2. The Selected Alternative would provide additional

groomed routes for snowmobilers to visit and explore, and would help to spread out and disperse the

concentrated use along the groomed trails in the McCall and Cascade areas. Bringing snowmobilers

over onto groomed routes in the Lost Valley Reservoir and Smokey Boulder area would better disperse

the snowmobile users and potentially, reduce some of the use in the heavily used McCall Area.

Relocating some users over into these new areas could also help to reduce some of the congestion in

the McCall Parking lots on the busy weekend and holiday periods.

Effects to Back-country Skiers (motorized): Grooming of the additional trails in the Lost Valley and

Smokey Boulder road areas could re-distribute some of the snowmobilers into those areas, which could

have a benefit to skiers if they were to see a reduction of concentrated use in the more heavily used

shared use areas on the McCall RD.

Back-country skiers do not generally use the Lost Valley Reservoir or Smokey Boulder Road areas to ski,

so there would be no effect to their skiing experience in that area .

Effects to non-motorized Recreation: The new areas proposed for grooming that are in addition to

those mentioned and discussed in Alternative 2 are already open to and used by snowmobilers in the

winter months. Grooming these routes could enable more use of the areas by non-motorized users by

providing a groomed route system to ski on and to snow shoe on. In addition to those effects discussed

in Alternative 2, grooming the routes in the Lost Valley and Smokey Boulder road areas could also affect


of 23

USDA D ,.--=

non-motorized users used to less use and noise by snow machines in the areas. They could expect to

encounter more snowmobile use in the areas than prior to grooming the routes.

Effects to economics: The trails identified for grooming in the Selected Alternative are similar to those

groomed in recent history on the PNF since the 1990s. While not possible to quantify the level of use

specifically tied to these groomed trails, one study published by the University of Idaho in July of 2006,

estimated that as many as 50,000 snowmobile enthusiasts might have visited Valley County in 2003

(Larsen at al. 2006) . There is no current data that reflects the jobs or dollars generated in Adams County

by the snowmobile population .

Effects to Canada Lynx: The Selected Alternative to approve snowmobile trail grooming for a 5-year

period is expected to have only minor effects to lynx and lynx habitat compared with the baseline level

of over-snow use. This is because the action is temporary (5-year permit), groomed snowmobile routes

would mostly occur on trails groomed in the past, additional routes occur mostly outside of lynx habitat

or in unsuitable lynx habitat, and all the additional groomed routes occur in areas open to OSV use.

Effects to northern Idaho ground squirrel: Under the Selected Alternative, additional protective

measures for NIDGS would be required . To protect the NIDGS when they begin to emerge in spring,

snowmobile trail grooming in the Lost Valley/Price Valley area will cease on March 15. In addition,

starting each year on March 15, a seasonal closure to OSV use will go into effect in the Lost Valley

area . Periodic monitoring of closure effectiveness will occur.

Effects to Wolverine: Preliminary findings of the ongoing study investigating interactions between

wolverines and winter recreation appear to show there does not appear to be spatial avoidance of

recreated areas in monitored animals at the home range scale (Heinemeyer et al. 2010) . Design

features, based on Forest Plan direction, require that if an active nest or den site of any threatened,

endangered, proposed, or candidate species is found within close proximity of any groomed OSV trail ,

proposed activities would be modified if those actions are determined by the Wildlife Biologist to be

disrupting reproductive success. Although there are no known den sites in close proximity to proposed

OSV trails and no indication at this time that groomed trails are disrupting reproductive success,

modification of grooming activities could occur, if determined necessary, in the future, in compliance

with Forest Plan standard TEST12 .

Effects to water quality and soils: For grooming routes located on existing roads, no increased risk to

water quality would be incurred beyond that which exists for motor vehicle traffic during the snow-free

months of the year. For cross-country routes that do not have culverts or drainage features in place, the

risk for chemical contamination from petroleum products or hydraulic fluid was evaluated by the

number of occurrences where a cross-country route crosses a stream channel or wetland . Due to the

depth of snow, no ground disturbance is expected from proposed grooming activities from any

alternative. Mitigation measures in the event of a spill that could potentially drain to a wetland or

stream channel are described above .


of 23

USDA -:::-= - D If approved, what mitigation measures and I or monitoring should be applied to the project?

My decision includes a number of design features incorporated to minimize or avoid effects on a variety

of resources with emphasis on those related to terrestrial wildlife species, water quality I fisheries, and

public safety. As explained above, my decision includes a design feature requiring that if an active nest

or den site of any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species is found within

close proximity of any groomed OSV trail, authorized activities will be modified if those actions are

determined by the District Wildlife Biologist to be disrupting reproductive success. This design feature

should ensure that my decision does not disrupt reproductive success of species of concern such as lynx,

northern Idaho ground squirrel, and wolverine (EA, Section 3.3) .

