Raft River Aspen Habitat Restoration Project Would Require Certain Precautions During Project Implementation

Albion – Raft River Aspen United States Department of Agriculture Habitat Restoration Project

Forest Service Scoping Report February 2017 Minidoka Ranger District, Sawtooth National Forest

Cassia County, Idaho and Box Elder County, Utah

Photo looking south towards Almo Park, Albion Division by Scott Soletti, October 6, 2014

For More Information Contact: Stacy Smith Minidoka Ranger District Office 2306 Hiland Ave South Burley, ID 83318 (208) 678-0430

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: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Scoping Report

Introduction and Current Conditions

Aspen has been identified as a keystone species within ecosystems, contributing to not only vegetative biodiversity but also abundance of vertebrae and invertebrate organisms (Campbell and Bartos, 2001.) Quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides) is considered a pioneer species which regenerates following disturbance through root system clones. Research suggests that sage-brush and conifer replaces aspen cover types in the absence of frequent fires and heavy livestock and wildlife browsing (Campbell and Bartos, 2001.) These threats to the aspen cover-type are currently present on the Minidoka Ranger District (MRD).

The fire return interval on the landscape has significantly been impacted by humans. Areas that historically burned frequently (for aspen, fire return intervals average between 20 to 60 years) have not burned in 100+ years. Lack of fire has allowed conifers and sage-brush to encroach within previously functioning aspen stands.

Properly functioning aspen ecosystems provide benefits for many species and within the project area including mule deer, moose and elk along with cavity nesting birds, raptors and migratory birds that all use aspen for completion of their life cycle. Locally, aspen is a critical forage source for big game, especially during the summer and fall months. During the spring months, multi-age aspen stands provide excellent cover for mule deer fawns.

The areas identified for the project encompass some of the larger aspen stands in close proximity to each other. Within the project area, the landscape is naturally broken and has numerous non- target acres included within the analysis area that are dominated by shrub species. However, proposed treatment will specifically target acres that have the potential to regenerate healthy, functioning aspen stands. Prescribed fire is proposed for the majority of treatments to restore aspen stands, however in some areas, hand treatment and pile burning is proposed where broadcast burning is not feasible. Figure 1 below shows the proposed treatments.

Project Area This project is located in the Logger Springs area in the south end of the Albion Mountain Range near Elba, Idaho and in the George Peak area on the west end of the Raft River Mountains near Lynn and Yost, Utah. See Figure 1 below.

Scoping Report

Figure 1. Project Area Map

Scoping Report

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this project is to restore aspen ecosystems in key wildlife habitats on the Minidoka Ranger District. Implementation of proposed treatments will progress towards meeting the Sawtooth National Forest Plan goals and Idaho Department of Fish and Game goals under the Mule Deer Initiative as they relate to aspen habitats. The need for this project is to ensure that the aspen component within these ecosystems does not decline to a point where it becomes eradicated from particular areas of the landscape where it exists now. In addition, these communities currently lack the multi-age structure described in healthy, thriving aspen habitats.

Objectives of the Minidoka Aspen Restoration Project  Improve wildlife habitat and overall biodiversity by restoring and regenerating aspen stands encroached by conifer.

 Improve overall ecosystem conditions by creating a “Properly Functioning Condition” (Campbell and Bartos, 2001) that is resistant and resilient to future disturbance.

 To reduce encroaching conifer species within targeted aspen stands

 Trigger aspen re-generation of 1,500 stems per acre from burning, on average.

 Improve big game summer and fall habitats to locally support viable, robust big game populations that meet population goals outlined in state big game management plans.

Proposed Action The proposed action includes lop and scatter (slashing), cut and hand-pile, and prescribed fire treatments to reduce conifer encroachment and restore aspen.

In areas with very little conifer encroachment, lop and scatter treatments would be used to remove conifers. In most areas, conifer encroachment has reached the point where prescribed fire would be used to set back the conifer species and spur aspen regeneration (Shepperd et. al., 2006.). Cut/hand-pile and/or lop and scatter treatments would be used for acres where prescribed burning is not feasible due to resource concerns or holding issues. Currently, 6,210 acres are identified for slashing and broadcast burning and 2,080 acres for hand cutting and pile burning. No broadcast burning is proposed in the Raft River Division.

