United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2017

Environmental Assessment Caribou Loop Connector Soda Springs Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest Caribou County, Idaho Township 5 South, Range 44 East, Section 23 of the Boise Meridian

For Information Contact: Bryan K Fuell 410 E Hooper Ave

Soda Springs, Idaho 83276 (208) 547-4356

http://www.fs.usda.gov/ctnf

CLC_0037.000 1/36

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................1 1.1 Document Structure____________________________________ ................................. 1 1.2 Background ___________________________________________ ............................... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ____________________________ .................................. 2 1.4 Proposed Action_______________________________________ ................................. 2 1.5 Decision Framework____________________________________ ................................ 2 1.6 Management Direction__________________________________................................. 2 1.7 Public Involvement_____________________________________ ................................ 3 1.8 Agencies and Persons Consulted ..................................................................................... 3

1.8.1 Forest Service IDT ....................................................................................3 1.8.2 Environmental Consultation and Permitting .............................................3

1.9 Scope of Environmental Analysis / Issues __________________ .................................. 4

2.0 Alternatives AND the Proposed Action .......................................5 2.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis_____________ ................................................ 5 2.2 Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Analysis _____________ .................................... 5

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) .........................................................................7 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...............................................................8

3.0 Environmental Consequences .................................................... 11 3.1 Fisheries______________________________________________ ............................. 11 3.2 Water Quality_________________________________________ ............................... 16 3.3 Wildlife______________________________________________ .............................. 24 3.4 Cumulative Effects ________________________________........................................ 25 3.5 Other Resources Considered and Findings________________ .................................... 26

4.0 Mitigation and monitoring ......................................................... 29

5.0 References .................................................................................... 30

Figure 1 – Project Area (Existing Road Bed) ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 - Preliminary Bridge Design (side view) ...................................................................... 9 Figure 4 – Preliminary Bridge Design (cross section) .............................................................. 10 Figure 5 - Unnamed tributary of Tincup Creek showing 300-foot AIZ .................................. 14 Figure 6 - Existing road crossings and proposed OHV trail crossing ....................................... 14 Figure 7 - Map of water crossings and capture areas ................................................................... 14 Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Consequence .................................................................. 5 Table 2 - Culvert GPS Locations (WGS84*, Decimal Degrees) .............................................. 18 Table 3 - Crossing Site Hydrologic Data (flows in cfs) ............................................................ 19 Photo 1 - Old-Existing Road Bed ............................................................................................... 7 Photo 2 - Proposed Bridge Crossing Site .................................................................................... 7 Photo 3 - Fall 2015…………………………………………………………………………….13

CLC_0037.000 2/36

Photo 4 - Spring 2016………………………………………………………………………… 13 Photo 5 - Spring 2016………………………………………………………………………… 13 Photo 6 - Wetland/Pond outflow, Crossing #4 ……………………………………………….20

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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 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 http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 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) 632-9992. 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. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender

CLC_0037.000 3/36

SUMMARY Project Proposal. The Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Soda Springs Ranger District (Forest Service), proposes to alleviate a public safety issue associated with use of a portion of State Highway 34 by OHVs (off-highway vehicles). The proposal is to create a motorized OHV trail by using 4,300 feet of an existing, old road bed/utility right of way that runs adjacent to Highway 34, and includes minor construction (installing OHV bridges, culverts, a cattle guard, and bringing in fill where needed). The Forest Service anticipates entering into an agreement with Caribou County for maintenance of the Caribou Loop Connector Trail.

Purpose and Need. The purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide a safe motorized trail route for driving OHV between the Tincup Road and the Lanes Creek Cutoff Road

Management Direction. The project area is within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, and managed under the Caribou Revised Forest Plan and associated travel plan.

Location. The project area is located adjacent to State Highway 34 and Tincup Road in Caribou County, Idaho (Township 5 South, Range 44 East, Section 23).

Proposed Action and Alternatives. The proposed action is to create a motorized OHV trail by using 4,300 feet of an existing, old road bed that runs adjacent to Highway 34, and includes minor construction (installing OHV bridges, culverts, a cattle guard, and bringing in fill where needed). Another action alternative was considered, south of State Highway 34, but it would not resolve the public safety hazard. As a result, only the proposed action and no action alternative were evaluated in this EA.

Environmental Consequences. Considering that the project area currently is used by the public, the no action and proposed action have similar potentials for adverse effects to water quality from sediment loading, with additional short-term effects during minor construction associated with the proposed action. As to fisheries, adverse effects are unavoidable due to the location of the project area. While some individuals may be impacted by project activities, no populations of sensitive wildlife species will be adversely impacted by project activities. No Effect to any ESA listed or proposed species will occur. For all resource categories, the Forest Service has integrated mitigation measures (best management practices (BMPs), design features) and monitoring (water quality) into the proposed action to avoid and minimize adverse effects.

Decisions to be made. Based upon the information contained in this EA, the responsible official will determine:

• Whether to implement the proposed action (original or modified form) or select the no action alterative;

• Whether mitigation and/or monitoring is required; and • Whether the analysis presented in this EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) or that further analysis is required in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

CLC_0037.000 4/36

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Document Structure____________________________________ The Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Soda Springs Ranger District (Forest Service) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.A. §§4321 to 4370(h)), Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. parts 1500 to 1508 (1978)), Forest Service supplemental regulations and guidance (36 C.F.R. part 220, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance (2008), and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1901.15, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (2010)), and other relevant laws, regulations and policies (as discussed herein) to evaluate the potential effects from creating a motorized off highway vehicle (OHV) trail by using 4,300 feet of an existing, old road bed and including minor construction.

The document is organized into five parts:

• Introduction. Section 1.0 describes the background of the project proposal, its purpose and need, the proposed action developed to achieve the purpose and need, the decisions to be made under this EA, the management direction for the project area, the public involvement process including persons and agencies consulted, and the scope of environmental analysis for this EA.

• Alternatives including the Proposed Action. Section 2.0 describes the alternative methods developed and considered to achieve the purpose and need of the project proposal.

• Environmental Consequences. Section 3.0 describes the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and the no action alternative with analyses organized by resource and then focused on the potentially significant issues.

• Mitigation and Monitoring. Section 4.0 summarizes any required or recommended mitigation measures and monitoring for the proposed action and no action alternative.

• References. Section 5.0 lists the sources used and relied upon in preparing this EA, which are incorporated by reference into this EA and located in the project planning record at the Soda Springs Ranger District’s office in Soda Springs, Idaho.

1.2 Background ___________________________________________ The Soda Springs Ranger District received a request from Caribou County on August 12, 2016 to alleviate a public safety hazard from existing use of OHVs riding along State Highway 34 between Tincup Road to the Lanes Creek Cutoff Road (see Figure 1). Caribou County teamed up with Bonneville and Lincoln Counties to create an Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) loop route that will include many Forest and County roads within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The loop is intended for all OHV’s. The Tincup Road and Lanes Creek Cutoff Road are part of this proposed loop route. Caribou County has requested a permit to use an existing old road on the National Forest along Highway 34 connecting the Lanes Creek Cutoff Road and the Tincup Road. In 1970 Highway 34 was rerouted thus leaving the old road bed to the North (See Exhibit B). The connecting trail (Caribou Loop Connecter) would be on the old road bed of Highway 34and will share the right of way with an existing buried fiber optic line.

CLC_0037.000 5/36

The Counties request includes authorization to construct an OHV bridge across Tincup Creek. This proposed connecting road and bridge will allow OHV’s to drive an alternative route rather than directly on Highway 34.

In 1970, State Highway 34 was rerouted thus leaving the old road bed to the north. The Lanes Creek Cutoff Road gives access to many popular roads and trails within Caribou and Bear Lake Counties including the Diamond Creek, Dry Valley, Slug Creek, Georgetown Canyon, and Crow Creek areas. The Tincup Road gives access to many popular roads and trails within Caribou and Bonneville Counties including the Grays Lake, Herman, McCoy Creek, and Bear Creek areas. Hence many OHV riders drive State Highway 34 from the Tincup Road to the Lanes Creek Cutoff Road. OHV’s are not designed to operate on pavement thus creating a safety concern. There is also a concern that OHV’s are not capable of traveling at speeds that are safe for highway travel.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ____________________________ The purpose for the project proposal is to provide a safe motorized trail route for driving OHV’s between the Tincup Road and the Lanes Creek Cutoff Road. The project proposal is needed because currently the public drives OHVs on State Highway 34, presenting a safety hazard.