Design features associated with my decision stipulate that grooming will not occur when the ground

surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could occur, nor will grooming occur when the snow is wet

or soft and could lead to channelized runoff across the snow surface into streams. Design features

require that all fuel and other chemicals associated with grooming operations will be stored at the

groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of riparian conservation areas (RCAs); that all equipment

maintenance and refueling will occur at the groomer storage shed(s) or otherwise outside of RCAs; that

grooming equipment will be maintained in a "leak-free" condition, and; that spill containment

equipment will be kept at the groomer storage shed(s) . Given the incorporated design features, my

decision will not result in a measurable increase in erosion or sediment delivery to any stream and the

increased risk of a fuel spill will be discountable (EA, Section 2.3) . Consequently, my decision will have

no effect on the current population trends of fish species (EA, Section 1.10).

My decision also includes a number of design features related to public safety. One such feature states

that snowmobile trail maps/brochures associated with the grooming program should promote

avalanche awareness and safety for all trails and for all users.

What, if any, Forest Plan amendments should the decision maker include?

Given the lack of information on the sensitivity of lynx to snow compact ion, the following standard was

incorporated into the Forest Plan TEST34 (as written):

"Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, outside of

baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with immediately adjacent

LA Us unless the Biological Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to

consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries,

to winter logging, and access to private inholdings. Also, permits, authorizations or agreements

could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow compaction, and grooming

could expand to routes of existing snow compaction and routes that have been designated but not

groomed in the past and still comply with this standard."

The analysis summarized in the Wildlife Section of Chapter 3 of the EA explains that the Selected

Alternative will increase snow compaction due to groomed routes in 6 LAUs. The Selected Alternative


of 23

USDA a -::o-=

would temporarily (for 5 years) increase the amount of groomed routes beyond baseline, as defined by

the 2001 Map (Project Record).

Changes in OSV route miles by LAU, may not fully meet the current Forest Plan standard (as written),

but a more accurate assessment of effects to lynx can be gained by looking at the changes in OSV routes

in potential and suitable lynx habitat. These changes are small and localized, particularly when the

amount and condition of the available habitat is considered . Also, the short-term nature of this decision

(5 years) allows us to reassess the change in habitat in 5 years and any potential implications to lynx in

any LAU. For these reasons, changes would result in negligible effects to any lynx that may occur on the

Forest.

Given the information summarized above, I am confident that the Selected Alternative will meet the

intent of Forest Plan standard TEST34 (i .e. minimize or avoid adverse effects to lynx). Therefore my

decision includes a project specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. This non-significant

amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 for this project. As a result, a

net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the Boulder Creek LAU, Hazard Creek

LAU, Little Weiser LAU, Upper North Fork Payette LAU, Northwest Council LAU, and Warren LAU for the

duration of this five-year cost share agreement and would not alter the existing baseline miles from

which standard consistency will be determined in the future. When this cost-share agreement requires

renewal, consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not consistent, a new project specific

amendment with supporting rationale will be necessary. See Attachment B for a full discussion of this

non-significant amendment.

Other Alternatives Considered Although a number of concerns were noted during the scoping of the Proposed Action, review of the EA,

and I or during the course of the analysis, no significant issues or points of unresolved conflict were

identified . Public comments did identify a desire for more groomed routes on the west side of the

Forest. Therefore I directed the Interdisciplinary Team to develop a second action alternative

(Alternative 3) that includes grooming additional routes on the west side of the Forest. The discussion

below summarizes my rationale for not selecting Alternative 1 (No Action) or Alternative 2 (Proposed

Action).

Alternative 1 (No Action): This alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and also serves as an

environmental baseline for comparing action alternatives. Under this alternative a new cost-share

agreement authorizing Valley County to groom OSV trails on the Payette National Forest would not be

issued. Snowmobile use within the majority of the Forest would continue to be allowed consistent with

current areas closed by special order.

This alternative was not selected because it did not meet the purpose and need of the project.

Specifically, it would not be responsive to Valley County's request to continue the OSV trail grooming


of 23

USDA -:::-= ;;;;;;

program, would not meet public demand for a groomed OSV trail system, nor would it support the rural

economy in Valley County (EA, Section 3.1).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): This alternative would consist of authorizing a cost-share agreement between the USDA Forest Service,

Valley County, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation for a five-year period . Under the

terms of that agreement, Valley County would be allowed to groom 228 miles of OSV trails on the

Payette National Forest. This alternative would provide an OSV trail network similar to the Selected

Alternative, but does not include grooming of any additional routes on the west side of the Forest .