To achieve the desired mortality in the conifer species, slashing may be needed prior to burning in order to generate fuel loadings that would in turn, create the necessary fire behavior. Slashing broadens the prescription window so that a helitorch may be used on the target acres with minimal risk to the non-target acres and lessening the risk of an escape. Other options for burning would be hand-lighting and plastic sphere dispenser (PSD). Hand-lighting would occur anytime a black line is needed as a holding feature. Using drip torches allows crews on the ground to more easily regulate fire intensity and determine whether the unit is in prescription. In

Scoping Report turn, a heli-torch generates more fire intensity than a PSD, so depending on the environmental and weather factors the burn boss can choose the correct tool for the job.

Pre- and post-treatment monitoring will occur to ensure project objectives are being met. As post-burn monitoring occurs, project design should provide room for managers implementing these treatments to adapt their fuels and prescribed fire treatments using adaptive management techniques to accomplish the project objectives. Based on the need for aspen restoration and guidelines set forth in the Forest Plan, the goal of these treatments will be to:

Description of Treatment Prescriptions Three possible treatments would be available depending on the level of conifer encroachment within aspen stands. Stands with fewer than 50 conifer trees per acre would be lopped and scattered. This would involve cutting all conifer trees existing within the aspen clone to set back the conifer encroachment. Slash generated from the cutting would not exceed 24” (2 feet) in depth and would be scattered away from the bole of the tree to provide nutrients over a broad area as the material decomposes. Any aspen stems damaged during treatment would also be cut in order to spur new regeneration to create a multi-aged stand.

The second treatment would target stands with more than 50 conifer trees per acre (on average). Lopping (slashing) treatments would be applied here as well, although the target would be to generate desired fuel and fire behavior conditions for prescribed burning. Prescribed burn objectives would be to create 80-100% mortality of conifer trees within aspen clones, on average. Cutting of conifer within these prescribed burn areas would be dependent on current fuel loading and only done where necessary to generate adequate fire behavior. Some areas may be determined to already possess sufficient ground fuels to generate the targeted fire intensity. The final treatment would be reserved for areas identified as needing treatment, but where underburning is not feasible. In these cases, conifer would be cut and hand-piled and then the piles burned at a later date.

These prescribed fire treatments would be done using a helitorch under conditions that limits fire spread outside of target vegetation. Fuel loading generated from slashing and ability to generate heat with the helitorch allows fire managers to burn and meet objectives within the timber without posing a threat to non-timber vegetation. Short runs caused by preheating above timber stands would be expected, however, the further away from the heat pulse generated by the timber, the greater the decrease in pre-heating and associate fire behavior/spread. Fire managers may also use hand ignition where appropriate (generally required for creating black-line as a holding feature) and/or plastic sphere dispenser (PSD) in order to meet objectives.

Project Design Features The Albion-Raft River Aspen Habitat Restoration Project would require certain precautions during project implementation. Defined Project Design Features would ensure that identified resources within the project boundary would be protected and/or preserved. All project activities would be coordinated with the appropriate resource specialist and/or the Interdisciplinary Team.

Scoping Report

Areas identified within the project boundaries as having important cultural, botanical, hydrological, recreational, and wildlife resources that require protection that could not be protected during implementation would be excluded from treatment. Where applicable to the Proposed Action, standards for proposed management activities have been identified based on site-specific conditions. The following proposed project design features could be implemented by the Proposed Action to avoid and/or minimize effects to resources within the Project Area. Project Design Features may be added, modified or further refined based on resource issues, data collection, specialist analysis and public scoping.

Wildlife Resources

 If active raptor nests are located, direct ignition into nest tree area would be avoided when completing broadcast burning operations. Broadcast burning operations would not occur during the spring in units that would burn through a known active raptor nest.

 For hand treatments, a buffer of at least 200 feet would be established around active raptor nest tree(s) and no project treatments would occur within this buffer area from March 1 through July 15. Trees with nests will be marked as leave trees and may not be cut or removed.

 No more than 10% of the project area would be burned during the spring in a given year and no more than 50% of the total project area would be burned during the spring.

 Where any active nests or dens of TES, MIS and sensitive species are found during project implementation, a USFS Wildlife biologist will be consulted prior to any treatments being conducted or continued. The FS Wildlife Biologist in consultation with the Line Officer will then develop appropriate BMP's and buffers.

 To maximize the edge habitat created between treated and untreated vegetation, the edges of treatment units shall be irregularly shaped and/or feathered wherever feasible.