Due to the site-specific issues to be resolved, the following criteria were used to site the OHV trail: (1) minimize creation of new forest trails/roads; (2) avoiding potentially significant environmental effects; and (3) starting construction in spring-summer of 2017.

1.4 Proposed Action_______________________________________ The Forest Service proposes to allow the creation of a motorized OHV trail by using 4,300 feet of an existing, old road bed and including minor construction, connecting Lanes Creek Cutoff Road and Tincup Road (Figure 1). Minor construction associated with the action includes installing OHV bridges, culverts, and a cattle guard (Figure 2). Use of the OHV trail would allow “[All Non-Highway Legal vehicles, Wheeled Non-highway Legal Vehicles, Tracked Non-Highway Legal Vehicles and Other Non-Highway Legal Vehicles” For additional details, see Section 2.2.2.

1.5 Decision Framework____________________________________ Based upon the information contained in this EA, the deciding official with determine:

• Whether to implement the proposed action (original or modified form) or select the no action alterative;

• Whether mitigation and/or monitoring is required; and • Whether the analysis presented in this EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) or that further analysis is required in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1.6 Management Direction__________________________________ The project area is located within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, and managed under the Caribou RFP and associated travel plan, providing guidance and direction for forest management decisions and allocation of uses across forest landscapes in the form of desired future conditions (DFC), goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. The Caribou RFP and travel plan were

CLC_0037.000 6/36

previously analyzed in Final [EIS] for the Caribou National Forest RFP (USFS 2003a) and Caribou Travel Plan Revision, Final EIS (USFS 2005). Applicable resource-specific guidance includes: soils, wildlife, and watershed and riparian resources. In addition, the project area is located in the following prescription zones (allocates uses/emphasizes resource priorities):

• Visual Quality Maintenance Zone (Prescription 2.1.2 (b)); and • Aquatic Influence Zone (Prescription 2.8.3).

(USFS 2003b, USFS 2005). These areas seek to protect the natural resources and visual quality within the project area (USFS 2003b), with the project proposal responding to management concerns associated with existing recreational use. In sum, applicable land management requirements were considered during the proposed action, the analysis presented in this EA tiers to/updates prior analyses on a project-level basis, and the project proposal is consistent with the standard and guidelines of the Caribou RFP and associated travel plan.

1.7 Public Involvement_____________________________________ The Forest Service listed the project proposal in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on November 9, 2016. A letter regarding the project proposal was mailed to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on November 4, 2016. The project proposal was provided for comment during scoping. Public scoping occurred for 30 days (November 9, 2016 to December 8, 2016). The legal notice initiating scoping was published in the Idaho State Journal on November 9, 2016. Persons and agencies requesting individual notice of project proposals within the Soda Springs Ranger District were notified. Aside from agency permitting communications, the Forest Service did not receive any comments that warranted further consideration in this EA. As a result, this EA focuses on the potential issues as determined by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), based on their professional experience and best professional judgment.

1.8 Agencies and Persons Consulted __________________________ 1.8.1 Forest Service IDT The Forest Service conducted internal scoping for the project proposal. Initial site visits of the project area were conducted by members of the Forest Service IDT on September 12, 2016 and October 3, 2016. Additional site visits were made by the IDT members to aid in the preparation of the required environmental effects analyses as well as to determine permitting and consultation requirements for implementing the proposed action.

1.8.2 Environmental Consultation and Permitting The Forest Service IDT determined that the following authorizations are required for implementing the proposed action:

• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification; • CWA Section 404 permit (dredge or fill material); and • Idaho stream channel alternation permit.

Permitting efforts/requirements are further discussed in Sections 3.1 (Fisheries) and 3.2 (Water Quality).

CLC_0037.000 7/36

1.9 Scope of Environmental Analysis / Issues __________________ The Forest Service IDT determined that water quality and wildlife are the resource areas/issues that held the most potential for significant effects (see summary, Table 1), warranting further analysis in this EA to aid with the decisions to be made (Section 1.5).

The Forest Service IDT considered other resource areas/issues and determined that they have none to negligible potential effects, were not raised during scoping, and did not drive alternative development, as discussed in Section 3.5 (Other Resources Considered), in addition to other relevant disclosures and findings.

CLC_0037.000 8/36

Table 1 – Summary of Environmental Consequence Issues Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Fisheries (Degradation

of AIZ qualities)

There are currently four road crossings mostly clustered near the tributary’s confluence with Tincup Creek and portions of Highway 34 and Tincup Road are within the AIZs in the project area. Continuation of the no action is most desirable for AIZ function.

This alternative would add an additional trail crossing in the project area and add a total of 4,300 feet of OHV trail within AIZ’s and with 400-500 feet within the Tincup Creek floodplain. BMPs and design features would minimize potential adverse effects, but the proposed action is less favorable for AIZ function than the no action. The additional trail crossing is approximately 100 feet from the edge of the existing highway.

Water Quality

The current grass cover minimizes sediment delivery from the existing old road bed surface into waterbodies; sediment delivery would be expected to continue at current rates.

Up to moderate effects from the increased disturbance and sediment in the short-term from the OHV trail, bridge and trail culverts. Short-term minor to moderate increase of sediment as a result of slope stabilization. Long-term beneficial effects to water quality is anticipated from slope stabilization.

Wildlife

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be No Effect or No Impact (as appropriate) on all special status wildlife species, and conditions for wildlife in the area would continue current trends.

Overall, project impacts a small area immediately adjacent to an existing state highway. No populations of sensitive species will be adversely impacted by its construction. Potential impacts to Boreal Toads and Migratory Birds are minimized through the incorporation of design features.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis_____________ The following alternatives were carried forward for analysis, as explained below.

• Proposed Action. This alternative was carried forward as the proposed action because it met the purpose and need, and minimized ground disturbing activities by utilizing a previously disturbed area.

• No Action. This is the project area under existing conditions; the proposed action would not be implemented, but current activities would continue (see Section 2.2.1). Analysis of the no action is required by NEPA despite not meeting the purpose and need.

2.2 Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Analysis _____________ The action alternative listed below was considered, but not carried forward as explained below.

• Creating a trail on south side of State Highway 34. The OHV’s would still ride on the highway for 100 yards before exiting the highway, not resolving the public safety hazard.

• Creating a route to the north that would tie in with the Bridge Creek Road. This Alternative was not carried forward because it would result in exceedance of the OMRD (Open Motorized Route Densities) in the prescription area to the north.

CLC_0037.000 9/36

CLC_0037.000 10/36

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the no action, no new trail would be created, but existing activities would continue as guided by the Caribou RFP and travel plan. Relevant existing activities in the project area include: fishing, OHV riding, rangeland vegetation management, grazing, fuels reduction/ treatment, dispersed camping, and maintenance of existing roads and trails. OHV riders would continue to ride along and cross State Highway 34 and the public would continue to use the project area to facilitate other uses. Representative photos of the project area under existing conditions are provided below (signs of past and present uses evident on old road bed) (Photos 1 and 2).

Source: USFS GIS Data (October 25, 2016) Figure 1 – Project Area (Existing Road Bed)

Date: September 12, 2016 Date: September 12, 2016

Photo 1 –Old-Existing Road Bed Photo 2 –Proposed Bridge Crossing Site

CLC_0037.000 11/36

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The proposed action involves using 4,300-feet of an existing, old road bed for an OHV trail, including minor construction. The main aspects of the proposed action include:

• Installing an OHV bridge over Tincup Creek; • Installing up to five culverts or small bridges/ramps over small drainages; and • Installing one cattle guard.

The bridge installation would involve digging holes on each end to accommodate the installation of 3 concrete blocks that would be 2’x2’x6’ each. The Bridge would span Tincup Creek. At each end of the bridge, approaches to the bridge ends would be constructed and would be used to direct wheel travel onto the bridge. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. excavation and leveling) using typical heavy equipment are anticipated for the installation of the culverts and the cattle guard. The heavy equipment would also be used to place large rocks in key locations that will direct traffic as necessary. Future culverts or bridges (5 total) may be installed if found necessary by the USFS trail managers. The large equipment will also be used to raise the ground levels where necessary to reduce impacts. This project will exist in the right of way where other uses exist. Special care will be used to ensure the other uses will not be impacted during the creation of the trail. While digging along the right of way for the installation of the culverts caution will be used to not disturb the current right of way users. Currently, there is a buried fiber optic line that follows the right of way. While installing features, Caribou County will need to use caution as to not damage the line. The proposed action would involve disturbing less than 1 acre. Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to take up to 2 weeks during the summer of 2017.