Although this alternative would meet the purpose and need of the project to a high degree, it would not

be responsive to the public' s desire for groomed OSV trails on the west side of the Forest or on the

Warren to Warren Summit route . Since the Selected Alternative will provide a network of trails on the

west side of the Forest and the Warren Summit route, and the analysis did not identify any unacceptable

effects, there was no compelling reason to select Alternative 2.

In addition to alternatives considered in detail, I also considered other management approaches in

response to concerns identified through interna l and ext ernal scoping efforts. These alternatives, which

were considered but eliminated from detailed study, are described in Chapter 2 of the EA and include:

• Convert a limited number of snowmobile trails to non-motorized use before considering

developing additional groomed trails. Develop a system of groomed routes in a separate

viewshed and soundshed from motorized routes specifically for non-motorized users.

• Open the Chimney Rock and Burgdorf Summit area to snowmobiling.

• Look at an alternative that adds a groomed route from FS488, portion of 451, and crossing 452

into the Little Bear Basin for the purposes of a one-day skier only event.

Consultation, Governmental Agency Coordination, and Public Involvement

Public Involvement

The project proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning November 2011 . The

Proposed Action proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for scoping, beginning in

January 2012 . Thirteen comments were received on the Proposed Action and those comments were

incorporated into the Draft EA. The Draft EA was completed and published in Septembe r 2012 . It was

mailed to all parties that responded to the Proposed Act ion and it was posted to the Payette National

Forest website . Legal notices were published in both the local Star News newspaper and the Idaho

Statesman newspaper. During the 30 day comment period eight comments were received . A response

to those comments can be found in Appendix B of the Final EA packet.


of 23

USDA ..,.-,.:::=55 a

Tribal Notification I Consultation

Three federally recognized Native American tribes have expresses interest in activities proposed in this

area; Nez Perce, Shoshone-Paiute, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Payette National Forest has

established both staff to staff relationships with resource management departments with these tribes

and formal Government to Government consultations to have early and often communication regarding

proposed actions on the Forest and potential effects to sensitive Tribal resources or traditional cultural

properties.

The Forest presented a briefing paper on the project to the Nez Perce Tribe on February 13, 2012, and

did not receive any comments. The project information was shared with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of

Duck Valley, the Nez Perce Tribes, and the Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Tribal concerns regarding effects

of the over-snow grooming to black bear and wolverine were addressed in the Wildlife section of the EA

(Section 3.3) .

Consistency with the Forest Plan and Other Applicable Laws and Regulations With the exception of a one-time, site specific Forest Plan Amendment of standard TEST34 (described

above) this decision is consistent with the Payett e National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan . This decision is consistent with other applicable laws and regulations. Discussion of compliance

with other applicable laws and regulations can be found in the EA, Section 1.6.

Use of best available science : The conclusions summarized in the EA are based on a review of the

project's record that reflects consideration of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing

views where raised by internal or external sources.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. Th is

means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole

(human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies

with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends

upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole . Intensity refers to the severity or

degree of impact. (40 CFR 1508.27)

I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) and

have determined that this decision is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the

quality of the human environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not

required . This determination is based on the fol lowing factors as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27.


of 23

USDA -:-:=:7 D

Context

Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the 291 miles of OSV trails described in the EA

and will be limited to those actions disclosed in the document and its appendices. Further, with the

exception ofthe project specific, non-significant amendment ofthe Forest Plan associated with my

decision (Attachment B), this action will be consistent with the management area prescriptions, desired

future conditions, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines specified for the area (EA, Chapter 3) . The

activities authorized under the Selected Alternative occur within a small portion of the Patrick Butte IRA.

This use is part of the current groomed trail system and therefore there would be no effect to the

Patrick Butte as the result of the actions in the Selected Alternative . Effects to watershed condition and

fisheries were evaluated at the i h level Hydrologic Unit (HU), Six Mile Creek, the 61h level HUs, Sixmile

Creek-Little Salmon River and Upper Goose Creek, and at the s th level HU, Middle Little Salmon River.

The analysis area for wildlife species was dependent upon the species. Effects to lynx were evaluated

based on the Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that encompass this area . (See Chapter 3 of the EA for more

detailed discussion of the affected environment.)