 Where piles are built within hand treatment areas, up to five piles per acre may be left unburned to serve as wildlife habitat. Emphasis should be placed on retaining larger piles that are not mulched down.

 When slashing, do not cut down snags and wildlife trees unless needed for safety and fire control purposes.

Livestock Grazing

 Treated areas would be closed to livestock grazing for two growing seasons or until the following objectives have been met on sites where these measures are applicable:

Scoping Report

1) 80% of new aspen sprouts and saplings are above the hedge height of livestock (six feet) following treatment as measured by one, two meter belt transects that are 25 meters long transects within treated stands.

2) Aspen has regenerated to a minimum of 1,500 stems per acre in broadcast burn treatments.

Soils/Water/Riparian/Aquatics (SWRA)

General Requirements for SWRA

 Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are delineated as directed in Appendix B of the Forest Plan. The RCA width boundaries used are based on site specific tree heights for lodgepole pine of 75 feet.

- 150 feet (two tree heights) either side of perennial and/or fish-bearing streams

- 75 feet (one tree height) either side of intermittent streams

- 75 feet from the edge of ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands

 RCA boundaries are estimates and ground conditions may vary. RCA objectives/prescriptions will be applied wherever stream channels or wetlands are encountered within the project area during implementation.

 Equipment staging, including fuel storage, and refueling would occur outside RCAs. Care would be taken to avoid lubricant and fuel spills in all project areas. All equipment will be free of leaks.

 Prescribed fire would not be ignited on slopes having “moderate” or “high” landslide hazard as delineated by the SinMAP landslide analysis that are in the vicinity of past landslide or debris flow events identified through review of aerial photography.

 Following completion of the project any constructed control features or temporary access routes would be obliterated and rehabilitated to break compaction and promote revegetation.

 Hand piles must be constructed at least 15’ away from any streams.

 No mechanical (bulldozer) fire line construction would occur for prescribed fire treatments.

Aquatic Invasive Species

 Project activities will adhere to the USFS Intermountain Region Operational Guidance for 2013 Fire Activities, to avoid the spread of aquatic invasive species. During prescribed burning activities:

Scoping Report

- Avoid drafting from waterbodies with known infestations of aquatic invasive species

- Avoid entering waterbodies or contacting mud and aquatic plants.

- Avoid transferring water between drainages or between unconnected waters within the same drainage. Do not dump water directly from one stream or lake into another.

Pile Burning and Prescribed Burning

 Direct ignition of prescribed fire in RCAs should not be used unless site/project scale effects analysis demonstrates it would not degrade or retard attainment of soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions (FMGU06, Forest Plan III-40; SWRA Standard SWST04, Forest Plan III-22 ).

Recreation Resources

 Broadcast burn treatments will not occur on Labor Day weekend or the opening days of rifle deer seasons in Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Game Management Unit 55. Cutting contracts will be implemented with minimal impact on hunting in both Raft River and ID unit 55.

 Signs will be posted to inform the public of broadcast burning when active prescribed fire operations are ongoing.

 Campgrounds and other facilities may have to be temporarily closed to the public to implement treatments. Signs and public outreach will be posted at least one week prior to the closure to reduce inconveniences to recreationists and in all cases, outreach would occur with the public as soon as possible.

 If dispersed campsites are encountered during implementation, trees within the dispersed campsite would be left uncut and avoided being burned during implementation to the extent practical.

Botanical Resources

 Sagebrush communities will be assessed for restoration if 20 continuous acres of mountain big sagebrush community and/or 5 continuous acres of dwarf sagebrush community are burned.

 Materials from treatments would not be piled within dwarf sagebrush communities and no pile burning would occur within dwarf sagebrush communities.

Scoping Report

Noxious weeds

 All seed used on National Forest System lands will be certified to be free of seeds from noxious weeds listed on the current All States Noxious Weeds List.

 All invasive weeds within and/or adjacent to the project sites would be avoided or treated, per current agency policies and procedures, prior to implementation. Areas identified as having noxious and invasive plant populations, within the proposed treatment blocks, would be treated and monitored post treatment implementation. All noxious weeds would be treated for eradication. Monitoring would be completed by district weed crews and other forest personnel as available.

 No fire ignitions or staging of personnel or equipment would occur in known noxious weed sites.