Use of the trail would be limited to “[all Non-Highway Legal vehicles, Wheeled Non-highway Legal Vehicles, Tracked Non-Highway Legal Vehicles and Other Non-Highway Legal Vehicles” and would be specified in the Seasonal and Special Vehicle Designation table on the Soda Springs Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). This limitation would ensure compliance with the proposed bridges structural weight and width limits.

For a depiction of the proposed action, see Figures 2 to 5. Figure 5 shows the tentative locations of the culverts or small bridges.

CLC_0037.000 12/36

Source: USFS GIS Data (October 25, 2016)

Figure 2 – Proposed Action

Figure 3 - Preliminary Bridge Design (Side view. Actual USFS approved bridge design may differ from this design)

CLC_0037.000 13/36

Figure 4 – Preliminary Bridge Design (Cross Section- Actual USFS approved bridge design

may differ from this design)

CLC_0037.000 14/36

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The analysis of environmental consequences presented in the sections that follow include a description of the affected environment, followed by the effects of the no action and the proposed action. The no action represents existing conditions against which the effects from the proposed action are evaluated (“affected environment”). Since the conditions of the affected environment are the result of past and present actions within the project area, the analysis of environmental consequences overlaps with the cumulative effects analysis requirement of considering relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. To avoid redundancy, cumulative effects are integrated into the analyses below.

Forest Service specialists conducted site visits of the project area to evaluate existing conditions, determine the potential effects, and to evaluate consistency with the Caribou RFP and travel plan. In preparing the analyses below, the Forest Service IDT reviewed and considered the most relevant and current scientific data available.

3.1 Fisheries______________________________________________ The affected spatial analysis area for fisheries and aquatics resource includes the Upper Tincup Creek, HUC6 watershed (170401050304). The Upper Tincup Creek HUC was selected for the effects boundary because it encompasses the road segments in the project area and the anticipated effects area for the fisheries resources in Tincup Creek and the unnamed tributary. (Lyman 2017).

Existing Conditions. Tincup Creek supports sensitive fish species including Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT) and northern leatherside chub (NLC). Both are Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and Species of Concern for the State of Idaho. (Lyman 2017).

Stream channel and floodplains in upper Tincup Creek are representative of good conditions. In general Tincup Creek above Highway 34 is located in an unconfined valley with four miles of sinuous Rosgen C channel. The riparian area stretches valley wide and is composed of willow and sedge. Beaver are present throughout this reach. In some reaches without beaver the stream has down-cut causing bank instability and widening of the channel. Near the highway beaver are active and the floodplain is routinely inundated (see Photos 3 to 5). (Lyman 2017).

The unnamed tributary of Tincup Creek [Muddy Creek] starts at a spring located near the Lanes Cutoff Road then parallels Highway 34 and the old highway route for about a mile then enters Tincup Creek near the Highway 34 crossing structure. It is a sinuous Rosgen E channel with relatively low flows (< 1 cubic feet per second) and mostly narrow widths. The tributary is supplemented by spring inputs along its course. Near its confluence with Tincup Creek, the stream is back-watered due to beaver activity and width is greater than 6 feet. The lower third of the tributary is located in a sheep allotment and riparian vegetation and channel form and stability are in great condition. Conditions in the upper two-thirds of the tributary, within the cattle allotment, are in good condition with localized instability issues present. (Lyman 2017).

Motorized roads presently exist in the project area. Tincup Creek above Highway 34 is paralleled by Tincup Road FSR #117 for 2.1 miles. The road is located on the side slope and has limited interaction with the floodplain or stream channel. Highway 34 crosses Tincup Creek within the project area and has augmented channel length and sinuosity downstream of the crossing. Downstream of the project area, Highway 34 parallels the creek and is a prominent

CLC_0037.000 15/36

feature in the Tincup Creek floodplain with multiple crossings present [four crossings]. (Lyman 2017).

The old highway route (proposed OHV trail) crosses the floodplain of Tincup Creek upstream of the Highway location. A single lane tread in this location is still present however the crossing has been decommissioned. The stream channel at the crossing location is over-widened to greater than 35 feet with unstable stream banks present. A beaver dam was present just upstream of this location in 2015-2016 causing the stream channel banks to scour as sections of the dam failed. A desired riffle bank full width in this location would be less than 30 feet in width. This part of the Tincup Creek floodplain is routinely inundated with water (see Photos 3 to 5). (Lyman 2017).

The unnamed tributary of Tincup Creek is bordered to south by Highway 34 and to the north by the old highway road bed (proposed OHV trail). Both routes are located in the AIZ (Figure 5) which was mapped as 300 feet for a fish bearing stream. These routes are mostly located on side slopes and have limited interaction with the floodplain. One section of the highway has bisected the floodplain of the tributary with two crossings and 800 feet of channel located on the south side of the Highway. As discussed in Section 3.2 (Water Quality), there are three locations where the unnamed tributary has eroded into the slope of the old highway route creating slope instability and sedimentation concerns. (Lyman 2017).

Collectively, four crossings are present on the tributary. Three of the crossings are located near the confluence with Tincup Creek (Figure 6) and the fourth crossing is located near the junction with the Lanes Cutoff Road. Crossings 2 and 3 are associated with Highway 34, while Crossing 1 is associated with an access route to the Tincup Creek floodplain. (Lyman 2017).

Photos 3 to 5 show Tincup Creek floodplain interactions with the old highway route (proposed OHV trail), located above Highway 34. The old highway tread serves as a dike on the Tincup floodplain that collects and routes water across the tread at the low spot. Wetland vegetation is present on both sides of the tread. Photo 3 shows beaver activity creating floodplain inundation, water ponding upstream of the old highway tread, and water crossing the tread at low spots. Photo 4 shows spring high flows and beaver activity causing floodplain inundation on the old highway template. Road tread forms a dike that backs up water moving across the floodplain. Photo 5 shows spring high flows and beaver activity causing floodplain inundation on the old highway template. Water collects and spills over large low spot in tread and discharges into the unnamed tributary then is routed back to Tincup Creek. (Lyman 2017).

CLC_0037.000 16/36

Photo 3 – Fall 2015 Photo 4 – Spring 2016

Photo 5 – Spring 2016

CLC_0037.000 17/36

Figure 5 - Unnamed tributary of Tincup Creek showing 300-foot AIZ

(Dotted line is proposed OHV trail and Highway 34 to the south of tributary)

Figure 6 - Existing road crossings and proposed OHV trail crossing

(Showing locations on Tincup Creek and the unnamed tributary)

CLC_0037.000 18/36

The key issue for the fisheries resource is the potential for degradation of AIZ condition and function. Routes located within the AIZ can alter the function of the aquatic buffer which may reduce the resiliency of these sensitive areas or lead to degradation of these areas. Crossings at waterways can connect adjacent disturbed areas, such as the road and trail corridors, directly to streams and can serve as conduits for delivering pollutants including sediment. Crossings can also impact aquatic habitat by altering channel stability and morphology and aquatic habitat complexity and productivity. Removal of streamside vegetation can influence stability, cover, shading, and large woody debris recruitment that are important for maintaining a fishery. If culverts are used, aquatic habitat may also become fragmented. (Lyman 2017).

No Action. The no action would maintain AIZ function and fisheries and aquatic habitat conditions within Tincup and the unnamed tributary at levels described in the existing conditions section. This alternative would not expand the route network or increase the number of crossings within AIZs. (Lyman 2017).

Proposed Action. The proposed action would add an additional crossings in the project area and would add a total of 4,300 feet of OHV trail within the AIZ with 400-500 feet within the Tincup Creek floodplain. (Lyman 2017).

Considering this, the proposed action has the potential to slightly degrade AIZ and fisheries and aquatic habitat conditions within Tincup and the unnamed tributary by increasing the number of perennial stream crossings and length of routes within the AIZ. Most of the proposed OHV trail is not located within a floodplain and has limited interactions with perennial streams in the project area. Overall, the fisheries resource concern with these actions is the installation of new infrastructure in the floodplain of Tincup Creek. This is an active floodplain and placing of an OHV trail in this area will not enhance the AIZ, hydrology, or wetland characteristics of the site. If the existing and lowest crossing on the unnamed tributary is removed as part of this proposal (see Figure 6, Crossing 1), there would be no increase in the number of crossings in the project area. (Lyman 2017).