Intensity

The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following:

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal

agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Consideration of the intensity of

environmental effects is not biased by beneficial effects of the action. The analysis documented

in the EA did not indicate that the Selected Alternative will have a significant effect, either

beneficial or adverse, on the environment. (EA, Chapter 2; EA Chapter 3)

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no

significant effects on public health or safety with this decision. Health and safety are addressed

in the Other Concerns section of the EA. (EA, Section 1.10)

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical

areas. The analysis documented in the EA discloses for Alternative 3 - Modified, the Selected

Alternative, effects on cultural or historical resources, wetlands, or roadless resources will be

negligible. Because the Selected Alternative occurs entirely during the winter season over

snow, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and other hydrologic features are protected . There are

no park lands or prime farmlands in the analysis area. (EA, Sections 1.10 and 3.2)

4 . The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be

highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the

proposed action . I have concluded that, while there may be opposition to this project, the

effects of my decision are not highly controversial. (EA Chapter 3) .


of 23

USDA -::-=- D

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks. The Agency has considerable experience with actions like the

one proposed . The analysis, including the EA, resource technical reports, Biological Assessments

and Biological Evaluations, shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or

unknown risk. The Selected Alternative implements actions similar in effects to actions covered

under the current permit. (EA, Chapter 2, EA Chapter 3}

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant

effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. My decision

implements direction found in the 2003 Forest Plan (amended 2010) . Implementation of my

decision will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration . This cost agreement is for five

years only, and will be in effect through 2018 season. (EA, Section 1.3)

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Chapter 3 cif the EA discloses that the Selected Alternative will not result in

any known significant temporary, short t erm, long term, or cumulative effects to resources

assessed . In addition, activities authorized by my decision are for the duration of the five-year

cost agreement. Cumulative effects of the groomed routes were determined to be non

significant. (EA, Chapter 3)

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed , or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The action will have

no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because no effects to historic or

prehistoric resources would occur as the result of the proposed action. Authorized activities will

occur over snow and no ground disturbance is expected. Further, design features stipulate that

grooming will not occur when the ground surface is exposed and soil damage or rutting could

occur. Cultural resource surveys have been completed for the project area . All cultural

resources would be avoided during project implementation, and any new sites identified would

be protected. The Idaho SHPO has been consulted concerning proposed activities in the project

area . The Payette National Forest has reached concurrence with SHPO, indicating a "No Effect"

determination on cultural resources for this project. (EA, Sections 1.10 and 2.3)

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has

been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973.

Botany: No Threatened or Endangered plant species occur within the project area. No effect

should occur to any threatened or endangered plant species. The project May Impact some

individual plants of white bark pine, (Pinus albicaulis), a candidate and sensitive species, but will


of 23

USDA -=-=-

not trend the species toward Federal listing. No impact should occur to any other sensitive

plants. (EA, Section 1.10)

Fisheries: Mitigation Measures related to fuel storage and handling are expected to reduce the

effects of snowmobile route grooming to negligible levels with regard to fish and fish habitat.

Effects from the Selected Alternative to Management Indicator Species (MIS- bull trout), and

listed fish species and their critical habitat are expected to be negligible due to mitigation

measures that address sediment production and the potential for fuel I chemical spills. (EA,

Sections 1.10 and 2.3)

Canada Lynx: The Selected Alternative: It may affect but is not likely to adversely affect'' the

Canada lynx. (EA, Section 3.3, p. 71)

Northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS): The Selected Alternative 11may affect but is not likely

to adversely affect'' the northern Idaho ground squirrel. (EA, Section 3.3, p. 71) Additional

mitigation measures are required . To protect the NIDGS when they begin in spring, snowmobile

trail grooming in the Lost Valley I Price Valley area will cease on March 15. In addition, starting

each year on March 15, a seasonal closure to OSV use will go into effect in the Lost Valley area .

Periodic monitoring of closure effectiveness will occur.

Wolverine: The proposed action is expected to have negligible, if any, impact on wolverines .

D

The action alternative 11 May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely contribute to a Trend

toward Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species". (EA, Section 3.3)

The planning record documents that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries have

concurred with these effects determinations where required.

10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed

for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws

or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were

considered in the EA (EA, Section 1.6).

Administrative Review (Appeal) Opportunities This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. Appeals must

meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Only individuals or organizations who submitted

comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the 30-day comment period may

appeal. Appeals, including attachments must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer

within 45 days of the publication of this legal notice in The Idaho Statesman, the newspaper of record,

Boise, Idaho. This date is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Timeframe

information from other sources should not be relied on .