 A Clean Equipment provision would be included in all service contracts.

 Previous year treatments effectiveness would be evaluated and documented by photos and brief narratives for annual reporting documents.

Vegetation  Aspen treatments will only be undertaken where there is a minimum of 30 live aspen stems per acre.

 Legacy Douglas-fir trees (trees which have survived numerous disturbance events and are characterized by deep fissures in the bark, few if any knot or whorl indicators visible, epicormic branching present) will be not be cut and where needed, measures will be taken to prevent them from being killed during prescribed fire activities. Large (20”+ DBH) limber pine and Douglas-fir will also not be cut.

 Stands which currently meet the definition of a large tree stand will be treated in such a way that they still meet that definition after treatment.

 Green tree firewood areas may be made available to the public to help accomplish the treatment objectives. Temporary overland access may be authorized associated with these green firewood areas.

Air Quality

 Fire Management Staff would generate public notice information for prescribed fires prior to burn days.

Scoping Report

 All prescribed burning for this project would be accompanied by an approved prescribed burn plan that address mitigation measures to minimize smoke impacts to and comply with the Clean Air Act.

 Fire personnel will monitor smoke dispersion and direction of travel and terminate ignition if causing impacts to local communities during the ignition phase of the burn.

 Emphasize ignition during daylight hours when dispersion is favorable, and suspend ignition activities at night when there is a potential for nighttime inversions.

 Smoke sensitive areas will be notified at least one day prior to the burn.

 No firing will be initiated without approval from the Idaho/Montana Smoke Management Unit (for Albion) or Utah Smoke Management (for Raft River).

 Burn Days will be during the week whenever possible (not to impact recreationalist users) however, if a burn window exists during the weekend ignitions may occur with District Rangers approval, except on weekends identified in this planning document as being closed to burning (see recreation resources above).

 No ignition will be ignited if UT or ID DEQ has an open burn ban posted for Box Elder (for Raft River pile burning) or Cassia County (Albion Division treatments).

 Road Guards (FS personnel) will be posted if there are smoke impacts to major roads within the project area to address safety concerns associated with low visibility on roads.

Fuels Management / Fire

 If the need arises, proposed fire line (handline) construction would be reviewed and approved by resource specialists prior to implementation, and rehabilitated post- implementation.

 Existing roads, trails, creek drainages, wet meadows, rocky outcrops and other natural barriers would be used as fire control lines wherever possible. Any handline would be rehabilitated post-fire.

 Piles will be placed in a non-linear pattern in each unit to maintain a mosaic burn pattern.

 Maximize the distance between piles when feasible, maintaining a 15 foot average spacing between piles in each unit to minimize the potential for piles to ignite one another.

 Hand piles would be a maximum size of 6’ wide x 8’ tall and include material no greater than ten inches in diameter and no longer than six feet in length. Larger diameter logs

Scoping Report

will be left out of the piles to help meet Forest course woody debris standards. Piles should be taller than they are wide.

 Standards for piles will be included in service contracts.

 Avoid placing piles on trails/roads or on existing downed trees.

 Piles will be burned with snow on the ground or enough precipitation where the piles won’t spread more than 20 foot laterally.

Heritage Resources

 Heritage staff will review final prescription for broadcast burn treatment and conduct any necessary surveys prior to implementation.

 Adverse effect to cultural properties both eligible and/or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be mitigated by avoidance or project design.

 Should cultural materials be discovered during the course of the project, work will cease in the immediate vicinity of the find and the Forest Archaeologist will be notified immediately in order to assess the discovery.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

 To the extent practicable, activities in IRAs will be scheduled to reduce the overall duration and avoid high use recreation periods to minimize effects to Solitude and Primitive Recreation.  Proposed project activities will conform to the 2001 Roadless Rule for the Raft River Division and the 2008 Idaho Roadless rule for the Albion Division.

Timing and Expected Decision Framework

The USFS is anticipating that analysis would be completed under a Categorical Exclusion. Specifically, Category 6 (36 CFR 220.6(e)(6)): Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction. The CE Extraordinary Circumstances would be prepared to assess whether or not any significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed action and changes to the project would need to occur or an EA or EIS would need to be prepared.