The following best management practices (BMPs)/design features were developed to improve AIZ function and condition while improving new infrastructures (OHV trail) compatibility with the AIZ and are complimentary/ supplemental to those measures discussed in Section 3.2 (Water Quality):

• The 400-500 foot section of trail located in the Tincup Creek floodplain (see Photos 3 to 5 and Figure 6) will need to be constructed to provide for movement of water across the floodplain. This section of trail will also need to be elevated to deter saturation of the road surface. A combination of geotextile wrapped large aggregate capped with road base or multiple culverts or some other similar method will need to be used to maintain floodplain characteristics.

• Install trail limiters to deter full size vehicle access to the Tincup Creek floodplain on the west side of the stream. These could be located at the trail start or near the hill slope leading down to the floodplain.

• There is an opportunity to remove Crossing 1 (Figure 6) on the unnamed tributary. The fill material (closest local source) could be used for building the elevated trail surface in the Tincup floodplain. This action would improve AIZ and stream channel conditions on

CLC_0037.000 19/36

the unnamed tributary while removing a vehicle access point to the Tincup Creek floodplain.

• Utilize an appropriately sized bridge structure on Tincup Creek. Although a 50-72-foot structure is recommended for the protection of water quality (see Section 3.2), the bank full distance leads to an estimate of 55 feet in length to span the current channel. The Tincup Creek Stream Restoration project will be implemented in 2017-18 and will address channel conditions in the area of the proposed crossing. Further coordination is anticipated to lead to combining efforts, addressing both the fisheries and water quality needs (i.e., improving stream channel dimensions (narrow the stream channel) and stability in the vicinity of the proposed OHV trail crossing) and potentially reducing bridge spans and material costs.

Including these BMPs would reduce localized impacts to AIZs to the extent practical given the proposed action. To help mitigate and improve AIZ conditions it is recommend that the existing lowest crossing on the unnamed tributary be removed and rehabilitated as part of this project (see Figure 6, Crossing 1). Additional BMPs identified in Section 3.2 (Water Quality) will further improve AIZ, wetland, and stream channel conditions. (Lyman 2017).

Cumulative Effects. Some past and present activities that impacted and continue to impact the AIZs include livestock grazing, livestock infrastructure maintenance, firewood collection, post and pole cutting, recreational activities, road and trail construction and use, road and trail maintenance, off-trail motorized use, wildfire suppression, prescribed burns, and natural events. The level of impact associated with these activities can vary depending on the scale, intensity, and concentration of disturbance. When these activities occur within AIZ’s they have the potential to inhibit AIZ function and condition (Lyman 2017).

Based on the foregoing, the proposed action meets the relevant Caribou RFP standards and guidelines.

Therefore, the potential adverse effects to fisheries would be increased as a result of the proposed action (in comparison to the no action), but adverse effects would be minimized with the incorporation project specific BMPs. A project level Biological Evaluation covering sensitive fish species has been completed for the project (Lyman, 2017). Due to ground disturbing activities within AIZs and installation of new infrastructure within AIZs a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” was appropriate. Project BMPs have been developed that are expected to reduce potential project impacts to AIZs and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and northern leatherside chub populations and habitat.

3.2 Water Quality_________________________________________ The Muddy Creek drainage below the upper highway crossing and Tincup Creek from the highway crossing extending 200 feet upstream form the spatial boundaries of the direct and indirect effects analysis area. The spatial boundaries for the cumulative effects area is comprised of Tincup Creek at the highway crossing downstream to confluence with South Fork Tincup Creek. Direct and indirect effects were analyzed for specific streams and/or stream reaches while cumulative effects were analyzed below the project area. For cumulative effects, combined projected effect was qualitatively routed from the downstream end of the project area to the point where it could no longer be detected.

CLC_0037.000 20/36

Existing Conditions: Muddy Creek is a local, unpublished name for the small east flowing perennial tributary to Tincup creek that parallels the proposed OHV trail. It originates from springs to the west and south. It is a Rosgen "E" type stream along most of the length, is highly sinuous, deep and narrow where it parallels the proposed route, bank full width is about 24 inches at the upper end of the project area increasing to more about 36-48 inches wide where it approaches Tincup Creek. On most of the length in the project area the floodplain is connected to the stream and appears to flood with normal frequency, the soils remain moist soils during the growing season and are well vegetated with beaked sedge (Carex rostrate) and occasional Booth’s willow (Salix boothii), both are wetland plants – obligate and facultative wet, respectively. Baseflow was not measured, but was visually estimated at about 0.25 to 1 cubic feet per second (cfs), increasing along this reach fed by small springs on the banks and presumably channel bed as well. There are no beaver dams on Muddy Creek. Some minor sediment delivery occurs from natural sources at present including bank erosion, as well as sediment from highway runoff. (Laprevote 2017).

Tincup Creek is perennial, flowing southeast in the eastern end of the project area. It appears to be a Rosgen C4/C5 stream type at present, though it has the high sinuosity and wide floodplain of about 200 to 300 feet total width that are characteristic of an "E" type stream, which it may have been in the past. The floodplain is in the process of re-connecting to the channel and is well vegetated primarily with Beaked Sedge and Booth Willow. Both of these plants are wetlands in the area and the floodplain width is considered a wetland for purposes of this EA. The bank full width upstream from the highway is about 30 feet, it becomes artificially wider and shallower at the highway due to backwater effect, constricted by the highway culvert at high flows. The constricted reach is a major attractant for beavers. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge site, the streambanks are higher and dry, still partly isolated from the channel, the top of bank is eroding slightly due to domination by upland grasses such as Smooth Brome which have much weaker root systems than late seral riparian species which dominate the floodplain upstream. The distance between the top of banks at the bridge site is 43 feet, the top of bank edges at the bridge site are weak and eroding slightly. There are several active beaver ponds in the area. Baseflow was not measured in the project area but is estimated at about 10-20 cfs. Some minor sediment delivery occurs from natural sources at present including bank erosion and beaver activity, however beaver create backwaters that sequester many times more sediment than they cause by their activities. Man-caused sediment includes sediment from the highway and livestock trampling stream banks. (Laprevote 2017).

The main stem of Tincup Creek supports coldwater biota, salmonid spawning, and secondary contact recreation, but its tributaries are 303(d)-listed as impaired for sediment and not supporting coldwater biota and salmonid spawning (Laprevote 2017, citing IDEQ 2014). The State of Idaho recently submitted a draft total maximum daily load (TMDL) to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Salt River sub basin, which includes Tincup Creek (Laprevote 2017, citing IDEQ 2015). Pending TMDL approval, the Forest Service will continue to implement appropriate BMPs to avoid/minimize effects from nonpoint source pollution resulting from activities conducted on Forest lands, in coordination with the State of Idaho (see USFS 2013).

No Action. The current grass cover along Tincup Creek that minimizes sediment delivery from the old road bed surface would continue to exist. The steep and unvegetated slopes would continue to contribute to sediment load in Muddy Creek. Overall, these effects alone are

CLC_0037.000 21/36

considered minor. (Laprevote 2017). Pending approval of the Tincup TDML, nonpoint source pollution BMPs would continue to apply to previously analyzed project proposals involving nonpoint sources of pollution on forest land in the vicinity of the project area.

Proposed Action. Improper or excessive trail construction adjacent to streams and wetlands can alter water quality and quantity where water quality can be degraded by increased sediment and where large amounts of sediment can result in streams becoming wider and shallower as they are dominated by fine sediment. An associated effect of this is that altered surface and subsurface flow patterns can dry adjacent wetlands. With proper design and BMPs incorporated into the action (discussed below), the construction and use of the OHV trail would cause only minor long term to possibly moderate short term negative direct impacts to water quality. (Laprevote 2017).

Moderate, short-term effects could occur from implementing the proposed action, resulting from the increased disturbance and sediment that would occur during construction of trail and installation of bridge and culverts. Based on the results of a field visit and subsequent calculation of predicted flows, a total of seven designed water crossings are recommended, with bridges on the perennial streams, culverts on the intermittent streams and hardened crossings on the ephemeral draws, locations and capture areas are shown on Figure 7. Information associated with these seven locations is provided in Tables 2 to 3. (Laprevote 2017, 2017a).