The Appeal Deciding Officer is the Regional Forester, Intermountain Region . Appeals must be sent to:

Appeal Deciding Officer, Intermountain Region USFS, 324 251h Street, Ogden, Utah 84401; or by fax to

801-625-5277; or by email to: [email protected] . Emailed appeals must be


of 23

USDA .,_-:-=; D

submitted in rich text (rtf) or Word (doc or docx) and must include the project name in the subject line.

In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will

be required . A scanned signature is one way to provide verification . Appeals may also be hand delivered

to the above address, during regular business hours of 8:00a.m. to 4:30p.m. Mountain Time, Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays. Appeals may also be submitted via fax at (801}625-5277.

Implementation Date

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215 .9 if no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the

decision may begin on, but not before, the 51h business day following the close of the appeal-filing

period (36 CFR 215.15).

Except for emergency situations (36 CFR 215.10(c)), when an appeal is filed, implementation may occur

on, but not before, the 151h business day following the date of appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.2). In the

event of multiple appeals of the same decision, the implementation date is controlled by the date of the

least appeal disposition.

Contact

For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Jane Cropp, Recreation Program Manager,

800 West Lakeside Avenue, McCaiiiD 83638, (208) 634-0757; email [email protected] .

Keith B. Lannom

Forest Supervisor Date

Payette National Forest

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status , familial status, parental status , religion , sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs , reprisal , or because all or part of an individual 's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights , 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


of 23

USDA -::-=-

Attachment A- Selected Alternative Maps


of 23

USDA .,.-=-

Payette National Forest Over Snow r.r,nno,., ir;;;";,": ''""\ In Valley, Adams, and Idaho Counties

Legend

Central Map Alternative 3 Modified

¢- Surrmits

... , PrqectAre•

tj Pr,tette NMiC:JMI forest 8o&.ndaly

..., Snowendoe

~ WW"rtet'Mo«WlledCIO&ures

Groaned Over Snow Routes - Elo.cing, RoadBed, USFS

- Existing, ero.co.nry, USFS

.....,.. Propoeed, CJOIIICOUI'IV'y, USfS

...._ Pn:lpoeed, RoMBed , USFS

- Exiltlng, Ro-dBed, OntER

- Ealstmg, ero.coootry, OTHER

++++ Propoeed, RoadBed, OlliER

MoloJVehkleUSeMap Road& ToaiSymxols

- Ao.d• ep.n Ill,.,. ¥etlidft

-Roads ()p.n IDAIV ...... S..-.al

- RINds ap.n 111 11jghw•y '-g .. whodH oNy ................. ""- ............

BOR

] PRIVATE

.. STATE

USfS


of 23

.. ,... .....

{l\ ' ,._1 . ( •' ·f L•ke Fork

I ·"'-, } . 'l • f l-'

I

USDA -::-=

-~~ ~ ... ..... ......

·-~ - ... /

·~' ' I <)

{ ·' I : I

' I

0 05 1 2 -=-Miles

.. _ -¢' Summa

,, PfqKC.V.~

~ P.,.-. NMIDIYI FOfHl eow.t.y

'"' """" ...... r.zl w.-, Yotonzed Closurn

GroclmM CNH Snow RcMus - Embn;. ~. USfS

-Elo:sbno..~. USFS

....... f"rttplowd, Cft:l.ssCol.I'*Y, USfS

.,._ Proprwd, RNdBed. USfS

- &lsbnQ Ro;id8ed. OTHER

--- • Ellsmg CrMsCounwy-, OTHER

++-1- PrOfJO"d Ro.HB«d. OTHER


of 23

M!Jiorv.tldltUwM;~p Road & Tr.l Symbo11

--Ro<td5~toAIYeh~

--RNCB~toM~s.-.

-R-=h()pottlto~legwl....r.daorlr ............... c::Jt.~IO~

BlM Q CCy

""" L PRIVATE

• STATE

USFS

D

USDA ..,-=

...__1 __ lbool:-~ .-. ,,..... ....... ~ :=.~-=----

0 0.5 1 - 2 Miles

..._nd ¢- Summits

.... : Pn>joct M•

~ P;oye .. N....,;ol Forest Bcund.ry

,..( Snow Bndgo

rZ3 Winter Mob'Eled Cbs~s

Groomed Ov.!r Snow Roui:M

- Ousting. RNdBed. USFS

- Existing. CrossCountry, USFS

....,_ Proposed, CtossCountry, USFS

- - · RoadBed. USFS

-- Exlsmg, ~. OTHER

- E.ousq. cro .. coumry. OTHER

+++- - · Roodll<d. OTHER

Road & Trail Symbols RDadsOponk>M-

RDads Opon .. ,.-. Soa5onal

RDadsOponk>~legol-frit

¢-Pay~tte National Forest Over Snow Grooming

in Valley, Adams, and Idaho Counties South Map - Alternative 3 Modified

y <>-


of 23

D

USDA ~=

ATTACHMENT B

PROJECT SPECIFIC NON-SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT

OF

FOREST PLAN STANDARD TEST34

1.1 Background Information

Forest Plan standards are binding limitations placed on management actions. Standards are typically action