Scoping Report

Scoping would be completed in early 2017 with field work occurring during the summer of 2017. USFS specialists and IDT members would work on completing specialist reports and analysis documentation in the fall of 2017. Once archaeological and natural resource surveys (Wildlife, Botanical, etc.) are completed, any additional design features or mitigation would be incorporated with the decision document. Implementation could begin as early as fiscal year 2018.

Monitoring and Evaluation The USFS will set up pretreatment monitoring plots in each dominate project site or burn unit to collect data on pretreatment vegetation conditions. Monitoring methods will be photo plots at each monitoring site as well as an ocular check for any noxious weeds. Stems per acre would also be measured at the monitoring site. The data would be collected again two years post treatment at the designated monitoring sites to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and vegetation response.

Request for Comments I invite your issues, concerns, data and comments specific to this proposal so that they may be considered early in the analysis. Comments that are site-specific, or based on your knowledge of the area, will be combined with our data and knowledge of the area and will better help us develop and evaluate the project. Although comments are welcome throughout the planning process, providing comments by March 17, 2017 will allow time for your input to be considered during analysis. We anticipate beginning implementation of this project in Fiscal Year 2018.

Please note that comments are a matter of public record and therefore may be provided to interested parties upon request. Questions about this proposal should be directed to Stacy Smith (project contact) at 208-678-0430.

Comments may be submitted by facsimile (FAX), U.S. Mail, or hand-delivery. Electronic comments may also be submitted by e-mail to [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an e-mail message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.docx). Please indicate “Minidoka Aspen Restoration Project” in the subject line. Office business hours for hand-delivered comments are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Please provide any issues, concerns, suggestions or additional information you may have regarding this project to:

Stacy Smith Minidoka Ranger District Office 2306 Hiland Ave Burley, ID 83340 (208) 678-0430 telephone (208) 677-4878 FAX

Scoping Report

References Beck, J.L., and J. Peek. 2005. Great Basin summer range forage quality: do plant nutrients meet elk requirements? Western North American Naturalist 65:516-527. Bender, L. C., L. A. Lomas, and J. Browning. 2007. Condition, survival, and cause-specific mortality of adult female mule deer in north-central New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1118-1124. Bishop, C. J., G. C. White, D. J. Freddy, B. E. Watkins, and T. R. Stephenson. 2009. Effect of enhanced nutrition on mule deer population rate of change. Wildlife Monographs 172. Campbell, Robert B., and Dale L. Bartos. 2001. Aspen ecosystems: objectives for sustaining biodiversity. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18.

Di Orio, A. P., R. Callas, and R. J. Schaefer. 2005 Forty-eight year decline and fragmentation of aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the South Warner Mountains of California. Forest Ecology and Management 206:307-313. Idaho Fish and Game. 2008. Mule Deer Management Plan. Boise, ID. 86 p.

Idaho Fish and Game. 2014. Elk Management Plan. Boise, ID. 168 p.

Idaho Fish and Game Mule Deer Initiative. https://idfg.idaho.gov/mdi

Kufeld, R. C., O. C. Wallmo, and C. Feddema. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. USDA Forest Service Research. Paper RM-111, Fort Collins, Colorado. Leckenby, D.A., Sheehy, D.P., Nellis, C.H., Scherzinger, R.J., Luman, I.D., Elmore,W., Lemos, J.C.,Doughty, L. & Trainer, C.E. 1982: Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon - Mule Deer. - USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of LandManagement General Technical ReportRNW-139, Portland, Oregon, USA, 40 pp. Shepperd, Wayne D.; Rogers, Paul C.; Burton, David; Bartos, Dale L. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 122 p.

Shinneman, Douglas J.; Baker, William L.; Rogers, Paul C.; Kulakowski, Dominik. 2013. Fire regimes of quaking aspen in the Mountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 299. P 22-34.

Swanson, David K.; Schmitt, Craig L.; Shirley, Diane M.; Erickson, Vicky; Schuetz, Kenneth J.; Tatum, Michael L.; Powell, David C. 2010. Aspen biology, community classification, and management in the Blue Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.

Sadleir, R. M. F. S. 1982. Energy consumption and subsequent partitioning in lactating black- tailed deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:382-386.

Scoping Report

Tollefson, T. N., L. A. Shipley, W. L. Myers, D. H. Keisler, and N. Dasgupta. 2010. Influence of summer and autumn nutrition on body condition and reproduction in lactating mule deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74:974-986.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Revised, July 2003. Amended, June 2012. Twin Falls, ID.