Source: Laprevote 2017.

Figure 7 - Map of water crossings and capture areas (capture areas delineated in purple)

Table 2 – Muddy Crossing Locations (WGS84*, Decimal Degrees) Site # Description Latitude Longitude

1 Tincup Creek 42.970305 111.257686 2 ephemeral draw 42.968972 111.264484 3 wetland outflow 42.968487 111.266571 4 stream below pond 42.968547 111.268473 5 ephemeral draw 42.968504 111.271592 6 wetland outflow 42.968480 111.272034 7 wetland outflow 42.968229 111.272457

* = Point #4 is interpolated from ArcGis NAIP data and is in NAD83 datum.

CLC_0037.000 22/36

Table 3 - Crossing Site Hydrologic Data (flows in cfs)

# Description Drainage area

50-year flow

100-year flow Structure/Size Flow

Capacity

1 Tincup Cr 26 sq. miles 315 - 551 350 - 650 50-72' long Bridge unconstricted

2 ephemeral draw 3 acres 1 - 2 1 - 3 18" culvert unconstricted 3 wetland outflow 4 acres 1 - 3 1 - 3 18"culvert 6

4 stream below pond 0.2 acre <1 <1 8-10' span arch 90 - 170

5 ephemeral draw 10 acres 1 - 5 2 - 6 18" culvert unconstricted 6 wetland outflow 11 acres 1 - 5 2 - 6 18" culvert 6 7 wetland outflow 5 acres 1 - 3 1 - 4 18" culvert 6

Water crossing structure #1 is the widest crossing, an approximate 50-72 feet long bridge over Tincup Creek near the eastern end of the trail (see Figure 7). Distance between the banks for Tincup Creek at this location is about 43 feet. However, the constriction of the highway culvert and beaver activity creates backwater pools on the floodplain, which is vegetated with beaked sedge and Booth’s willow and therefore soils are wet most or all of the growing season. As directed in the Caribou RFP, beavers in this area are be retained where they occur unless un-mitigatable conflicts occur. Therefore a longer bridge between 50 to 72 feet long to place the abutments away from the channel edge is recommended. (Laprevote 2017).

Because the highway culvert immediately downstream provides a robust structural control point and constriction at high flows backwater and slow velocities in the area of the bridge and protect the bridge and abutments against scour even at extreme flows (Laprevote 2017).

Water crossing structure #4 would be a short ramped bridge for a very small (less than 1cfs) and constant wetland outflow located about 1,300 feet west of Tincup Creek (see Figure 7 and Photo 6). Though the marshy strip across the road is only about 5 feet wide, wetland soils are probably present at depth over a wider area. An indicator of this, as can be seen in Photo 6, is that the wetland is wider above and below the old roadbed. Also, the sedge (a sure indicator of persistent shallow groundwater) is on both sides of the white pipe in the picture. Considering these factors, footings excavation may require larger width so soils should be probed and/or tested for strength before the structure is precisely sized. Wetlands soils are typically low bearing strength due to upwelling of subsurface water. The marshy area of the stream is soft so that excavation and fill would probably not be successful at stabilizing the elevation of a simple round culvert. It would likely sink and alter the water level, thereby could impact the wetland habitat for a sensitive species and therefore violate a Caribou RFP standard (USFS 2003b). Therefore, a ramped bridge with footings out on firmer soils with higher bearing strength would be the most stable and consistent structure. (Laprevote 2017).

CLC_0037.000 23/36

Photo 6 - Wetland/Pond outflow, Crossing #4 (white pipe in foreground is 5.25' long)

The remaining water crossing structures could be accommodated with 18" round or 13"h by 17"w culverts as the areas they drain are all 11 acres or less and 100 year return period flows are lower. Thusly the proposed action would meet road and trail guideline #2. (Laprevote 2017).

A short-term minor to moderate increase of sediment would likely result from the three locations where disturbance would occur to stabilize slopes (discussed below). Most of the disturbance effects from this construction are projected to subside within two growing seasons as sediment is stabilized by regrowth of vegetation and all negative effects from construction disturbance are expected to end within five years, leaving only minor impacts from the presence of the trail and crossings to persist over the long term and no long term negative impacts from the slope stabilization. After the disturbance from initial construction and the three locations of slope stabilization subsides, there would be a long-term decrease in sediment from these sources, therefore the effect for this particular activity would be beneficial in the long term as compared to existing conditions (no slope stabilization). This reduction would be minor; less than the anticipated increase in sediment from the use and maintenance of the new connector route. (Laprevote 2017).

At location "B" (Laprevote, 2017a) along Muddy creek the slope between the old road bed and the creek is eroding, leaving it steep, un-vegetated and delivering sediment. The erosion is surficial with no deeper slope stability problems apparent such that streambank and slope stabilization as proposed would stabilize the slope and control sediment. At two other sites ("A" & "C"), the streambank is steep and the outer streambank has no riparian vegetation but is not markedly eroding at present. The three locations A, B, & C of slope where slope treatment is proposed are approximately 1,500, 2,600 and 3,200 feet west of Tincup Creek respectively. Stabilization by bioengineered vegetation is the recommended approach for a very long-term solution at site "B", as once vegetation is in place, it will move and adapt with the slope the stream creates in this area over time. Slope stabilization at this location should be carried out in accordance with techniques set forth in the guidance documents focused on wet sites and steep in addition to working on lower gradient road cuts in uplands (see Lewis, 2000 and Lewis et.al, 2001). At sites "A" and "C", planting of willow stems into the outer bank would prevent erosion

CLC_0037.000 24/36

and sediment. Use of gabions is not recommended at any of the three sites to stabilize banks because the hard point they create are not adaptive, streams will meander around them, and in particular an area of fine grain soils such as this a hard point is not suitable. (Laprevote 2017).

In addition to the water crossings and slope stabilization, proper gravel surfacing, cross-slope and drainage spacing of the trail would minimize erosion of the surface and sediment. The existing surface is moderate to fine grained and would be easily eroded by traffic as the surface grass is worn off. Surfacing with a well-graded crushed road base gravel laid down with the proper moisture content and compacting would provide an erosion-resistant surface. The cohesiveness of the surfacing would be enhanced by a dust suppressant treatment such as Magnesium-Chloride. This would be effective as long as proper drainage is in place to prevent water in trail ruts and/or ponding. While the existing bed has some grade reversals along the length, these may not be closely enough spaced to prevent erosion of proper surfacing. The low infiltration capacity of the native fine-grained material forming the bed now means spacing should be frequent, perhaps 50-100 feet apart. (K. Green 2017, Laprevote 2017).

If springs are created in the route such as in an inside ditch, the water would interact with the road and has the potential to create mud and/or sediment laden water that if carried to the creek a short distance below, would impact the water quality of the stream. The old roadbed that forms the proposed route is carved into the hillside that is immediately north of Muddy Creek and this old roadbed appears to have been abandoned decades ago. There are three small springs/wetlands in the draws on that hillside, which shows that there is subsurface water in this hillside. Along the old road bed that forms the proposed route, isolated willows and small patches of sedge occur, mostly these are in the ditches along the edges of the old road bed. The soils along the route are primarily fine grained, these soils are less impermeable and so can form an effective "seal" keeping subsurface water isolated from the surface. The ditch on the old road appears to have punctured this sealing layer of fine grained material that keeps subsurface water in the subsurface. Therefore it appears and is reasonable to conclude that there is the potential that excavations into that hillside, even shallow ones such as excavating an inside ditch along the route, can create new springs. To minimize this potential, excavations along the entire route should be avoided when practicable. (Laprevote 2017).

Minor indirect effects that may occur would include an increase in vehicle parking and camping and other recreation activities in the area that the new trail could attract. However these indirect effects are expected to be very minor and may not be measurable at all. (Laprevote 2017).

Overall, there would be a minor increase in sediment from the OHV trail over the long term, considering the mitigation measures discussed above and BMPs discussed below that would be incorporated into the proposed action (Laprevote 2017).