restrictions designed to prevent degradation of resource conditions, or exceeding a threshold of unacceptable

effects, so that conditions can be maintained or resto red over time. However, exceptions are made in some cases

to allow temporary or short term degrading effects in order to achieve long term goals. Standards must be within

the authority and ability of the Forest Service to enfo rce. A project or action that varies from a relevant standard

may not be authorized unless the Forest Plan is amended to modify, remove, or waive application of the standard

(Forest Plan, page 111-3) .

As disclosed in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Analysis (EA), Alternative C- Modified will temporarily (for 5 years)

increase the amount of groomed routes and consistent snow compaction beyond baseline in 6 Lynx Analysis Units

(LAUs) (based on the revised estimate of baseline from the 2001 Map) and therefore will not comply with Forest

Plan standard TEST34. Since it has been determined by the Forest Wildlife Biologist, in consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, that implementing Alternative C- Modified mav affect but is not likely to adversely affect

Canada lynx, I have decided to waive application of t his standard for this specific project in order to accomplish

multiple use resource objectives identified in the Forest Plan. The new routes are expected to better disperse

snowmobile use across the Forest.

My selection of Alternative C- Modified waives application of standard TEST34 for this project only and only as it

applies to the Boulder Creek LAU, Hazard Creek LAU, Little Weiser LAU, Upper North Fork Payette LAU, Northwest

Council LAU, and Warren LAU for the duration of this five-year cost share agreement and will not alter the existing

baseline miles from which standard consistency will be determined in the future.

Alternative C- Modified allows for grooming of 290.7 miles of over-snow vehicle (OSV) trails on the Forest

compared to the baseline of 191 miles. While this would result in approximately 100 additional miles of grooming,

only 60 miles are in mapped LAUs, with about 16 miles in potential lynx habitat and 7 miles in suitable lynx habitat.

By LAU the changes are as follows :

• Hazard Creek LAU I - 1.8 mile increase; I mile in potential habitat, none in suitable habitat.

• Upper NF Payette LAU - 4 .4 mile increase; all in potential habitat, none in suitable habitat.

• Northwest Council LAU - 6.8 miles increase; none in potential or suitable habitat.

• Middle Fork Weiser LAU- 1.7 miles removed; most in potential and suitable habitat.

• Boulder LAU - 37.1 mile increase: 5.3 in potential and suitable habitat, suitable habitat is low quality.

• Little Weiser LAU - 8 mile increase ( 11 .7 miles added, 3.7 miles removed); 1.4 miles in potenti al and suitable

habitat.

• Warren Creek LAU = 3.6 miles increase ; all in potential and suitable habitat.


of 23

USDA ==

Groomed OSV trails may affect lynx primarily in two ways: by compacting snow, OSV trails potentially improve

access for other species that compete with lynx for prey and the disturbance associated with groomed trails may

displace animals from denning, hunting, or traveling. My decision to increase OSV trail grooming for a 5-year

period is expected to have only minor effects to lynx and lynx habitat compared with the baseline level of over

snow use. This is because the permitted action is temporary (5-year permit), groomed OSV routes would mostly

occur on trails groomed in the past, additional routes occur mostly outside of lynx habitat or in unsuitable lynx

habitat, and all the additional groomed routes occur in areas open to OSV use. Although this is a net increase in

compacted snow conditions in the LAUs and does not comply with TEST 34, disturbance effects to lynx are

expected to be discountable and negligible as documented in the EA, Biological Assessment (BA, p. 27), and Fish

and Wildlife Services Letter of Concurrence. In summary, effects to lynx are considered negligible and

discountable because the area is already used by snowmobiles, the grooming would only be authorized for 5 years

and can be revaluated at any time, and the vast majority of potential and suitable lynx habitat across the Forest

would not be affected .

1.2 Project Specific Forest Plan Amendment

The following section discloses the existing management direction and the project specific Forest Plan

amendment:

1.2.1 Page 111 -14 of the 2003 Forest Plan discloses the following Forest-wide standard (TEST34):

"Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas, outside of baseline areas

of consistent snow compaction, by LAU or in combination with immediately adjacent LA Us unless the Biological

Assessment demonstrates the grooming or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This

does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, and access to private inholdings. Also,

permits, authorizations or agreements could expand into baseline routes and baseline areas of existing snow

compaction, and grooming could expand to routes of existing snow compaction and routes that have been

designated but not groomed in the past and still comply with this standard."