Based on a review of water quality BMPs, the Forest Service has identified several that are relevant to the proposed action. Applicable BMPs identified from the Forest Service R1/R4 Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP) Handbook include:

• 15.02 - General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails • 15.03 - Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan • 15.04 - Timing of Construction Activities • 15.06 - Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of Slopes • 15.07 - Control of Permanent Road Drainage

CLC_0037.000 25/36

• 15.10 - Control of Road Construction Excavation and Sidecast Material • 15.26 - Surface Control Erosion at Facility Sites

These BMPs would minimize effects to water resources. (USDA-FS, 1988). Applicable BMPs identified from the Core National Handbook include:

• BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) to control for erosion control and stormwater management during construction.

• BMP Road-9 (Parking and Staging Areas), which includes recommendations such as the use of suitable measures to harden parking areas.

These BMPs would be anticipated to retain soil in place and to control delivery of suspended sediment and other pollutants to nearby surface water. (USDA-FS, 2012). Finally, site-specific BMPs developed for the proposed action are as follows:

• Build up trail surface as needed, including for drainage and proper slope. • Cross wetlands and soft soils using culverts, bridges or bottomless culverts with footings

out on upland soils. • Locate trail drains where needed.

These programmatic and site-specific BMPs are designed to ensure consistency with the Idaho Nonpoint Plan and Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan by minimizing the production of sediment, limiting the potential collection/transport distances and designing discharge points to maximize containment before they reach streams. (Laprevote 2017, citing IDEQ 1999, ISCC & IDEQ 2003).

No CWA Section 402 permit ((National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, “NPDES”) is required to implement the proposed action. As a general matter, nonpoint source pollution is not regulated under Section 402 of the CWA unless the area of land disturbance involves more than 1 acre of land disturbance, triggering the Construction General Permit (CGP) (NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities) (USEPA 2017a). Because the proposed action involves less than 1 acre of land disturbance, the terms of the CGP are not applicable. If modifications occur to the proposed action (during any adaptive management process or as a result of CWA permitting) that results in land disturbance of 1 or more acres, then it is likely that a CGP would apply. Because the project area has a low erosivity value (value calculated at 2), the proposed action would qualify for a small construction waiver to the requirements set forth in the CGP (USEPA 2017a, USEPA 2017b). Nevertheless, the BMPs listed above would be sufficient to minimize further degradation of Tincup Creek’s water quality from nonpoint source pollution during construction and the CWA-401 permitting process associated with the CWA-404 permit is anticipated to lead to additional requirements for the protection of water quality.

Preliminary information indicates that a CWA 404-permit is required prior to implementation because the action could affect Tincup Creek, an unnamed tributary [Muddy Creek], and wetlands adjacent to these waterbodies (USACE 2016). This preliminary information indicated that abutments would be placed is Waters of the U.S., based on a review of a map provided by the Forest Service. However, the location for the abutments would actually be placed in the old road bed, with prior fill and gravel evident (see Photo 2). Of the recommended vehicle crossings associated with the road culverts, Crossing #4 (see Figure 7) is located in Waters of the U.S. and may require a permit. One or more of the three slope stabilization treatment sites proposed along the banks of Muddy Creek would likely encroach on Waters of the U.S. Slope stabilization

CLC_0037.000 26/36

would be focused on sediment reduction for existing over-steepened slopes and constitute restoration activity. The Forest Service anticipates that the proposed action would come within the scope of CWA 404 general permits, namely: Nationwide Permits (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) and 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities). Specific requirements to ensure compliance with the CWA would be confirmed during the permitting process, which would be completed prior to implementing the proposed action. (Laprevote 2017).

There is no practicable alternative to working in Waters of the U.S. and the associated wetlands/floodplains because the proposed action seeks to alleviate the public safety issue that exists along a specific stretch of State Highway 34. The Forest Service considered an alternative to the proposed action, but the public safety hazard would not be resolved (see Section 2.2). The action would not present any additional public health, safety, and welfare issues associated with working in a floodplain as the OHV Bridge would be limited to certain size and weight limitations (Section 2.2.2). There are no municipal watersheds, public water supplies or water supply protection zones in the project area that would be affected by the proposed action (Laprevote 2017). To minimize potential environmental harm to wetlands/floodplains as a result of implementing the proposed action in the project area, any terms and conditions resulting from the CWA and State of Idaho permitting processes would be incorporated into the proposed action. Attendant to the CWA-404 permitting process, is the requirement to obtain a state water quality certification under CWA Section 401. The terms and conditions of all permits would be incorporated into the proposed action. As a result, indirect effects to wetlands/ floodplains (i.e., water quality degradation) would be minimized and the proposed action would include all practicable measures to minimize harm to Waters of the U.S., wetlands, floodplains, and any species that use or depend upon these areas. Based on the above, the proposed action responds to the requirements of Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain management), 11990 (Protection of wetlands), and 13690 (Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input) to the extent possible; balancing the needs to address a public safety issue with the requirement to not cause unnecessary harm to these resources.

Cumulative Effects. Past and present actions considered for cumulative effects under the all alternatives are expected to be the same (except for an increase in road and trail and other recreational use) and of the same intensity because these other activities are not expected to be measurably increased or decreased due to implementation or non-implementation of the project. The activities include: Firewood collection; road and trail maintenance and construction (excluding that of the proposed action); grazing; fence construction and reconstruction; off-trail motorized use; wildfire suppression; prescribed fire; recreation activities: motorized and non-motorized trails, hunting, hiking, camping, driving for pleasure; fishing; snowmobile and other winter activities, cross-country skiing. There are no reasonably foreseeable new actions for cumulative effects; however ongoing trends in population and resulting traffic increase on roads, recreation specialization and new technologies. Floods, droughts, snow avalanches and soil slumps are natural events that have occurred in the project area. All of these activities except droughts can result in ground disturbance and loosening of surface materials that can be transported to streams and wetlands and affect water quality and if the quantities are large, affect channel stability. Drought can affect the area by increasing fire risk and decreasing ground cover, exposing soil to erosion and delivering increased sediment. Construction of the route is expected to marginally increase road, trail and other recreational use in the area and thereby

CLC_0037.000 27/36

marginally increase sediment delivery from the other roads and trails in the project area. (Laprevote 2017).

Based on the foregoing, the proposed action meets the relevant Caribou RFP standards and guidelines.

Therefore, the potential adverse effects to water quality under the proposed action would be sufficiently addressed with the incorporation of mitigation measures, monitoring (to confirm effectiveness), and adherence to permitting requirements, with some of these measures addressing existing conditions as represented by the no action alternative.

3.3 Wildlife______________________________________________ The action area for the wildlife analysis is focused on the middle portion of the Tincup Creek drainage, immediately adjacent to State Highway 34 , Overall, the proposed project impacts a small area (immediately adjacent to a highway) and no direct or indirect effects to wildlife are expected to occur outside of the area where project activities may occur. .

No Action Alternative: There would be No Effect or No Impact (as appropriate) on all special status species, and conditions for wildlife in the area would continue current trends.

Proposed Action: The following wildlife related design feature would be incorporated into the implementation of the Proposed Action to minimize the potential for impacts:

“To avoid impacts to migratory birds and Boreal Toads, OHV trail clearing and construction should occur as late in the season as possible, after August 15th at a minimum, September is preferred. If project activities occur prior to August 15th, surveys for migratory bird nests and/or Boreal Toad breeding sites will need to be conducted by the district wildlife biologist. If migratory bird nest(s)/Toad breeding site(s) are located in an area that may be impacted by project activities (on or adjacent to the proposed trail) the district biologist will work with the project leader to determine the appropriate mitigation necessary to avoid impacts. It is expected that delayed project implementation (delayed until any young birds have fledged, or tadpoles have morphed and left the site) would be the most likely course of action.”

ESA-listed species: Per the Species list received from the USFWS for this project, (01EIFW00-2017-SLI-0283 December 28, 2016, updated April 6, 2017) Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Listed-Threatened) and North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo) (Proposed-Threatened) may occur in the project area. The project area occurs within linkage habitat for Canada Lynx. The action impacts a small area adjacent to a paved state highway, and would not hinder Lynx movement or create any additional barriers to Lynx movement through the area. This project will have No Effect on Canada Lynx. Similarly, no effects to the North American Wolverine are anticipated because of the small area of impact, the lack of potential to impact movements, and the location of the disturbance adjacent to a state highway. As confirmed with the USFWS, there is no designated critical habitat for any species within the project area.

Sensitive Species: Sensitive species are identified by the Regional Forester and management indicator species identified for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Given that this project impacts a small previously disturbed area adjacent to an existing state highway, with the exception of Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas), the proposed action would have No Impact (NI) on all sensitive species and MIS.

CLC_0037.000 28/36

Boreal Toad: Boreal Toads are known to occur in the project area, which is one of only 4 general locations where they are known to occur on the Caribou NF. Given the known presence of this species, it is possible that some individuals may be impacted during project activities, the majority of potential impacts would be expected to be indirect, limited to displacement, though crushing or other direct impacts may occur.

An important aspect of the project will be to ensure that no off channel habitat containing tadpoles is disturbed prior to metamorphosis beyond the tadpole stage. This will allow young toads to disperse prior to project activities that they could be impacted by, such as those involving heavy equipment. This will be accomplished through the design feature requiring a wildlife biologist to be consulted prior to project implementation to ensure project timeline and activities avoid impacts to special status species.

Although design features have been incorporated to minimize potential impacts, the potential for impacts during construction, and during the long term use of the trail remains. Given the potential for impacts a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” is appropriate. While impacts may occur, they are not expected to impact Boreal Toads in any way that would cause a loss of viability or persistence at the Forest or local population scale.

Migratory Birds: As to avian species, no trees would be removed during the implementation of the proposed action, but there is the potential for shrub-nesting birds to occur in the project area.

To ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds), the design feature (as described above) has been incorporated into the project.

Considering the relevant past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions listed in Section 3.4 of this EA, the potential for cumulative effects as to the Boreal Toad remains minimal, as addressed in the foregoing analysis for the middle portion of the Tincup drainage (action area). No other actions in the action area or upper Tincup drainage would contribute to additional/ increased effects.

The proposed action has been reviewed for consistency with the Caribou RFP and it complies with all wildlife related requirements considering the mitigation measures/design features integrated into the analysis above, in addition to project-level surveys that would be conducted in the project area (prior to construction) to confirm presence/absence such that direct effects to potentially impacted species can be avoided.

Overall, impacts to wildlife would be minimal under the proposed action with potential adverse effects to Boreal Toads and avian species avoided and minimized through the implementation of mitigation measures, including pre-construction surveys conducted to ensure absence in the project area prior to construction activities.

3.4 Cumulative Effects ________________________________ Relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) within the project area and its vicinity include:

• Tincup Creek Restoration (USFS 2016b). This project is within the project area (upstream, along Bridge Creek Road #117) and is being conducted to restore connectivity

CLC_0037.000 29/36

of Tincup Creek to the floodplain, enable return of willows, encourage beaver colonization, stabilize vertical eroding banks at meanders, improve habitat for sensitive species (boreal toad, northern leatherside chub and Yellowstone cutthroat trout), and to improve grazing and riparian conditions. The project is designed to meet the Caribou RFP goals for AIZs. Project will be implemented in 2017-18 (Past/Present).

• Continued public recreational and personal use activities including: firewood collection, off-trail motorized use, motorized and non-motorized use of trails, hunting, hiking, camping, sight-seeing, fishing, snowmobiling, and other winter activities (i.e., cross-country skiing). (Past/Present/RFFA).

• Continued Forest Service land management activities, including: maintenance of the forest transportation system (i.e., trails and roads), wildfire suppression, fuels reduction activities (prescribed fire). (Past/Present/RFFA).

• Continued range-related activities, including: grazing, fence construction and reconstruction. (Past/Present/RFFA).

• Natural events such as floods, droughts, snow avalanches and soil slumps; these events have occurred in the project area and may occur in the future. (Past/RFFA).

• Small-scale gold mine claims and associated mine plans are expected to periodically be submitted for locations within the vicinity of the project area. (RFFA).

Based on the analyses presented in Section 3.1 to 3.3 that consider the above-listed actions, no potential for significant effects have been identified under this EA. Overall, continued actions are guided by the Caribou RFP and travel plan and within the scope of prior NEPA analyses. Future actions in the project area or its vicinity (not presently proposed) that may hold the potential for significant effects would be analyzed under a separate NEPA process and include the effects presented in this EA, if relevant.

3.5 Other Resources Considered and Findings________________ 3.5.1 Air Quality. The proposed action would generate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities, but the Forest Service anticipates low emission levels not exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants because the action involves use of typical construction equipment for a small-scope project (less than 1 acre) of short duration (less than 2 weeks) and not be implemented in a non-attainment area, maintenance area, or Class I Area for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality (IDAPA 58.01.01, Section 580.01.a; IDEQ 2016a; USEPA 2017a). Although in a Class II Area, PSD regulations allow for incremental increases in ambient air pollution within stated thresholds (40 CFR 52.21(c), Ambient Air Increments), as adopted by the federally-approved Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) administered by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) (IDAPA 58.01.01, Sections 580.01.c and 581.01). Finally, no IDEQ permits are required under the SIP (action not a construction/modification of a source/facility). Because the action is anticipated to have a negligible effect on air quality/visibility and would not cause/contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or interfere with the Idaho SIP, no further analysis (General Conformity) or monitoring is required under the Clean Air Act.

CLC_0037.000 30/36

3.5.2 Climate Change. The proposed action would generate greenhouse gases (GHGs) during construction activities and reduce the CO2 storage/absorption capabilities of a small area of land (loss of vegetation/topsoil) (USEPA 2016b), but the Forest Service anticipates low GHG levels because the action is small in scope (less than 1 acre) and short in duration (less than 2 weeks). There would not be indirect GHG emissions (old road bed still exists with use still occurring by the public). Further analysis here is not consistent with the rule of reason and concept of proportionality under NEPA (i.e., not affecting development of alternatives or mitigation). The Forest Service acknowledges that small-scope projects contribute to global GHG levels, but this action does not lend itself to the consideration of additional mitigation measures above those under Air Quality. Rather, broader Forest Service efforts (research) (USFS 2016b) and mandated GHG reductions (EOs 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade and 13424 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management) would appreciably influence the global situation and offset effects from small-scope projects.

3.5.3 Environmental Justice and Children. The proposed action seeks to ensure the public has access to safe routes in using public lands. The project area is located on forest land (not near any population center/sensitive receptor) and thus would not result in any exclusionary, discriminatory or disproportionate effect on Executive Orders (EO) 12898 or 13045 populations (low-income, minority, children), including health, safety and environmental effects (see Sections 3.1 to 3.3 and herein).

3.5.4 Invasive Species. The proposed action would not result in the introduction or spread of invasive species because preventative measures would be incorporated into the action (washing construction equipment between sites/prior entering the forest and using gravel from weed free sources) consistent with EO 13112 (Invasive Species) and 13751 (Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species).

3.5.5 Land Use Conflicts and Socioeconomics. No land use or user conflicts and no socioeconomic effects are anticipated in association with the proposed action. The proposed action does not conflict with the Caribou County Comprehensive Plan and its zoning requirements and would not affect prime farmland/other land of statewide importance by virtue of location and no resulting change in land use; re-using old road (Caribou County 2006, Caribou County 2008, NRCS 2017). The proposed action is not prohibited by the Idaho Roadless Rule (IRR) (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart C) because it would not be located within the Stump Creek or Caribou City Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs)) and it would not impair its roadless characteristics (see 36 CFR §294.21, Definitions) because the action would not involve a change of land use (old road bed still exists with use still occurring by the public), the trail would be located in a previously disturbed area separated from IRA by Highway 34 and Bridge Creek Road, and there would be no effects to relevant resources, including no effects anticipated to affect public drinking water and scenic landscapes (see Sections 3.1 to 3.3 and herein).

3.5.6 National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The proposed action complies with NFMA by virtue of being consistent with the Caribou RFP (see Sections 3.1 to 3.3 and herein).

3.5.7 Pollution Prevention. The proposed action incorporates pollution prevention measures (BMPs and other mitigation) to reduce GHG emissions and effects to air and water quality (see Section 3.2 and herein) within the scope of the mandates set forth in EOs 11514 (Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality) and 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation).

CLC_0037.000 31/36

3.5.8 Scenic Resources. The proposed action would be implemented to be visually subordinate to and complementary with the characteristics landscape; consistent with the partial retention visual quality objective that applies in the project area per the Caribou RFP.