1.2.2 Project Specific Forest Plan Amendment

Based on the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA and supporting Biological Assessment, my decision

will not comply with Forest Plan standard TEST34 regarding snow compaction . I have determined that

implementation will require a project specific, non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan . This non

significant amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project. As a

result, a net increase in consistent snow compaction will be allowed within the six LAUs (Boulder Creek, Hazard

Creek, Little Weiser, Upper North Fork Payette, Northwest Council, and Warren) for the duration of the five

year cost-share agreement.

Waiving application of this standard through this project specific amendment only applies for the duration of

this five-year cost share agreement and will not alter the existing baseline miles from which standard

consistency will be determined in the future . When this cost-share agreement requires renewal, consistency

with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not consistent, a new project specific amendment with supporting

rationale will be necessary.


of 23

USDA ---=

1.3 Policy and Analysis

Under the National Forest Management Act [NFMA, 16 USC 1604(f)(4)], forest plans may "be amended in any

manner whatsoever after final adoption and after public notice, and, if such amendment would result in a

significant change in such plan, be in accordance with subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement

comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this section."

As required in the 2012 National Forest Land Management Planning Rule implementing the NFMA:

• "Projects and activities authorized after approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must be consistent with the plan as provided in paragraph (d) of this section" (36 CFR 219.15(b)).

• "When a proposed project or activity would not be consistent with the applicable plan components, the responsible official shall take one of the following steps, subject to valid existing rights: {1) Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components;

(2) Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

(3) Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended; or

{4) Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the project or

activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be limited to apply only to the

project or activity." (36 CFR 219.15(c))

As identified above, the Forest Plan will be amended for this project specific activity. This non-significant plan

amendment will waive the requirement for application of standard TEST34 to this project . Waiving application of

this standard through this project specific amendment will apply on ly for the duration of the five-year cost share

agreement resulting from this decision and will not alter the existing baseline miles for the six LAUs from which

standard consistency will be determined in the future. Thus, when this cost-share agreement requires renewal

consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not consistent, a new project specific amendment with

supporting rationale will be necessary.

As required at 36 CFR 219.16, public notification of this non-significant amendment was made consistent with the

requirements at 36 CFR 215 .

As allowed at 36 CFR 219.17(a)(3), the effective date of this project specific amendment will be on the date the

project may be implemented in accordance with administrative review regulations at 36 CFR 215.

Finally, as allowed at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), " ... with respect to plans approved or revised under a prior planning

regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule {36 CFR part 209, published at 36 CFR

parts 200 to 209, revised as of July 1, 2010}, plan amendments may be initiated under the provisions of the prior

planning regulation for 3 years after May 9, 2012, and may be completed and approved under those provisions ... "

As allowed at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), the Forest Plan amendment has been completed consistent with transition

provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule. Determination as to whether the amendment is significant or non

significant is based on Forest Service Handbook policy in place prior to 2000 (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12,

Section 5.32, effective date 8/3/1992) . This handbook lists four factors to be used when determining whether a


of 23

D

USDA a ~=

proposed change to a forest plan is significant or non-significant: (a) timing; (b) location and size; (c) goals,

objectives, and outputs, and; (d) management prescriptions.

1.3.1 Timing

The timing factor examines at what point over the course of the forest plan period that the plan is

amended. Both the age of the underlying document and the duration of the amendment are relevant

considerations. The handbook indicates that the later in the time period, the less significant the

change is likely to be. The decision to revise the Payette National Forest Plan was issued in July

2003 and implementation began in September 2003.

The project specific amendment will waive application of standard TEST34 for this project only and only as

it applies to the six Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs). Waiving application of this standard through this project

specific amendment will only apply for the duration of this five-year cost share agreement and will not

alter the existing baseline miles from which standard consistency will be determined in the future. When

this cost-share agreement requires renewal consistency with standard TEST34 will be required, or if not

consistent, a new project specific amendment with support ing rationale will be necessary.

1.3.2 Location and Size

The key to the location and size criteria is context or "the relationship of the affected area to the overall planning area", "the smaller the area affected, the less likely the change is to be a significant change in the forest plan."