3.5.9 Soil Resources. The proposed action would be suitable in the project area if the recommended mitigation is incorporated into the action. The qualitative indicator of soil suitability includes the soil and site properties within the analysis area that can limit the ease of motorized trail construction and the sustainability of the completed trail. The 804 map unit in the analysis area has two components rated poorly suited and one rated moderately suited for a native surface road/trail. This is due to the AASHTO group index; the engineering properties of the material are not ideal for a native surface road due to clay that will be sticky when wet. To address this issue and achieve consistency with the Caribou RFP, the following measures are recommended to be incorporated into the proposed action:

• Gravel or spot gravel the old road bed to improve the sustainability of the trail and overcome limiting engineering properties of the native material;

• Drainage dips should be installed and hardened; • During construction, to maximize effectiveness, erosion control measures must be in place

and functional prior to seasonal precipitation or runoff; and • Schedule operations during periods when the probabilities for rain and runoff are low for

effective erosion control

In addition to the proposed action, continued use of existing roads and trails, as well as fragments of closed non-decommissioned roads, is reasonably foreseeable. These past developments represent dedicated use of the soil resource where soil productivity has not yet been restored. In combination with the proposed action, adverse effects to soil productivity would be unmeasurable/minor since these uses are already exist and the proposed action seeks to repurpose an already disturbed area. (K. Green 2016, citing USFS 1988).

3.5.10 Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212). The proposed action includes creation of a trail; the travel plan route density limitations are unrestricted due to the location of the trail corridor.

CLC_0037.000 32/36

4.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING Mitigation includes measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for effects from an action. For example, the Forest Service may incorporate mitigation measures as part of the proposed action, into the effects analyses, or to further reduce environmental effects even if no potential for significant effects. Depending on how integrated, these measures could represent mandatory requirements. Also, mitigation monitoring may be useful in certain circumstances. For example, where mitigation measures are offered to reduce effects to less than significant levels or in response to uncertain effects, monitoring could document implementation and effectiveness.

The following resource-specific mitigation measures and monitoring, summarized from Sections 3.1 to 3.5, would be implemented as part of the proposed action:

• Fisheries project-specific measures; • Water resources standard/project-specific measures and monitoring; • Wildlife project-specific measures; • Pollution prevention standard BMPs; • Invasive species standard BMPs; and • Soil Resources project-specific measures.

The following permitting requirements may lead to additional requirement include:

• CWA Section 401 water quality certification; • CWA Section 404 dredge or fill permit; and • Idaho stream channel alteration permit.

The following measure is recommended to improve aquatic influence zone conditions in the project area:

• Remove the lowest crossing on the unnamed tributary as part of this proposal. Any adopted mitigation and monitoring would be explained in the NEPA decision document. Because the proposed action involves the use of federal lands, Caribou County would be required to coordinate with the Soda Springs Ranger District prior to starting construction.

CLC_0037.000 33/36

5.0 REFERENCES Caribou County, 2006. 2006 Comprehensive Plan for Caribou County, Idaho, available at: http://www.cariboucounty.us/departments/323/ComprehensivePlan.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2017).

Caribou County, 2008. Caribou County Zoning Districts, Map (February 25, 2008), available at: http://www.cariboucounty.us/departments/321/ZoningDistrictMap.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2017).

Green, Devon (D. Green), 2016. Specialist Report from Devon Green, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, to Scott Blake, Recreation Specialist, U.S. Forest Service (email dated February 1, 2017), citing USFS 2003a, USFS 2003b, USDA-FS 2016 (Region 4 species list), and USFWS and NMFS 1998.

Green, Kara (K. Green), 2016. Specialist Report from Kara Green, Soil Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, to Scott Blake, Recreation Specialist, U.S. Forest Service (email dated February 3, 2017).

IDAPA (no date). Idaho Administrative Code, Rules of the Department of Environmental Quality, 58.01.01 - Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho, available at: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/index.html (last accessed March 17, 2017).

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2013. Air Quality in Idaho: Controlling Fugitive Dust at Construction Sites, available at: http://deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/air-pollutants/fugitive-dust/ (last accessed March 17, 2017). IDEQ. 2014. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Final 2012 Integrated Report, available at: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-assessment/integrated-report.aspx (last accessed March 17, 2017). IDEQ, 2015, Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan, https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/nonpoint-source-pollution/idahos-nps-management-program.aspx (last accessed March 17, 2017). IDEQ, 2016a. Idaho Air Quality Planning Areas Map, available at: http://deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/attainment-versus-nonattainment/ (last accessed March 17, 2017).

IDEQ, 2016b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Toolkit, How to Reduce Emissions, available at: http://deq.idaho.gov/pollution-prevention/p2-for-businesses/greenhouse-gas-emissions-toolkit/ (last accessed March 17, 2017).

Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), 2017. Wild and Scenic Watersheds Map, available at: https://www.idwr.idaho.gov/ (last accessed February 13, 2017).

Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ISCC) and IDEQ. 2003 Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, ID, available at: https://swc.idaho.gov/media/23655/FINAL-2015-APAP-lowres.pdf (last accessed March 17, 2017). Lewis, Lisa. 2000. Soil Bioengineering: An Alternative to Roadside Management, A Practical Guide, prepared for USDA-USFA (September 2000), available at: https://www.blm.gov/or/ programs/nrst/files/Soil%20bioeng.pdf (last accessed March 24, 2017).

CLC_0037.000 34/36

Lewis, Lisa, S.L. Salisbury and Shannon Hagen. 2001. Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Stabilization, prepared for Washington State Transportation Center, available at: http://dot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/400/491.1.htm (last accessed March 24, 2017). Lewis, L. 2000 Soil Bioengineering an Alternative for Roadside Management: A practical Guide. Publication 0077 1801-SDTDC. San Dimas Technology & Development Center, San Dimas, CA.

Laprevote, Jim, 2017. Specialist Report from Jim Laprevote, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, to Scott Blake, Recreation Specialist, U.S. Forest Service (email dated February 22, 2017) (internal citations omitted).

Lyman, Corey, 2017. Specialist Report from Corey Lyman, Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, to Scott Blake, Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist, U.S. Forest Service (email dated March 22, 2017) (internal citations omitted).

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Websoil Survey, Farmland Classification, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2017).

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (NWW-2016-00579, US Forest Service – Caribou Loop Connector Project (email dated November 28, 2016).

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2017a. Idaho Nonattainment Area Plans, at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/e2ab2cc6df433b8688256b2f00800ff8?OpenDocument (last accessed March 17, 2017).

USEPA, 2017b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions (last accessed March 17, 2017)

USEPA, 2017c. EPA’s 2017 Construction General Permit (CGP), available at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities-2017-cgp (last accessed March 17, 2017).

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures For Conducting Section 7 Consultations And Conferences. U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. March 1998, available at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf (last accessed March 16, 2017).

US Forest Service (USFS), 1988. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1. Forest Service Handbook Section 2509.22. Ogden, UT (R-4) and Missoula, MT (R-1). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r4/fsh/2509.22/2509.22_10.txt (last accessed March 1, 2017) USDA-FS, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 165 pgs. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

CLC_0037.000 35/36

USDA-FS. 1988. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1. Forest Service Handbook Section 2509.22. Ogden, UT (R-4) and Missoula, MT (R-1). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r4/fsh/2509.22/2509.22_10.txt USFS, 2003a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Caribou National Forest, Revised Forest Plan, pp. 3-25, Figure 17 (February 2003), available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/ main/ctnf/landmanagement/planning (last accessed March 1, 2017).

USFS, 2003b. Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest, pp. 3-5, 3-15, 3-24, 3-40, 4-23, 4-45, 4-47 available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ctnf/landmanagement/ planning (last accessed March 1, 2017).

USFS, 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Caribou Travel Plan, Westside, Soda Springs, and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (August 2005), available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ctnf/landmanagement/planning (last accessed March 17, 2017).

USFS, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 165 pgs. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf (last accessed March 17, 2017).

USFS, 2013. Memorandum of Understanding between the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho, Department of Lands, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the USDA, Forest Service Northern and Intermountain Regions, Implementing the Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program in the State of Idaho, available at: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/laws-rules-etc/memoranda-of-understanding.aspx (last accessed March 17, 2017).

USFS, 2016a. Tincup Creek Restoration (public scoping letter), available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ctnf/landmanagement/projects (under Project Archive) (last

USFS, 2016b. Climate Change, http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/ (last accessed March 17, 2017).

CLC_0037.000 36/36