There are 38 lynx analysis units (LA Us) on the Payette National Forest containing approximately

833,702 acres of potential lynx habitat (i.e. source habitat capacity) and 384,983 of current suitable

habitat. Combined, the six LA Us contain about 114,800 acres or about 13 percent of the total

potential lynx habitat across the Payette National Forest. This decision affects less than 16

additional miles of OSV groomed routes in potential habitat and less than 6 miles in suitable

habitat. Based on the Biological Assessment, the area of potential disturbance could be up to about

Y2 mile on each side of the groomed OSV trail, or 640 acres potentially affected per mile of

groomed trail. The additional miles of groomed OSV trails will affect roughly I 0,000 acres or less

than 9 percent of the potential lynx habitat within the LA Us, and about 0.1 percent of the potential

lynx habitat within the LAUson the Forest.

1.3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Outputs

The goals, objectives, and outputs factor involves the determination of "whether the change alters the long

term relationship between the level of goods and services in the overall planning area" (Forest Service

Handbook 1909.12, Section 5.32(c)). Application of this criterion requires an analysis of the overall forest plan

and the various multiple-use resources, services and outputs that may be affected by the proposed

amendment. Of particular focus relative to this amendment are balancing the goals and objectives pertaining

to providing recreation outputs and services with the need to further the long term recovery of ESA listed

species, in this case, Canada lynx.


of 23

USDA --=

Examples of Forest Plan Recreation Goals and Objectives pertinent to the amendment include:

REG006 - Provide an array of winter recreation experiences, while mitigating conflicts between motorized

and non-motorized use and wintering wildlife .

REOB22 - Provide networks of marked and designated snow machine, cross-country ski, and other winter

travel routes and trailhead facilities, while meeting other resource goals and objectives.

REOB25 - Support winter trail management through cooperative agreements with other agencies and

groups.

Examples of Forest Plan Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) Species Goals and

Objectives pertinent to the amendment include:

TEGOOl - Habitat within the respective ranges of species listed under ESA contributes to their survival and

recovery.

TEG004 - Environmental conditions and habitat components support reproductive needs important to

sustainable populations of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) species.

TEGOOS - Well-distributed habitat capable of maintaining self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of

TEPC species exists within their respective ranges across the planning unit.

TEG006 - Habitat capable of maintaining stable or increasing trends in abundance of TEPC species in all

recovery units within the planning unit exists.

TEOB30 - Allow for expansion of winter recreation facilities that maintain opportunities for lynx movement

and dispersal.

TEOB31 - Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity.

Allowing for the increase in groomed routes with in the six LA Us clearly furthers the achievement of the

recreation goals and objectives identified above. Based on conclusions reached in the Biological Assessment

and documented in the EA, objective TEOB30 will also be met by allowing for expansion of winter recreation

facilities that maintain opportunities for lynx movement and dispersal. The effects disclosures in the Biological

Assessment also supports that the other TEPC goals and objectives identified above will be met. As disclosed in

the Biological Assessment, the determination for Alternative C - Modified, including the project specific

amendment to waive application of TEST34, was may affect. not likely to adversely affect. The rationale for this

determination was five-fold :

• The majority of lynx habitat in the analysis area, and within individual LAUs, would not be affected by the noise of snowmobiles on groomed trails.

• It is expected that individual lynx in proximity to groomed snowmobile trails could move away from the disturbance and access less disturbed habitat.

• A design feature to protect lynx denning activities from disturbance from grooming activities would minimize risk of loss of reproductive success.


of 23

USDA ..,.-.....-=

• Increases in compacted trails are moderated by most of the miles occurring outside lynx habitat. • Surveys in this analysis area have detected other rare furbearers such as wolverine and fisher but not

lynx, inferring if lynx are extant in this portion of their range they are extremely rare.

1.3.4 Management Prescription

The management prescription factor involves the determination of (1), "whether the change in a management

prescription is only for a specific situation or whether it would apply to the future decisions throughout the

planning area" and (2), "whether or not the change alters the desired future condition of the land and resources

or the anticipated goods and services to be produced" (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Section 5.32(d)).

The project specific amendment will not change the management prescriptions or desired future conditions

for the management areas within the total forest planning area be affected. In addition, amending the

Forest Plan as described above will be consistent with the intended goals, objectives, and outputs portrayed

in the Forest Plan. Other goods and services associated with these management areas will not be

measurably affected .

1.4 Finding of Significance

On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the EA, associated Biological Assessment, concurrence

from the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the determination for lynx, associated planning record, and my

evaluation of the amendment under the four factors outlined above, it is my determination that adoption of the

plan amendment described in Section 1.2 does not constitute a significant amendment to the 2003 Forest Plan.


of 23

decision notice /finding of no significant impact over...

Documents